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

85–550 PDF 2014

PROGRESS REPORT: HURRICANE SANDY 

RECOVERY—ONE YEAR LATER 

(113–41) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 14, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration .............. 3 

Hon. Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration ........ 3 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration ........... 3 

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Response 

and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................. 3 

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Commanding General and Chief of 

Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................... 3 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania .......................................................... 48 

Hon. Tom Rice, of South Carolina ........................................................... 50 

Hon. Victor M. Mendez: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ....................................... 58 

Hon. Joseph C. Szabo: 

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

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ....................................... 67 

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania .......................................................... 86 

Hon. Jeff Denham, of California .............................................................. 92 

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ....................................... 105 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 85550.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 85550.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 85550.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 85550.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 85550.005
(1) 

PROGRESS REPORT: HURRICANE SANDY 

RECOVERY—ONE YEAR LATER 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster (Chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The committee will come to order. 

We are pleased to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses 

for this morning’s hearing: the Honorable Peter Rogoff, the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration; the Honorable Victor Mendez, Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; 

the Honorable Joseph Szabo, Administrator of the Federal Railroad 

Administration; Elizabeth Zimmerman, Deputy Associate Administrator for the Office of Response and Recovery for the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency; and Lieutenant General Thomas 

Bostick, Commanding General and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Thank you all very much for being here this morning. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the progress of the 

gathered agencies in implementing the recovery objectives and 

meeting programmatic deadlines authorized and mandated in the 

Sandy Supplemental. 

Hurricane Sandy made landfall on October 29th, 2012, as a Category One hurricane just south of Atlantic City, New Jersey. Sandy 

was responsible for more than 130 deaths and $50 billion in economic losses. As a result of the storm, the President made major 

disaster declarations in 12 States and the District of Columbia. 

In response to this historic natural disaster, last January Congress passed and the President signed into law the combined Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 and the Sandy Recovery 

Improvement Act of 2013, known collectively as the Sandy Supplemental. The law authorized a new Emergency Relief Program within the Federal Transit Administration and provided $50.5 billion to 

certain Federal agencies who support disaster recovery and assistance. 

The law also authorized much-needed reforms and streamlined 

disaster assistance programs authorized by the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Key reforms included expedited debris removal, public assistance, alternative procedures, Federal assistance to individuals and households, and 

streamlined environmental review of hazard-mitigation projects. 

2 

Since Hurricane Sandy devastated the east coast, the Federal 

agencies have worked together with State and local partners to get 

storm-affected areas and its citizens back on their feet. Much has 

been accomplished, but there is still considerable work to do. 

The committee is committed to continued oversight of recovery 

efforts and to working with the agencies represented in this morning’s hearings to achieve programmatic goals laid out in the Sandy 

Supplemental. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this 

important progress made to date and how the committee can partner with agencies to ensure ongoing efforts are efficient and that 

any challenges to recovery efforts are addressed promptly. 

Since your written testimony has been made part of the record, 

the committee requests that you limit your summary to 5 minutes. 

And, with that, I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with you in welcoming our witnesses this morning. 

Today’s hearing is certainly timely. Over the weekend, we were 

reminded once again of the wrath that Mother Nature can visit 

upon humankind. News reports of the typhoon that struck the Philippines paint a grim picture of devastation and suffering, the magnitude of which is difficult to fathom. 

It was just over a year ago that Hurricane Sandy made landfall 

on our own shores. Ten months ago, Congress appropriated tens of 

billions of dollars to aid in those recovery efforts. 

Helping each other in times of need is an honorable American 

tradition and one that I believe deserves recognition as we tackle 

Federal budgetary constraints. It is in our nature to provide emergency aid to hard-hit communities, and it is our duty to ensure 

that funds Congress has appropriated are provided in a timely 

manner. 

Although this hearing is entitled ‘‘Progress Report: Hurricane 

Sandy Recovery—One Year Later,’’ Hurricane Sandy actually collided with a nor’easter, morphing into a monstrous superstorm. 

While the bulk of the damage occurred on the northeastern seaboard, the storm’s reach extended far and wide. My own district in 

southern West Virginia experienced massive snowfalls and widespread power outages. The roofs of family-owned stores collapsed, 

destroying businesses. Trees toppled under the weight of the snow, 

creating impassible roads, isolating some residents and cutting 

them off from emergency assistance. 

In addition to providing needed post-Sandy funding, Congress enacted the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act in January to provide 

more flexible recovery tools. I look forward to hearing from FEMA 

on the status of the implementation of that act, particularly on the 

status of the rulemaking to review, update, and revise the individual assistance factors, a matter I had specifically requested in 

the legislation, to ensure more timely and responsive disaster assistance and to direct greater attention to the kinds of losses that 

we saw in West Virginia and elsewhere. 

I also look forward to hearing about the response and recovery 

efforts of public transportation systems damaged by Sandy. The 

damage to subway stations, tunnels, tracks, maintenance facilities, 

and rolling stock was staggering. By all accounts, transit systems 

in affected areas undertook impressive efforts to quickly restore 

3 

service to their millions of riders and took interim precautions for 

this storm season to better protect their assets. But now the longer 

term work must be done to ensure that systems are built back 

stronger. 

Again, I thank you for this timely hearing, Mr. Chairman, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. And, with that, we will 

start off with the Administrator for the Federal Transit Administration, Mr. Rogoff. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. VICTOR M. 

MENDEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; ELIZABETH A. ZIMMERMAN, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL THOMAS P. 

BOSTICK, COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the committee. 

Hurricane Sandy devastated communities in its path and triggered the worst public transit disaster in U.S. history. On the day 

that Hurricane Sandy hit the northeast region, more than half the 

transit trips in America were not available. And even days after 

the storm, as systems in Boston and Washington, DC, and Philadelphia came back online, fully a third of America’s transit trips 

weren’t available. 

This truly was a national transit disaster that required a national response. And the Federal Transit Administration has been 

fully engaged in that response, beginning even days before 

Superstorm Sandy made landfall. 

We are proud of the tremendous progress that FTA has made 

over the last year to help the region recover. As the chairman 

pointed out, a lot of work has been done and much remains to be 

done. Today, work is underway to repair transit substations in New 

Jersey, the Montague R Line train tube connecting Brooklyn and 

Manhattan, the Green Point Tunnel connecting Brooklyn with 

Queens, and many, many more projects are ongoing. 

To date, we have allocated $5.7 billion to the hardest-hit transit 

agencies in New York and New Jersey and affected agencies in 

Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. The 

funding window is open. There are billions of dollars in restoration 

and construction activity going on as we speak. And we will be reimbursing the transit agencies for this work as they bring funding 

applications to us. 

Our rapid response to help restore service would not have been 

possible without FTA’s Emergency Relief Program. When President 

Obama first proposed this program in his fiscal year 2012 budget, 

it was envisioned as an important mechanism for strengthening 

FTA’s ability to provide timely disaster assistance to transit agencies whose assets are damaged or destroyed. 

4 

I commend this committee for agreeing to the President’s request 

and establishing this new program through MAP–21. It came just 

in time for Hurricane Sandy and has more than proven its worth. 

Through this new authority, we believe FTA’s response stands as 

a model for Federal disaster assistance. 

That said, I need to sound an important note of caution. At 

present, unlike our partners at the Federal Highway Administration, the FTA has no emergency relief funds available for any catastrophic event other than Hurricane Sandy. That means that we 

will not be able to respond in a timely way should transit assets 

suddenly be destroyed by a tornado in Arkansas, or a hurricane in 

Florida, or an earthquake in California. 

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013 and again in fiscal year 2014 each sought $25 million to capitalize the FTA 

Emergency Relief Program so that we can be at the ready. I strongly encourage Congress to appropriate these funds so, when the next 

disaster strikes, FTA will be in a position to respond. 

For Sandy relief, as in all of our work, we are committed to the 

highest level of financial stewardship. We are ensuring that grantees don’t receive both insurance money and Federal reimbursements for the same claims. We are also ensuring that grantees 

don’t receive payments from both FTA and FEMA for the same expenses. We are expanding on our well-established procurement reviews and oversight processes to better detect and prevent any possibility of waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Good stewardship also means that taxpayers should not be asked 

to pay for the restoration of the same assets a second or third time. 

It is important to remember that many of the transit assets that 

were flooded during Hurricane Sandy were also flooded just 1 year 

earlier during Hurricane Irene. The transit riders of New York and 

New Jersey should not have to put up with the stress, the cost, and 

the inconvenience of having the same transit facilities destroyed by 

one storm after another. 

That is why FTA, in accordance with the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, has dedicated a significant portion of the appropriated funds to projects that will help transit agencies better withstand future disasters. Importantly, we feel that the taxpayer 

should not have to pay to restore these facilities a second or third 

time. That is also why, in allocating these resiliency funds, our 

highest priority will be on better protecting the existing vulnerable 

infrastructure that is serving millions of passengers each day. 

Without adequate coordination, investments to protect one rail 

yard against rising waters might only serve to flood a neighboring 

rail yard that serves even more people. So FTA will be very focused 

on regional solutions that consider the entire tristate network as 

a whole. 

As you can imagine, when making these resiliency investments, 

there is no point and no value to the traveling public or the taxpayer to protect one segment of a rail line if it is only going to flood 

out 5 miles farther down that rail line. So we will be looking at the 

systems as a whole and ensuring that the taxpayers’ dollars get the 

greatest bang for the buck in protecting existing assets. 

Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer questions 

when all of the other panelists have spoken. 

5 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

And, next, the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Mr. Mendez. You may proceed, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Thank you very much. And good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of the committee. Thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss the 

Federal Highway Administration’s Hurricane Sandy response efforts. 

Our country has experienced a number of devastating disasters 

over the past year, from Hurricane Sandy to the recent Colorado 

floods. The Obama administration is committed to helping Americans recover from the damage caused by these and other natural 

disasters. 

Although lives lost from such disasters can never be replaced, 

programs like FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program play a pivotal 

role in helping communities rebuild critical transportation infrastructure. The ER Program provides funding to States for the repair and reconstruction of Federal-aid highways that have suffered 

serious damage as a result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures from an external cause. The program also provides funding for 

roads on Federal lands. 

In MAP–21, Congress made some changes to the ER Program, 

and FHWA acted quickly to issue ER implementing guidance to 

States prior to the act becoming effective. The Department also 

acted quickly to issue MAP–21 rulemaking establishing a new categorical exclusion for emergencies. We have already used the authority to help expedite the delivery of critical transportation 

projects in emergencies. 

Transportation infrastructure plays a critical role in maintaining 

mobility for the American people, supporting our residents, our 

businesses, and our economy. The importance of our infrastructure 

comes into its sharpest focus after a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy. 

From the moment that Hurricane Sandy hit in late October of 

2012, Federal, State, and local agencies worked closely together 

with an unprecedented level of cooperation to help impacted States 

rebuild and recover. 

