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

47–867 PDF 2009

POST-KATRINA DISASTER RESPONSE 

AND RECOVERY: EVALUATING 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY’S CONTINUING EFFORTS IN 

THE GULF COAST AND RESPONSE 

TO RECENT DISASTERS 

(111–12) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Garratt, David, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................................................................................... 10 

Logsdon, Gary, Grayson County Judge/Executive ................................................ 45 

Rainwater, Paul, Executive Director, Louisiana Recovery Authority ................. 10 

Stark, James W., Assistant Administrator, Gulf Coast Recovery Office, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................................................ 10 

Wilder, H. Rodger, Immediate Past President, Gulf Coast Community Foundation .................................................................................................................... 45 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 62 

Markey, Hon. Betsy, of Colorado ............................................................................ 63 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 65 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 68 

Scalise, Hon. Steve, of Louisiana ........................................................................... 70 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Garratt, David and James W. Stark ...................................................................... 72 

Logsdon, Gary .......................................................................................................... 106 

Rainwater, Paul ....................................................................................................... 108 

Wilder, H. Rodger .................................................................................................... 123 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Garratt, David, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, response to request for information from the Subcommittee ... 84 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

State of Louisiana, Office of the Governor, letters of appeal to the President 

of the United States ............................................................................................. 128 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 47867.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 47867.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 47867.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 47867.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 47867.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 47867.006
(1) 

HEARING ON POST-KATRINA DISASTER RESPONSE AND RECOVERY: EVALUATING FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S 

CONTINUING EFFORTS IN THE GULF COAST 

AND RESPONSE TO RECENT DISASTERS 

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor 

Holmes Norton [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. We are pleased to welcome our witnesses to this 

second hearing devoted to our post-Katrina evaluation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to assess FEMA’s 

progress as the Nation’s only disaster response agency. 

We will examine progress not only in Louisiana and Mississippi, 

where FEMA’s failings have been documented by our Subcommittee and many others, but also in Texas, which recently saw 

major damage from Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, and in Grayson 

County, Kentucky, declared a major disaster county by President 

Obama after recent ice storms devastated the midsection of our 

Country. 

Hurricane Katrina was a disaster of mammoth proportions, but 

its major lesson went well beyond its scope and uniqueness and the 

failures of FEMA in 2006. Katrina teaches that FEMA must be 

nimble enough to move quickly before and after any Stafford Act 

emergency or disaster. 

The Country cannot be assured that FEMA is always prepared 

without frequent oversight by our Subcommittee which began in 

the 110th Congress. Gustav, Ike and this year’s ice storms all provide markers by which to measure FEMA’s progress and disaster 

response and recovery agencies. 

We want to look at outstanding issues in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Kentucky. In Louisiana, there are still public assistance projects awaiting disposition by FEMA. In Texas, there are 

continued challenges with remaining storm debris and with providing housing in the coastal areas. In Kentucky, although initial 

reports seemed to indicate a satisfactory response by FEMA, we 

need to understand the expectations concerning FEMA’s assistance 

2 

to local counties and whether they were indeed met in Kentucky 

and throughout the Midwest. 

Today, we will be particularly interested in FEMA’s housing, in 

rebuilding public infrastructure and in case management services 

during the three plus years of recovery in Louisiana since Katrina. 

We remain particularly concerned about the backlog of large infrastructure projects that have been delayed in the aftermath of 

Katrina. The Sewage and Water Board of New Orleans’ main facility, an essential component of city infrastructure, of any city anywhere, is still not protected after the disaster because of protracted 

negotiations over the definition of mitigation. 

Whatever the legitimate differences between Louisiana and 

FEMA, there is no excuse for failure to devise a way to come to 

agreement, to use millions upon millions of available funds that 

have been appropriated by this Congress to repair an essential part 

of the New Orleans infrastructure which remains, as a result, vulnerable to natural disaster today. 

Moreover, there are many public assistance infrastructure issues 

in municipal systems across the State still waiting on FEMA and 

an agreement to proceed. The rebuilding of Charity Hospital, an essential part of the New Orleans health infrastructure, and the rebuilding of the criminal justice infrastructure in New Orleans are 

stalemated. 

Why have projects of great priority stalled or slowed for all these 

years? 

Why does Louisiana currently have 4,135 projects determined to 

be in dispute due to excessive delay, overt disagreement or other 

factors with 2,894 of these projects currently valued between 

$55,000 and $500,000 for a total value of approximately $500 million and 1,241 projects currently valued at an amount over half a 

million dollars for a total of—listen to this amount—$3.7 billion 

waiting for somebody to come to an agreement about how to spend 

it and not getting to the people of the State? 

We note that some of these projects are likely shovel-ready and 

amount to a huge amount of already appropriated money in stimulus funds for the State of Louisiana. It is unconscionable to allow 

these projects to wait while at the same time we are sending new 

stimulus funds to the States including Louisiana while these major 

projects could be putting people to work now on the most vital infrastructure for the State. 

This backlog of 100 percent federally-funded projects is so serious 

that out of justifiable outrage at years of stalemate Senator Mary 

Landrieu inserted into the stimulus bill a binding arbitration 

clause for FEMA projects over $500,000 to expedite the recovery efforts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast Region. 

Although the new binding arbitration requirement raises other 

issues that would likely cause further delay, I am working with 

Senator Landrieu on a good compromise that I assure you will 

emerge soon. We will not tolerate this another month. 

At the same time, we see some successfully completed infrastructure projects such as the New Orleans Police Department headquarters. However, with such clear deficiencies, such terrible delay, 

it is particularly disappointing that the Senate itself did not act on 

H.R. 3247 in the 110th Congress which contained provisions that 

3 

specifically addressed many of the public assistance and infrastructure problems. 

For example, the bill authorizes the FEMA Administrator to include Gulf Coast recovery efforts under the Public Assistance Pilot 

Program authorized by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 

Reform Act, and H.R. 3247 permits the use of third parties to review and expedite public assistance appeals and allows FEMA to 

use simplified procedures under which small projects are permitted 

to proceed on estimates for projects up to $100,000. With more than $3 billion in projects held up by disputes, however, the time for pilot projects is over. We will require a third 

party dispute resolution within the government for FEMA that we 

believe will meet the challenges and the concerns of all involved. 

In June of last year, we had hearings on Mississippi which is 

still recovering from Hurricane Katrina as well and is working 

with FEMA to replace and repair public infrastructure and to address mitigation issues for any new construction along the Gulf 

Coast. 

Mississippi also had service management problems for disaster 

victims. According to the U.S. Census, when Hurricane Katrina 

made landfall, Mississippi had the highest poverty rate in the 

United States, only increasing the necessity and importance of recovery services. 

We need to know whether Mississippi is now meeting the many 

challenges that were laid out in our previous meeting and whether 

FEMA has been instrumental, as required, in helping the State to 

meet those challenges. 

At the Mississippi hearing, the Subcommittee received compelling testimony from case managers and service providers concerning FEMA’s recovery efforts in areas of Mississippi that lost 

city halls, fire stations and schools. In many areas, most standing 

structures were reduced to concrete slabs. 

I flew over the affected Mississippi counties shortly after Katrina 

and saw firsthand large areas that quite literally had been blown 

away. 

At our June hearing, we learned of systemic contracting problems. Again, here, they arise in Louisiana, again going back to 

Hurricane Katrina and again hampering recovery efforts in Mississippi as I have just described in Louisiana. 

Congressman Bennie Thompson of the State called for ‘‘mechanisms of dispute resolution for contracts.’’ 

Congressman Gene Taylor reminded us, also of Mississippi and 

the Member whose district was particularly struck by Katrina, reminded us of the necessity for timely payments and keeping the 

Nation’s word. 

Long-term housing needs and solutions continue to stymie both 

FEMA and HUD. 

We must crack this structural problem FEMA apparently has everywhere with appropriated dollars tied up, stalemated and 

unspent and the failure, therefore, to meet the needs of disaster 

victims as mandated by Congress. That is why we are developing 

a required third party resolution within the government to break 

this open and free these billions of dollars for the people of Mississippi and Louisiana. 

4 

I am, frankly, outraged to hear that there is this much money 

piled up over so many months, and nobody from FEMA has come 

to this Committee with anything approaching a question, much less 

a solution, to these funds. 

We are especially anxious also to get an understanding of 

FEMA’s efforts in Kentucky after the ice storms. Speaker Nancy 

Pelosi, Chairman Jim Oberstar and I met with Midwestern House 

Members during the ice storms this month to see how we could be 

more helpful. Kentucky and the Midwest will continue to receive 

this attention from the leadership of the House, our Committee and 

this Subcommittee. 

Again, we thank our FEMA representatives and witnesses from 

Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky for preparing testimony today 

to help the Subcommittee continue to ensure that the Agency is up 

to the challenge of meeting disasters anytime, anywhere in our 

Country. 

I am pleased to ask our Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart, if he 

has any opening remarks. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me first thank you for holding this important hearing today 

on disaster response and recovery and to evaluate FEMA’s continued efforts in the Gulf Coast and, frankly, their response to recent 

disasters. Again, I want to thank you for your leadership. 

As a Member representing the State of Florida, unfortunately, 

we are a State that sees a lot of hurricanes, and so I appreciate 

the important role that FEMA plays in disaster response and recovery. 

Now when State and local resources are, frankly, overwhelmed 

and communities are just trying to figure out how to recover and 

rebuild from a major disaster, FEMA is the one that provides the 

resources and expertise that help those communities get back on 

their feet and try to continue to evolve and prosper. FEMA plays 

a crucial role in disaster response and recovery. That is exactly 

why FEMA must be quick and nimble, as the Chairwoman said, 

and lead Federal response and recovery efforts on behalf of the 

President of the United States. 

Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we saw serious problems 

with FEMA’s preparations, their response and their recovery, 

among other problems as well not only of FEMA, but we are dealing with FEMA today. 

Now there have been improvements since we passed the PostKatrina Act. There are still deeper problems that still persist, I 

think. The sluggish decision-making created by FEMA’s lack of autonomy, I think, undermines its mission. So, whether FEMA remains under DHS or not, its autonomy clearly must be strengthened. 

FEMA is buried in this large department that has, I think, eroded its ability to be quick and to be agile and nimble, and this has 

resulted in unnecessary delays that impact the States and the communities that count on FEMA’s assistance after a disaster. 

It has been more than three years since Katrina and Rita hit the 

Gulf Coast, and many of those communities, as the Chairwoman 

has just stated, particularly in Louisiana, are still struggling to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Sep 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\47867.0 KAYLA
5 

cover from those disasters. We know that that is going to take 

some time. 

And since that time, there have been other disasters including 

Hurricanes Ike and Gustav and the recent ice storms that impacted Kentucky and a number of other states. 

Now the ice storms, by the way, are something that as a Floridian we do not have a lot of experience. 

Ms. NORTON. That is all you don’t have. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. That is right. Exactly as the Chairwoman 

says, that ice storms are probably the only disaster that we don’t 

have in Florida. 

But they left more than 700,000 homes and businesses in Kentucky without power, and ice-encrusted debris prevented many of 

those rural areas from even seeking assistance. So this ice storm 

is considered the worst natural disaster in the history of Kentucky, 

and I can only imagine its scope. 

Now I am pleased to see that Judge/Executive Gary Logsdon— 

I don’t know if I pronounced your name, sir. With a name like 

Diaz-Balart, I should be able to deal with yours rather easily. 

But from Grayson County, Kentucky, he is with us here today. 

He will provide this Committee with his input and observations regarding FEMA’s response and recovery, and I know that Mr. Guthrie will be introducing him later on. So thank you, sir. 

I understand that he has been the chief executive of this county 

for some time and should be able to provide us with key insight 

into this topic as I am sure that ice storms are not the first disaster that his county has had to deal with, but I understand it is 

the largest one in the State’s history. So, as a Floridian, I am actually very interested in learning something absolutely new for me. 

When FEMA was transferred into the Department of Homeland 

Security, it was unfortunately stripped of many of its functions and 

authorities. The failed response to Hurricane Katrina was an unfortunate and yet, I would probably say, predictable consequence of 

FEMA’s diminished capabilities. 

Following Katrina, this Committee and the Select Katrina Committee conducted a full investigation and a review of the government’s preparations for the response of Katrina, and in 2006, as a 

result of those investigations, we drafted and passed into law the 

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act to improve the 

government’s response to all types of disasters, not just hurricanes. 

While many of those provisions have been implemented, many 

have not, including very key provisions like HSPD-8, HSPD-5 and 

the National Response Framework have yet to be revised to reflect 

the changes mandated by this legislation that I just spoke of. So, 

again, inconsistent policies and slow decision-making are just some 

of the symptoms of the problems that we have with the bureaucracy because FEMA is buried into this huge DHS department. 

Hurricanes Ike and Gustav were the first real tests following the 

reforms, the first real tests for FEMA following those reforms, and 

it is clear that there have been some improvements. I would say 

many improvements in FEMA’s response. However, there were still 

areas, such as transitional housing, that clearly need further work. 

Now, unfortunately, after the aftermath of Katrina, we can still 

see that there are many years, many years still I guess or a lot of 

6 

things that still have to be fixed, and there are things, and the 

Chairwoman talked about that extensively and in great detail. I 

think we all share her sense of I don’t know if the right word is 

frustration or indignation or just lack of patience. 

While FEMA’s Direct Housing Assistance Program and HUD’s 

Disaster Housing Assistance Program have been extended, there, 

frankly, is no real strategy that has been developed to address the 

long-term housing issues in Louisiana. 

In addition, earlier this month, Ranking Member Mica hosted a 

roundtable requested by Congressman Cao of Louisiana on the ongoing problems with the public assistance programs and billions of 

dollars of delayed public infrastructure projects. The Chairwoman 

was talking about that a little while ago. So I hope FEMA can update us today on the efforts to speed these projects up. 

By the way, Representative Cao is not here because he is in the 

hearing in Homeland Security where the Secretary of Homeland 

Security is testifying. 

The Chairwoman also mentioned that the Senate was successful 

in including language in the recent stimulus bill that would require 

binding arbitration to settle these disputes. As the Chairwoman 

also said, that provision does raise some serious issues, maybe 

some legal issues and policy implications. 

So I am hopeful that a solution can be found. I am very optimistic that it will be found. I know that the Chairwoman, as she 

stated, is looking at that aggressively, trying to come up with a solution to free up much needed assistance to the State and to local 

communities in Louisiana. 

The overarching issue, obviously, is that we must ensure that 

FEMA has the necessary authority, the tools, the resources and the 

nimbleness to effectively and efficiently carry out its vital mission, 

obviously, that we all depend on. To the extent that there are problems, we must work together to identify them and to find real 

workable solutions. 

FEMA’s mission is so critical. It is critical to saving lives and rebuilding devastated communities recovering from major disasters. 

So, obviously, when FEMA fails, everybody loses, the whole Country loses. 

So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on these and 

other issues. 

At this time, Madam Chair, I would respectfully ask unanimous 

consent that a written statement submitted by Representative 

Scalise of Louisiana be entered into the record. 

Ms. NORTON. Without objection, so ordered. 

I will ask now if any Members have any opening remarks. 

Mr. Shuler of North Carolina? 

Mr. SHULER. Madam Chair, I don’t have any comments at the 

moment right now. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Markey. 

Ms. MARKEY. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am very glad that we are here today to discuss and evaluate 

FEMA’s efforts in the Gulf area. 

I have witnessed the importance of FEMA’s funding in my own 

district. Last May, a tornado struck in the town of Windsor, ColoVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Sep 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\47867.0 KAYLA
7 

rado. The tornado was a mile wide at times and damaged nearly 

1,000 homes. 

FEMA offered assistance that included grants for temporary 

housing and home repairs, low cost loans to cover uninsured property losses and other programs to help individuals and businesses 

recover from the effects of the disaster. 

Representing a district that has also experienced a natural disaster, I have glimpsed tragedy albeit on a different scale. We have 

a responsibility to help people whose lives were destroyed by these 

storms, and I look forward to hearing about the progress that is 

being made in the region. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Markey. 

Could I ask Mr. Guthrie if you have any opening remarks? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and for this hearing 

and particularly, and I will introduce later, Judge Logsdon. And 

judge, in Kentucky, that is county, sometimes county judge like a 

county executive or a mayor of a county. We refer to him as judge. 

But I appreciate the opportunity. 

I will tell you, Madam Chairwoman, I bet I spoke a dozen or 

more times in the district work period, and every time I mention 

the meeting the Speaker hosted in her office and the fact that you 

were there and the fact that Chairman Oberstar was there and told 

the people that I represent that I believe this sped up the emergency declaration that came from the President because of the 

meeting and your cooperation. So I thank you for that, and it is important that we do work together on these issues. 

The ice storm, when you first think about it, as the Ranking 

Member said, what is an ice storm or how does it cause such a calamity? Well, just the weight of ice. 

In one area alone, the area that Judge Logsdon represents, there 

is a friend of mine who works for the electrical co-op, and over 

1,700 electrical poles came down. Some areas in Congressman 

Whitfield’s district, some utilities had 3,400 or more poles that 

came down. 

The debris, the trees that are everywhere, it took them six days 

to cut down a path to get to a lady’s home, an elderly lady that 

was in a home. They went down to see that she was okay, but it 

took six days just to cut to her home. 

The thing about storms, though, you see the best in people, the 

local officials. The first couple of days when I got home from here, 

I went to Judge Logsdon’s emergency operations center and others, 

and you saw sheriffs and judges and local officials and volunteer 

firemen. They were out day to day, helping neighbors, and everywhere you went churches would bring food to people, and you 

would see the local officials on the ground. 

I said, this just shows how good people can be to each other, and 

I just want to praise the people in our area for that. 

But it is devastating. When you think of hurricanes and you 

think of other issues, you see them more because it is not one limb 

at a time breaking over time that brings down all the power. It is 

just a full force all at one time. 

8 

But it has been completely devastating. Our local officials have 

worked hard. 

And I just want to say again, and I will talk more when Judge 

Logsdon has the floor, but I just want to say, Madam Chairwoman, 

just how much it meant to us to work together. 

Now that I see the Chairman is here, Chairman Oberstar, I 

thank you from that meeting in the Speaker’s office. I think that 

sped up the emergency declaration we had. I remember your comments specifically in that meeting were very helpful, and I shared 

them with people in my community. 

I want to appreciate that and look forward to Judge Logsdon on 

the next panel. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Guthrie. 

In fact, the whole notion of ice storms I think illustrates just 

what FEMA has to be. You have to be able to go from the Gulf 

Coast and hurricanes to ice storms in a second. That is what we 

expect. It is what the American people expect. 

We have been graced by the Chair of the Committee, and I would 

certainly want to ask him if he has any opening remarks. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I was, regrettably, as is always the case, dealing with other of 

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee children, other 

Subcommittees’ needs. 