I am proud to say that the Department and FHWA have been 

at the forefront and center of all these efforts. Our priority was to 

provide needed aid very quickly to help get the region back on its 

feet and moving again by restoring the transportation system. 

At FHWA, our response started less than 24 hours after the 

storm made landfall, as we began to process the region’s first requests for ER funding to rebuild roads and bridges. Less than 48 

hours after Sandy hit, FHWA made available the first quick-release funds, $10 million to New York and $3 million to Rhode Island. Days later, FHWA made additional quick-release funds available: $4 million to North Carolina, $10 million to New Jersey, and 

$2 million for Connecticut. About a month later, we provided an 

additional $20 million to New York and an additional $10 million 

to New Jersey. 

To date, FHWA has provided nearly $671 million in ER funding 

to States and for Federal lands impacted by the storm. This includes funding to reopen a nationally significant landmark, Liberty 

6 

Island, as well as funding for critical coastal routes, including 12 

miles of the Ocean Parkway in New York’s Long Island and 12 

miles of Route 35 along the New Jersey coast. 

These are just a few examples of how States have used ER funds 

in the past year to restore important transportation facilities that 

were damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Emergency relief funds are 

helping States across the country undertake the massive job of restoring damaged roads and bridges so that the public can travel 

safely and communities can rebuild. 

In addition to implementing the ER Program, FHWA is looking 

ahead to determine how we can help our infrastructure better withstand natural disasters and how we can deliver projects more 

quickly. We are engaged in activities across the country to identify 

vulnerable highway infrastructure and minimize the effects of natural disasters and catastrophic events. 

We have also made some changes to our financial management 

practices and quick-release process to help States receive ER funding even more quickly. 

As we continually brace for new natural disasters and catastrophic failures, FHWA remains committed to helping States repair and reconstruct infrastructure damaged by such events. We 

will continue to explore innovative technologies and other tools to 

help highway infrastructure better withstand the effects of extreme 

weather events. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks and will be 

happy to answer your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

With that, the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, Mr. Szabo. Please proceed. 

Mr. SZABO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To you and Ranking 

Member Rahall and members of the committee, I appreciate this 

opportunity to testify this morning. 

Hurricane Sandy is a vivid example of how closely our Nation’s 

economic and social wellbeing is tied to the health of our transportation systems. With Northeast Corridor services shut down, already-overwhelmed highways experienced even higher levels of 

gridlock. Travel times for many commuters in so many cases doubled or tripled, if service was available at all. And when our transportation system suffers, travelers and businesses feel the pain. 

This should serve as a lesson to us that, as we rebuild, we must 

ensure our transportation is more resilient. We must build more redundancy into the system. And we must continue approaching 

transportation planning regionally, just as we are today through a 

multistate rail planning effort we call NEC FUTURE. 

FRA started preparing for Hurricane Sandy before it came 

ashore. We activated an emergency relief docket so railroads could 

apply for temporary regulatory relief to aid a timely response and 

recovery. And after Sandy’s landfall, we coordinated technical assistance calls with railroad and industry associations that safely 

fast-tracked the recovery effort. 

The damage was extensive. And let me be clear: The effort that 

went into quickly repairing ties, ballast, tracks, signal systems, 

pumping stations, circuit breakers, and other vital infrastructure 

7 

was truly remarkable. Overall, Amtrak had $31 million in infrastructure and equipment damage and $41 million in lost revenues. 

To support the recovery effort, we provided $30 million to Amtrak through the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. And 

to be better prepared in the future, we invested a transfer of $185 

million from the FTA’s Sandy recovery funding into the Hudson 

Yards right-of-way preservation project to secure a permanent path 

into Penn Station. 

Another big step forward for increasing Northeast Corridor redundancy and resiliency came through the Sandy Appropriations 

Act, which included $81 million to assist such efforts. However, 

this money cannot be spent unless the restriction is lifted on Amtrak’s ability to use working capital funds for operating expenses, 

as currently provided for under PRIIA. We propose an amendment 

in an appropriations bill to amend the Sandy Act to delete this prohibition on temporary fund transfers. That way, the money can be 

fully invested in better preparing the Northeast Corridor to face future natural disasters. 

The Northeast Corridor has been the backbone of the region’s 

economy for two centuries. Today, it serves a passenger rail market 

that is as strong and full of potential as any in the world. But its 

capacity is constrained and its resiliency, as Sandy taught us, must 

be fortified. 

Clearly, we must better prepare the Northeast Corridor for future natural disasters. That is one challenge. But this challenge 

will be further served if we fully commit to positioning this vital 

transportation asset to support the Northeast’s continued prosperity. 

Our NEC FUTURE program is preparing us to move forward. It 

will provide Northeast Corridor States and stakeholders with a 

shared vision for investing in the types of rail services needed to 

meet demand through the year 2040. But an additional $25 million 

is needed to complete this critical effort. 

Now is the time to complete the program. Now is the time to provide rail with the predictable and reliable Federal funding needed 

to strengthen the Northeast Corridor’s resiliency and its redundancy, in addition to its overall safety, reliability, and efficiency. 

Thank you. I look forward to questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Szabo. 

And, next, from FEMA, Ms. Zimmerman. Please proceed. 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Good morning, Chairman Shuster. Good morning, Ranking Member Rahall and members of the committee. I am 

very pleased to be here and have this opportunity to speak with 

you today. 

When Hurricane Sandy hit landfall—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Can you pull your microphone a little closer? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Sure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Is that better? 

When Hurricane Sandy made landfall, battering dozens of States 

along the east coast, FEMA was there. We were on the ground before the storm, during the storm, and, obviously, after the storm. 

We were there supporting our State and local partners. We will be 

8 

there for as long as it takes to help the disaster survivors and the 

communities recover. 

But FEMA does not do this alone. As it is noticed on the panel 

here, our partners from Department of Transportation as well as 

the Army Corps of Engineers are a part of the community that we 

refer to as a community as a whole—everybody working together 

in disaster response. 

When it comes to the community working together, with our 

friends at the Department of Transportation and FTA, we have 

been working together very closely with the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act and those efforts that came together to join us in 

the partnership. We also have a longstanding partnership with the 

Corps of Engineers in response and recovery. 

In response to Hurricane Sandy, this committee is more than 

aware of the 23,000 people that sought refuge in the temporary 

shelters as well as the 8.5 million people who lost power as a result 

of Hurricane Sandy. The storm flooded numerous roads, tunnels, 

blocked the transportation corridors, deposited extensive debris 

along the coastline, and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. 

FEMA coordinated the Federal Government’s response to Hurricane Sandy, working with its partners through the National Response Framework and issuing 425 mission assignments to 29 Federal agencies. 

The recovery efforts from Hurricane Sandy were guided by the 

National Disaster Recovery Framework, which was published in 

2011. The NDRF is a guide for how the whole community works 

together following disasters to best meet the recovery needs of the 

individuals, families, and the communities, States, and tribes. 

It established a coordination structure for all interagency partners, called the recovery support function, to work together to solve 

problems to improve access to resources and foster the coordination 

among Government and private stakeholders. This structure remains in place and continues as we transition from our joint field 

offices to a Sandy recovery office, which will include both New Jersey and New York disasters, that are still open and will be 

transitioning within the next month. 

For public assistance, FEMA is also providing grants through the 

Public Assistance program which assists State, local, and tribal 

governments, as well as certain private nonprofits, in response to 

recovery efforts. FEMA has obligated more than $3.2 billion in 

Hurricane Sandy Public Assistance Grants. This is for the 15 

States that were impacted by Sandy. 

In addition to assistance for the emergency protective measures 

and debris removal, FEMA’s Public Assistance program provides 

funding for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, and replacement 

of infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed by the disaster. 

Over 3,400 public assistance projects have been approved and 

more than $2.1 billion has been obligated in New York. In New 

Jersey, over 5,000 public assistance projects have been approved 

and over $950 million has been obligated. Eleven additional States 

that were declared for public assistance due to the efforts for Hurricane Sandy have been obligated an approximate $150 million in 

assistance. 

9 

For individual assistance programs, FEMA has provided assistance to over 182,000 disaster survivors in New York, New Jersey, 

and Connecticut. The forms of assistance include financial assistance, eligible home repair assistance and personal property loss, as 

well as medical and funeral expenses resulting from the disaster. 

For the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, the Sandy Supplemental, just under 100 days after Sandy made landfall, the Recovery Improvement Act came into law. It gave FEMA a great opportunity to implement many of the initiatives they have been working on and we have made significant progress on legislation impacting the agencies so that we could move forward from the postKatrina reform act. But the Sandy Supplemental was by far the 

biggest change to the Stafford Act since the Stafford Act was 

signed into law. 

FEMA has aggressively been applying the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, tackling 18 lines of action, 8 regulatory projects, 2 

reports, and at least 9 policies in the 383 days since Sandy descended on our shores. To date, 13 of the 17 provisions are tracking 

for the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act as we move these forward—provisions for public assistance, the alternate procedures for 

permanent work, public assistance, alternative procedures for debris removal, and the ability to federally recognized tribal governments as sovereign nations. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for the 

Sandy Recovery Improvement Act and the work that has moved 

forward on that. 

In conclusion, I look forward to answering any questions that you 

may have on that as we move forward. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Ms. Zimmerman. I appreciate that. 

Finally, the Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, General Bostick. Please proceed. 

General BOSTICK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the Corps’ continued work on Hurricane 

Sandy recovery. I am also happy to join this panel of interagency 

partners because it truly is a team effort. 

The support from the Federal Government during the response 

to Sandy was unparalleled, and the Corps was part of a larger 

team that provided technical assistance and rapid-response activities across the impacted areas. The success of these efforts was a 

result of a dedicated and determined interagency team, including 

the Corps, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 

and many others. 

On January 29th, 2013, the President signed into law the Dis- aster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. The act appropriate $5.35 

billion to the Corps to address damages caused by Hurricane Sandy 

and to reduce future flood risks in ways that will support the longterm sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and communities and 

reduce the economic costs and risks associated with large-scale 

flood and storm damages in areas along the North Atlantic coast. 

The Corps’ Hurricane Sandy recovery program is structured with 

three components: first, near-term; second, investigations; and, 

third, construction components. We continue to make progress on 

all of these efforts. 

10 

The near-term component supports emergency operations and repair and restoration of previously constructed Corps projects along 

the coastline and dredging of Federal navigation channels and repair of Corps-operated structures. 

I will mention a few areas: Beach repair and restoration of existing projects along the Atlantic coast began in February of 2013 and 

is scheduled to conclude in the fall of 2014. The Corps has placed 

approximately 12 million cubic yards of sand to repair dunes and 

berms. Work continues to ensure these projects are restored to 

their original design conditions. Thus far, the Corps has obligated over $400 million to restore 

damaged projects. The repair of navigation channels and structures 

damaged in the storm began in February of 2013, and most 

projects are scheduled for completion in the spring of 2015. Over 

$170 million has been obligated for this purpose. 

The investigations component expedites completion of ongoing 

studies at full Federal expense and also funds the North Atlantic 

Coast Comprehensive Study to develop a risk reduction framework 

for the 31,000 miles of coastline within the North Atlantic Division’s area that was affected by Sandy. 

The comprehensive study team, which includes experts in coastal 

planning, engineering, and science from more than 90 governmental, academic, and nongovernmental entities, has developed a 

draft framework that is currently under review. The team will continue its review and develop various tools to assist with future 

planning efforts. 

The study will also serve as a catalyst for future analysis that 

will reduce risk to vulnerable populations, property, ecosystem, and 

infrastructure. Up and down the coast, areas where there were risk 

reduction projects in place prior to Hurricane Sandy fared much 

better than those areas without protection. 

The third component of the program, the construction component, will implement projects that were previously authorized but 

not constructed at the time of Hurricane Sandy landfall. It will also 

address projects identified for implementation following the investigation process as well as projects that fall within the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program. 

Planning, design, and expedited reevaluations are underway for 

18 authorized but not yet constructed projects, and construction on 

several projects is anticipated to begin early in 2014. Construction 

work on roughly half of these flood risk reduction projects is expected to be completed by mid-2015. The remaining construction is 

dependent upon the outcome of pending reevaluation reviews. 

Of the identified continuing authority projects, Massachusetts, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia are currently scheduled to receive beach erosion and coastal 

storm damage risk reduction projects. We expect the majority of 

this work to be completed by 2016. 

In the year since Hurricane Sandy, we have heard from many 

residents in the impacted communities regarding their concerns 

about coastal storm damage risk reduction features. We continue 

to communicate with the local communities about the purpose of 

these projects and to clear up misconceptions about the use of real 

estate. 

11 

Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the vulnerability of our coastal 

communities and the need for all levels of Government to communicate risk clearly and to continually take this on as a collective, 

shared responsibility to reduce residual risks. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, General. 

I appreciate all of your testimony. 

Now I would like to ask several questions, mostly to Mr. Rogoff. 

You spoke at length about the significant amount of money you 

are setting aside for resiliency projects in the transit system. What 

you didn’t mention in your verbal testimony, but it is clear in your 

written testimony, is that you also believe there is a need to protect 

against threats from climate change. 

My concern is that the Supplemental package was not sold to 

Congress as a bill to fight global warming. However, it appears in 

your testimony, at least your written testimony, that it is a top priority for the FTA, resiliency moneys to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

Therefore I guess we need to know how you are going to ensure 

that that $5.8 billion, I believe, in resiliency money will be spent 

directly on Sandy-related expenses and not on the administration’s 

agenda or climate change. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Mr. Chairman, our focus is on protecting the 

existing transit infrastructure that supports millions of people, almost a third of the Nation’s transit ridership, from whatever 

threats it is exposed to. We are keenly focused on, obviously, the 

impact of the last storm but also scenarios that protect us from the 

next storm. So if the wind was coming from a different direction 

in the next hurricane, we need to be prepared for those water incursions. 

I can assure you, we are looking principally, first and foremost, 

at the damage assessments that resulted from Sandy and what 

needs to be protected going forward. We are going to be mindful 

of the fact that the water levels are rising in that region; they have 

been. And we want to make sure that we are not going to make 

investments with taxpayer dollars that are then going to be inadequate as the water level continues to rise. 

Mr. SHUSTER. How are you going to prioritize those resiliency 

projects? 

Mr. ROGOFF. As I said in my oral remarks, and I believe they are 

also in my written remarks, our highest priority, number one, right 

away, is to protect the existing infrastructure, especially the subway infrastructure but also the Long Island Railroad, Metro North, 

and New Jersey Transit infrastructure. 

Much of this infrastructure was built decades ago. Mr. Nadler 

and I were at an event in Brooklyn over the Montague Tube. That 

is one of the pieces of infrastructure that we will be looking to protect. That infrastructure is 93 years old and was never built with 

water incursions of this kind in mind. And that is what we need 

to protect, because the R train that runs through that tube is serving tens of thousands of people a day. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And what criteria will you base the competitive 

grants to be awarded? 

12 

Mr. ROGOFF. First and foremost we will base it on whether they 

have a comprehensive plan to protect existing infrastructure that 

is serving passengers now, and how many passengers. We know 

what we want to avoid. We want to avoid an investment that protects one part of the line but not the other part of the line. 

We also are going to infuse in that criteria a regional approach 

because, as I said in my oral remarks, much of the infrastructure 

is so close together, between what the Long Island Railroad uses, 

what the Subway uses, New Jersey Transit, and Amtrak, we could 

cause inadvertent harm by protecting one piece of infrastructure 

from water incursion only to flood a neighboring piece of infrastructure that could be serving even more passengers and could do even 

more damage. 

So our highest priority is going to be on the infrastructure that 

serves existing passengers and, also, making sure that all of the 

agencies are playing well in the sandbox and have a comprehensive 

plan so that the taxpayer investment has the maximum level of 

protection. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And talking about taxpayer investment, will the 

cost-benefit analysis be—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. It will be. 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. The highest priority? 

Mr. ROGOFF. It will be an elemental part of the application process. We need to be careful, like I said, to make sure that there is 

a regional approach and the cost-beneficial project for one piece of 

infrastructure doesn’t do unknown damage to the neighboring piece 

of infrastructure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, but the cost-benefit really needs to be, in my 

view—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. It—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. And it is up to us, the stewards of the taxpayer 

dollars, to make sure that that is central. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And that is one of the recommendations that has 

also come out of Secretary Donovan’s Sandy Task Force and is 

going to be an elemental part of our analysis. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And how will you make this transparent to the 

taxpayers? What process will you go through to make sure we can 

see how the process was laid out so that everybody is clear that 

cost-benefit was the highest priority? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I think we have a good history now, I believe, 

with this committee in terms of providing transparency in our discretionary grant-making decisions. Obviously, the committee has 

oversight authorities. We also have the Inspector General, who has 

considerable resources to oversee our processes. And we are more 

than happy to brief any subgroup or group of the committee on precisely how we are going to go about it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It is also a concern to me, making certain that 

these transit authorities are not diverting these funds to their own 

projects out there that aren’t part of the moneys that Congress intended and that you ought to be administering towards the resiliency, towards mitigation. Is that—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. I totally agree. We have been very clear. In terms 

of the volume of potential resiliency investments that have been 

identified for us, they go well beyond the amount of funds that we 

13 

will have available. So we are going to be focused on the have-tohaves, not the nice-to-haves. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I didn’t hear the last part. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We are going to be focused on the have-to-have 

projects, the ones that have the maximum impact with the taxpayer dollars on protecting existing infrastructure. The so-called 

nice-to-have projects will have to take a backseat. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Well, and we have seen throughout our 

recent history, a lot of times, when you put these kind of dollars 

out there, they are diverted, they are not used wisely. So it is extremely important, obviously, to this committee and to the taxpayers that those things are done in a way that are transparent 

and they are done for its intended purpose so that we don’t get 

mitigation malpractice, which we have seen, you know, many, 

many times in our recent history. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I completely agree, Mr. Chairman. I think one of 

the benefits of running this program now through FTA, this is not 

to criticize the FEMA approach, but we have had an ongoing relationship with these transit agencies, knowing precisely what their 

capital plans have been for years. And we will be able to see 

straight up whether dollars are going towards something that has 

been planned for 9 years without a mitigation benefit versus true 

protection against the next disaster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogoff. 

And, with that, Mr. Rahall? 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to commend the entire panel for your dedication to 

public service. 

I want to also commend, Mr. Chairman, an individual that is in 

the audience listening to the testimony today, and that is the president of Amtrak, Joe Boardman. 

Welcome, Mr. Boardman. And I, again, commend you for your 

being here and listening to this testimony. 

I have a question for Mrs. Zimmerman. And I want to particularly thank FEMA, as well, for assisting on a particular issue in 

my congressional district in Logan County with which I have discussed directly with your director. And it is moving forward in a 

very positive resolution. I appreciate that. 

But my question to you, Mrs. Zimmerman, is in regard to the 

Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, which directed FEMA to review, 

update, and revise the individual assistance factors, as you know. 

What is the implementation status of this provision? And has 

FEMA reached out to States and tribes to identify the issues and 

concerns that resulted in this provision being enacted? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Yes, we did. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

First off, as soon as it passed, we took a look at that, and we 

made outreach to our partners through the National Emergency 

Management Association and the International Association for 

Emergency Managers, as well as the tribal constituents, to talk to 

our State and local and tribal partners to examine the individual 

assistance criteria. 

As you know, the criteria has been out there for a long time, and 

we needed to take a look at that and what really indicates when 

a community has been impacted and those disaster survivors and 

14 

what it means. So we did that outreach starting almost immediately after the act was passed, pulled together those pieces of information, and we have been working with that to move it forward 

to be able to provide some guidance. 

We have drafted our proposal, and we are going to be working 

through the process of rulemaking to put that out there for stakeholders to once again take a look at it and to make comment before 

it goes into law. So we are in the process of that, and we appreciate 

all the outreach and the comments that we did receive from our 

constituents. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all the questions I have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Gibbs is recognized. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Microphone. 

Mr. GIBBS. Is it working? There we go. I can see, it has a loose 

wire in there, I think. Anyway, I wanted to—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Flood damage. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yeah. Flood damage, he says. 

A couple questions to General Bostick. 

General, you know, we are working through the WRDA bill, as 

you know, the Water Resources Development Act. And one thing 

we are trying to do in the WRDA bill is streamline some of the 

studies, not eliminating studies, but, you know, doing it in a shorter period of time to bring the costs down and bring these projects 

to fruition. 

And I know especially in the construction authority part of the 

emergency legislation for Hurricane Sandy, it talks about—and you 

mentioned this in your testimony—previously authorized Corps 

projects designed to reduce flood and storm risk, you know. And 

then it goes on to say in the law, ‘‘modifying these existing Corps 

projects that do not meet these standards,’’ and it goes on. But in 

that area of the law, I believe that environmental NEPA and economic analysis are waived. 

And so I guess my first question is, what impact are you seeing, 

you know, by—that is going further into streamlining in this emergency legislation. Has it been positive? Or what challenges for the 

Corps have we seen by, you know, doing some things and not having to do the economic analysis on those modifications or environmental impacts? Have you got any comment on that? 

General BOSTICK. Yes, Representative Gibbs. First, thanks to the 

entire congressional team that has been working WRDA. It has 

been very positive for us, that we will execute some of the missions 

that come out of that, assuming it is passed, to see the bipartisan 

support and the progress. 

In terms of the work that we are doing in Sandy, we feel fairly 

good at the progress that we are making. And the interagency support has been fantastic, from my view. We have been given authorities to move quickly, especially on the flood control and coastal 

emergency projects, where we are able to bring those back to the 

design conditions for those that are in the North Atlantic Division 

area. 