I just want to express on behalf of Chair Norton and myself and, 

I expect, Mr. Mica and, very likely, Mr. Diaz-Balart that today I 

am going to be introducing a bill to reestablish the independence 

of FEMA as an effective, nimble response agency outside of the Department of Homeland Security, with a standing on its own as it 

once had when it was a very effective agency. 

Putting it in Homeland Security, Mr. Young, then Chairman of 

the Committee, and I vigorously opposed the idea in a meeting 

with the President. 

Mr. Shuster, former Chairman of this Committee, vigorously opposed tampering with FEMA. He found that it was a very responsive agency in his district and in his role as Chair and in other 

places in the Country. 

I actually am responsible for creating FEMA as such from the old 

civil defense agencies in the 1980s after a hearing, when I chaired 

the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, and complaints 

from a wide number of Members on both sides of the aisle about 

the proposed regulation of the then Reagan Administration to reduce the Federal share to 25 percent in only a handful of cases and 

zero in most cases with a quaint parochial view that disasters are 

local in nature and don’t have entail a national obligation. 

Republicans, Democrats, Federal agencies, State and local entities were furious about that. 

And after extensive hearings, then Ranking Member on the Committee Mr. Clinger of Pennsylvania and I, together, drafted a bill, 

and I gave the bill to the lead advocate who was not a Member of 

our Committee but a Member of the House to introduce and to be 

its advocate. He said, why me? I said, well, you have the guts to 

stand up to your own administration and advocate for a fair funding formula which we have crafted now in this legislation and that 

9 

will be forthcoming in this new program that we will Federal 

Emergency Management Administration. 

Later, that Member of Congress became the first Secretary of 

Homeland Security, Tom Ridge. Now it is interesting how these 

things come full circle at times. 

I think in his heart Tom Ridge would have preferred that FEMA 

stay separate, but we are going to reestablish its separateness and 

its independent status and reaffirm what all of you practitioners at 

the local level know. 

This agency has to respond quickly. It has to be in concert with 

the community. It has to spring from the communities and has to 

understand and coordinate effectively. That is what we are going 

to do with this legislation. 

Thank you for your testimony today. 

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

Now Mr. Cao of Louisiana. 

Mr. CAO. First of all, I would like to thank Chairwoman Norton 

for holding this important hearing, for the continuing of this Subcommittee’s attention to post-Katrina recovery especially in the 

Second Congressional District. 

And I would also like to thank today’s witnesses from FEMA and 

from the LRA for being here to discuss their efforts with respect 

to the recovery needs of the Second Congressional District. I know 

that I have been pushing them in the last several weeks, and we 

have held several hearings prior to them being here. So I appreciate their being here again with respect to this hearing. 

I am also encouraged by President Obama’s State of the Nation 

Address last night in which he focused on recovery, and I was encouraged by his campaign promises to make right the delays in rebuilding New Orleans. 

I am asking the President to keep to his commitments and was 

pleased by his action last Friday to extend a White House Office 

of Gulf Coast Recovery which is responsible for overseeing the rebuilding of those States affected by the storms of 2005 and since. 

And I recently came from the hearing just a few minutes ago 

with respect to the new Secretary of DHS, Secretary Napolitano, 

and I am encouraged by her emphasis on leadership and transparency especially with respect to FEMA. 

Based on some of the hearings and some of the investigations 

that we have been doing, I found that there is a lack of leadership 

and a lack of transparency with respect to the TRO office there in 

our district. I believe that some of this inefficiency, some of this 

lack of leadership and lack of transparency might be some of the 

main problems in the recovery process, the obstacles that we are 

facing, and I hope to address some of these issues to overcome 

these obstacles. 

With that, I would like to welcome the speakers, the witnesses 

for being here, and I give the floor back to the Chairwoman. Thank 

you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Cao. 

Now let us move on to the witnesses. 

Let us hear first from the Acting Deputy Administrator, Mr. 

Garratt, then Mr. Stark of the Gulf Coast Recovery Office of FEMA 

10 

and, finally, from Mr. Rainwater, the Executive Director of the 

Louisiana Recovery Authority. 

Mr. Garratt. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID GARRATT, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; 

JAMES W. STARK, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, GULF COAST 

RECOVERY OFFICE, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY; AND PAUL RAINWATER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

LOUISIANA RECOVERY AUTHORITY 

Mr. GARRATT. Madam Chair, thank you. 

In the interest of time, I am going to forego opening remarks and 

defer to my colleague, Mr. Stark. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Stark. 

Mr. STARK. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Chairman Oberstar—I guess he has left—Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and other 

distinguished Members of the Committee. 

My name is Jim Stark, and I am FEMA’s Assistant Administrator for Gulf Coast Recovery. I am a career civil servant, having 

joined FEMA after a 28-year U.S. Coast Guard career. I have been 

a Gulf Coast resident for 12 years and have lived in New Orleans, 

Louisiana for the past 6. Thank you for inviting me to appear. 

I am joined today by David Garratt, Acting Deputy Administrator for FEMA. We are pleased to be here with you today to update you on our recovery efforts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

and discuss our perspective on the long-term prospects for the Gulf 

Coast. 

As you know, in 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the 

Gulf Coast of the United States, causing unprecedented and catastrophic damage to property, significant loss of life and public infrastructure and the displacement of tens of thousands of people 

from their homes and communities. 

Nearly three and a half years after the hurricanes, the Gulf 

States continue to press forward and make progress toward recovery. The recovery is not without its challenges as the magnitude of 

these storms caused extraordinary level of destruction. 

FEMA continues to be an integral part of that recovery. Our recovery focus in the Gulf Coast is in the areas of individual and public assistance and hazard mitigation grant programs. 

Much has been said about the methods and ways in which FEMA 

has provided assistance across the Gulf Coast following the 2005 

hurricane seasons. In each of these areas, FEMA has seen successes and challenges. 

While we readily acknowledge that we could have done some 

things better, we must not lose sight of the fact that nearly three 

and a half years later, after the most damaging storms in American history, nearly 95 percent of those whose homes were impacted by the disaster have returned to their pre-disaster housing 

or have moved on to other long-term, permanent housing solutions, 

$10.5 billion has been obligated to Mississippi and Louisiana to rebuild public infrastructure and close to $500 million has been obligated to Louisiana and Mississippi for hazard mitigation projects 

to lessen the impact of future disasters on those States’ populations. 

11 

FEMA’s Individual Assistance Programs are at the forefront of 

our recovery efforts. Over the past three years, FEMA’s Individual 

Assistance Program Specialists have worked hand in hand with 

voluntary and faith-based agencies as well as State and other Federal agencies to meet the needs of hundreds of thousands of people 

impacted by the hurricanes. 

Over the course of the disaster, FEMA housed more than 143,000 

families in travel trailers and mobile homes. The total number of 

households currently living in temporary housing has decreased to 

just over 6,600 with about 288 residing in hotels across the Gulf 

Coast. Every occupant residing in FEMA-provided temporary housing or hotels or motels has been offered an alternative, and we are 

working with each of them to find a permanent housing solution 

that meets their needs. 

The primary challenge for the Individual Assistance Program 

going forward is to work with those remaining families being 

housed by FEMA. Travel trailers and mobile homes are intended 

only as short-term emergency solutions to fill the need for housing. 

Clearly, FEMA and our Federal, State and local partners recognize 

how important it is both to those affected families and the communities in which they live to expedite the transition of these individuals into more permanent and stable housing. 

Another vital and visible component of a State’s recovery is the 

Public Assistance Program. FEMA has been extremely active in 

working with the States and local governments to restore and rebuild public services and facilities. 

While there has been some deserved criticism of this program, it 

is important to note that, though funded by FEMA, the State administers the PA Program. Local governments and other eligible 

applicants receive their funding through grants managed by the 

States. 

FEMA has prepared a project worksheet for every project that 

the State and local governments have identified to us. Preparing 

the project worksheets and reaching agreement on the eligible 

scope of work and cost estimates is a collaborative process that requires attention to detail at each level: applicant, the States and 

FEMA. It often requires more time to complete than any of us 

would like. 

FEMA has obligated over $10.5 billion in public assistance to the 

Gulf States, $7.5 billion to Louisiana and $2.9 billion to Mississippi. 

Once obligated by FEMA, the States, as the grantee, control the 

pace of disbursements to the applicants. To date, Louisiana has 

disbursed $4.1 billion of that $7.5 billion. Mississippi has disbursed 

1.6 of the $2.9 billion. 

There are sometimes disagreements between FEMA, the applicants and the State about the extent of disaster-related damages 

to facilities. Many of the facilities damaged by Katrina and Rita 

suffered from years of deferred maintenance and sometimes neglect. However, the Stafford Act only authorizes FEMA to reimburse applicants to repair disaster-related damages. 

In some cases, FEMA must amend or prepare alternative 

versions of a project worksheet to revise the scope of work or cost 

estimate when more information becomes available pertaining to 

12 

the repairs or replacement of those buildings. At the request of the 

State of Louisiana, FEMA developed and provides a system of ongoing versions during the life of a Public Assistance Project to help 

applicants with cash flow problems and to meet State and local 

contracting requirements. 

This process, jointly developed with Louisiana’s Governor’s Office 

of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, was meant to 

speed the process and clearly delineate roles and responsibilities. 

However, it has become cumbersome and needs to change. Currently, we are tracking over 1,400 projects that require an amendment or version update. 

To assist us in accelerating the review process needed to verify 

the scope of work or a cost estimate, FEMA has suggested in our 

last meeting with Congressman Cao and others that a joint FEMAState policy technical team review and make determinations together rather than conduct separate reviews of these version requests for completeness of information and eligibility. 

Hazard Mitigation Grant funding is made available to States following a disaster to fund cost-effective projects to mitigate against 

future disaster damages. This program is not designed for immediate response but as a long-term solution to reduce risk from 

flooding and other hazards. 

In Louisiana, over 1.4 billion is expected to be available under 

the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. FEMA has obligated $349 million in Federal funds for approved HMGP projects and State management costs thus far in 

Louisiana. 

In Mississippi, approximately $393 million in Hazard Mitigation 

Grant funding is available to the State. FEMA has obligated $150 

million in HMGP funds to Mississippi. 

The Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and 

FEMA are committed to the recovery and rebuilding of the Gulf 

Coast. FEMA’s Gulf Coast staff will remain an active and engaged 

partner until the job is finished. 

Through our Transitional Recovery Offices, we have highlighted 

many new initiatives that have contributed not only to the recovery 

of the Gulf Coast but have also contributed to the retooling and improvement of FEMA. These initiatives and our lessons learned will 

help to improve the effectiveness of FEMA’s programs in future disasters. 

While finding housing for the many displaced households and repairing damaged and destroyed infrastructure has been and will 

continue to be a challenge, FEMA remains committed to providing 

or coordinating continued assistance to the victims of Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. Together with our Federal, State, local and voluntary agency partners, we will continue to pursue assistance solutions that will effectively and compassionately help individuals and 

communities recover and reestablish their way of life. 

I will be happy to answer questions now. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Stark. 

Mr. Rainwater. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking 

Member Diaz-Balart. 

13 

Chairwoman, I just want to say thank you on behalf of the citizens of Louisiana for all of the hard work you have done. You and 

I had actually spoken on the phone once when I was Senator 

Landrieu’s legislative director, and I just wanted to say that your 

passion for Louisiana is known by many. 

I just want to say thank you and also to Congressman Cao for 

jumping into the fray so quickly. Your hard work is evident, sir, 

and we appreciate that as well. 

I also want to thank the Congress and the generosity of the 

American people for the money that they have invested in the 

State of Louisiana. We believe it is a good investment, and we are 

working hard to make that investment worthwhile. 

I want to talk to you just a little bit about the scale of the disaster and the reorganization, some progress that we have made 

and then some issues that obviously we will be talking about. 

I don’t know of any other State that has suffered such destruction in the last three years or that faces as many complex rebuilding issues. In context, the combined impact of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita is the largest disaster in history. Measured only in terms 

of Stafford Act funds, it is larger than the next largest disaster 

which is the attack on America on September 11th, 2001, by 4 

times and is larger than the remaining top 10 disasters combined. 

From Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone, Louisiana has more 

than 1,400 unique applicants in the Public Assistance Program. 

There are another 700 applicants eligible for assistance as a result 

of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike which we are still recovering from. 

For Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, almost 22,000 individual 

projects have been identified as eligible for repair or replacement, 

and there have been more than 45,000 total project worksheets and 

versions written and obligated. The numbers are staggering as the 

process is staggering as well. 

In the State of Louisiana, when Governor Jindal took over in 

2008, we looked at our processes and decided that we needed to reorganize. So the Governor appointed me as the Executive Director 

of the Louisiana Recovery Authority, the Executive Director of the 

Office of Community Development which manages all Community 

Development Block Grant money and also the Governor’s Authorized Representative to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

responsible for public assistance and hazard mitigation for a total 

budget of about $22 billion. 

What this did is it made one person responsible for the recovery 

because there was a point at which in the State of Louisiana there 

were three different organizations pointing fingers at each other 

and then back at FEMA and HUD. And the Governor said, no 

more. 

So now we have one person, myself, for better or for worse, who 

is responsible for the recovery in Louisiana, and I work with HUD 

and with FEMA to work through these issues. 

Now with the reorganization, we also looked at our processes and 

found that the State of Louisiana was taking 45 to 60 days to pay 

out invoices through the FEMA Public Assistance process. It was 

taking too long. As you know, businessmen, have a 30-day billing 

cycle, and they need their payments quick. 

14 

We looked at the process and worked very closely with FEMA to 

do this. Literally, now when an invoice comes from local government to the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, it takes between four and ten days to cut that 

check, and that has been an average. I check it weekly, and I brief 

the Governor on it about every seven days. 

We have actually put out about $708 million through that process. 

We also, in January of 2008, set about to reset our relationship 

with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We were tired 

of the finger-pointing. We sat down in February and had a summit, 

went through 15 issues and wanted to work collaboratively with 

FEMA. 

I will tell you, Chairwoman, that we have had mixed results. 

There are things that we have made progress on, but there are 

many, many other things we have not, and one of those is scope 

alignment. The single biggest issue bogging down our recovery in 

Louisiana is the scope alignment process in the Public Assistance 

Program. 

It is the basic tenet of any construction project. That is in order 

to plan properly and ensure completion, you must know how much 

the project will cost and be able to provide adequate funding. This 

is common sense but not common practice for the FEMA Public Assistance Program, which more often than not undervalues project 

worksheets, leading to months of negotiations that widen the scope 

of work and write a new version of the project worksheet. 

While this process labors on, the applicant, a local or State government entity, can only move forward if he or she has the cash 

flow and willingness to risk doing the work for which FEMA may 

never ultimately reimburse the applicant. We have many, many examples, and when you hear the number, 4,000, that is what we are 

talking about. 

Now the most famous of these projects affected by scope alignment is the Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans commonly 

known as Charity Hospital. The State and FEMA have been actively engaged in negotiating the scope of eligible damages to the 

hospital for more than three years. 

Hurricane Katrina completely destroyed Charity, and until last 

month FEMA offered a paltry $25 million for repairs. After three 

and a half years, FEMA increased the funding for the project to 

$121 million but still fails to acknowledge the actual eligible damages to the facility itself. 

Another example is an African American university in New Orleans, southern University of New Orleans, where cabling of the electrical system had to be replaced campus-wide at the cost of approximately $3.3 million because the underground conductors of 

this low voltage system were submerged in salt water for three 

weeks. 

No professional, no contractor, no building inspector, including 

FEMA’s electrical engineers, would certify an installation reusing 

the existing salt waterlogged cable. However, FEMA including its 

electrical engineer, refuses to pay for the obviously eligible project 

replacement. 

15 

The threat associated with not replacing this system is enormous 

and obvious to anyone. So it is very difficult to understand why 

this work is considered ineligible since it was under water for three 

weeks and had salt water in it. 

In addition, FEMA has provided for a 1,500 student temporary 

facility. The current enrollment is 3,000. 

Another example is at Tulane University. The Howard Tilton Li- brary is a government documents repository, and its repair is $30 

million project to elevate the library that FEMA refuses to fund despite its own staff making the recommendation to pursue the elevation. 

The university went out and hired an architect and an engineer 

to do the work, and then later on the work was de-obligated, meaning the university has to foot the bill. So all the documents remain 

in storage, and the library remains on temporary HVAC since Hurricane Katrina. 

The school also has partial or complete eligibility reversals on its 

Alumni House and the McAlister Auditorium. 

The issues we face in Louisiana are extraordinarily complicated 

with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike and Gustav. What we look for 

now is flexibility and a true partnership with FEMA. 

Now just several other matters, just very quickly: One of our biggest issues, obviously, is we are asking that the Federal Government look at the 100 percent Federal cost share for Hurricanes 

Gustav and Ike because no State has experienced such catastrophic 

losses in such a short period of time. Paying even a 10 percent 

match on these costs could stifle our recovery further. 

Granting Louisiana 100 percent Federal cost share for these 

storms would be a shot in the arm of our recovery and rid our 

State of the huge financial burden that we are currently working 

through. 

One other issue, the delay of the release of the flood plain maps 

in Louisiana, called DFIRMS, which Louisiana requested in December of 2008, FEMA is using these maps which have not been 

formally accepted to deny funds for Public Assistance Projects and 

further delay the recovery. Currently, we estimate that 45 infrastructure projects, including schools, have been de-obligated because of the DFIRM map issue, totaling a number of about $258 

million. 

I do want to say this, Chairwoman. I do appreciate the partnership we have had and the progress we have made with FEMA. I 

have met numerous times with Dave Garratt, the Acting Administrator, and Jim Stark, our Regional Transition Office Director 

down in Louisiana, and I do appreciate them. 

We have attempted, since I have been here in January of 2008, 

to quantify our issues with FEMA and sit across the table and 

work through them. 

But, as you know and as you hear from many, many, many applicants in Louisiana, there is an amazing amount of frustration on 

their part by the de-obligations that have occurred after universities, after local governments have gone out and spent money on 

projects just to have them de-obligated and, obviously, the frustration with the gap in funding between $1.5 billion and $2 billion to 

move those 4,000 project worksheets forward. 

16 

Thank you, Chairwoman. I look forward to your questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Rainwater. 

I am going to begin asking questions. Many Members do want 

to come back and vote. 

I was interested, Mr. Garratt, although your testimony is joint 

with Mr. Stark and although the Disaster Directorate has the most 

hands-on, presumably, experience in how to manage recovery, that 

you chose not to speak to this issue. Would you like to speak to it? 

I mean that is what you were before you became the Acting Administrator. Isn’t that the case? 

Mr. GARRATT. Acting Deputy Administrator, ma’am, yes, I was 

the Deputy Assistant or am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Disaster Assistance. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, perhaps you can begin by telling us what you 

have done, what steps FEMA has taken in light of the more than 

$3 billion in projects that are held up in the State? What steps 

have you taken or are you taking to, in fact, allow those projects 

to proceed? 