15 

So that work is proceeding well. The work that we are doing in 

O&M is proceeding well. We still are working with the interagency 

partners, as we should, and we have not seen any holdup in our 

progress. So we feel good about where we are at. 

Mr. GIBBS. And you feel comfortable about any modifications to 

those authorized construction activities, not having to go through 

more studies and more analysis, that, you know, things are going 

along fine? You are OK with that? 

General BOSTICK. I am comfortable with the way the law was 

published, or it was passed. And we are working within that law 

and have no issues with it. Any modifications to the projects that 

we have are approved at the Assistant Secretary of the Army of 

Civil Works level, Ms. Darcy. And our work with her and in conjunction with OMB has gone well. 

Mr. GIBBS. Good. 

A second question regarding nonstructural alternatives. Has 

there been local requests versus—you know, lots of times, there is 

lots of—I think the locals request a lot of structural alternatives. 

What is the status on nonstructural alternatives? I know that you 

have had that authority since the 1940s. 

And then, also—well, I guess answer the first part. Has there 

been requests from any locals on doing nonstructural alternatives? 

General BOSTICK. We have not had requests for nonstructural alternatives, but, as an engineering agency, we believe that is one of 

the options. And as we do the comprehensive study review that 

was directed as part of the Supplemental—we received $20 million 

for that—I am certain that those types of nonstructural opportunities will be an option to consider. 

Mr. GIBBS. After Hurricane Katrina, was there much nonstructural alternatives implemented, put in place? Or what is the 

status? 

General BOSTICK. There were no nonstructural alternatives that 

were requested, but one of the first—or, actually, the first Chief’s 

Report that I signed was an ecosystem restoration project of the 

Barataria Basin. 

And it is lines of defense that help reduce the risk of these disasters. When a storm comes in, it could hit flush on a city or you can 

have some lines of defense. Part of that lines of defense is ecosystem restoration, marshlands, it is barrier islands—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Yeah. Let me just ask a followup on that. I know during our WRDA hearings there were some entities that were really 

pushing nonstructural alternatives. So let me make this clear. So 

I think you said in Hurricane Sandy there hasn’t been any requests 

for nonstructural alternatives, and the nonstructural alternatives 

for Katrina was limited to some restoration but not anything more 

comprehensive than that? 

General BOSTICK. We had no requests for nonstructural alternatives. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

And Ms. Norton is recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

you for this followup. I have already learned and begun to think 

about things I did not know. 

16 

I thank all the witnesses for their very important testimony. 

I have been struck by the differences between emergency relief 

for highways and for public transportation. And I understand 

why—apparently, since 1972, we have authorized out of the Highway Trust Fund, apparently automatically, $100 million for emergency relief for the Highway Administration. And, of course, I 

guess that is because you can see the damage to the bridges after 

a hurricane, and to the highways. 

Now, shall I say, in our wisdom, apparently in MAP–21, for the 

first time, we authorized emergency relief for transit, as well. But, 

unlike highways, no funding source was allocated, so we had a big 

fight here to make sure that there were funds for Sandy for that 

relief. 

Now, there are major cities of the United States which grind to 

a halt if their subways, their underground transit, does not go. And 

we already know about New Jersey and New York. I hope we never 

have to hear about Chicago. And I certainly hope we never have 

to hear about the national capital area region, because when Metro 

stops, the entire Federal Government shuts down. We have had 

Snowmaggedon here, several days shutdown. We know what happens. I think Sandy sends a shot across everybody’s bow about your 

underground transportation. 

Now, this committee has long supported pre-disaster mitigation. 

Indeed, we have had studies done that show, on the average, fourto-one savings for pre-disaster mitigation. 

Now, I would like to know what these words, ‘‘resiliency 

projects,’’ mean. I understand New York is up and running, but 

that is about all you can say for it. When you say a resiliency 

project, Mr. Rogoff, what is the difference between a resiliency 

project and a repair project? 

Mr. ROGOFF. A resiliency project, Mrs. Norton, is one that protects against the next storm rather than repairing—— 

Ms. NORTON. So who did the repair in New York or New Jersey, 

and is that different from who did the resiliency? Or, I suppose 

what I should say, are the fund sources different? They had to get 

up quickly just to get people to work. 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is correct. But the emergency relief statute 

that you have identified in MAP–21 provides authority to fund 

both. And, indeed, the President’s budget request, when he sent it 

up here for Hurricane Sandy, identified requests for both. I 

would—— 

Ms. NORTON. But what is the request for the emergency relief 

funding for transit? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Originally, the request was $11.7 billion, if my 

memory serves. We then were given $10.9 billion. And after sequester, that was lowered to $10.5 billion. 

Ms. NORTON. No, that is for Sandy. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Oh. 

Ms. NORTON. Has the administration supported anything comparable to the $100 million that comes out of the Highway Trust 

Fund for highways? 

17 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, it has. For the last 2 years, both in the 2013 

budget and in the 2014 budget, the administration has requested 

$25 million as an initial capitalization for the FTA Emergency Relief Program so that we could be ready to respond immediately, just 

as the Federal Highway Administration is, to disasters as they 

occur. We are still waiting to see funding for that request. 

Ms. NORTON. None of us knows what will happen, but I certainly—given what this committee already knows about what we 

call pre-disaster relief on the ground, I would certainly hope that 

at least this small amount, $25 million for MAP–21, as a starter 

could begin us down the same road for underground transit, bearing in mind that not only do we have that clearly the case for large 

cities, but increasingly what cities and counties want to do is to put 

their own transit below where we could all see them. 

And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Rice from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RICE. I am just curious about Federal participation and State 

and local participation and what the relationships are. I live in a 

coastal area and, obviously, am very concerned about hurricanes. 

And I just think we need to have a conversation about what the 

appropriate level of Federal response is. 

With respect to the Highway Administration and replacing these 

roads, is the Federal Government putting the roads back on its 

own, or are we looking for State and local participation, as well? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. 

We work very closely with the State DOT, and, in turn, we work 

indirectly with the local governments. But based on our rules, I believe, it is only the State DOT that can request the funding. But 

they certainly are looking for local issues, as well, during an event. 

Mr. RICE. Well, is the Federal Government providing 100 percent 

of the replacement funds, or are the State and local governments 

participating? Is there a set percentage that the Federal Government does, or are we looking for a 60/40 split, a two-thirds/onethird split? What are we doing? 

Mr. MENDEZ. There are two scenarios. First of all, there is, after 

the event, a 180-day scenario where you want to get things back 

on track. So you are not doing permanent repairs; you are doing 

interim repairs. At that point, if it is on a Federal highway system, 

it is a 100 percent Federal share. For permanent repairs to an 

interstate, it is a 90/10 split. If it is not an interstate, it is generally an 80/20 split. 

Mr. RICE. What confuses me is the total appropriations that we 

approved in Congress were over $60 billion between the two Sandy 

relief bills that we did. I heard earlier testimony and I read in the 

papers that the damage was $50 billion. So what I am curious 

about is where the extra $10 billion is going. 

We need to have a conversation about what the appropriate level 

of Federal contribution should be. What about on the transit systems? I mean, the Federal Government doesn’t own or control or 

run any of these transit systems; is that correct? 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is correct, we don’t own them. But we do provide the majority of the capital funding for them as opposed to 

State and local government. 

18 

Mr. RICE. OK. So when we are putting these things back, are we 

contributing 100 percent of the money to do it, or is State—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Only in—following with the Presidential emergency 

designations, which follows not just FTA relief but other forms of 

Federal relief, there is a period right after the storm for which reimbursable expenses are at 100 percent. Then that ratchets down 

to 90 and 75, depending on the President’s emergency designations. 

Mr. RICE. How much is going into the transit systems in New 

York and New Jersey for these repairs? Have you got an estimate 

of what the total is going to cost? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We do for disaster. We can’t necessarily say yet 

for—— 

Mr. RICE. Can you give me a range? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I can give you a number, sir, if you just give me 

a moment. In terms of our estimates for what we expect, response 

and recovery for the New York-New Jersey area we expect to be 

$5.827 billion. And agencies will get resiliency funds on top of that. 

Some of this resiliency money was sent by formula. Roughly $3 billion of it, at least, will be done on a competitive basis to make sure 

we are getting the best projects for the buck. 

Those estimates were done jointly by the FTA and FEMA as a 

result of damage assessments done together very shortly after the 

storm. 

Mr. RICE. OK. So that total, is that the Federal obligation or is 

that both? 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is a combination of Federal and local because, 

like I said—— 

Mr. RICE. OK. And what percentage of that is Federal? 

Mr. ROGOFF. You know, Mr. Rice, I am going to ask you to let 

me get you those numbers as part of the record because—— 

Mr. RICE. Just roughly. Is it over 50 percent? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Oh, yes, sir. 

Mr. RICE. Seventy percent? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Over that, because—— 

Mr. RICE. Ninety percent? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Part of it will be—like I said, part of it 100, part 

of it 90, part of it 75, depending on when the actual bills come in. 

And that is not just an FTA dynamic; it covers other disaster relief 

programs across the Government. 

Mr. RICE. It seems to me that the Federal response to disasters 

has kind of changed in the last 10 years. I know when Hugo hit 

South Carolina, I believe the damages were about $6 billion and 

the Federal Government contributed about $2 billion. But now we 

are talking about damages of $50 billion and the Federal Government is contributing $60 billion. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am not sure that is correct. I think the thing to 

look at, Mr. Rice, here is what falls under the definition of ‘‘damage,’’ because there are other damage expenses that are not reimbursable by any Federal program that I am sure the New York and 

New Jersey folks would point to the costs for which they are not 

getting reimbursed for. 

Mr. RICE. And I think you are explaining some of it when you 

say you are putting money into resiliency, which is more than just 

repair. You are talking about further capital improvements. 

19 

Mr. ROGOFF. Correct. 

Mr. RICE. But I think we need to have a conversation about what 

the Federal role is. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

And, with that, Mr. Nadler is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Rogoff, the chairman talked a few minutes ago 

about climate change. And forgetting that for the moment, we do 

know that, whether it is caused by climate change or not, we are 

getting more of these bad storms, the sea level is rising, and we 

are getting higher storm surges. 

Does the FTA have enough resources to protect the transit system in New York and other vulnerable areas, given our expectations over the next—and our—in light of our experience what the 

recent storms and storm surges have been, do you have enough resources to protect the transit system in New York and other vulnerable areas, or will there still be unmet needs? Will the $3 billion 

for resiliency projects be enough to do everything necessary to protect our coastal and low-lying cities from the long-term threat of 

rising sea levels and extreme weather events? 

Mr. ROGOFF. No, it won’t, sir. As I said in my oral remarks earlier, the stakeholders in the area have identified potential resiliency investments that far exceed what we have in the Federal envelope as a result of the Sandy Supplemental, which is why we are 

going to seek to ruthlessly prioritize the Federal dollars to the best 

projects with the greatest impact. 