Mr. GARRATT. I will be happy to address that, Madam Chair. 

I paid very close attention to your opening remarks, and you 

mentioned several times the absence of a solution to deal with this 

backlog of Public Assistance Projects. You indicated that there was 

no excuse for the inability to come up with a way to resolve these 

outstanding issues. 

And I would in fact argue that there is a system and has been 

a system in place for many years for resolving Public Assistance 

issues. We call that our multilevel appeal process, and that multilevel appeal process is designed to, once and for all and authoritatively, resolve these issues so that they can move forward. 

Right now, even though there are some thousand or more 

projects that are said to be languishing in a state of limbo out 

there, we only have 31 appeals that are actually in our system that 

we are adjudicating right now. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Garratt, in light of the billions of dollars 

stalled in the State, would you agree that that multilevel appeals 

process is not effective today to handle the major disaster issues in 

Louisiana? 

Mr. GARRATT. By now means, Madam Chair. I would say, in fact, 

it has been extraordinarily successful when it is actually used. In 

fact, for the Gulf Coast States, for those appeals that have gone 

through our process, the appellants have enjoyed a nearly 40 percent approval rate on appeals that have gone through the process. 

Ms. NORTON. So all we need to do is people who have some 

money waiting for them to simply file some papers. 

Mr. Rainwater, would you agree that the appeals process is effective in dealing with this money and that the present process is sufficient to the challenge? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, thank you for your question. 

We worked very closely with FEMA to revamp the appeals process, and we appreciate their willingness to do that. 

The problem is that sometimes there is a lack of a decision to 

even get to an appeal, and that is where the dispute comes in. 

When you have numerous projects, worksheets that you are 

reversioning or looking at the estimated cost of, and you can never, 

17 

you go back and forth in a process that never even gets you to a 

point where you are ready to appeal. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Garratt, you have seen this yo-yo process. Have 

you ever questioned in your mind why so few of the issues get to 

the point of appeal? 

Has anybody in FEMA even considered another way to deal with 

this or begun to develop any new approaches in light of the large 

amount of money? 

Mr. Garratt and, for that matter, Mr. Stark, are you simply willing to let the amounts of money continue to pile up, now at more 

than $3 billion, until somebody in Louisiana gets his act together 

and appeals? Do you really think that is the problem, that is the 

source of the problem? 

Mr. GARRATT. Madam Chair, the source of the problem is that 

both FEMA and the State, on a number of very complicated, very 

complex Public Assistance Project issues have honest disagreements about what is and what is not eligible. 

Ms. NORTON. Let’s stop right there because that I accept. That, 

I truly accept, that the government and the State would have disagreements. I would expect the State to want more, and you are 

supposed to be a good soldier with the government’s funds. 

When you see impasse after impasse develop, do you think that 

the congressional mandate to proceed with these projects is in fact 

being recognized? I mean how many? 

Let me ask you because you seem to say your answer—Mr. 

Stark, is it your answer as well? I don’t want to leave this only to 

Mr. Garratt. 

But it is your answer that until, because I want to hear this, 

until somehow the State of Louisiana finds a way to proceed even 

though there are differences that need to be worked out before you 

can appeal, is it your view that the present system is in fact sufficient to meet the challenge raised by the more than $3 billion outstanding that is hung up? 

Mr. GARRATT. If what you are referring to, Madam Chair, is the 

recent legislation that required the establishment of an arbitration 

panel. 

Ms. NORTON. I certainly am not. In fact, I made clear in my own 

testimony. As a lawyer, I can understand some of the issues involved there. 

We have to set up. The President has to set up a set of people 

to arbitrate, and I indicated to you that I am working on something 

to resolve that. But in order to resolve it, I have to get to what the 

problem is. 

Now your testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Rainwater, and I 

wanted you all at the table because I would like to reconcile this. 

Is it your testimony that no new mechanism? 

Leave aside binding arbitration. I believe that that is not the 

mechanism, and I don’t even want to suggest what the mechanism 

is. I am looking for a mechanism. 

So I am asking you, are you satisfied with the existing appeals 

process as the mechanism to resolve this $3.4 billion that is stalemated or, if you are not satisfied with it, do you have any suggestions that we should take under advisement before we mandate 

upon the Agency how to resolve it, because we really are open? We 

18 

are just flabbergasted. We are looking for ideas from those who are 

on the ground who have had to deal with this issue. 

Now if you are in denial about it, that is why you have the Senator putting in binding arbitration. Although I see problems with 

that, the problem remains how you are going to deal with the $3.4 

billion, and I am open. If you have a way to deal with it, then I 

want to hear it because I don’t want to jump forward with a way 

from Washington if there is a way that you are working right now 

to solve this problem. 

Mr. GARRATT. Madam Chair, over time, over many disasters, the 

Public Assistance appeals process has worked and worked very 

well. 

It does take some time. Appellants have up to 60 days to submit 

an appeal. There is a 90-day period to review and adjudicate that 

on the first appeal level. Then they have an opportunity to re-appeal that. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Garratt, I am going to take that as a yes, you 

are satisfied with the system because you are repeating. 

Mr. GARRATT. Well, ma’am, if you don’t mind. 

Ms. NORTON. I mean Mr. Rainwater said—and you are not even 

speaking to the issue he raised—before you even get to the appeals, 

which is why he says there have been so few, there are certain 

steps that have to be taken, certain agreements that have to be 

made and he said they have not been made. Could you speak to 

that? 

Mr. GARRATT. Madam Chair, the appeals process works. It may 

not work fast enough for everyone who is interested in a very quick 

decision. It is not designed to provide a very quick decision. It is 

designed to provided thoughtful, deliberate review of those appeals 

and come back with the right decision if that system is used, and 

any Public Assistance conflict in the field can be appealed at anytime. 

Ms. NORTON. Look, thank you, Mr. Garratt. 

Is that your answer, Mr. Stark? Let me let you respond before 

I go to Mr. Rainwater. 

Mr. STARK. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I agree with 

Mr. Garratt on his description of the appeal process. 

What we try to do, however, prior to having to go to appeal, is 

to set up a process where we could resolve disputes having to do 

with scope alignments and cost estimating. We did that at the request of the State a little over a year ago in full recognition that 

in many cases some of our project worksheets were undervalued. 

There are some real good reasons for that, but regardless, if a 

project worksheet was undervalued, we needed to get to the right 

amount of money regarding the eligible work, the cost estimate and 

the scope of work, the scope of the contract to complete that eligible 

work. 

Unfortunately, what we haven’t come to is a collaborative way to 

sit down at the table across from each other and work that out. 

What we have done is come up with our estimates, and we send 

them over to Mr. Rainwater and his staff, and his engineers look 

at them and then send them back over to us. 

My proposal is that we sit down with a group of technical experts—in fact, Paul and I came up with this together—technical 

19 

and policy experts to go through a prioritized listing and get 

through the 4,000, the 1,500, the 2,000, whatever the number may 

be quickly. 

Now let me also explain a little bit. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you done any of that? 

Mr. STARK. We have not. 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me? 

Mr. STARK. We have not done that as of yet. 

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate, Mr. Stark, that you at least have answered my question. I wasn’t asking to be educated on the appeal 

process. I was asking why the decision itself, which would have to 

be appealed, was stalled. 

Mr. Rainwater, you heard both Mr. Stark and Mr. Garratt, and 

therefore I would like you now to respond to whether you think 

what Mr. Stark is suggesting is a viable way to move these, whether you agree with Mr. Garratt that the appeal process after all is 

a deliberative, thoughtful process. So what in the world do you expect? There are going to be delays. 

I mean I am a lawyer. I am used to delays in the process. 

So that is his answer. 

What is your answer? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, if you bear with me just for a second, what I would like to do is go back and give you an example. 

I mean we have spent a lot of time in the State looking at our 

own processes, and one of those processes that we admitted early 

on that we had systemic issues with was our Road Home Program. 

Basically, it had a dispute resolution process, and it had an appeals 

process. We recognized at the State that the dispute resolution 

process was not working because you end up in an negotiation with 

a homeowner back and forth to a point where you could get nowhere. 

I got rid of the dispute resolution process, and I set up two appeals processes. I set up an appeals process at the contractor level 

with our contractor and then a State appeals process. 

And I also increased staff. Recognizing the large nature of what 

we were dealing with in our Road Home Program, we needed additional employees on staff and increase the number of decision-makers and decentralize it to a point where people could make decisions. 

What I have told the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Mr. Garratt and Mr. Stark and other senior leaders at FEMA and 

Homeland Security is that you have to look at the large, the scale 

of this disaster and the systems that we have designed, although 

they work great. 

I was an emergency manager back in the nineties, and I worked 

a flood in Lake Charles, Louisiana, where 50 homes were damaged. 

The Stafford Act works great there, and the processes work great, 

and FEMA works great in that particular situation. 

But this is so large and complex. What we have asked for is a 

system that looks very different than what we have right now because it is moving too slow, not at any fault of the people that are 

involved, but the design of the system and the design of the process 

itself just doesn’t work. 

20 

Ms. NORTON. The system you are talking about involved individual homeowners. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Individual homeowners, 70,000 cases of individual homeowners that we worked through. Last year, we got out 

literally 33,000 grants last year and had 25 outreach, not just outreach, work sessions where I brought policy people and operational 

folks together in a room out in communities with computers, 

laptops, policy manuals, and we worked through issues. 

Now not everybody is happy, obviously. As you know, Ms. Chairwoman, it is always difficult to work through some of those issues. 

I have asked FEMA. Jim and I have talked about doing this 

same thing. Let’s get our operational folks together, our policy folks 

together, and let’s go out and work with the applicants, one on one, 

just like we did with homeowners. We are talking about a lot less, 

obviously. It is about 1,400 applicants. 

Go out to a mayor or parish president. Go to Tulane University 

where they are having the fight. Go to SUNO and get our folks to 

create a tiger team of policy and operational people who can work 

through these issues, case by case by case, and let’s set a time line 

and a goal for ourselves to get that done and answer back to Congress about what we have been able to accomplish. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know. I am going to ask Mr. Cao if he has 

any questions. 

I can tell you this much. First of all, I absolutely applaud, Mr. 

Rainwater, your looking at the system and saying: Wait a minute. 

This doesn’t work. I am in charge here. So why not try something 

else? 

Really, that is my complaint with FEMA, and I am not sure why 

that hasn’t. They have looked at you have done and have approved 

it. I don’t know why something that might fit this could not have 

been also developed. 

But I warn you that with binding arbitration already in the bill, 

this is not something we would have ourselves done, but we may 

be well past the time. There has been a loss of confidence. 

When the money gets that high and we are sending money out 

to the States, I am not sure we would have needed to send any 

money to Louisiana or certainly not very much. 

I am not sure that you would have agreement on the part of the 

Senate and, frankly, if it hadn’t been started yet, I don’t have much 

confidence based on the past record that somehow or the other 

there is going to be a system worked out that the Federal Government, namely FEMA, would agree. 

Mr. Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I was wondering whether or not you can continue with the questioning for me to allow me to go vote, and I will be right back? 

Ms. NORTON. Was it again a vote? 

Mr. CAO. Yes. There are two more series of votes. They are fiveminute votes, each. 

Ms. NORTON. We certainly would want you to have the opportunity, so not to worry. 

We are in a little dialogue here. If I sound spirited, I am not 

angry. I am looking for a solution. I have to say, the amount hits 

me in the face hard. 

21 

Let me get down to some of the details. Let’s take the estimates 

provided by the State for Charity Hospital where the analysis was 

provided by RSMeans, an estimator that apparently FEMA relies 

on often. Why did you, Mr. Garratt or Mr. Stark, you, FEMA, 

refuse to accept that estimate this time? 

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairwoman, we did look closely at the 

RSMeans estimates. We also looked at reports provided by the 

State of Louisiana regarding the condition of Charity Hospital both 

before and after the storm. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I just stop you? Mr. Rainwater, would you 

have accepted the RSMeans estimate? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. When we got here in January of 

last year, one of the things that the Governor and I decided we 

would do in working with LSU is to make sure that we had two 

good estimates. We had two done. One by RSMeans and one by 

Butch and Knievel, we accepted. 

In fact, we have had three studies done, three separate, independent studies done on Charity Hospital by engineers and architects that basically show us that the damage is beyond 50 percent. 

Ms. NORTON. As I say, I am trying to figure out. Okay. Louisiana 

would have accepted it, your guy. You don’t accept it. Why? 

Mr. STARK. We don’t because it is not estimating the scope of 

work to repair eligible storm-related damages. The estimates provided by RSMeans were to bring the hospital back to a level that 

it wasn’t at before the storm and to repair other damages that 

weren’t storm-related. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, just a moment. You told them what to do. 

Mr. STARK. No. No, we did not. Our estimates are the one we accept. We did not tell them to do that estimate the way they did. 

Ms. NORTON. So you didn’t tell RSMeans. They were just looking 

at the overall damage? 

Mr. STARK. That is our position, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. But if they are your estimator. 

Mr. STARK. Well, anyone can estimate a scope of work once you 

tell them what that scope of work is. 

Ms. NORTON. But don’t you use them to estimate what the scope 

of damage is? 

I mean isn’t that the whole point? Am I missing something here? 

Mr. STARK. I believe so, Madam Chairwoman, respectfully. I 

think the point is we have asked our estimators to estimate what 

it would cost to fix a certain scope of work, and that is the eligible 

storm-related damages. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me stop you. Did you ask RSMeans to do that 

estimate? 

Mr. STARK. I am not sure if we used RSMeans for the initial estimate. I would have to check with that. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, what is the point of RSMeans then? 

Mr. STARK. That is one of the estimators we use in a variety of 

projects. The State, I think they are right in doing this. Bringing 

up, bringing in an estimator whom we work with often and respect 

and understand is the right move, but I think they brought them 

a different package to estimate. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. So if you have different estimates and 

grown-up people here, how do you resolve that? 

22 

Mr. STARK. Well, we are at the point now where we have looked 

through the three reports, one of which, by the way, recognized 

$158 million of pre-storm repairs that needed to be made to the 

hospital to bring it back to standards. 

We have looked at those reports, looked at those estimates, 

looked at our several walk-throughs of the building with our engineers and came up with the estimates that we have finally written 

in a project worksheet and presented to the State. That is the $150 

million number that is now on the table. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rainwater, what is the status then with the 

State? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, right now, I mean obviously we 

are working through our appeals. 

I mean there are a couple things I think. When we sat down and 

talked about, and literally what I have tried to do in each one of 

these programs that we run—there are about 26 of them—is look 

at it and say, and the Public Assistance Program obviously is one 

and it is large, and look at it and say, okay, is there something 

wrong with what we are doing? 

So we hired RSMeans because we thought to ourselves, and I 

think it was logical, that this is the same estimator that the Federal Government uses to estimate damages and expenses in repairing a building. And so, we hired RSMeans, and then we hired another firm, Butch and Knievel to make sure that we had some sort 

of checks and balances in the system. 

We try to be very reasonable about the way we approach these 

issues, and we try not to be combative about it. We just want to 

provide information and do what is best for the State of Louisiana 

and the citizens of New Orleans in rebuilding Charity. 

So we hired RSMeans to take a look. They came back with the 

$492 million number. 

We are going to appeal the number. We don’t agree with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s review of the estimations 

themselves. It brings up issues, for example, the failure to protect 

the facility after the storm. As many people know, the city was in 

disarray at the time and we were hit by two storms within three 

weeks, Katrina and Rita. 

Now FEMA did provide $20 million to the State of Louisiana to 

help them protect, to help us protect the facility, but that wasn’t 

done until about six months later. So we had cash flow issues. 

There was damage caused by the storm that FEMA believes was 

deferred maintenance. Obviously, we disagree because LSU sent its 

facility plan and control folks into the building itself to look at it 

and saw mold and mildew building up in the system weeks after 

the storm had occurred. 

So we disagree with their assessment, and we are going to work 

through the formal appeals process. We are establishing the appeal 

in such a way that if we lose the appeal, LSU has said and our 

Office of Facility Planning and Control has said that we will go to 

court over the issue because it is a huge issue to the City of New 

Orleans and the rebuilding of the health care system in New Orleans itself. 

Ms. NORTON. Precisely. See, I would expect that almost always, 

perhaps not always, but almost always the State and FEMA would 

23 

disagree. When it comes to real money, there is going to be disagreement. 

Then the State is going to have to decide whether to appeal. 

Sometimes it will appeal, and sometimes it won’t. 

I am concerned with the initial stage since I have been convinced 

by what you have said that the appeal process is okay, but something else must be wrong. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Garratt and Mr. Stark, was Charity Hospital more than 50 percent damaged by the storms? 

Mr. STARK. In our estimation, the answer is no. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rainwater, that is where the difference lies 

then, I take it. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, Chairwoman, that is where the difference 

lies. 

Ms. NORTON. But this one is ready for appeal. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am, but it took us and it is an example 

because it took us three and a half years to get there. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, and it is a hospital. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, heaven’s help, it is a hospital, and that is what 

our concern is. You notice I am not asking as many questions about 

what appears to be going better, homes, even though there is a bureaucracy there. 

I am concerned about the basic infrastructure of the city, and I 

am concerned about another storm, frankly, and being caught with 

sewers and the like unstarted because of these appeals. There will 

be no patience in the Country for that, and that is why I am looking for a mechanism for an initial decision. 

I think the appeals, how long do they take, Mr. Garratt? How 

long does it? How would you estimate that an appeal itself would 

take? 

Mr. GARRATT. I would say if it goes through both appeal levels, 

it will take approximately six months, maybe a little longer. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, see, that doesn’t bother me. Maybe it is because I am a lawyer, but it doesn’t bother me in large part because 

of what Mr. Rainwater said, the nature of the beast you are dealing with, the largest storm and the most complicated recovery in 

the history of our Country. 

But how long has it been? We are at the stage. Is it the beginning stage of appeal? 

All right. How long did it take us? When did this start? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, if I could, when we got here. Actually, it started right after the storm. 

When we got here in January of 2008, the Governor and I sat 

down and said, okay, what are our priorities? And, obviously, Charity Hospital was the number one priority for the recovery. 

Then we said, okay, so are we right in the fact? Do we believe 

it was actually 50 percent damaged or not? 

So we sat down with our FEMA counterparts. They obviously 

disagreed. 

So we said, let’s have two studies done. We had the two studies 

done. We presented the studies. It has taken us a year. 

In December of last year, Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider with 

Homeland Security, Chief Operating Officer Admiral Harvey JohnVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:06 Sep 29, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\47867.0 KAYLA
24 

son, Director Jim Stark at the Transitional Recovery Office and 

General Doug O’Dell came to the Governor’s office with myself and 

our Health and Hospitals Secretary, Alan Levine, and sat down 

and presented us the $150 million Public Assistance Project. It took 

almost three years to get to that point where you got to the 150, 

obviously, a sort of the settlement offer if you use that term loosely. 

Here is what we can pay for. 

And so now, we are in the process of writing our appeal to that 

project worksheet that they presented to us which, by the way—— 

Ms. NORTON. Who? Let’s talk about who is in charge of that appeal. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Right now, the State of Louisiana is working 

that appeal. 

Ms. NORTON. Now who makes the decision? 

Mr. RAINWATER. With the State of Louisiana? 

Ms. NORTON. No. Who is the decision-maker? Is there any conflict of interest in that system? 

Mr. GARRATT. The first appeal will go to the regional administrator, in this case in Denton, Texas at Region 6. 

The second appeal comes up to FEMA headquarters and is resolved by the Assistant Administration for Disaster Assistance. 

Ms. NORTON. Now you say 40 percent of these appeals are, in 

fact, won? 

Mr. GARRATT. I am saying, thus far, for the appeals that have 

been submitted for Mississippi and Louisiana, the number I think 

is over 40 percent have been resolved either in whole or in part in 

favor of the appellant. 

Ms. NORTON. Do they then get, as is often the case in court, one 

of the most wasteful things we do in the litigation system is we let 

everybody go through trial and then after everybody has spent 

everybody’s money, then we resolve the case as it is about to go to 

decision? Is that what happens in this appeals process? 

Mr. Rainwater or Mr. Garratt or Mr. Stark, was there a decision 

by the decision-maker because apparently it came out okay? 

Or let me ask Mr. Rainwater. I don’t expect the State not to 

want as much money as it can, but Mr. Garratt characterizes these 

appeals producing a satisfactory result. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, Chairwoman. I mean the State has. 

I mean we look at the appeal first, and we don’t send up appeals 

that we don’t think have merit. Not all appeals are afforded by the 

State of Louisiana. We go back to local applicants, and we tell 

them that your appeal doesn’t really have any basis. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you satisfied enough that you agree with that 

40 percent? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am, so far. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. So it looks like there is a mechanism, and it looks 

like FEMA does have. I am just basing this on your testimony, 

even though it is within the Agency as you might expect, that the 

system is not inherently unfair. 

Were these decisions on the merits or were these decisions of the 

kind I just indicated where essentially the parties get together at 

the point of decision and essentially resolve the matter by coming 

to some kind of compromise? 

25 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, these were appeals that went up 

through the process. Some of those appeals, I don’t know what the 

numbers, but we actually have the ability to do an oral appeal now 

which is one of the things that we worked on in February of last 

year, and we just felt that. 

Ms. NORTON. Excellent. Is that because some things are fairly 

small? How could you do an oral appeal? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, what happens is, I mean, some of 

those things are so important to a mayor or a parish president or 

a university president that we felt like it was important that they 

be afforded the opportunity to either come down, either have the 

FEMA official come to Louisiana or the State or local official come 

to Washington, D.C. to make that appeal in front of someone, to 

bring their case. 

And so, we think it has worked very well. The applicants are 

very happy. They feel like there is some transparency there where 

an applicant can argue their case in front of someone, so they know 

who that decision-maker is. 

As you know, being an attorney, I mean, you want to be able to 

argue in front of a judge. And so, that is what we heard from our 

applicants. 

Ms. NORTON. Are most of these resolved at the local level or do 

you have to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, as it were? 

Mr. GARRATT. Ma’am, once it is in the appeal process, then an 

appeal will be rendered or an appeal decision will be rendered on 

that. So I am not aware that most of these are resolved before the 

appeal is ruled on. However, there are instances throughout the 

Nation where final appeals are, in fact, litigated afterwards. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rainwater, in your testimony, you mention setting up a streamlined appeals process. Did FEMA endorse the idea 

of a streamlined process? Did they participate in setting up such 

a process? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, we haven’t gotten to that point of 

the streamlined process. That is one of the things that I mentioned 

earlier about the scale of this and presentations to prior senior 

FEMA leadership in trying to provide and make sure that the 

Transitional Recovery Office and everyone up and down the chain 

has the information. 

Ms. NORTON. So by streamlined process, you mean what, Mr. 

Rainwater? What would be different? 

Mr. RAINWATER. A process a little bit more robust. A bigger pipe, 

you might say, to take on more appeals. 

But remember, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. You mean like more staff for the appeal? 

Mr. RAINWATER. More staff, yes, ma’am. 

But remember the challenge really is at that dispute area in trying to get the decisions. 

Ms. NORTON. I am not going to forget that, despite Mr. Garratt 

trying to change the subject on me to focus on something that, I 

am very pleased to say, works. 

And, by the way, while we have been very tough on FEMA, I 

ought to say and I do want to say this for the record the point of 

a hearing, in my judgment, is to solve outstanding problems. 

Frankly, if FEMA had brought this to us, and that is what I have 

26 

always urged them to do, we are willing to engage in that problemsolving process with you. 

But I do want to put on the record that when Gustav began, I 

called Mr. Paulison who was then the Administrator. I said, this 

is it, Mr. Paulison. Are these people going to be evacuated? Can 

you assure me? 

It was over a holiday. I had to find him through some contorted 

mechanism. Are these people going to be rescued or are we in for 

another Katrina? 

And he assured me that every living soul would be rescued. 

And guess what. The rescue, the evacuation in Texas, we have 

not had lots of complaints about. As we evaluate the Agency, nothing could be more important than the fact that these people got out 

as they did not in Louisiana. That shows improvement as far as 

we are concerned. 

I am sorry Mr. Paulison isn’t here to be congratulated, but he 

knows how pleased we were at that. 

That was a very big marker. The reason I count it as a big gain 

for FEMA is that Gustav and Ike weren’t planned. That was another very major storm, and it looks like the folks got out. We had 

some problems in Texas we will hear about, but the major problem 

that the whole Country judged FEMA by was in fact basically 

cured, it would appear, in Texas. 

All I am trying to do with the appeals process, Mr. Garratt, is 

to not tackle with what may work and only with, as Mr. Rainwater 

keeps leading us back to, what apparently is responsible for the 

holdup of the $3 billion funds. 

Let me ask you this, Mr. Rainwater. Do you believe that the 

holdup of the money basically is in Washington or do you think the 

holdup is really on the ground? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, if I could answer that by going 

back to the response because I think there are similarities here. 

I worked in the evacuation of the City of New Orleans during 

Hurricane Katrina, Rita, Ike and then Gustav. The Governor deployed me. When I am not doing recovery work, I am a Lieutenant 

Colonel in the Guard, and the Governor embedded me with Mayor 

Nagin and his staff for 14 days. What we all recognized is that we 

needed to do things differently, and so he gave me operational authority on the ground in working with the city and working directly 

with FEMA National and Region 6. 

Region 6 brought its folks over, embedded it in the Governor’s 

Unified Command. I was embedded with Mayor Nagin. We were 

able to make decisions. At Union Passenger Terminal, we evacuated almost 18,000 people, and we did that by making tough decisions on the ground, quickly. 

My point is this. If you take the response and then you overlay 

it over the recovery, you are almost in the same situation. We have 

to look at the recovery, this recovery—Katrina, Rita, Ike, Gustav— 

differently than we have done other recoveries because the scale 

and complexity of it is just different and it needs a different set. 

Sort of, look through it with different glasses basically. 

Just as we did, we thanked FEMA for their strong response to 

Gustav and Ike. We had a good partnership. Mr. Stark and I were 

27 

able to work through some issues very quickly on the recovery side 

because he was engaged as well from the response side. 

And so, coming out of that, what we said is that: Look, let’s 

renew our partnership. Let’s get together on these sorts of issues. 

Very frankly, what we feel like is that we have been bogged 

down in these sort of discretionary policy decisions. The Stafford 

Act, I mean in a catastrophic event, it is very difficult to work 

through just because of the processes themselves, but it does give 

discretion to the regional administrators to work through issues. 

And so, our point is this, and we have shared this with Secretary 

Napolitano’s Chief of Staff, Jan Lesher, and others, and I have spoken to this with Jim and Mr. Garratt, and that is if you have a 

Transitional Recovery Office, then let the Transitional Recovery Office make the decisions and only allow for the most egregious 

issues with the State. If the State of Louisiana, if you think I am 

trying to get over on you, then take it to Washington but not every 

decision. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, it looks like the stumbling block may be in 

Washington. You have to let people do what they do best. 

Mr. Garratt and Mr. Stark, I congratulated Mr. Paulison, but I 

am well aware that you deserve part of that congratulations and, 

as Mr. Rainwater just indicated, for what happened in Louisiana 

as well as Texas. 

Now that he is back from voting, I am going to be voting anytime. Soon, I hope. But meanwhile, we were able to keep the hearing going. 

I do want to say before I pass over to Mr. Cao, who is on the 

ground and I am sure will have truly pertinent questions, that 

what you have said, the theme of your testimony, Mr. Rainwater, 

is the theme of the post-Katrina laws we passed. Congress looked 

at Katrina and passed post-Katrina legislation, one piece of legislation not yet passed in the Senate. It had as its thesis: Katrina was 

so different that we will amend the Stafford Act with Katrina 

alone. 

The reason we did that was that FEMA didn’t move. We thought 

FEMA had the authority to move, but just to make sure they understood we passed these laws. 

The whole theory here, both of the laws that include everyone 

and especially the laws that exempted, that took on Gulf Coast 

alone, was that this is one of a kind at least for the time being. 

Everybody else, get back. We are going to allow FEMA to operate 

in this way. It came out of testimony from the Members who 

begged for short cuts, who even at that point were telling us that 

the money wasn’t being spent. 

So if you hear me pulling my hair out, it is because even legislation seems not to have resolved that. 

I am going to ask my good colleague from Louisiana to indicate 

his questions. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Jim Stark, Mr. Garratt, if I receive one complaint from the 

State, I might have issues concerning whether or not reasonable 

people can disagree. But when I receive complaints from the State, 

from the Archdiocese of New Orleans, from Tulane, from SUNO, 

from almost every agency that I have encountered, the City of New 

28 

Orleans, there is an issue here with respect to how the offices function down there in Louisiana. 

And in recent days, I have become aware of some serious problems in the TRO office in Louisiana, in New Orleans, more specifically. My staff and I are investigating these claims as is CBS News 

which is due to air a preliminary segment in tonight’s news. 

These problems that we uncovered concern whether: Number 

one, the number of staff in the TRO office is adequate. Two, there 

are significant claims of equal employment opportunity abuses. 

Three, sexual harassment. Four, discrimination. Five, nepotism. 

Six, cronyism. Seven, ethics violations. 

Can you explain to me some of these problems, Mr. Stark or Mr. 

Garratt? 

Mr. STARK. Congressman Cao, first, let me thank you for your 

visit last week. I was very pleased. Even though we have invited 

Members to visit our office, you are the first to come, and I thank 

you for stopping by to talk with our people. 

The problems that you just enumerated came to light last week, 

and we have immediately responded by bringing down a climate 

assessment team from Washington to take a look at those serious 

allegations, which I personally am very concerned about. 

I am concerned about every one of our employees at the TRO in 

Louisiana. I am concerned about their well being. These are employees who live in Louisiana. They are helping their neighbors recover, and they need to be treated with respect and be taken care 

of. 

Each one of those allegations that you brought up is being investigated fully. We look forward to the response from the climate assessment team that just went down there. 

Mr. CAO. Now after speaking to some of your employees, they 

have conveyed to me that the FEMA office has basically lost its 

focus in rebuilding, that somehow senior staff members are just out 

for themselves. 

And speaking to other employees, they are telling me that they 

are very, very unhappy down there and that the office is run out 

of fear rather than to address the needs of the people. 

What has happened to cause your office to lose its focus, Mr. 

Stark? 

Mr. STARK. I don’t agree with that statement that our office has 

lost its focus. Our office is focused on partnering with the State and 

the local governments to rebuild the State, and I don’t agree with 

that statement. 

As I said, the climate assessment team is there to find out what 

the climate, the work employment climate is with our people, and 

we will take necessary steps to correct it. 

Mr. CAO. I agree with Madam Chair that there are discrepancies 

in testimony between you and between Mr. Rainwater. 

And I also sense the same discrepancy when I speak with you 

where I am not sure whether or not there are misrepresentations 

or what have you. But you are telling me that the State is not 

reaching out. The State is telling me that you are not reaching out. 

The city is telling me that you are not reaching or your office is 

not reaching out. 

29 

So who is not communicating to one another? Is it your office 

that is not communicating with the State and the city or is it the 

State and the city that are not communicating with your office? 

Mr. STARK. As I said in my testimony, Congressman Cao, I feel 

that the way to resolve these issues is a collaborative process, and, 

quite frankly, we have not always had that collaborative process. 

In dealing with some applicants, we have been denied access to 

facilities that we needed to get into to make certain estimates on 

damage, damage repairs and estimates of disaster-related damages. We are working through that with the State and with the individual applicants. We have tried to reset or recalibrate our focus 

on that. 

I think as we work through the very specific project by project 

disagreements in collaboration rather than, as I said before, we 

come in with our position and throw it over to the State, and then 

months later they come back, and months later we come back. We 

need to sit down now and solve these hard problems. All the easy 

ones are solved. 

Mr. CAO. Now you just told me that some of these problems came 

to the surface within the past week. There are allegations of sexual 

harassment that has been going on for almost a year. So, how can 

you tell me that these problems only surfaced within the past 

week? 

Mr. GARRATT. Let me just in here, if you don’t mind, Mr. Stark. 

About a week and a half ago, we at headquarters were notified 

by the Director of our EEO office, Pauline Campbell, that she had 

received word that there was an uptick in issues at the TRO in 

terms of equal opportunity issues. 

We asked her at that time to investigate that. We asked her to 

form a tiger team, to send that team down there immediately to 

essentially do what Mr. Stark described which is a climate assessment. Let’s go down there and get some feedback on whether such 

conditions exist and whether we need to do a more robust and thorough investigation. 

Well, that climate assessment team is still down there. They 

have been down there for a week and a half. They have been doing 

a number of interviews. And the purpose of that team is to come 

back and inform the leadership of FEMA what the status is down 

there and make recommendations on what we need to do next. 

We take this very seriously, and we are planning to tackle that. 

In terms of specific allegations of sexual harassment against any 

employees, those exist throughout FEMA. We process a large number of EEO complaints and other complaints throughout the FEMA 

body throughout the course of a year. They certainly exist in the 

TRO. Those are always investigated, and they are always investigated quickly through our standard existing EEO process. 

So if there are any sexual or allegations of sexual harassment 

anywhere in FEMA, rest assured that the EEO architecture is investigating them. When the report comes back on those investigations, action as required will be taken to deal with it. 

Mr. CAO. Mr. Garratt and Mr. Stark, I hold in my hand here a 

detailed description of the Charity assessment which is around 18 

pages. The property is valuated at $490 million. My house is valuated at approximately $350,000. It was damaged by flood and wind, 

30 

similar to Charity Hospital, because of Katrina. And I can tell you 

that my insurance adjuster provided me with a thicker adjustment 

than what I am holding here. Now this adjustment shows $129 million in damages. Yet, your 

statement says that the Stafford Act does not allow FEMA to compensate for damages not caused, not related to disasters. Yet, in 

the process of dealing with settlements with the State, you offer 

$150 million to the State while these documents only show $129 

million. 

It seems to me that there is certain discretionary decisions can 

be made with respect to the Stafford Act. So why is this insistence 

on the inflexibility on the limitations of the Stafford Act when you, 

yourself, are making decisions contrary to what the Act is doing or 

is saying? 

Mr. GARRATT. In terms of the decision that was made regarding 

the $150 million, FEMA had identified some number of damages 

that they had determined were related to the disaster, directly related to the disaster. 

There was some number of other damages that were the result 

of or could have been the result of or, in the estimation of FEMA, 

were the result of failure to properly secure that facility and prevent additional damage from occurring following the disaster. 

FEMA program staff looked at the information and made a determination that X amount of this was within that preventable category and should not be reimbursed and X amount of that could 

potentially have been unpreventable. It was a subjective call. It 

was made by DHS leadership. 

They looked at the existing body of information related to that 

damage that was in that gray category in their estimation and 

made a judgment call that we are going to give the benefit of the 

doubt to the State on this particular damage, and that is how we 

got up to 150. They essentially gave the benefit of the doubt to the 

State on those damages. 

Mr. CAO. I am sorry. What was your last statement? I am sorry. 

I didn’t hear it because of the bell. 

Mr. GARRATT. The determination to bump up the figure to $150 

million resulted in a DHS leadership determination that a portion 

of the damages that we could not validate as being disaster-related 

could potentially be disaster-related and gave the benefit of the 

doubt to the State on whether they were or were not disaster-related. 

Mr. CAO. So this really brings me to the question of allegations 

that decisions are being arbitrarily made with respect to damage 

evaluations, and it really asks me to question whether or not these 

decisions are being arbitrarily made. 

There are a lot of recovery issues in the Second District, and I 

am not sure whether or not the problems are here with how you 

all operate, with respect to your staff, who is making decisions. 

Let me ask you a question. Who makes the final PA decisions? 

Is it you or is it Mr. John Connolly? 

Mr. STARK. Mr. John Connolly is the Public Assistance Officer. 

He usually makes those final decisions unless it comes to a point 

where—it is my actual signature, but I usually pass his decisions 

on as the Public Assistance Officer. 

31 

Mr. CAO. What qualifications does he have with respect to these 

decisions and how they are evaluated? 

Mr. STARK. He has been a Public Assistance Officer in FEMA for, 

I believe, over 15 years. 

Mr. GARRATT. Let me add onto that. We sent Mr. Connolly down 

to the Gulf Coast specifically because he is regarded as one of the 

premier Public Assistance experts in FEMA. He comes out of Region 3, out of Philadelphia, lots of experience, but he was sent 

down there specifically to replace the existing Public Assistance Officer at the time and to get that operation back on track from a 

Public Assistance perspective. 

Mr. CAO. And can you tell me how many times has Philadelphia 

been damaged by a hurricane? 

Mr. GARRATT. I can’t tell you how many times Philadelphia has 

been damaged by a hurricane, but we can certainly, I think, provide you the probably large number of hurricane disasters that Mr. 

Connolly has responded to before he was sent down to Hurricane 

Katrina. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cao, I am going to hold this until you come 

back in any case so that Mr. Guthrie can get in some questions, 

and I know you all have to go to vote again. Why don’t you do that? 

You then can run to vote and don’t worry I have a lot of questions 

while you are gone. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Guthrie. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

First, let me just, if it is okay, have a point of privilege. My father just came in. He is up here to watch the speech last night, and 

he came in the back of the room. So I appreciate that he is able 

to be here. 

So we are going from the Second District of Louisiana to the Second District of Kentucky, I guess I would say. 

First, I just want to say Colonel Kadesch who is the FEMA officer or head of the effort down in Kentucky, I met him the other 

day. I think he is doing a great job. And the FEMA employees that 

I have been around have all been professional and have worked 

hard and have missed as much sleep as a lot of our local officials, 

working, as you will hear from Judge Logsdon shortly. 