Mr. NADLER. When you say ‘‘far exceed,’’ $3 billion, when you say 

‘‘far exceed,’’ do you mean 4? 44? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I have heard numbers well north of $11 billion or 

$12 billion. But I can’t individually verify those estimates because 

they—— 

Mr. NADLER. Order of magnitude $11 billion, $12 billion. 

Mr. ROGOFF. At least. If you look at the reports that Mayor 

Bloomberg and Governor Cuomo have done, as well as others, you 

will see a wide universe of potential investments—— 

Mr. NADLER. This is a problem we are going to have to address. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, you are talking about the most transit-dependent region of the country. I don’t need to tell you that. This 

is an area where car ownership is at the lowest levels in the Nation. And the entire economy in the region is dependent upon an 

operating transit system. 

Mr. NADLER. Some people think, and I can detect in the questioning by the prior Member, I think, that maybe we shouldn’t 

spend money on—disaster money on resiliency; we should only 

spend it on recovery. What would happen if we only spent money 

on recovery, we restore the systems exactly the way they were? 

After all, the Montague Tunnel has served us for 93 years, serve 

us another 93 years. Why should we improve it? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Because we will pay to restore it over and over and 

over again. 

Mr. NADLER. So it wouldn’t be cost effective. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We do not believe so. 

20 

Mr. NADLER. OK. Let me ask you also that—Sandy Supple- mental provided $118 million to Amtrak, which included $32 million for expenses related to consequences of Hurricane Sandy, and 

$86 million to advance capital projects on the Northeast Corridor 

infrastructure recovery and resiliency. I think you said before that 

Amtrak was not able to use the $86 million. Why is that? 

I am sorry, Administrator Szabo. 

Mr. SZABO. There is language in the Sandy Act that actually restricts a provision under PRIIA which provides for the temporary 

transfer of funds for Amtrak to help smooth out their cash flows. 

And so it is important. All it takes in order to correct this problem 

is the deletion of four words in the Sandy Supplemental Act, and 

those four words are ‘‘or any other act.’’ 

Mr. NADLER. Why were those four words put in there? 

Mr. SZABO. I can’t speak as to why they were put in there. But 

I certainly know what the effect of them are, it was to undo, in essence, a provision that is provided for in PRIIA that allows for 

more effective cash management. And so with this money restricted, there are so many important projects that are necessary. 

You know, you just talked about the need for resiliency to make 

sure that when we repair something that we are going to be able 

to build it to a higher standard that will be flood resistant. I think 

of Substation 41, just there between New York and New Jersey, 

which was out during the storm and ended up severely restricting 

the flow of Amtrak commuter trains in and out of New York. 

Mr. NADLER. So if those words were removed and the $86 million 

were made available, it would be used for hardening infrastructure, 

in effect. 

Mr. SZABO. Exactly. Making sure that it is built to modern standards that are going to resist—— 

Mr. NADLER. Making sure that existing infrastructure would be 

more resistant for future forms. 

Mr. SZABO. Exactly. 

Mr. NADLER. Let me ask one thing. My time is beginning to run 

out. But, Administrator Rogoff, I think it is important for people 

to understand the real impact of the storm on our region’s transit 

system. Can you talk a little bit about the extent of the damage, 

the number of people affected, and the timeline for how quickly 

service was restored? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, the timeline in which service was initially restored is actually a large success. But you are talking about a service between Metro North and the Long Island Railroad and the 

subway system that serves close to 40 percent of the transit riders 

of America, and I should add, obviously, New Jersey Transit in 

that region. Right in the tristate region. And the damage was extensive. 

For New Jersey Transit, whole rail lines were washed out, we 

had to procure 350 buses immediately after the storm just to provide alternative mechanisms for the commuters from New Jersey 

to get to work. As you know, Brooklyn and Manhattan were cut off 

from one another. And even in the case of the Rockaways, Queens 

was cut off from Queens. You are talking about a region where, 

like I said, it is the largest transit-dependent population where the 

economy could not function absent the mobility of workers. You are 

21 

talking about the need for getting people at all hours to hospitals. 

Just for health care of the people in the region. I don’t think you 

can overstate the impact or the elemental importance of the transit 

system. 

Mr. NADLER. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Hanna is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you for being here. Mr. Rogoff, in your written testimony, you indicate that the FTA will be holding back 

about a billion dollars, $4.5 billion remaining in the public transportation recovery projects. How long do you anticipate holding 

that back and why? And are there not enough existing recovery 

needs identified? 

Mr. ROGOFF. No, that isn’t the issue, Mr. Hanna. The issue really 

has to do with the fact, as I said earlier, that roughly $5.8 billion 

estimate of recovery costs was a very early estimate. It was done 

very quickly after the storm by FTA teams in concert with FEMA 

teams and our project management oversight contractors. We want 

to make sure—we believe, first and foremost, we have an obligation 

to pay for the recovery costs. And we want to make sure that we 

don’t find that there are latent recovery costs that are discovered 

for which we would then need to come back to Congress for yet 

more money. 

And there have been examples that we are already seeing in the 

tristate area. We learned from Katrina that subsurface damage 

only starts to rear its head months after the storm. We want to 

hold moneys in reserve for that purpose. We are concerned about 

the fact that project costs may rise from these initial estimates, especially when everyone is competing for the same contractors to do 

them. 

So again, we do believe that our first and highest responsibility 

is to pay for the recovery and we want to make sure we have 

enough money in the bank to do it without having to come back 

to you all. 

Mr. HANNA. Is that because you don’t have the capacity to anticipate the full extent of the damage or the recovery process? Twenty 

percent is a substantial amount of money to be guessing at. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, but 20 percent, when you add the possibility 

of latent damage that we haven’t yet seen. We are already getting 

reports from the Port Authority and from New Jersey Transit and 

the MTA of a higher than expected level of failures. There may be 

some equipment that we hoped to repair that may have to be replaced. I think it is prudent to withhold those funds. You can be 

sure they are not going to lay fallow. We will put them to appropriate use. But we think it is critical to make sure we do not send 

out resiliency grants only to discover that we shorted ourselves on 

the needs for recovery. 

Mr. HANNA. I understand. Also, Mr. Rogoff, in your written testimony, you highlight the rebuilding of the A train subway tracks to 

the Rockaways and Queens as a major success for rapid completion. Are there—I guess the question is, what did you learn about 

that? Are there means and methods and ideas that you have come 

up with that might be similar to how we went about repairing the 

I–35 West Bridge in Minnesota and that may work in a nonVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Aug 26, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\2013\11-14-~1\85550.TXT JEAN
22 

emergency situation that we can apply to things like the new 

WRTA and MAP–21. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Understood. I believe, sir, that one of the things 

that we need to be attentive to, and I don’t necessarily want to say 

this is a parallel with the I–35 bridge. But I can tell you in the 

transit experience, one of the reasons why the Rockaways was a 

success is because the MTA already had a very capable contractor 

on board that they were able to put to work right away. And I 

think one needs to understand, this committee will be in receipt of 

reports from the inspector general and one of the things they are 

going to tell you is that we had to take an openminded view on certain procurement issues as to whether we were going to allow limited competition procurements or even sole-source procurements to 

enable the transit agencies to get service up and running as quickly as possible. I commend that to your attention, because I think 

sometimes when we get too burdened by the rigor of Federal rules 

it can slow us down. The President said that he was going to eliminate red tape wherever he could to put this money to work. I think 

we have made great progress in doing that, and we look forward 

to explaining the judgment calls that we made there in order to get 

service on the street as soon as possible. 

Mr. HANNA. Do you have an idea of the premium generally that 

you pay for hiring contractors under emergency circumstances, if it 

is 10, 20, 30, some percentage? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I wouldn’t want to venture a guess. 

Mr. HANNA. Would you agree that there is one? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think so in terms of—you are talking about people 

who are able to deploy overnight and have the equipment or have 

access to the equipment. And when you are talking about a project 

as expansive as the Rockaways, I toured it very shortly after the 

storm. You are talking about literally hundreds of feet of railroad 

that were dangling in the air like a swinging bridge because all of 

the supports had been washed away. That was a ton of concrete to 

have to replace. And to do it smarter, I don’t doubt that there was 

some premium to be paid. I am also concerned about the premium 

that we may pay when all of these contracts are being competed 

for at the same time in the years to come. We need to be mindful 

of that. 

Mr. HANNA. My time has expired. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Maloney has a commitment to—the ranking member would 

like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Maloney so he can get his question 

in. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that very 

much. And I want to commend you and the ranking member for 

holding this important hearing. Thank everyone on the panel for 

their service. 

General Bostick, if I am not mistaken, you and I were together 

at Stewart Air Force Base, Air National Guard Base, in January 

or February welcoming home the Joint Task Force Empire 411th 

Engineer Brigade. Am I right about that, sir? 

General BOSTICK. Yes, sir. Good to see you again. 

23 

Mr. MALONEY. I also think, if I am not mistaken, you are a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, which 

I have the honor of representing. Am I right about that? 

General BOSTICK. You are correct. 

Mr. MALONEY. Which explains your outstanding service to your 

country. 

And I want to tell you, sir, because that, of course, that is in my 

district in the Hudson Valley, but it is also one of the great jewels 

of the United States. And thank you for your service. But my question, sir, is—I have a quick question, I have a more complicated 

question. My quick question is, there was a commitment as part of 

the Sandy Supplemental Aid package to conduct a coastal flooding 

study, $20 million study. And it is my understanding that it is 

meant to include areas in the Hudson Valley that would extend up 

to both sides of the river, up to Poughkeepsie. I was hoping to get 

your thoughts on the status of that study. And if I can get your 

commitment that the Hudson Valley will be, as I believe it is supposed to be included in that study. 

General BOSTICK. This comprehensive study was in the Supplemental directed the Corps of Engineers to work with—working 

with up to 90 different organizations, interagency locals. And we 

are looking at the whole North Atlantic Division coast. And that 

whole coastline. And the areas impacted by Sandy in North Atlantic Division. The draft report is near completion, we are reviewing 

it, and the final report will come to Congress January 2015. 

Mr. MALONEY. And that will include a look at the Hudson Valley, 

sir? 

General BOSTICK. I will have to look at the specifics of the Hudson Valley. But my understanding is anything that was impacted 

by Hurricane Sandy in the North Atlantic Division and the Hudson 

Valley would be included. 

Mr. MALONEY. Well, if I could ask you to take a look at that and 

get back to my office, I would appreciate that, sir. 

General BOSTICK. I will do that. 

Mr. MALONEY. My second question relates to the timeliness with 

which we are conducting these projects. I think I would direct this 

to Administrator Mendez. Sir, there is—it is a fact that Hurricane 

Sandy did unprecedented damage in the Northeast. But prior to 

that in the Hudson Valley we also experienced Hurricane Irene in 

August of 2011, and Tropical Storm Lee. You know, there is a community I represent called New Windsor, New York; there is a little 

bridge there called Forge Hill Road bridge. It is Route 74. It is how 

you get between Route 32 and Route 94. The bridge was washed 

out as part of the flooding. The embankment gateway. It is a little 

two-lane bridge. If you went there the morning after the storm, sir, 

this is—this is what it would look like. It is a simple little bridge. 

It could be in any town in America. There is no doubt about what 

caused the damage. There is no doubt that it needs to be replaced. 

But it is a two-lane bridge. It could be anywhere. And folks got to 

go all the way up to Route 94, all the way around. It is causing 

all kinds of bottlenecks. If you went to Route 74 today, this morning, this is what it looks like. It is taken over 2 years, sir, and still 

no construction has started. 

24 

Can you tell me—I would like to—I would like to get your commitment that we can find out what the heck is going on with the 

Forge Hill Road bridge, specifically. But can you tell me why it 

takes 2 years to get a simple little bridge built. If Task Force—if 

Joint Task Force Empire, the 411th Brigade, which was building 

bridges, if I am not mistaken, General Bostick, all over Afghanistan, that we welcomed home earlier this year, was put on this in 

a combat environment in Afghanistan, General, is it fair to say you 

could do this in under 2 years? 

General BOSTICK. I don’t know the conditions of that specific 

bridge. But we did bridges and we could do bridges in Afghanistan 

in under 2 years. 

Mr. MALONEY. Right. In a combat environment with people 

shooting at them. They built a lot of them in Afghanistan. Why 

can’t we get a bridge built in America in the State of New York 

in under 2 years? If you could help me with that, sir, I would love 

to understand. And I would love to get your commitment on this 

specific project. 

Mr. MENDEZ. You do have my commitment. I don’t know the details of that. But we will go look at it. I will raise some questions 

with our folks in New York. 

But let me just kind of step back a little bit. I can assure you 

that at least in today’s environment, as an example, in the State 

of Washington earlier this year on I–5, a major, major interstate, 

a bridge got hit by a vehicle and the bridge dropped. And working 

with WSDOT, Washington State DOT, ourselves, and the Coast 

Guard, and a lot of other people, they were able to restore that, replace it, a permanent replacement in less than 6 months, I believe. 

So it can be done. I just don’t know what happened on your situation. So let me look into that and we will get back to you. 

Mr. MALONEY. I appreciate that very much. I would like that 

very much. And I think that—I think that if we—you know, it 

would be nice thing, wouldn’t it, if we—if we can’t do it in less than 

2 years, maybe we ought to get Joint Task Force Empire to build 

some things in the United States as rapidly and as efficiently that 

is they are building them in Afghanistan and we might be a better 

country. 

My final question would be directed towards the—towards 

FEMA. And I guess I would like to know, I guess this would be directed to Deputy Administrator Zimmerman. Ms. Zimmerman, if 

you could help me with the Wallkill River, in particular. There is 

a—there is a—there was a rule in existence—my time is out; so 

maybe you could just give me this commitment and contact my office. But there is an issue with providing FEMA relief to lands that 

are largely agricultural property. This means a lot of folks who are 

farmers aren’t getting help right now under the FEMA programs. 

It is a real issue in Orange County that is really suffering from 

Hurricane Irene and these other storms. If I could get your commitment to work with me on this I would sure appreciate it. 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Yes, you have our commitment to work with 

you. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you. I will yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again for the indulgence. 

25 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman doesn’t have any time to yield 

back, but that is OK. That is OK. I want members of the committee 

to take notice, I let Mr. Maloney go on because he was asking a 

question that every member of this committee has asked at some 

point in their career probably many times, why we can’t get things 

done faster. And hopefully with the passage of MAP–21 they have 

some stuff in there for transit, which has enabled the Federal 

Transit Administration to move quicker on problems like this. 

So again, that is—that is the question we all keep asking around 

the table, let’s do stuff faster. If you take one thing away from this 

committee, I think it is a very bipartisan approach; let’s move 

things quicker. 

And with that, I yield to Mr. Webster for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a timing question also. So thank you for highlighting that. 

Back in 2004—this would be to Ms. Zimmerman—central Florida 

in a 45-day period of time were impacted by three hurricanes, all 

of which were stronger than Sandy, Charley, Frances, and Irene. 

And there are—there were many local municipalities and others 

who were sub-grantees from our grantee, which is the State of 

Florida, our division of Emergency Management, headed at that 

time by your administrator now, Mr. Fugate. And today, the audits 

are taking place, 10 years later. Many of the people are gone, people don’t remember, whatever, but they are being audited. And in 

many, many cases asked to give back money that supposedly was 

given to them. And the point is, the timing to recover funds a decade after a disaster, and this is only the first, Charley, and there 

are two other hurricanes that will follow after this, which were 

again within that 45-day framework, that these local communities 

are going to have to produce documents, which they may or may 

not have. I don’t know. But I know it is a difficulty. 

I heard another member of this committee talk about that when 

we were doing the bill, the FEMA bill. She was the mayor of West 

Palm Beach and they too were having the same problems. I guess 

my question is in the case of Sandy recovery, what initiatives are 

being taken by FEMA to provide greater level of certainty for these 

grantees and sub-grantees to avoid a similar recovery process 10 

years from now that will—as opposed to possibly closing out these 

public assistance projects earlier and so that audits could occur 

hopefully in a timely manner. 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Great. Yes. That is one of our concerns too, is 

to make sure as projects get completed that we are auditing them 

and going through and working with the paperwork with the applicant so that the grantees, as they administer the money and as the 

sub-grantees are out there doing the project and completing them. 

So one of the things is, we have taken a stronger approach when 

we set up and we put together the project worksheets, working 

with the applicants, the folks that are on the road, on the ground, 

it is the damages that they have incurred. So we are putting 

stronger criteria out there so that when we are documenting the 

projects to see what has been completed or what needs to be completed, making sure we have all of that documentation upfront as 

well as monitoring it as we work through the process. 

26 

So working closer with our grantees and sub-grantees to make 

sure that documentation is there and the closer collaboration 

throughout the project. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I have one other question, and that is, there has 

been a lot of talk about resiliency and resilient construction. Do 

you know anywhere in a statute or in rule or in guidance documents—even though I know we have had documents here from 

FEMA that talk about resilient—that ‘‘resilient construction’’ is defined? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. So, yes. So when we have projects, whether it 

is through our public assistance program or our hazard mitigation 

grant program, we include mitigation to a project—when something’s been destroyed, and it might be old construction, whatever, 

we look to make those more resilient. Through the public assistance program we do have mitigation dollars that can be used on 

top of the project funding. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Right. But what I am asking, is there a definition 

of ‘‘resilient construction’’ anywhere in any document that you 

know of? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. I would have to get back with you on that one. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Brown is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rogoff, thank you very much for meeting with the mayor of 

Orlando, Buddy Dyer, and the other mayors and everybody from 

central Florida with their concern about the projects that I guess, 

because of the $24 billion shutdown and the sequester, 12 projects 

are caught up that are ready to go. But because of what is going 

on in Congress, these projects may not be able to move forward. 

Can you expound on—it is not just Orlando, it is central Florida, 

it is 12 other projects around the country. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, there are a number of projects. You are talking specifically about our New Starts program? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Our New Starts and Small Starts program. And we 

did, in 2013, as we have in prior years, ask for increased funding 

for that program, because we were signing up more meritorious 

projects around the country. Some of them very large that are 

going to serve a great many passengers. And as Mr. Shuster pointed out, we are speeding up our processes at the request of this committee and others, and our own desire to move projects more quickly. Unfortunately, in 2013, rather than get the funding increase 

that we sought, we got frozen through the continuing resolution 

and then sequestered below that. And the result is that every FTA 

New Start project that had a full funding grant agreement had 

their scheduled payment reduced in 2013. 

Now, looking forward, we obviously don’t know the outcome of 

the appropriations process for 2014. So we don’t know whether we 

will be able to fully fund all of our existing obligations in 2014. And 

not knowing that, it is very hard to predict whether we will have 

additional funding as we have requested in our budget to fund additional projects. 

27 

Our entire appropriation may be taken up with the multiyear 

commitments we have already made. I think SunRail Phase 2 is 

the project of greatest concern to you, it is one of those projects 

that is in our pipeline. We have—I testified here and elsewhere before that our ability to fund new projects in the pipeline will only 

be determined by whether we can get sufficient appropriations to 

pay off our existing obligations. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. Mr. Szabo, I need to go back—I know 

Mr. Boardman is here, and that has been acknowledged. But back 

to the $118 million that only $32 million have been able to be 

spent. Have the leadership in the House Transportation Committee 

and in the Senate, have they been contacted? Because basically 

after the hurricane, we took the train up. And we met with the 

stakeholders all the way up. And they told about the importance 

of harding the area so that, you know, we wouldn’t have the flood 

coming in. So this is—can we have a list of how that $86 million is intended 

to be spent? And what is the status? Have you contacted the leadership? Because I am sure that the leadership on both Houses 

would want to make sure that what happened with Sandy doesn’t 

happen again. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, Congresswoman, we will be able to provide for 

you for the record a list of projects that would be appropriate for 

the additional what is now $81 million to ensure that resiliency of 

the infrastructure. We have continued to have dialogue, with what 

it would take for an appropriate fix. And again it is really a matter 

of simply deleting four words, and those four words ‘‘or any other 

act.’’ 

Ms. BROWN. Well, did not the President have the authority to 

just, you know, change those words? 

Mr. SZABO. Not once it is adopted into—you know, into statute. 

Ms. BROWN. I see. 

Mr. SZABO. If we go back to the original provisions under PRIIA, 

the Secretary has the authority, we provide the appropriate oversight at FRA to ensure that these temporary transfers are just 

that, temporary. Those things that are appropriate on a day to day 

to smooth out cash flow, and ensure at the end of the year that it 

is a clean audit. And that is important—— 

Ms. BROWN. Is this what the attorneys told you? 

Mr. SZABO. That is correct. 

Ms. BROWN. Fire those attorneys. Thank you very much. I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. LoBiondo is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank our panel for 

being here. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House for 

the strong bipartisan effort that it took to get the Sandy relief 

package passed. Our entire delegation in New Jersey and many 

others worked very hard. But I particularly want to thank Mr. 

Sires, Mr. Pascrell for some incredible work. We have partnered together on many issues, and this was another one that yielded a 

very good result. 

As we look to the aftermath of Sandy, I want to point out that 

our strong support and efforts continue for the thousands of people 

28 

who are still displaced. A lot of folks think that since we are a year 

afterwards that everything is pretty well settled. And we made a 

lot of progress. But there, again, are thousands that are still displaced and devastated by the aftermath of the storm. I think reforms that Congress put in place after Katrina have resulted in a 

marked improvement with a Federal response to Sandy, and much 

good progress and work has been done because of the strong partnership that has been created. 