I guess a couple of questions. I was going to, hopefully, have 

Judge Logsdon speak first and then maybe ask some questions because I know what he is going to talk about. 

One, just how do you work through this issue when Katrina was 

coming? I remember it. I remember Governor Barbour getting on 

TV, saying this is Camille. He said, don’t say Cat 5. Say Camille, 

and people will understand it. 

So I know you guys were working to get ready. 

The ice storm, I know my wife was coming to D.C. when it hit 

and said, we have to get out of town because we have a storm coming. We didn’t see it coming as bad as it was and the damage that 

it was until it hit. 

So in order to get prepared and get people on the ground, how 

do you react? 

32 

What kind of procedures do you have, say we didn’t see this coming—a tornado would be the same situation—and deploy assets 

quickly? Is there a way that you speed up the process in that? 

That was some of the concerns, getting assets on the ground 

quickly. That was one of our issues, not that your employees 

weren’t working hard, just getting in there in a quick way. 

Mr. GARRATT. Happy to answer that. 

By the way, I would like to also compliment the State of Kentucky. As you know, Acting Administrator Ward visited the State 

of Kentucky, and all of the reports that we have received from Mr. 

Kadesch and others indicate that your guys performed exceptionally well down there. 

I think as you reported earlier in your remarks, as you began to 

characterize the nature and scope of the response and how well 

your citizenry and the elements of the response, how Kentucky responded to that, all reaffirmed by our own folks down there who 

think you did a fabulous job. 

In terms of how we respond to a disaster, we have the ability to 

pull the trigger immediately on resources from any number of 

venues in the United States. We have logistics centers where we 

store products. We have teams that are ready to go at a moment’s 

notice including Incident Management Assistance Teams who are 

on alert all the time. 

Once we are aware of an incident and once we are aware of a 

potential incident, we have the ability to begin moving assets to 

deal with that, and we will either do that proactively because we 

make a determination that it is necessary to begin pushing assets 

there because we recognize that they are likely to be needed or we 

will do it if a State asks us to preposition those assets. Either way, 

we have the capability to move quickly. 

So it will either be a unilateral determination or it will be in response to a request from the State. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And then one of the things I am sure we are going 

to hear from the Judge when he speaks is just generator capacity. 

I know we are going to do an after-action review and try to how 

can we do things better. 

But our water systems, people were losing water and had boil 

water advisories because the water systems went down. 

And I believe there were instances of generators coming in that 

weren’t the right applicable generator for that facility. I think Colonel Kadesch has talked about doing an inventory. And then maybe 

some of the local people didn’t have the ability to hook to the generators or coming and they didn’t work. So I mean that is the concern, that how do we preposition our assets just in general in certain areas so when these unexpected kind of storms hit they are 

available. 

Then just one other thing I am kind of tying to that because I 

know we are going to have to go vote, just contracting and flexibility. Maybe we hold you to that by statute. I am not sure. 

But I know a road contractor talked to me. Matter of fact, Judge 

Logsdon kept calling to get backhoes, and they kept bringing backhoes. Then when you start looking at reimbursement for that, well, 

they were not an approved contractor. These guys were down there. 

33 

And I know people take advantage, and we have to protect the 

taxpayer dollar, but if there is some way we can have on the spot 

decisions to get assets in, the local assets to clear roads. Like I 

said, it took six days to get to one particular lady’s home, and she 

lived way off the beaten path. 

But if they can react quickly and just be more nimble, I think 

that is what we would like, I would like to hear, if there is something is we need to do here in order to make your job so you can 

act more quickly. 

So I guess my questions are getting to just explaining getting assets in the right place at the right time and how you can bring 

local people who have the assets on board to FEMA in a quick way 

as well. 

Mr. GARRATT. We are interested in both of those. 

Let me tackle the last one first, and that is in terms of the ability 

to contract quickly for debris removal. We are very interested in 

the ability of States to be able to do that. We stood up a contractor 

registry to specifically identify those contractors who have the ability to do that in States across the United States. 

If there are concerns about your ability to have preexisting contracts and whether they will support reimbursement, then we will 

be happy to work with you out of Region 4 to make sure contracts 

that any of your jurisdictions have set up in advance for any type 

of debris removal are valid contracts and will be supported through 

reimbursement. 

Let me address the generator issue because we recognize that 

was an issue in Kentucky, and I think we both have a part to play 

in that, Kentucky and FEMA in that regard. 

We package these generators in what we call 50 packs, and they 

are normally assorted sizes in those 50 packs. We can shoot those 

out quickly. We can get them somewhere, and we know that some 

number of those generators will meet your needs but maybe not all 

of those generators. 

In this particular case, what we found was fewer of those generators in those 50 packs ended up meeting your needs than was ordinarily the case. And so, what we need to do is come up with a better way of packaging these generator packs or have the ability to 

immediately develop such generator packs based on what your actual needs are and send them to you so we are not in a situation 

where we have generators that we do not need. 

What also would have helped was if we had complete full assessments of all of your critical facilities and knew exactly sort of generator was required and what would be needed to set that up. We 

didn’t have that when we came in. 

The Corps has recognized that, the Army Corps of Engineers. 

FEMA, we have that on our plate, and what we want to do is work 

with the State of Kentucky to fully assess all of those critical infrastructures and know exactly what the requirements are. 

So, in the future, if we are faced with another situation like this, 

we are going to come in with the right generator, we are going to 

go right to the place where it needs to be installed and we are 

going to know exactly what is going to be required to get that installed. So that should eliminate the problems in the future. 

34 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you. I know we are going to go vote, 

so I will be back shortly. But I do want reemphasize that every one 

of your employees that I dealt with was extremely professional, 

very caring, very hardworking, and I really appreciate their efforts. 

We just need to make sure if we are hamstringing you to get assets in the right place or if there are better ways to plan as you 

just said with the generators. I am glad that you took note of that, 

and Colonel Kadesch has talked about what you are describing. 

I just want to bring that out for the record. I appreciate that. 

People were going several weeks without power. So we were all getting kind of frustrated in working to try to help them. 

But again I will close with I appreciate the effort of your employees on the ground. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Guthrie. 

I want to clarify on the appeals process. How, if at all, is the Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy involved in the appeals process? 

Mr. GARRATT. The appeals process takes place entirely within 

FEMA, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. So it does involve anyone in DHS bureaucracy. 

Mr. Rainwater? 

Mr. RAINWATER. If I could, Chairwoman, what had happened 

with Charity Hospital is it got a lot of visibility in the prior administration, and there was some conversation about who was going to 

manage that. So Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider and Secretary 

Chertoff got with Secretary Leavitt in Health and Human Services 

and started to sort of devise a plan to kind of work with us in sort 

of a broader sense because we were looking at different ways to get 

to that $492 million. To their credit, I think they were trying, and 

Chief Operating Officer Harvey Johnson, Admiral Johnson, was 

trying to be creative about the way they approached this. 

That is where Homeland Security was involved in that one issue, 

but they haven’t been in involved in any of the appeals. From time 

to time, they will get involved in the dispute piece as we raise 

issues up like Charity and Tulane University and others, but typically the official system rests between the State and the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

Ms. NORTON. I guess they saw this, as you say, high profile 

Charity Hospital notion. So that is important to note that FEMA 

is it, and I will have more questions on that in a moment. 

But let me try to get to the bottom of this valuing projects, this 

undervaluing as the State would say, valuing as FEMA would perhaps say because the Committee has heard, of course, repeated 

complaints about undervaluing projects. 

Who does FEMA employ to do the estimates? How are they monitored, checked or somehow verified? 

Mr. GARRATT. Ma’am, we employ contract firms that support us 

under our Public Assistance, Technical Assistance contracts. These 

are A&E firms, for the most part, employees who are engineers or 

are expert in the type of assessments and evaluations for the type 

of structure that they are responsible for assessing. 

So, generally it is done by individuals who are practitioners in 

the field, but they are contractors. 

35 

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Rainwater, do you believe that these professionals consistently undervalue the scope and estimates of 

projects any more than one might expect as to differences between 

FEMA and the State? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, I have spent a lot of time talking 

with our architects and engineers at the State level. 

Our Office of Facility Planning and Control is where the rebuilding of universities and other things takes places, and it is the largest Public Assistance applicant in the history of FEMA. It is run 

by an architect, and he will tell you that many, many times the 

folks that he is sitting across the table are not architects and engineers, and he relayed to me. 

Ms. NORTON. Who are they? 

Mr. RAINWATER. In this particular case, it was a person that understood the Public Assistance policy but didn’t understand the engineering estimating piece. 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me. These are contractors? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. In this particular case, I think it 

was or it was a temporary employee with FEMA. I think what they 

call a core employee, someone that is on for two or three years, and 

I don’t want to speak to that. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, wait a minute. I am talking about who does 

the technical work, this undervaluing of projects with the scope 

and estimate problem. Are you saying the contractor is not using 

experts like architects and engineers? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, in our estimation, in some cases, 

that is not happening. 

I mean, again, one of the issues. I am a liberal arts major. I am 

not an engineer and architect, but I do know that our Facility Planning and Control folks and the folks that local governments hire 

are engineers, architects who work with local governments quite 

often. 

There was an incident just recently where our Facility Planning 

and Control, a certified architect, was having a conversation about 

estimates with someone who had a graduate degree in English. 

Although I think it is great to have a graduate degree in English 

because I have graduate work in English myself, but I am not in 

any way qualified to sit across from an architect and engineer and 

debate about whether or not Charity Hospital or any other or a fire 

station or a police station should be built at a certain cost. I rely 

on the experts to do that. 

And so, it has been something that we have worked through, and 

it raised as an issue that we needed more technical folks on the 

ground. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to have to allow Mr. Garratt and/or Mr. 

Stark to reply to this statement by Mr. Rainwater that it is possible to have a contractor of the Federal Government doing scope 

and estimate work who is not an architect, engineer or other similar expert. Is that the case? 

Mr. STARK. Well, Madam Chairwoman, I am not sure that Mr. 

Rainwater said that. What I heard him say is that his chief architect or his head of FP&C was in a conversation with someone. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, let’s clarify. We are sitting here at the same 

table. 

36 

Mr. STARK. That is the first I have heard this. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay, well, we are sitting here at the same table 

for a reason. I ask that instead of seriatim hearing witnesses, that 

they help us by sitting together. 

Now would you clarify, Mr. Rainwater? Are you talking about 

somebody who your architect is talking to who is a contractor who 

is in charge of this issue and he is having to talk with this person 

who is not a technical expert? 

Mr. RAINWATER. The Deputy Director of our Office of Homeland 

Security where our Public Assistance sits, who is a civil engineer, 

has told me on numerous occasions he has had conversations with 

people that were contractors who are not technical people. They 

might have experience in construction. 

But I mean, again, Chairwoman, it is the narrow sense in which 

we are even having this conversation, that if our chief architect 

would even be having a conversation with a person about a technical issue who has a graduate degree in English, why isn’t he 

talking to an engineer or an architect? 

Ms. NORTON. Now, see, Mr. Stark, that is the question. So now 

you have clarified the question. 

Mr. GARRATT. I also may have contributed to a misunderstanding 

here. What I said earlier was that we employ architecture and engineering firms to provide the personnel who make up our PA tech 

contracts. I did not necessarily mean to imply that every single person who is supporting these contracts is either an architect or an 

engineer. 

What they are are experts. They are folks who have been hired 

by these firms and may have expertise in a lot of the unique subject areas, roads, bridges, for example. So they are hiring individuals. They may train the individuals, but they may not be an engineer or an architect. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, why is the Federal Government paying 

money for people who are not technical experts that sit on the 

other side of people who are? 

I mean after all you are having to contract. What is the advantage to the Federal Government in facing people who are experts 

with people who are not? 

Mr. GARRATT. I am going to turn over to Jim here in terms of 

this specific instance, but I am not aware that this is a systemic 

problem at all. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, he said, on numerous occasions. That is why. 

On an occasion, then we could ask you to correct. 

But, Mr. Rainwater, you are saying? And repeat it so we have 

on the record what the testimony is, and we can get the response 

from the Agency. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, I think it really is about consistency and making sure that the Federal agency has the right number of technical people involved in the Public Assistance process so 

that on a consistent nature, if we are going to be this narrow about 

it, that they are talking with our technical engineers, civil engineers and architects at the local and State level are talking to technical people when we get into conversations. 

I understand that you are going to have Public Assistance policy 

contractors involved. I have no problem with that. We have our 

37 

own Public Assistance policy folks involved as well that are contract, and they help us work through the policy issues of Public Assistance. That is not what I am complaining about. 

But when we get to a point where we are talking about the nuts 

and bolts of a building or the cost, then what I expect is an engineer to be talking to an engineer. 

And if on my part, on the State’s part, if I don’t have a technical 

person or if I find out I don’t have a technical person making that 

argument, then shame on me, and I will fix that very quickly. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I have to have a conversation with the appropriators because either FEMA has the technical experts in-house or 

FEMA is contracting with technical experts. Now my problem is 

whether we are wasting the government’s money because it seems 

to me the State has an advantage, and it also has a reason not to 

agree with the contractor if the contractor doesn’t look like he is 

somebody who has the technical background to make the decisions. 

I see two problems there, and I think if the appropriators see it 

they will make the required correction to make sure that Federal 

money goes to people who are qualified to sit across from the State 

and local people and in no instance are using people who don’t 

have the requisite qualifications. 

Now you said, Mr. Garratt, you didn’t think this happened very 

often. That is why I had Mr. Rainwater to indicate how frequent 

this was, and I see another structural problem. I don’t understand 

why. 

Why in the world, since you are paying these people, would you 

not look for people who will assure the government that they, that 

the contract will be handled exclusively by people with the requisite technical expertise as a part of the RPF and the awarding 

of the contract? Why would you not do that? 

Mr. GARRATT. Madam Chair, I will still hew to the belief that by 

and large, 99.9 percent of the time, we have the right people in the 

right place dealing with and representing Public Assistance issues 

and functions when they are out in the field. 

Are there going to be instances when someone is not available or 

we have a general Public Assistance person dealing with an expert? 

There certainly are going to be instances like that. 

If, in fact, this is a systemic problem, we want to fix this as much 

as you want this fixed. I am not aware that that is the case. These 

sound to me like isolated cases, but we are certainly willing to look 

into this and see if this is more than an isolated problem and if, 

in fact, it represents more of a systemic issue. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I tell you, you didn’t see any problems with 

the appeals process either, and I am about to ask a question on 

that, Mr. Garratt. I don’t see any reason to defend a process simply 

because it is a process. 

Now Mr. Rainwater didn’t have any reason to bring this issue 

up, and I don’t know how to resolve it except one way. Since you 

say 99 point whatever, 1 percent,, there is no problem, well, you 

will not mind appropriation language for that 1 percent that says: 

Under no circumstances may a contract be let to a contractor who 

cannot guarantee that the Federal Government’s decisions are 

being made toe to toe, technical person to technical person. 

38 

They will have to devise the language, but since you say it happens and most of the time it is not a problem, I am sure you won’t 

mind the language. 

I am going to ask one question before I pass it back to Mr. Cao. 

I simply have to get your answer, Mr. Garratt or Mr. Stark, to the 

examples in Mr. Rainwater’s testimony. 

Remember, I am trying to find out if the appeals process works. 

If you think I am concerned about $3.4 billion outstanding just sitting there because nobody has found a way to make a decision, 

what is even worse, it seems to me, are at least some of his examples. 

Explain to me a government process that you would stand behind 

that, for example, in the Recovery School District. I am looking at 

Page 8 and 9 of Mr. Rainwater’s testimony. In the Recovery School 

District, of all places, a school district, they spent a million dollars 

on architectural engineering fees that were reversed after they 

spent the money. You said, okay and no okay. 

Then you go on to the Vermilion Parish where you said, okay, 

go ahead and then no okay. De-obligated the entire amount, $3.4 

million. De-obligated the entire amount, he says, leaving the fisheries and evacuation route unprotected for future hurricanes. 

Or let’s go to Westwego, approved, the full replacement of city 

hall and the city police station for approximately $7 million. Acting 

in good faith, they went ahead and did what you do when you get 

approval. FEMA later recanted their eligibility determination and 

de-obligated approximately $6.5 million. 

I want to give you an opportunity to respond to these very specific examples of decisions made, money, in most of these cases, 

spent, going back to the locality or the State, saying: We recant. 

We were wrong. We are not giving you the money after all. 

Explain yourselves. 

Mr. GARRATT. I will let Mr. Stark talk about the specifics of the 

individual cases that you mentioned. 

However, in terms of recanting, we make mistakes, Madam 

Chairman. We make mistakes when we are out in the field. When 

we are evaluating thousands and thousands of projects, we recognize that there is going to be opportunity for mistakes. 

We have a multilevel review process for every project that comes 

into the field, and in fact it is the obligation of those who conduct 

that multilevel review to make sure that that project is, in fact appropriately scoped, that the work is eligible, and if they notice that 

there is a problem it is to identify that, and it is up to us then to 

rectify that problem. 

We think that overall we do a pretty good job of scoping these. 

Ms. NORTON. So that if there is a mistake on the part of the Federal Government, notice the number of mistakes here, who should 

eat it is the disaster area which didn’t have any money in the first 

place, which is why they need it. They should somehow, even 

though on the good faith of the Federal Government they have 

gone ahead. 

You are really saying you think that is a fair process, because 

after all we have a number of appeals. So what in the world are 

you saying? 

39 

Mr. GARRATT. Ma’am, what I am saying is that we have an obligation to look for and catch our own mistakes, and if we catch a 

mistake it is to rectify that mistake. Now in a situation where 

no—— 

Ms. NORTON. If you make a mistake, I am sorry. If you make a 

mistake, then you think that the burden should go entirely to the 

disaster area which has no money and not you to even deal with 

some of your own mistake? 

You are here saying that in Louisiana where people don’t have 

any money in the first place, which is why they have come to you, 

if you have made a mistake, the burden is on them because you 

have made a mistake and there is nothing that they should expect 

from you because you have made a mistake? Is that your testimony, Mr. Garratt? 

Mr. GARRATT. What burden are you referring to, Madam Chair? 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about the burden of the people having 

started on the good faith decision of the Federal Government and 

then the Federal Government coming back after they started to 

spend money and saying, it is all wrong, we are not giving you the 

money. 

Who should bear the burden of that mistake, Mr. Garratt? 

Mr. GARRATT. I would agree with you that the Federal Government should bear the burden of a mistake when it makes one and 

it has a financial implication on those that they are supporting. I 

absolutely agree with you. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rainwater, these terrible examples, who bore 

the burden in these examples in your testimony? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Chairwoman, the local school district. In that 

particular case, the Recovery School District I mean, for example, 

yes, ma’am. I mean it is the local government. 

In some cases, we on the State level have taken some of the community development block grant money that you have provided to 

us and tried to fill gaps through what we call a FEMA Ineligible 

Pile which is about $270 million of disaster community development block grant to try to fill those gaps where it doesn’t work. 

If I could, Madam Chairwoman, I think this is where the Stafford Act doesn’t work, and I don’t think it is a fault of Mr. Garratt 

or Mr. Stark or some of the folks at FEMA. 

I mean the Stafford Act I don’t think ever saw the largest disaster in history coming at, and I don’t think it is designed in a way 

to allow people. Obviously, there are folks on the ground from 

FEMA and others that are concerned that they are going to be held 

liable at some point in time for decisions that they make, and so 

I really think it is something that we need to look at. 

Ms. NORTON. You know what, Mr. Rainwater? I have news for 

you. They could fix this right now. If I found myself making one 

mistake like this, reneging on the work, I would not blame it on 

the Stafford Act. 

Let me tell you what I would do. I would look at my appeals 

process instead of coming before the Committee and saying there 

is nothing wrong with it because obviously this went upstairs some 

place and they turned around the people on the ground. 

Since you can change your own appeals process, which you set 

up in the first place, I would begin to say: Wow, I must never do 

40 

this again. I must never do this to a school board. If I do so, I must 

at least try to find some way to compromise the difference. 

So one thing I want to know is whether or not anybody at FEMA 

has thought of making appeals at the local level and asking headquarters to embed itself right there on the ground so that you 

would not have the complicated appeals process which looks more 

like a Federal appeals process. 

I don’t accept what you are saying, Mr. Rainwater. I understand 

it, but it is not as if this is an appeals process which we said you 

must use. 

So I am asking you, Mr. Garratt. This appeals process that you 

think works so well, don’t you think that there is something that 

could be done to bring headquarters there so we are not making 

an appeal to the Supreme Court and putting the burden on the 

people who are there to somehow rest on your mistake and error? 

And if it is a problem, as Mr. Rainwater says, with perhaps the 

Stafford Act, don’t you think somebody would have come to this 

Committee and said, oh, God help us because this is the process 

we are caught in? 

I have received no such message. I didn’t know about this outrage until this hearing. So I am trying to find out what can I at 

least do with the appeals process so that if headquarters of FEMA 

has to be involved, then would help? 

Instead of going upstairs to Washington, to in fact have someone 

on the ground and say that person on the ground who is embedded, 

now we have let’s say a streamlined appeals process. It is over and 

done with. That is final. You can proceed, Miss School District or 

infrastructure district and do it and not fear that the word of the 

Federal Government will be broken. 

Could you not fix this appeals process by bringing people down 

to the ground? 

Mr. GARRATT. Madam Chairman, I am not sure what part of the 

process you think would be fixed by doing that. 

Ms. NORTON. The multi-tiered appeals process. I assume that 

this went up somewhere in the heavens and was turned around. 

Mr. GARRATT. The point I am trying to make—— 

Ms. NORTON. If that is not the answer and you acknowledge this 

is unfair to the district, how would you fix it, sir? 

Mr. GARRATT. First off, in terms of locating headquarters personnel down at the local level to adjudicate or be involved in adjudication of appeals, the actual adjudication process, making a decision is done following what is a tremendous amount of research 

into that appeal. 

It is part of that validation and research effort. It is what we talk 

about, that thoughtful, deliberative review of what that appellant 

submits. It often involves pages and pages of documentation and 

pictures, and what is often required is that to adequately assess 

that appeal and the merits of that appeal we essentially need to 

go out and reinvestigate all the parts of that. Having someone 

down at the local level is not going to eliminate or speed that part 

up. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay, Mr. Garratt. Once again, you don’t have any 

solution. You like it the way it is. I don’t. The Committee doesn’t. 

41 

And again, you, yourself, can see that it is not very fair to go to 

people who have no money and say, well, there is nothing we can 

do about it because, after all, these appeals are 40 pages and it is 

our process. 

See, that is the problem I am having here. Do you concede that 

you, yourself, could change the process or are you stuck with it? 

Mr. GARRATT. Well, it is a process that is out of regulation. So 

in a sense that the regulation can be revised, yes, ma’am, I would 

say we are stuck with the process that is proven to work over the 

years. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Garratt, I am going to let you rest on 

that, given the fact that you apparently accept the notion that 

since it is an appeals process that works as far as you are concerned, there is nothing can be done, leaving localities holding the 

bag that way. 

And guess what. When we get that kind of testimony—— 

Mr. GARRATT. The process works, Madam Chair, when it is used. 

Ms. NORTON. Sorry? 

Mr. GARRATT. I want to make the point that when the appeals 

process is used it works. If it is not used, it doesn’t have an opportunity to work. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, so the reason for this, Mr. Rainwater, is that 

the appeals process wasn’t used. I thought they had the go-ahead. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Madam Chairwoman, I don’t think the appeals 

process is set up for 4,000 disputes. It is not. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, why did these people proceed? 

Mr. RAINWATER. In this particular case, this is an unresolved 

issue. And in this particular case, what happened is—— 

Ms. NORTON. No. I am talking about the several cases that you 

submitted in your testimony. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. All involve people who apparently had word from 

FEMA to proceed and then FEMA came back and said, stop. That 

is what I am trying. Is that the case? I mean that is what you testified. 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, ma’am. But my point is this, Madam Chairwoman. We are still trying to work through that issue because the 

Recovery School District believed by policy folks in FEMA that we 

could still work it out. We haven’t gotten there as far as an appeal. 

There are numerous. There are hundreds of cases, and I spend 

a lot of my days talking to mayors, parish presidents, Recovery 

School District, Paul Pastorek, the State Superintendent of the 

Schools and others about these sorts of issues that we just can’t 

seem to plug through. 

Ms. NORTON. I tell you what, we are not talking just about delay. 

We are talking about not just costing the Federal Government 

money. We are now talking about costing localities money. That, I 

have had it and when I get testimony like your testimony. 

I don’t know, Mr. Stark, if you have any different testimony. But 

Mr. Garratt’s testimony is an invitation to this Committee to fix it 

since you have not come forward with any way to fix something 

that leaves the locality holding the bag for a FEMA mistake. 

Mr. Cao. 

42 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to echo the 

concerns that you have conveyed in this hearing today, that while 

our children are not having adequate educational facilities, while 

our elderly are not having adequate health care, while our city is 

being ravaged by crimes, we are dealing with appeals and we are 

dealing with recants. 

I know that problem also was suffered by Tulane University 

when they carried out a project, hoping to get reimbursements from 

FEMA and FEMA recanted on the recommendations that Tulane 

follow. But I believe that some of the issues concerning Tulane University have been addressed in the past weeks. Is that correct, Mr. 

Stark? 

Mr. STARK. Yes, Congressman Cao. Some of those issues at 

Tulane have certainly been addressed, and we are still awaiting 

some documentation of additional costs that Tulane may have occurred in design, architectural designs based on bad advice from 

FEMA that may be eligible. 

If I may take the opportunity to try to correct the record a little 

bit on the very specific issues that were just brought up by the 

Chairwoman regarding Mr. Rainwater’s testimony. 

In fact, at the RSD school, some of those A&E costs are eligible, 

but we have not received an invoice or documentation of those 

costs, and we look forward to working with the State as the grantee and the RSD as the applicant on those. 

Vermilion School has been obligated $6 million for replacement. 

I would like to work with the LRA to clarify their position that only 

$800,000 is left. 

On the Timbalier, I think I said that right, Island, that is the 

responsibility of another Federal agency. In this case, we believe 

that the EPA is the primary agency responsible for funding the restoration of an offshore island. 

The City of Westwego, in fact, we made a mistake. We measured 

the building wrong, and under those calculations it looked like it 

was eligible for a replacement. In fact, under the correct calculations, it was eligible for repair. Those repairs have been made and 

funded by FEMA. 

Mr. CAO. I have just a couple more specific questions concerning 

the Archdiocese and SUNO. 

First and foremost, in connection with the Archdiocese, it has 

been alluded to the fact that there are a couple projects. One is the 

Ville Ste. Marie Project that has been held up by FEMA. I believe 

the project is like 16 or 17 million dollars in the Lower Ninth 

Ward. Can you inform me with respect to the progress of that particular project? 

Mr. STARK. Are you referring, Congressman, to St. Mary’s Academy? 

Mr. CAO. I have here as Ville Ste. Mary. I am not sure what that 

refers to. Well, what is the St. Mary’s Academy, Mr. Stark? 

Mr. STARK. It is also a school in the Lower Ninth Ward, a Catholic girls’ school that we have approved $4.4 million for the replacement of the faculty house. It turns out that under the Stafford Act 

regarding private non-profits, certain portions of buildings that are 

related to strictly religion, in this case the housing of the nuns, is 

not eligible for replacement, and we actually have to back that out. 

43 

As far as the allegation that we de-obligated the entire amount, 

I believe that is just not true. 

Mr. CAO. What about the Ville addition? Are you familiar with 

that? 

Mr. STARK. I think that is what we are talking about, sir. 

Mr. CAO. That is the nuns’ housing? 

Mr. STARK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAO. Now why is it not a purview of FEMA to address some 

of the issues concerning non-profit organizations? 

Mr. STARK. That is the reading of the regulation and the law, sir. 

Mr. CAO. Could you quote to me those regulations, first and foremost, with respect to the appeals process that Mr. Garratt has 

mentioned that is in regulations? I would like where those regulations are if you can quote me on that and these regulations that 

you are spewing out to us here. I would like to have specific sites 

where my staff can look at these regulations to see whether or not 

they are well founded. 

Mr. STARK. Absolutely, we can provide that for the record, Congressman. 

Mr. CAO. Mr. Rainwater, with respect to the FEMA Cottages, can 

you provide me with the progress of the FEMA Cottages? 

Mr. RAINWATER. Yes, Congressman Gao. 

With regards to the Alternative Housing Pilot Project, the Governor directed me to take that program from the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency last year. Basically, it is a grant of $74 million 

to build 500 cottages. 

One of the challenges, and I will say in this particular case Randall Kinder, who is actually the program manager with FEMA, has 

worked very closely with us, and he understood very well the nature of what I had taken over, and that is a very complex program, 

and has worked extremely closely with us. I am very thankful to 

him for what he has done because, to be very frank with you, we 

couldn’t have worked through the complexity of these issues and 

the challenges we are having, especially after getting hit with Ike 

and Gustav and delaying the movement or the building of those 

programs. 

We, currently, are going to be building Katrina cottages or these 

cottages at Jackson Barracks in Lafourche, Westwego, Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana and the City of Lake Charles. 

Originally, we, the State, under the former administration, had 

looked at large group sites. When we got there in January of 2008, 

what we decided is that what we needed to do is look at infill, and 

so we began to work towards doing that. 

We are making progress. We have started construction in Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana, construction in Jackson Barracks outside of New 

Orleans. We are in the process. In fact, it will be 91 units in Jackson Barracks, 42 in Baton Rouge, 100 at Lafourche, 27 in 

Westwego and 100 at NORA, New Orleans Redevelopment Authority. 

We are in the process, and we think that infrastructure will be 

complete at Jackson Barracks in March of 2009 and at Westwego 

in April of 2009. 

Housing construction, again, has begun in Jackson Barracks. We 

believe that end construction in Jackson Barracks could be as early 

44 

as July of 2009 and then in Baton Rouge in June of 2009, 

Lafourche, in August-September of 2009 and Westwego, August of 

2009 and then in Lake Charles, September, NORA, September. 

We have been talking with FEMA about the possibility of an extension depending on what happens with weather, obviously, and 

the fact that we were delayed by about 60 days by Ike and Gustav. 

What I have told my team is that we need to show progress. We 

understand the importance of showing progress in building those 

cottages, and so I mean I think we are well on our way with that 

project. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I don’t have any more questions. Thank you very 

much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Cao. 

Mr. Guthrie, have you any questions further questions for these 

witnesses? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. No further questions, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

We have kept these witnesses for some time. While we have been 

tough on FEMA, we have also tried to give credit where credit is 

due. It seems to me if you ask me what would be the most important thing FEMA had to show to show that it had made progress, 

it would be the evacuation that Mr. Rainwater says and that we 

understand from officials in Texas that did in fact occur. 

Our concern here is, frankly, at least a concern of this Chairperson is being confronted for the first time with such large 

amounts of Federal funds unspent. 

I do want to say to you, I know there is a change in the administration. I mean Mr. Stark says he is a civil servant. 

I do want to say once again, we can’t help the Agency if the 

Agency doesn’t bring issues to our attention. Then we will try to 

work with the Agency to try to suggest ways to do it. We will do 

what we did in the Post-Katrina Act and other legislation still 

waiting in the Senate to be passed. We will try to fix it by legislation. 

We will make you understand that if you fix it, we do not consider it a violation of the Stafford Act if that is in fact the case. 

If the Subcommittee says that you have our word, nobody goes 

back on that. 

Our frustration comes when we hear about problems like this 

only as we prepare for a hearing and have not had any advance 

notice so that we could have begun to think through a solution in 

partnership with the Agency. 

I enjoy working in partnership. If we have to become adversarial, 

then of course that is what we have to do. We much prefer to hear 

from you early and often. 

I congratulate you on the evacuation work you did on the Gulf 

Coast in the latest very major disaster, and I thank you for your 

testimony. 

Could I call the next witnesses? 

Our next witnesses are Gary Logsdon who is a Grayson County 

Judge and Executive, Grayson County, Kentucky and H. Rodger 

Wilder, the Immediate Past President of the Gulf Coast Community Foundation. 

45 

You have the advantage, Mr. Logsdon, of having one of your 

Members on our Committee. I would very much want to give him 

the opportunity to introduce you to the Committee. 

Mr. Guthrie. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I just want an opportunity to introduce to the Committee, Judge/ 

Executive Gary Logsdon. Of course, the term, judge, in this role in 

Kentucky is a county executive or from previously in our testimony 

like a parish president. So we appreciate him being here. 

Judge Logsdon’s county was one of the most decimated or damaged counties in Kentucky, probably one of the most in the entire 

area of Arkansas, Missouri and Kentucky. I went to see him and 

his operations center and how hard he worked on that, and he had 

some ideas. 

I thought once we had this hearing, it gave us the opportunity 

to have a witness, and I thought Judge Logsdon would be able to 

really explain from the local level and the local perspective, interacting with FEMA and just the storm damage assessment and reaction in general. 

He has been Judge/Executive since 1993, and I really appreciate 

him being here. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Guthrie. 

Well, let us begin with Judge Logsdon. 

TESTIMONY OF GARY LOGSDON, GRAYSON COUNTY JUDGE/ 

EXECUTIVE AND H. RODGER WILDER, IMMEDIATE PAST 

PRESIDENT, GULF COAST COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 

Judge LOGSDON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Congressman Guthrie, for allowing us the opportunity to be here and for your coming down and visiting with us 

during hard times. 

I am not here to point fingers or anything like that. I am here 

to state a few things of how our community and others surrounding 

us were in during a state of emergency. 

On Tuesday, January 27th, the ice storm began. Power outage 

began. By the end of the day, the county was 100 percent without 

power. The county lost at least 1,700 utility poles. 

Began to set up shelter at the Grayson County High School on 

the following Wednesday, January 28th. All food donated by school 

system. The shelter was run on generators for five days until 2/1/ 

09. All county and city water plants were running on generators. 

Thursday, January 29th, one gas station setup to run on generators to provide fuel to emergency vehicles and the public. Approximately 25 National Guard arrive with no vehicles for transportation. 

Leitchfield Sewer Plant regained power on Thursday night. Shelter set up at Clarkson Elementary School to provide warm meals. 

All food donated by school system. Local radio station finally regained power on Thursday night. Hospital regained on Thursday 

afternoon, all but one building. 

The next day, Friday, January 30th, Leitchfield Utilities’ water 

plant regained power. Ran on generators for a total of four days 

under a boil water advisory for 24 hours. Due to water system 

struggles, factories were requested not to begin work until Monday, 

46 

February 2nd, 2009. Caneyville Elementary shelter set up to provide warm meals. All food donated by the school. 

The next day, Saturday, January 31st, 170 occupants spent the 

night at Grayson County High School shelter. Centre on Main, that 

is our chamber of commerce, opened to hand out food, water and 

necessary supplies. Eastern portion of Grayson County without 

water still. One hundred additional National Guard troops arrive 

with vehicles. 

Sunday, the next day, February 1st, Leitchfield Sewer System 

still has some lift stations running on generators. Having to move 

generators around in order to make sure lift stations do not run 

over. National Guard provided two water buffalos to Eastern Grayson County residents. 

The following day, Monday, February 2nd, 2009, Grayson County 

High School shelter closed and occupants were relocated to Potter’s 

Hope local church. National Guard began 100 percent door to door 

search for welfare checks on Grayson County residents. WRECC reporting approximately 40 percent of power restored. Grayson County Water District still running on generators. Hospital has 100 percent power. 

The following day, Wednesday, February 4th, 2009, debris removal site opened. 

The following day, Thursday, February 5th, WRECC reporting 

approximately 65 percent of power restored. Peanut butter recall. 

The following day, Friday, February 6th, nine days after the incident, when FEMA came with generators. Closed Potter’s Hope. Remaining occupants went to hotels, and some went to Cave City 

shelter where we were able to close the shelters due to sending 

some personal heaters so we could get them back in their homes. 

The following day, Monday, February 9th, Grayson County 

Schools and our local Christian Academy resumed their normal 

schedules. Garbage collection services resumed their normal schedules. 

Notes: 49,172 meals were handed out to Grayson County residents during the storm; 5,000 gallons jugs of water were handed 

out; 48,310 bottles of water were handed out; 3,460 donated to residents for kerosene, propane or fuel to run generators and heaters. 

Total estimated cost of storm is $1.2 million, not counting our coop utilities company. 

One of the questions is, do we have local representation with 

FEMA? 

Madam Chair, thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Logsdon. That is a good question 

for us, and we will take it up. 

Mr. Wilder. 

Mr. WILDER. Good afternoon and also thank you for allowing me 

to come here today to speak to you and to the Committee for hearing us. 

By way of introduction, I am Rodger Wilder. I am an over 32- 

year resident of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, one of the founding 

members of the Gulf Coast Community Foundation, and from April 

of 2006 until November of 2008 I took over the operation of the 

Gulf Coast Community Foundation. 

47 

The Community Foundation during that period of time, with the help of a lot of donations, was able to make grants in excess of $30 

million to people on the Mississippi Gulf Coast primarily for hurricane recovery, organizations and individuals. Much of that was directed to housing redevelopment. 

I want to say a special word of thanks to Congress for the support that you have given to the folks in the States of Mississippi 

and Louisiana and Texas and Alabama. We are eternally grateful 

for what you have done for us. 

I am also thankful to the other agencies like FEMA for what 

they have done. 