And for a lot of people they think this is just some Federal 

money poured into it. But this is the Federal Government, numerous agencies, the State of New Jersey, local communities that have 

come together in an extraordinary way. In the Sandy relief package, we gave a lot of flexibility to the State of New Jersey. Governor Christie has an incredible hands-on attitude about how to 

work with the Federal agencies and determine where this money 

could be best put. But with all that good progress, because of flaws 

in the formula which no one could foresee, we have a number of 

communities that have just fallen through the cracks. The 

Bayshore communities in Cumberland County, while a very small 

part of Cumberland County geographically, have just been devastated. 

We have got Little Egg Harbor Township, we have got Mystic Island, we have got Tuckerton. These places have fallen through the 

cracks, and the suffering that these folks are undergoing is no less 

than the ones who were in the more inclusive areas. So we need 

to try to find the flexibility. And we are working with Federal agencies to continue to see if there is room in the language. So we are 

going to be that coming back, trying to see what we can do on this. 

Tourism is a tremendous mainstay for New Jersey. It is almost a $40 billion industry. So the recovery efforts focused early on on 

trying to recover for the tourism season were pretty successful. Infrastructure projects had great success. 

And General Bostick, I want to tell you that the Army Corps in 

Philadelphia has been nothing short of outstanding. These folks 

understand how to partner to get results, to get things done. They 

have been a pleasure to work with. They have gone in each and 

every community, looked at what we needed to do of how to get 

this done, and I think a real model for how some other Federal 

agencies to work. So while this Federal, State, and local partnership has been mostly effective, we still need to work even harder 

to make sure that we finish the job for those people who really 

have fallen between—between the cracks. 

Again, this is a result of a strong bipartisan effort that I think 

we can look to with a lot of pride. We can see that this work has 

resulted in tremendous amount of progress. But sort of unrelated 

to Sandy, but certainly a part of it, is what is happening with the 

flood insurance maps. And here again, we have had a pretty united 

effort from our delegation. Senators Menendez and Booker are fully 

engaged. But this is adding to the misery that the people of New 

Jersey along the coast are experiencing with the aftermath of 

Sandy. 

So we have a very strong bipartisan effort with a number of folks 

that are working on this. And we hope to have a successful conclusion. So I would like to once again thank those Members of the 

29 

partnership for their work, but remind everybody that we still have 

an awful lot that has to be done and we need the strong effort to 

continue. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. DUNCAN [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Bishop is next. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

panel both for your presentation today and also for all the work 

that you have done and continue to do on behalf of the people we 

all represent. I want a particular word of thanks for FEMA, who 

was on the ground in my district within hours of the storm hitting 

and stays there and has done a great job, and a particular word 

of thanks also to the Army Corps of Engineers who continues to do 

great work. 

And, General Bostick, in addition to thanking you, I want to pay 

particular thank you and commendation to David Leach and Joe 

Vietri, who are sitting behind you, who have done great, great 

work in our district and throughout the Northeast. 

Real quickly the gentleman from South Carolina before was raising issues having to do with cost and what—the remedy we have 

put in place. And he was suggesting that we had a $50 billion need 

against which we were proposing a $60 billion solution. And I 

just—I think it is important that we all have the same set of numbers. The Governors of New York and New Jersey provided a very, 

very detailed list back in the fall of 2012 to the White House. That 

list was north of $80 billion worth of needs that they were requesting the Federal Government to address. The response was $60 billion, $10 billion of which was essentially additional borrowing authority for the flood insurance program. So that left roughly $50 

billion, which has been reduced by discrimination. So what really we are doing is providing approximately $45 bil- lion or $47 billion against an $85 billion need. So plenty of money. 

I mean, lots of money, $47 billion. But it is not as if we are throwing money at problems and not having identified problems with 

any degree of specificity. 

Let me just go to a couple of things real quick. The President 

made a commitment to eliminating red tape for the Sandy recovery 

efforts. And my question, General Bostick, is to you, is, is that commitment really being acted upon? And do we really have a commitment to expedite projects to the greatest extent possible from the 

partners that the Corps must work with? And I am speaking specifically about OMB, Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior. 

Is there truly a Governmentwide commitment to eliminating red 

tape so that we can put solutions in place as quickly as possible? 

And, if not, is there anything this committee can do to assist you 

in completing your efforts? 

General BOSTICK. Mr. Bishop, thank for that question, and also 

thanks for recognizing members of my team and also the team that 

is doing the work in North Atlantic Division and across the Corps. 

To your question, in terms of Sandy and the post-Sandy work, we 

feel like we are moving as fast as we can safely move. And we 

think the interagency work, the work with OMB, the work that is 

happening on the ground with the locals is moving as fast as we 

can safely move. And we feel good about the authorities that we 

have been given. I think if you look broader in terms of the work 

that the Corps must do, there is more work to do in terms of 

30 

streamlining our efforts and making us all work together to move 

quickly. But in terms of post-Sandy construction, we feel good 

about where we are at. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you for that. We talked a little about funding. The Corps had $5.35 billion. And that is—that is an enormous amount of money. But is it sufficient to repair the damage 

that was caused by 100-year storm, and is it sufficient to repair the 

damage in such a way that we will not have damage to that extent 

if we are hit by additional storms going forward? And let me just 

add a little bit also. One of the things that I am very concerned 

about is we are going to make repairs, particularly to our shorelines, but those repairs are going to require ongoing maintenance. 

And to the extent—is it possible for the Corps to sequester some 

portion—bad word—set aside some portion of the funding so that 

there could be a pool available for ongoing maintenance so that it 

doesn’t all fall on either the annual appropriations process or the 

local governments? 

General BOSTICK. That is a complex question, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Sorry. 

General BOSTICK. What I would say is it is going to be yes-andno answer. Yes, it is enough in the areas that we have been asked 

to respond to immediately. The flood control and coastal emergency. Those projects, the O&M projects that were direct in our authorities. The comprehensive study, the $20 million to do the comprehensive study. I feel we have adequate funds to do what we 

have been asked to do there. There are some projects that are authorized but not constructed. There are some projects that may 

come out of ongoing investigations. The comprehensive study is not 

going to produce projects, but down the road it may produce ideas 

that the Congress may want to seek projects. And there is not 

enough money for that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER [presiding]. With that, Mr. Davis is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for 

holding this hearing. 

Thank you to each and every one of you for being here today. 

Joe, I would really like to talk to you about some high-speed rail 

issues in Springfield to Chicago to Saint Louis, but we will save 

that for another day. 

I really have enjoyed hearing some of the questions and the testimony relating to some of the processes that are followed post-disaster. And I think in this country, when it comes to disaster relief, 

we do a great job on the ground early. FEMA needs to be congratulated. All of your agencies do a phenomenal job. But we have the 

problems post-disaster. And it seems to me, too, that in many of 

the processes that take place afterwards we don’t dedicate enough 

time to try and make them easier on the average hardworking taxpayers of this country, too, who may still have to deal with agencies like FEMA and others. 

And with that in mind, I know Mr. Webster talked about the 

audit process that sometimes takes up to 10 years to address issues 

relating to taxpayer dollars being spent. We all want to save taxVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Aug 26, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\2013\11-14-~1\85550.TXT JEAN
31 

payer dollars, Administrator Zimmerman, but we have to get a better process, too, that is in place so that those audits get done more 

quickly, not just on the public assistance projects that my colleague, Mr. Webster, mentioned, but also when it comes to individual assistance. 

And we are going to see this in the aftermath of Hurricane 

Sandy. We have seen it in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and 

many disasters near my district along the Mississippi River, where, 

years from now, individuals will get letters stating that they now 

owe FEMA money. 

So I would urge you to continue to work towards making the 

process on the front end better so that we avoid these problems in 

the future. Because you know who they call? They call us. And 

then we call you. And it is unfortunate when that process has to 

happen. 

I do want to address, because I know that flood maps and mapping issues are frustrating folks along the eastern seaboard, too, as 

they are in and along the Mississippi River. As you know, we have 

a project that we are working with the Corps of Engineers to try 

and upgrade our levies in the metro east, while it seems we are in 

a race with FEMA to avoid the flood insurance rates going up drastically. It seems we should have better coordination. 

And along that line, the LOMA process. The LOMA process is a 

process that I found some personal frustration with in helping individuals walk through that. And I want to ask you a question. What 

is your average time it takes for a LOMA request to actually be— 

from filing date through adjudication? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Thank you for that question, Representative 

Davis. That falls within our Flood Insurance and Mitigation 

branch. I come from Response and Recovery. And I would not be 

able to give you a quote, as far as how long that process takes. So 

we would be happy to get that information back to you and give 

you that timeline. 

Mr. DAVIS. Can you get that person here in the next minute and 

42 seconds? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Well, let me see. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would you take my question back? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Yes, definitely. 

Mr. DAVIS. Because it goes with the whole—it also goes within 

the responsibility of FEMA and within the area that you are responsible for, too. Because it is the entire process, whether it is a 

mapping process, whether it is the disaster assistance process, 

whether it is actually making sure that individuals and public entities get the funds that they need and deserve. And it is an overall 

frustration for Members like me that we just see one agency within 

different departments seemingly work against themselves. And 

that is what we are trying to fix here. 

And I believe this committee—I agree with Chairman Shuster. 

We have seen Chairman Shuster and so many people on this committee in a bipartisan way put forth efforts to streamline processes. 

Because what is happening now sometimes isn’t the best. And each 

and every one of you know a better way to move the bureaucracy. 

And we need to hear from you, too, and we need to hear from all 

32 

of your agencies on how we can make the processes better post this 

disaster and the many more that are sure to come. 

And, with that, since I asked the question to the wrong person, 

I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

Now Mr. Sires is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this meeting. 

Before I start, I want to thank my colleague LoBiondo for his 

hard work and the kind words. He took the leadership and we were 

able to secure the money that New Jersey needed. So I feel real 

good about my colleagues. 

You know, one of my pet peeves when I was in the New Jersey 

Assembly was always putting money, every year—beaches, replenishment, and everything else that went along when we had a 

storm. And this resilience program, to me, I think it is extremely 

important. Because we would build it, and it would break again. 

So I guess my question to you now is this: Knowing that we need 

to do this resilience and knowing that we need to fix this or we can 

have the money to do the infrastructure that is going to be able to 

withstand the storms, are we better off now or better prepared for 

a future storm than we were before Sandy? Have we done some of 

the work that needed to be done in infrastructure to withstand 

some of the storms in the future? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I will take a quick piece of that, but I only have a 

small piece of that answer, Mr. Sires. 

We have at the FTA allocated not just recovery money but we have also allocated $1.3 billion to the transit agencies in the region, 

including New Jersey Transit and the MTA, for what we call local 

priority resiliency. 

The concept for that funding was this: If you are going to go into 

a tunnel and you are going to restore it and do the necessary restoration, it makes sense and certainly is efficient from the perspective of the taxpayer to complete the resilience element of that 

project at the same time. 