And, finally, I want to say thank you to the literally hundreds 

of thousands of people who came to the Gulf Coast following 

Katrina to help us, who brought with them materials, money, literally hundreds of millions of dollars in money, who had such a tremendous outpouring of generosity and support. It literally would 

not have been possible for us to have recovered had it not been for 

their generosity. 

Mr. Guthrie, I noted your comments earlier this morning about 

the generosity of people. My faith in my fellow human beings has 

been renewed and reinforced and elevated to a tremendously high 

level as a result of what I have experienced after the storm. 

I sat through the storm, and I have been involved or try to be 

involved in the recovery process primarily in the housing area since 

then. It is my understanding that you all would like to know a little bit about what is going on at least in the recovery. 

I have not had a lot of contact with FEMA, but I have had a lot 

of contact with trying to get people back into homes. I can tell you 

that we are well on the way to recovery, but our recovery is by no 

means over. 

We still have people in FEMA trailers and in what we call Mississippi or MEMA cottages. By and large, the people who are in the 

FEMA trailers are the more difficult, the most difficult to place in 

permanent housing. 

Our biggest problem now is the cost of housing. We do not believe that we have a problem with the availability of single-family 

homes, but we do have an issue with the availability of affordable 

rental. Following the storm, cost of rental has gone up such that 

many people cannot afford. Many of the people who are still in 

housing supplied by FEMA cannot afford to get into permanent 

housing because it is just too expensive. 

One of the big costs that contributes to both rental and singlefamily ownership, the high cost of single-family ownership and 

rental is the insurance issue. Insurance costs are driving those 

costs up to the point that it is costing two and three hundred dollars a month more than it did pre-Katrina, and that in turn is just 

making the rental property not affordable to the low income folks 

with whom my organization primarily dealt. 

We need Section 8 vouchers. We need more Section 8 vouchers 

to help get those people out of the FEMA cottages, the FEMA trailers, into rentals. 

I will mention briefly we have the alternative housing project, 

what we call the Mississippi cottages, the MEMA cottages. I think 

those have worked well. We have about 2,800 of those on the 

48 

Coast. The issue that we have now is whether or not those will be 

allowed to remain permanently, and we hope that in certain locations it will. 

Briefly, I want to offer some suggestions not as a criticism of 

what has happened in the past but as a way of responding to another large-scale natural disaster. We will have another Katrina. 

There will be another disaster of that magnitude. 

We, on the Coast, measured everything by Hurricane Camille in 

1969. People lost their lives because they said Katrina was the 

worst we have ever suffered. It will never be that bad, and they 

drowned. 

People in Camille lost their lives because they said the same 

thing about the 1947 hurricane. 

We will have this again, and we will have to deal with it again. 

And so, we can say that this is the worst, but it will not, I am 

afraid, be the worst in history. 

As we go forward, I think there needs to be more collaboration 

in advance and after the fact between the non-profit communities 

and FEMA. I think we need to do a post-disaster review, bringing 

together all of these organizations and seeing what worked and 

what didn’t work. 

I think there needs to be an ongoing established relationship between FEMA and the non-profit communities in the future so that 

when the next disaster occurs we won’t be going down there and 

meeting new friends for the first time. 

I agree with many of the comments that I heard from this task 

force, that there needs to be an agency strike force. They need to 

put folks on the ground who can make decisions and then stick by 

them so that we are not, and this doesn’t apply just to FEMA. I 

have to tell you that I think all government agencies in a disaster 

need to have something like a general on the ground who can make 

those things happen. They can make the calls, and they can stick 

by them. 

And, finally, I think that FEMA needs to spend a little bit of 

money. It is really just a piddling amount of money to set up and 

keep going these long-term recovery centers that they recommended we set up following the storm that were to coordinate 

the activities of the non-profit communities. They got little funding, 

and they struggled to get their feet under them. With a little bit 

of help, they could have done a lot more good than they have. 

The non-profit community on the Coast, to date, has rehabbed or 

rebuilt literally thousands of housings. I think we need to be working more closely with organizations like FEMA on the front end 

than we have. And that is not a criticism. That is an observation 

based on the fact that this was a substantial disaster. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. Be happy 

to answer any questions, and I ran way over. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. This has been very, very interesting and useful testimony. 

I am going to go first to Mr. Guthrie this time. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thanks, Mr. Wilder, for coming. It is nice to hear local stories of 

how people react and have to react, and it is good to hear that. 

49 

But with Judge Logsdon, could you kind of just walk us through 

briefly? You knew that the storm came, it hit, and then you assessed the damage and realized it was major. It was a national 

emergency. 

Because we are really interested in how the FEMA part of it 

interacted and how that went with FEMA through the first couple 

of days until you got everything working, how that interaction between you locally. I know you went through the State with the 

Governor and FEMA. 

Judge LOGSDON. Yes, Congressman and Madam Chair. 

When we declared a state of emergency back in 1994 or somewhere right there close, we had an ice storm, and it was an ice 

storm that was nothing like what we had this time. It was ice on 

roads. It was no power lines or anything. 

So we didn’t focus anything like what was coming. We didn’t 

have an idea that we were going to get this. So we woke up that 

morning, and it was popping trees and popping lines and it was 

devastating ice everywhere. 

So we went on. We declared a disaster. We set our EOC up in 

our emergency management headquarters, and you know we have 

a shelter in the courthouse. I said, you know, let’s open our courthouse because we can get us 15 cots and we can put 20 people in 

that courthouse. 

Well, right quick, when they started coming in, we opened our 

high school which we had that available also. So they started coming in our high school, and we were getting calls, and we hadn’t 

seen anyone from Red Cross. 

We went to our local Wal-Mart. Their electric was off. The lights 

were out. They said, look, we will write down what you all need. 

You all make a list. We will make a list, but you all can pay us 

when you get done. 

So we went into Wal-Mart. We bought around eight to nine thousand dollars worth of food. We took it out to our shelters, and we 

set them up and started gathering people and getting them in with 

volunteers of our community working together. So we still hadn’t 

seen Red Cross either or heard from FEMA. 

So we went on several days, doing. Every elected official. We had 

magistrates that would get out and haul constituents in and different folks with needs. It got pretty hectic for the first few days, 

but we all focused on saving lives, and that is what our main goal 

was, and we did that. We helped everyone. 

Like I said, it went to about the ninth day. We heard FEMA was 

going to send us some generators. They sent two, but there was a 

group. They wouldn’t let anybody hook them up, and there was a 

group of electricians came and sat one whole day waiting for somebody to show up with them, but they didn’t show up. I think that 

was the eighth day. 

Well, we got on the phone, and we got to renting generators from 

other places: Louisville, Bowling Green, everywhere that had one 

available. So we did. We found a few and got our sewer plants 

going. 

We only had one generator in the community, and I know it goes 

back to our preparedness, and we are focusing on our own preparedness too. It was the one that did the sewer plant in Clarkson. 

50 

So we had to use it, to take it to the bulk plant. We only have 

one bulk plant in our community, to get us fuel so that we could 

have our emergency vehicles and our county and city vehicles running to go and transport people. So we did that. 

Then the sewer was backing up. So we had to juggle it, but we 

did do it. It was something that taught us a lot. 

But going back to the FEMA side of it, it is just that I heard a 

Congressman say a while ago when do you activate or when do you 

all move when there is a disaster declared, and that is just one of 

my questions also. 

We kept on working together. Our school was down for about two 

weeks. They were out of school. We used three schools for feeding 

people and shelter. 

We didn’t lose any lives because of this ice storm, thank the 

Lord, and we were blessed. 

But we did a lot generator renting, juggling, and one of the focuses that could help us is if FEMA, if we could get some generators for these facilities that are in need, like our water, sewer, and 

we had a local radio station that we relied on. 

We only have one radio station in our little community, and it 

was real vital when it came to letting people know that there is a 

disaster because the first day everybody knew there was a problem. 

Then their power went out. So there wasn’t any communication. 

The only little communication they had was Bluegrass Cellular 

phones. All of our officials and cities are on Cingular. We were 

down. 

But we all worked together. We kept our calmness, and we kept 

our faith, and we turned something that we all learned a lot. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thanks. 

So the FEMA part, we just need them there quicker. We need 

more coordination, I guess, when they come forth. And they did say 

they are looking at the generator situation and a couple other 

things. 

So I appreciate your testimony. 

No further questions, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Guthrie. 

That is very instructive, Judge Logsdon, what you said. 

Let me just say, I do not think a county ought to have to buy 

generators for infrequent events. That is what, classically, FEMA 

is for. It is a lot of money, and these are these great big hoggish 

things. So that goes to preparedness. 

We will have to find out more about the generator issue. That 

is when we met with the Speaker, that was an issue that came up 

time and time again. 

Now let me. I was intrigued by your testimony. It was very good 

testimony, very fact-driven testimony. 

You said, and here I am looking at the outline you provided the 

Committee. On Wednesday, that is the second day, all food donated 

by school system. You say again on Friday, the 30th, all food donated by school system. All I can say is thank God for the school 

systems. 

That, again, is a classic FEMA function. The theory is if it a national disaster is declared in your county by the President of the 

51 

United States, that two things you are not going to have. You are 

not going to have energy, and you are not going to have food. 

Why did FEMA indicate it did not have food when it came on 

those first few days? 

Judge LOGSDON. Madam Chair, I don’t know that answer because we never saw any food. The only thing that we saw was—— 

Ms. NORTON. Ever? 

Judge LOGSDON. Not that I am aware of, any FEMA food. We 

had some MREs that came. 

Ms. NORTON. MRE. 

Judge LOGSDON. Army. 

Ms. NORTON. Like they have in the Armed Services. 

Judge LOGSDON. Meals ready, yes, and they had the peanut butter. 

Ms. NORTON. Who gave you those? 

Judge LOGSDON. They come through I think Red Cross and 

maybe the National Guard, those MREs, and they had peanut butter that we had to break into them and get the peanut butter that 

was in the little packages, that had salmonella in it, and get those 

out. 

But the food, we absorbed all that the schools had, and then they 

knew that this thing was going to last. So they opened their freezers, and we got to use their food, and that is really a great asset 

that brought us through. 

Ms. NORTON. Very troubling. Very, very troubling that there was 

no food available except it happened that you could get it through 

the school system providing food. 

You also said in your testimony, it looked like the National 

Guard was trying to do the best they could because you say 25 National Guard arrived, but there were no vehicles. You mean to 

transport people from place to place like to the schools to get the 

food and stuff like that? 

Judge LOGSDON. Yes, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. How did they get there? By the way, Judge 

Logsdon, how did they get there? 

Judge LOGSDON. Well, they drove their personal vehicles, and we 

furnished gas for their personal vehicles, the 25 that were there, 

until they found out that they could not use their personal vehicles. 

So they stopped. 

Ms. NORTON. Did the Governor declare them to be available to 

you? 

Judge LOGSDON. We have a Guard unit, a nice Guard unit in our 

community, in Grayson County. 

Ms. NORTON. Right in the county? 

Judge LOGSDON. Right in the county, a nice facility, and these 

were local Guardsmen, and they said. They stood the first couple 

days, just doing nothing. Then they said, we can’t do this. It was 

bothering them. 

So, finally, that following Saturday, they sent them 100 more, 

and then finally they sent four Hummers. One of the Hummers, 

when he started it, he dropped the transmission. So it left us three 

Hummers, and so then they got on the line and started getting 

more troops with more vehicles. But it was around four or five days 

before we saw any vehicles with the full Guard. 

52 

Ms. NORTON. One of the things we are concerned about is the relationship between the National Guard. It looked like, look, they 

saw some problems to be done. They were even locals. So they got 

out there and did what they could even with their own local vehicles. That is one reason I love the Guard. 

I love my Guardsmen. They are always ready for us, and we lament the fact that so many of them are gone. 

But you said early in your testimony, you asked a question, who 

is supposed to be the local representative to FEMA? That, I 

thought, was a penetrating question, Judge Logsdon. 

To what extent was the State of Kentucky, which has its own 

emergency disaster system, involved with the county? 

Judge LOGSDON. Madam Chair, the State pretty much took care 

of the State. On a local level, we had our county and we were not 

only battling the power lines that were falling with over-ice, we 

were battling the streets were nothing but ice, and our salt trucks 

were running continuously, trying to salt roads and get people 

where they could even get there once we cut them out. 

So we did ask the State to try to get some salt, and the State 

came back and said that they weren’t letting any counties have any 

salt. If we ran out of salt, pretty much, we were out of salt. 

Ms. NORTON. Because they just didn’t have enough? 

Judge LOGSDON. They had a lot of salt, but they weren’t releasing it to the county. 

Ms. NORTON. You don’t know why? 

Judge LOGSDON. No, they didn’t give no answer. 

Ms. NORTON. We will have to find out, because, again, FEMA, it 

seems to me, could have coordinated that or had some salt, and I 

am not sure. We will have to find out what the answer to that is. 

Judge Logsdon, I was interested in your notes: 49,122 meals were 

handed out to Grayson County residents during the storm; 9,000 

gallon jugs of water were handed out; 48,810, or thereabouts, bottles of water were handed out. My question is by whom? 

Judge LOGSDON. Local citizens, local people; and right at the end, 

Red Cross came in to help out. But this was done by our local 

churches, our local volunteers. It was done by elected officials; the 

community. 

Ms. NORTON. You know, I am trying to find traces of FEMA 

somewhere here. I see the National Guard—I am talking about in 

Kentucky. I see the National Guard, and my hat is off to them. I 

hear the school system. I hear the Red Cross, a private organization. Where was FEMA? At what point did you see or was there 

any indication that FEMA was involved in this ice storm, where 

the President of the United States had declared a national emergency? 

Now, I am not sure when—Mr. Guthrie will make me understand when it occurred. It wasn’t the first day, but certainly by the 

end of the time that you were passing out all this stuff it had been 

declared. Where was FEMA? Did you see FEMA? 

Judge LOGSDON. Madam Chair, a representative came through, 

but they were passing through, they said, and they just passed 

through. And we were on the phone trying to get help, and then 

we called our Congressman and he came down and he got on the 

53 

phone, and there again he got the thing rolling to where we got 

help. 

But it was about the ninth day before we saw any real action of 

help, and that was the generators, and then they were smaller, and 

by that time we couldn’t sit there and just wait, wait, wait, or we 

would have had a disaster, worse than a disaster. 

Ms. NORTON. So what did you do rather than wait for the generators? 

Judge LOGSDON. We went to renting to other counties, going to 

Louisville. We went to Louisville, Bowling Green, and Nashville, 

everywhere we could possibly get one that had those generators. 

Our local rock quarry, they do under-mine, they had a large generator that they run their mine with, and they let us use it to run 

our shelter for our high school. It had about 500 people in it at one 

time. 

Ms. NORTON. It sounds like, Judge Logsdon, the county was 

saved by self-help. 

Judge LOGSDON. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. And I am including the Guard in that. Have you 

been reimbursed for the meals, the water, the other services that 

the county provided or was the State providing? 

Judge LOGSDON. Madam Chair, we are keeping up with all documentation, all paperwork. As of right now, we have not been reimbursed. You know, as a small local government of a population of 

24,000, our budget is not very big. There again, we would like to 

ask FEMA, if there is any way, on immediate relief for funding 

such as that, because it would be a great help. And I am speaking 

for the city, also; their budget is not large either. So it would be 

a great help. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Guthrie had a question before I go on to Mr. 

Wilder. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Judge, a point on that. So if you are going to spend 

$1 million, your 13 percent would be $130,000. The President has 

approved 75 percent, and we are looking for a waiver. If we could 

do the waiver, there is a provision they could waive the first seven 

days of costs that would be 100 percent covered by the Federal 

Government, and I think that would be helpful, because there are 

a lot of rural counties, particularly Judge Logsdon’s, that are in 

that situation. 

Another one has got about 130,000, 140,000 if they have to pay 

locally, which really puts a strain on their budget. So I am just encouraging that we go in that direction. I know we talked about that 

in the meeting with the Speaker, and I appreciate your help on 

that. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, just let me say for the record, right now, 

Judge Logsdon, that I know I can get Mr. Guthrie to work with me. 

We don’t know a State—in fact, the statistics show that 50 States 

are losing jobs. That is why there had to be a stimulus package in 

the first place. The record shows that people are laying off vital 

personnel. 

That is why there were State stabilization funds. Who, after all, 

work for the State? Cops, nurses. Now, I can’t imagine that a count 

of 24,000 people was in a position to pick up any of FEMA’S costs, 

and particularly not after the President of the United States has 

54 

declared the same kind of national emergency that was declared, 

after all, in Louisiana following Katrina. So if Mr. Guthrie will 

work with me, I say to you that we will do all we can not only to 

see that you are reimbursed, but quickly reimbursed. 

What bothers me is the state of the economy leaving anybody— 

I couldn’t stand it in the last witnesses, that there was money that 

could be spent. Well, I certainly can’t stand it that you spent 

money in this economy and have not been reimbursed. 

Mr. Guthrie? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I greatly appreciate that offer to help, and I certainly will work with you to do that. That would mean a lot to our 

communities; not just in Kentucky, but Arkansas and Missouri, as 

well. 

Ms. NORTON. We don’t mean to leave you without questions, Mr. 

Wilder. Indeed, I understand your concern about the relationship 

between FEMA and the nonprofit community. We are going to 

make inquiries about whether or not there can be some more systematic relationship. They do have a relationship with larger nonprofits—Catholic Charities, the Red Cross and so forth—but you 

appear to be a vital community foundation, and we will certainly 

be back to you about that relationship. I don’t think that would be 

hard to do. After housing, what would you say is the most sought 

after service that case managers in your organization provide advice concerning? 

Mr. WILDER. Probably—and I have to say this is just a guess, because I don’t know the direct answer to your question. But I suspect it is home furnishings, because not only did folks on the Gulf 

Coast lose their homes, but most of them, many of them lost everything they owned, including a bed to sleep in and clothes to wear. 

So I would say that probably home furnishings are the second most 

needed thing. 

I might also add that following the storm, we have had a serious 

uptick in mental health problems, as you might imagine, having to 

put that many folks into travel trailers. Not criticizing the travel 

trailers, because they needed someplace to live, but they stayed 

there for a long time because, unlike other disasters where there 

was a place for people to go and get out of the disaster area, we 

were confined or stuck in the devastation and had to stay there for 

a long time. So mental health was a big issue. I think it still is a 

big issue down there. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you been assured that the trailers where people continue to reside are not the trailers that have the formaldehyde and the other problems? 

Mr. WILDER. I have not heard in recent months any criticism or 

concern about that. There was, as you know, Madam Chairwoman, 

there was that concern a year or so ago, but as it stands now, I 

believe that problem has essentially been resolved. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, of course, the root problem, as you said, was 

housing. Now, had to have been extensions. I am informed that 

FEMA’S extension on its housing program is only for 60 days. Have 

you been, or any of those you serve been, informed of whether that 

will be extended? 

Mr. WILDER. Well, I saw an email this morning that suggested 

that that might be extended until June. It is a little longer than 

55 

60 days, I think, but not much longer. And the problem, as this 

Subcommittee knows, is what do you do with them? I mean, you 

can kick them out of what they are in, but where are you going 

to put them? 

And as I said before, the issue of affordable housing is critical to, 

I think, the New Orleans area, and it is certainly critical to the 

Mississippi Gulf Coast area. The cost of housing, both rental and 

single family ownership, has risen to the point that people simply 

cannot afford it. We now also have this residential credit crisis that 

is going on, so even if some of these families could afford the rental 

or, excuse me, to buy the home, the monthly payments on the 

home, they can’t get credit. So we have been trying to address 

those issues, but they are extremely difficult issues to deal with. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Wilder, we have some information that the 

local government is opposed to allowing the cottages that you spoke 

of in your testimony to be permanently affixed to lots. Would you 

describe what the problem is? Who is the local government? What 

is the county, what is the locality? 

Mr. WILDER. I think there are only two or three localities at this 

point, local governments, which have agreed to allow the Mississippi cottages to be placed permanently. 

Ms. NORTON. And what would be their opposition in light of 

the—— 

Mr. WILDER. Their opposition is the concern—I think they equate 

FEMA trailers to Mississippi cottages, and they are not. There is 

a huge difference between the two. The Mississippi cottages—there 

are three kinds, as you know, there are one, two, and three bedroom units. Those are very well built—I have to tell you they are 

lot better houses than I grew up in—and they are good alternatives. But the local governments seem to be concerned that, over 

a period of time, those cottages will become slums, and that seems 

to be the primary opposition. 

Ms. NORTON. This is very troubling. 

Mr. WILDER. We are making some progress. I don’t want to trouble you too much. I am hopeful that we are going to be able to work 

out with some of them. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, at least this doesn’t look like a FEMA problem; it looks like a local government—— 

Mr. WILDER. It is a local government problem. 

Ms. NORTON.—for its own people, who has not decided. Again, if 

you are getting the government to give you some housing has nothing in common, I must say, with a trailer. They would rather have 

the trailers there, because, you know, you have to almost ask. You 

say these people have no place to go and you also mention Section 

8 vouchers in your testimony. Suppose more Section 8 vouchers 

were available, somehow we could get more Section 8 vouchers 

there. Would there be available housing even in that circumstance? 

Mr. WILDER. There are currently being constructed apartment 

complexes. Some of them are affordable; some of them are government subsidy programs. So, yes, I believe there will be. Unfortunately, the cost of that housing is still—even the lower cost of that 

housing is still more expensive than some of the lowest income, disabled, and elderly can afford, and that is a problem. 

56 

Ms. NORTON. Mississippi has got to face the fact that these people are, as it were, now charges of the Federal Government, and 

if they are disabled or extremely low income people, we have got 

to find a way, it looks like, to work with the State in this case so 

that people face the facts about these people. 

At some point, this is the kind of thing, when it lingers and lingers, somebody writes a big story, and this time it looks like it will 

be that the State of Mississippi is allowing their disabled people or 

very low income people just to languish in trailers. At least there 

is some affordable housing in these cottages. And, again, I will say 

to you we will look into the Section 8 vouchers notion with HUD 

and with the Administration. 

Mr. WILDER. If I may, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, please. 

Mr. WILDER. Let me make certain that you don’t misunderstand 

what I am saying. We are, in Mississippi, attempting to make an 

effort to get these folks into good, affordable housing. It has been 

difficult. It has been difficult because of the scope of the disaster, 

because a lot of the lower priced rental and residential property 

was destroyed. 

We in the nonprofit community have done a lot to restore that. 

Our primary focus has been working with the very low income, the 

disabled, the elderly, the single parent families; and the State is 

also attempting, I believe, to do something. They have several programs that are underway. To be honest with you, sometimes, as 

you expressed earlier today, the red tape of the Federal Government can be awfully red, and we are having some trouble working 

our way through all of those red tape issues. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, we were very distressed at the last hearing 

on Mississippi. We had what I thought was really terrible testimony both from the local officials and from the State of Mississippi. 

We had to intervene in order to get the FEMA, I guess it was, 

housing program extended from Congress, because it was another 

one of those cutoffs. I hate to see people go through this and yet 

I sympathize with the State also. After all, housing is a market 

commodity. So we will have to look further. 

I did not understand you to be saying anything differently from 

what you have just described. It is inherent in the Mississippi situation, the scope of the disaster, and the sheer unavailability, but 

we had to intervene to get it extended, and maybe it is going to 

come up again. 

Mr. Garratt, would you take the seat? I appreciate that you are 

here again. Would you like to say something about, first, the 

FEMA cottages? It looks like you are willing to let them be permanently affixed to the ground, but they have not been. Then I would 

like you to ask about this extension for 60 days and whether FEMA 

intends to ask for yet another extension in light of the testimony 

you have heard from Mr. Wilder. 

Mr. GARRATT. Yes, Madam Chairman. First off, I think Mississippi has done a fabulous job with the Mississippi cottage program. They stood them up in pretty much record time, populated 

them very quickly with deserving disaster victims, and has done a 

very good job of managing that program. I know that they are 

57 

working with their local jurisdictions to try to get them to accept 

them permanently. 

I will reinforce what Mr. Wilder said; they are impressive temporary structures, but, in fact, they are much more than a temporary structure, and I think this whole pilot program that Congress authorized is going to bear some excellent fruit for us in this 

regard. So, yes, we support that and we will stand behind them in 

that regard. 

Ms. NORTON. And, of course, they now have trailers as the alternative. So I can understand people not wanting trailers, but these 

are little cottages. You know, even when people don’t want people 

who are usually not in their community, if you are disabled or elderly, normally, people, you can get public funding for housing. So 

I appreciate what you are saying, Mr. Garratt. 

Now, the extension that I asked Mr. Wilder about? 

Mr. GARRATT. There are no plans, at this stage, to extend beyond 

May 1st. As you know, the Secretary announced that there would 

be a 60-day extension, but at this stage no decision has been made 

to extend beyond that date. 

Ms. NORTON. So what do you think should be done with these 

most difficult to place residents on May 1st if there is no extension? 

Mr. GARRATT. Let me back up just a little bit, Madam Chairman. 

What I would like to do is just paint a little context here for how 

we got to where we are. 

As you know, these are individuals who are largely in travel 

trailers, and you know the issues and the background behind the 

travel trailers; they are very small, and the idea that we have had 

families living in these very small travel trailer conditions now for 

approximately three and a half years is problematic for us, as I am 

sure it is problematic for the State of Mississippi, is that is no environment to be living in for that period of time. These are designed 

for recreational use, they were never designed to be used for this 

period of time. 

FEMA has, over the course of the last year, offered every one of 

these residents a minimum of three apartment opportunities, 

apartments that are at or near the FMR; and when they were initially offered these opportunities, they would have been fully subsidized under the DHAP program at the time. They rejected that. 

In many cases these families rolled the dice, these households 

rolled the dice, electing to stay where they are, in a fully subsidized 

travel—— 

Ms. NORTON. Because they want to go to where they originated, 

is that it? 

Mr. GARRATT. A number of issues, Madam Chairman. Some of 

them, the apartments aren’t as close as they would like to where 

they are now. All of them would be within 30 to 50 miles, these 

apartments, of where their travel trailer is, but in many cases they 

rejected it. 

Another reason that they were rejected was that they recognized 

that the subsidy in the apartments was going to end at some point. 

In other words, it was designed to step them down to become selfsufficient, and some of them elected to stay in a fully subsidized 

travel trailer rather than having to begin paying a portion of their 

own rent down the line. 

58 

We recognize that they are very low income, but at this stage of 

the game we think it is time to demonstrate some resolve in this 

regard, and for those individuals who have been reluctant to take 

that step to self-sufficiency, we think it is time to draw a line in 

the sand and help them in that regard. 

Ms. NORTON. Even if they had to be subsidized. I think you are 

right. We can’t let people believe that the subsidy is going to continue forever. I have serious concerns for some of these people, and 

it is all casework management. People do have to understand that 

FEMA is a disaster agency, not permanent housing. This is not 

HUD. 

And some of these people may qualify for HUD. A whole lot of 

folks in this Country, after a disaster, get to live where they never 

thought they would live or wanted to live. But this has to do a lot 

with case management, and talking some turkey to people and 

then seeing who really has a problem and who does not, and 

whether or not they can be subsidized where they are if their concern is very low income and not wanting to use that. 

Remember, some of these people were living with somebody, like 

the daughter or the son or someone else, so the whole notion of giving a portion of their income for some of them would, of course, be 

seen as a horrific hardship. But, again, with the proper case management, allowing people to understand where you see that there 

really is available housing, even if it is not where they want to, 

here I am with Mr. Garratt. 

Mr. GARRATT. I just would like to follow up on the case management. We have a good partnership with the State of Mississippi in 

that regard. We have been funding a case management pilot program in the State of Mississippi. They have been doing a very good 

job with that. We recently authorized Mississippi a no-cost extension on that case management program through June, or at least 

until June 1st, so that that will take them beyond the May 1st day 

and to continue working that. And we are hopeful, at the end of 

that case management pilot, we are going to learn some lessons 

from Mississippi and be able to potentially apply that to a national 

model. 

Ms. NORTON. Again, Congress had to intervene then in order to 

get the case management extended. But this hearing is important, 

because obviously the first thing you do is sympathize with the person who finds out late; and we don’t want to find this out in April 

if it is supposed to go out in May. 

But we do need to know what Mr. Garratt has told us. It looks 

like some of these people would never leave that trailer, even if 

your Section 8 voucher was available, even if that new housing 

that you see being constructed came available. And, again, that is 

a terrible thing that someone has to face, but it was terrible to go 

to a trailer in the first place. I am not sure I want anybody to get 

used to that, if that is what is happening here. 

Mr. Wilder? 

Mr. WILDER. Madam Chairman, I absolutely agree with you. We 

don’t want people remaining in the FEMA cottages any longer than 

they have to. It is not good for them; it is not good for the community. So I agree with Mr. Garratt that we need to get those folks 

out. The point that I was making did not necessarily relate just to 

59 

the people who were in the FEMA trailers. We have many other 

low-income need housings other than what you are talking about 

here. So what I directed my attention to was not only that small 

group that is still in the FEMA cottages, but also the broader lowincome group, many of whom are not now receiving FEMA benefits. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, the Government’s responsibility is for the 

ones in the FEMA cottages and the ones in the trailers, and it 

looks like endless extensions do not help us to in fact reduce that 

need. 

Mr. Garratt, I am going to ask you if you would provide the Subcommittee with how many move out after the extensions. For example, we have had multiple extensions, so if we could have figures 

that show us how many were in these trailers—and for that matter, I suppose, cottages, although we should look at them separately—and then what the movement was after the extension, it 

would give us some notion of whether people are essentially regarding these as, look, I think I would rather stay here. 

Because I do not think the Subcommittee would condone that if 

there were available housing and if, for example, as I feel motivated now, we were able to get more Section 8 certificates there. 

If one part of the Government is keeping people housed and there 

is another part of the Government—and these are, as you know, 

quite scarce—with Section 8 vouchers, my priority would be that 

the Section 8 vouchers go to the ones who are dependent on the 

Government entirely. So that is something I am asking staff to look 

into. 

Finally, Mr. Garratt, I think I ought to give you the opportunity 

to respond on the Kentucky ice storm, because I kept looking for 

FEMA at all and couldn’t much find it. What is your view of where 

FEMA was? Heard National Guard; heard the meals; heard the 

water. Didn’t hear any response from FEMA, even in terms of reimbursement, despite the fact that Grayson County was declared 

a national emergency. Would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. GARRATT. I would actually have a difficult time responding, 

Madam Chair, since I was actually out of the chamber here 

through most of that discussion. So not being privy to what was 

being said—and I apologize for stepping out—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that’s all right. Mr. Guthrie and I have 

agreed together to work to get some reimbursements. It is interesting, Judge Logsdon did not bring us a bunch of complaints, he 

brought us an extraordinary set of facts, and he indicated who provided what; that the food was provided by the school system, the 

water—so the usual question is, okay, who paid for this. And we 

learned that the county itself paid for it, apparently not even the 

State. 

He also asked a very probing question: what is the relationship 

between a local community, like a county, and FEMA. Without asking you to respond, we said we would look into that because we are 

not sure where the State’s responsibility was here either and where 

FEMA’S should be. We were concerned that in his rendition of the 

facts we did not hear about FEMA. We did hear, of course, about 

the generator, but even that caused some problems. 

As you heard in my opening remarks, what I am concerned with 

is the FEMA be—this may seem unfair, but it is not considering 

60 

the mission of the agency—wherever, whenever FEMA is nimble 

enough to get there. A lot of your problem has been this has not 

been the best funded agency in the United States, but these are 

matters that Mr. Guthrie and I will be bringing to your attention. 

Mr. GARRATT. No, I would just like to answer one, if I understand that, and that is if a county, if a jurisdiction, if a city incurs 

costs taking care of its citizens in a federally declared disaster, if 

they are providing food at shelters, those sorts of activities are reimbursable under the Stafford Act and they can be reimbursed for 

those once they fill out a project worksheet to get reimbursed for 

that. 

We are beginning the kickoff meeting process in Kentucky. We 

are actually still just completing PDAs in some of the counties in 

Kentucky. All of that will inform subsequent add-on decisions. But 

bottom line is those are eligible costs, they can be reimbursed. 

There is a process for getting reimbursed. Right now that reimbursement rate is at 75/25. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Judge Logsdon told us he runs a tight ship. 

They were keeping record of every cent they paid. 

Judge Logsdon, have you submitted those bills to FEMA, since 

you are eligible now for national disaster aid? 

Judge LOGSDON. Madam Chair, I think we were the first county, 

to the best of my memory, that declared a state of emergency, the 

first one, and we have been compiling those. I think since then our 

emergency management coordinator has talked with some of the 

FEMA representatives, and what we are hoping for is there immediate relief on payment, where a lot of times it takes like a year 

to get your money reimbursed. We are just hoping that there is 

something like immediate relief up front. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Garratt, this is a county. I wonder if there is 

any way that some advanced payments can be made based on the 

records they have, of payments that are not in dispute because 

they have the records to show. 

Mr. GARRATT. Yes, ma’am. We can do an expedited PW. It is 

called immediate needs funding. We can do that for CAT-B, and it 

will provide up to 50 percent of the estimated costs of that in advance. Then we will reconcile that down the line. So that is an existing policy we have. They have to request that. But we are certainly willing and prepared to do that. 

Ms. NORTON. That is what a hearing should be all about. Problem solved. 

Judge Logsdon, don’t leave this room before you have made the 

appropriate arrangements, because Mr. Guthrie and I will be following up with you and with Mr. Garratt. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses. If we asked a lot of questions, it is because we are trying to understand. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand my tone. I come to this more as a trial lawyer than as a nice Member of Congress, but I am really a nice 

Member of Congress. I am always open to the other side. By being 

open to the other side, I really learned something from Mr. 

Garratt. 

And indeed, what perhaps I find, certainly at this point in the 

hearing, most gratifying is that Mr. Garratt has said to Judge 

Logsdon that he is willing to work on an advanced payment, based 

61 

on the records they have, for at least 50 percent of what is owed 

to the county. 

As far as we are concerned, mission completed, at least for part 

of what this hearing was all about. I thank all of you for your testimony and for lingering with us while you made us understand 

what we had to learn. Hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

62 


Insert offset folio 7 here 47867.007
63 


Insert offset folio 8 here 47867.008
64 


Insert offset folio 9 here 47867.009
65 


Insert offset folio 10 here 47867.010
66 


Insert offset folio 11 here 47867.011
67 


Insert offset folio 12 here 47867.012
68 


Insert offset folio 13 here 47867.013
69 


Insert offset folio 14 here 47867.014
70 


Insert offset folio 15 here 47867.015
71 


Insert offset folio 16 here 47867.016
72 


Insert offset folio 17 here 47867.017
73 


Insert offset folio 18 here 47867.018
74 


Insert offset folio 19 here 47867.019
75 


Insert offset folio 20 here 47867.020
76 


Insert offset folio 21 here 47867.021
77 


Insert offset folio 22 here 47867.022
78 


Insert offset folio 23 here 47867.023
79 


Insert offset folio 24 here 47867.024
80 


Insert offset folio 25 here 47867.025
81 


Insert offset folio 26 here 47867.026
82 


Insert offset folio 27 here 47867.027
83 


Insert offset folio 28 here 47867.028
84 


Insert offset folio 30 here 47867.030
85 


Insert offset folio 31 here 47867.031
86 


Insert offset folio 32 here 47867.032
87 


Insert offset folio 33 here 47867.033
88 


Insert offset folio 34 here 47867.034
89 


Insert offset folio 35 here 47867.035
90 


Insert offset folio 36 here 47867.036
91 


Insert offset folio 37 here 47867.037
92 


Insert offset folio 38 here 47867.038
93 


Insert offset folio 39 here 47867.039
94 


Insert offset folio 40 here 47867.040
95 


Insert offset folio 41 here 47867.041
96 


Insert offset folio 42 here 47867.042
97 


Insert offset folio 43 here 47867.043
98 


Insert offset folio 44 here 47867.044
99 


Insert offset folio 45 here 47867.045
100 


Insert offset folio 46 here 47867.046
101 


Insert offset folio 47 here 47867.047
102 


Insert offset folio 48 here 47867.048
103 


Insert offset folio 49 here 47867.049
104 


Insert offset folio 50 here 47867.050
105 


Insert offset folio 51 here 47867.051
106 


Insert offset folio 29 here 47867.029
107 


Insert offset folio 52 here 47867.052
108 


Insert offset folio 53 here 47867.053
109 


Insert offset folio 54 here 47867.054
110 


Insert offset folio 55 here 47867.055
111 


Insert offset folio 56 here 47867.056
112 


Insert offset folio 57 here 47867.057
113 


Insert offset folio 58 here 47867.058
114 


Insert offset folio 59 here 47867.059
115 


Insert offset folio 60 here 47867.060
116 


Insert offset folio 61 here 47867.061
117 


Insert offset folio 62 here 47867.062
118 


Insert offset folio 63 here 47867.063
119 


Insert offset folio 64 here 47867.064
120 


Insert offset folio 65 here 47867.065
121 


Insert offset folio 66 here 47867.066
122 


Insert offset folio 67 here 47867.067
123 


Insert offset folio 68 here 47867.068
124 


Insert offset folio 69 here 47867.069
125 


Insert offset folio 70 here 47867.070
126 


Insert offset folio 71 here 47867.071
127 


Insert offset folio 72 here 47867.072
128 


Insert offset folio 73 here 47867.073
129 


Insert offset folio 74 here 47867.074
130 


Insert offset folio 75 here 47867.075
131 


Insert offset folio 76 here 47867.076
132 


Insert offset folio 77 here 47867.077
133 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 78 here 47867.078