So the classic example is you have rail tunnels that also have the 

signal and the electrical work and the ductwork at the ground 

level. And putting it up to the roof doesn’t cost all that much, and, 

Lord knows, you don’t want to have to shut down the tunnel twice. 

So, yes, we are in the midst of doing that construction. It is not 

completed yet, but there are what I would call, kind of, small bore 

resiliency efforts that are underway. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, I am glad to hear that, because one of the problems that we had in Hoboken, New Jersey, was the signals. Apparently, there were, like, 1,200 signals that went because of the slope 

of the—so this is where the resilience money will be spent, I would 

assume. 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is one part of it. We—— 

Mr. SIRES. There are others, I am sure. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We expect to compete a larger chunk of it for—— 

Mr. SIRES. Because the other question is going to be to Lieutenant General Bostick. 

You know, one of the visits that I made after the storm were the 

ports. And the ports were hit hard, their infrastructure. So I was 

just wondering if you are working with the ports in order to raise 

33 

the grid, you know, the electrical grids, and make everything somehow able to better stand the storms and the floods that hit these 

ports. Because, as you know, the ports in our area, there were 

250,000 jobs, and that is impacted. And I must say that they were 

back within a few days. Almost a week, they were back functioning. 

So I was just wondering if the Army Corps of Engineers was 

working with the ports on their resilience program to make sure 

the infrastructure is capable of handling some of these storms. 

General BOSTICK. Representative, we work with the ports, but 

our responsibility by the authorities that we have are primarily in 

the O&M and the dredging work that we do. And then we do some 

work on the coastlines. 

We are working very closely with the Department of Energy and 

Deputy Secretary Poneman and his team in terms of response capability. Our authorities also allow us to respond quickly with generator support. 

But in terms of the infrastructure of the electrical grid, that is 

not an area that we work. 

Mr. SIRES. All right. 

One of the questions that I asked Governor Christie during this 

whole storm is, we had a ton of generators delivered to New Jersey, 

but some of these places weren’t able to hook them up because, you 

know, the way where the hook is—or it did not fit. 

So I was just wondering, is that a State, I guess, requirement or 

a Federal requirement where we can make something that everybody has the same ability to switch on? 

Maybe I am not making myself clear. For example, the gas stations, they couldn’t get the power because, although you had a generator, these generators couldn’t be hooked on. You couldn’t deliver 

the gas because they didn’t have the same way of delivering the 

gas. 

Do we need something that is—everybody is the same, basically? 

Mr. ROGOFF. One thing I think does touch on this, Mr. Sires, is 

if you look at the Hurricane Sandy Task Force report, the whole 

issue of the availability of fuel in the event of a storm was actually 

quite critical. So, yes, they could get generators, but they couldn’t 

necessarily get the fuel to fire them up. 

Mr. SIRES. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And, similarly, for transit operators and even for 

evacuation needs, how we redeploy fuel so it is available when we 

actually need it at its most critical time is one of the issues that 

the task force is looking at. 

Mr. SIRES. That would be a State issue or Federal issue? I am 

sorry. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I think, like everything else here, it is a partnership. 

Mr. SIRES. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

And, with that, Mr. Farenthold is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Chairman Shuster. 

And I have seen a great improvement in the response to Sandy 

after Katrina. And my goal is to continue that level of improvement 

34 

as we continue to face natural disasters. We all hope and pray that 

they won’t happen, but they always do. 

Obviously, there are funding issues associated with this. You 

know, I think it is a whole other issue about how we address funding for natural disasters. Do we continue to do these as supplemental bills, or is it something that we should be planning for because we know it is going to happen? 

But along the lines of continuing improvement and learning from 

these issues, I know, Ms. Zimmerman, you aren’t the flood insurance maps expert, but is there some analysis that you all are working with that department to determine the accuracy of these maps 

as predictors of damages, specifically with respect to hurricanes? 

They are, kind of, unusual, very powerful weather events. Is there 

some process underway to determine the accuracy of the flood 

maps and, for that matter, any of our other predictive mechanisms? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Yes, I can guarantee you that we are looking 

at the maps, looking at their accuracy, as we are updating all of 

the maps going forward. And they are one of the tools that we do 

look at as to when we are looking and doing our hazard and risk 

analysis of all communities across the United States and really 

working with the State and local partners to assess those risks. So 

it is one of the many pieces that we have when we do look—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I ask this question because I am concerned about—I am also concerned about the science and accuracy 

behind the map. I think Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Davis and several 

other folks have expressed some concern about the mapping process. And I do think that is important in our preparation for disasters, even above and beyond just determining the flood insurance 

rates. And I would join with the other Members in encouraging you 

to take back to your office that the maps are an area of interest 

to this committee and to Congress as a whole. 

Let me ask General Bostick with the Corps real quickly, there 

is a constant battle for dollars between maintenance and new 

projects. And, you know, one of the concerns that I hear from some 

of the folks back in Texas is that there isn’t enough money for 

maintenance. And there is an attitude within the community, and 

I am not sure how deeply it extends into the Corps, but an attitude 

of, well, we will wait till the next hurricane and it will fall down 

and then they will have to find money to fix it. 

How are we determining in the Corps what is necessary to do in 

maintenance to keep vital facilities open? Where are our challenges 

there, and how successful do you think we are being at that? 

General BOSTICK. This is a significant area of concern for me and 

all of the Corps leaders and employees. We are managing about 

$250 billion worth of projects that the Congress has authorized and 

asked us to manage, and we have very little dollars in which to do 

that. The reality is we are doing mostly operations and maintenance versus new construction. Very little new construction work, 

in fact. 

So our focus is how do we use the precious dollars that we have 

to continue to operate. One of the things that we are doing in our 

Civil Works Transformation is to look at our infrastructure strategy and determine, within that strategy, that portfolio of $250 billion worth of infrastructure, what should we retain? What should 

35 

we repurpose? And what should we divest of? There is just too 

much infrastructure that we can no longer properly maintain. 

So part of the strategy has got to come back to the local, the 

State, and the Federal leaders and say, this is no longer serving 

the purpose for which Congress authorized it. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Or, of course, we could pull all the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund back into harbor maintenance. That 

might help. 

And, Mr. Mendez, let me ask you a question. Also, thank you for 

coming down to the district I represent, Corpus Christi. I hope you 

enjoyed your visit. 

One of our ongoing problems throughout the country is the condition of our bridges. And can you tell me quickly what happens 

when we have a weather event, a hurricane, lots of water, to substandard bridges? And can you just spend the next couple seconds 

telling us how bad it is or is not? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, let me just give you numbers that I do have. 

Throughout the Nation, we have close to 600,000 bridges. Of that, 

about, I would say, maybe 150,000 of them may not meet current 

design standards or could use some form of either replacement or 

some kind of refurbishment, if you will. So that gives you an understanding as to how the bridges are. 

And, obviously, depending on a specific condition on a specific 

bridge, a lot of water may not be a good thing if you have a lot of 

scour or your columns are being eroded. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Well, I see my time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. Carson is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Zimmerman, your written testimony mentions the President’s Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. This task force recently published its reports with recommendations to help the impacted areas and effectively encouraged resilient rebuilding approaches. 

I am very interested in the benefits of resilient building and rebuilding techniques which can improve pre-disaster mitigation. 

Will you highlight some of the task force recommendations for us 

and describe how this committee can help these recommendations 

become implemented? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Sure. Thank you, Representative. 

The task force report did come out. I believe there are 69 recommendations in the report. And as we move forward to build 

more resilience, as we have been talking about on a number of 

questions and answers here today, looking at projects and we 

would look at it holistically instead of just the FEMA Public Assistance Program. We repair what was damaged or destroyed, but we 

want to make sure what we are repairing has some degree of resiliency to it, some mitigation efforts to go into it, so that we are not 

continually rebuilding the same structures and putting them back 

the way they were. 

So, throughout the report, it has a number of recommendations 

and things that I know folks are working on, the working groups, 

to move that forward and to define how do we build back more reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Aug 26, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\FULL\2013\11-14-~1\85550.TXT JEAN
36 

silient. And as experienced here on this panel, bringing all Federal 

agencies together, as all of us received different funding sources 

through the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, and how do we put 

those dollars to the best use so that we are not duplicating funding. 

Also, to make sure that when we come to the resiliency that we are 

looking at what is the best case, going back to what is the benefitcost of this and are we making sure that we are using the best use 

of the money so that we are not going to come back in and have 

to rebuild. 

So I know, through the recommendations in the report, several 

Federal agencies, as well as working with our State and local partners—because it goes beyond that, and it is looking beyond just 

Sandy, whenever disaster strikes, and how we come together to 

make sure that we are building more resilient. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

My followup is for the entire panel. A common complaint after 

past disasters is the constant changing of FEMA staff, who often 

provide conflicting answers on project eligibility. This leads to problems not only early on but often later on in the process when the 

audits are conducted and find various costs and projects were ineligible for funding. 

What steps might FEMA be taking to provide continuity in 

FEMA’s decisionmaking with respect to recovery projects and to 

really ensure that correct information is being provided to all applicants? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. I will take that one. 

What we have done is we have really instituted to documenting 

our process and to do training. We have put forward in the last 2 

years a number of guidance documents and to making sure that 

our staff is trained out there in the field. 

Mr. CARSON. Uh-huh. 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. So when there is transition, a lot of our workforce are disaster reservists. They are out there for a period of time 

and move from disaster to disaster. But we want to make sure that 

when somebody has to leave and somebody new comes in that 

there is a transition period. So that they are working through getting to understand the applicants that they are assigned to and 

working with their projects. 

And, as I say, just the guidance documents and the training to 

make sure folks are doing it the same way so that you are not getting that one person says one thing and the next person comes in 

and says the other thing. So we are trying to put that together, and 

we have been doing a lot of training. We have trained over 400 of 

our Public Assistance Cadre members so that they are trying to do 

the system the same way. 

Mr. CARSON. What, from the individual witnesses, are the top 

two factors that have effectively restricted your agency from being 

able to implement what Congress directed you to do in the Sandy 

Supplemental legislation? I only have a minute left. 

All right. Think on it. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. 

37 

If anybody would like to answer that in writing, we certainly 

would appreciate those types of responses. You could maybe even 

make it the top three. That would be helpful to us. 

With that, Chairman Duncan is recognized. 

Mr. DUNCAN.Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

had to speak on the floor and had other obligations that kept me 

from being here the first hour or so of this hearing, so I apologize 

if I am repeating something. 

But I have a news report from just a little over 2 weeks ago that 

says, though the Government aid has been slow to trickle over the 

past year, already the cases of fraud have piled up, and officials are 

warning that as more money gets freed up, more will try to bilk 

the system. And it says that in just one county, Monmouth County, 

there have been 210 cases in just that one county that have been 

opened. 

And then, also, I understand that there is concern from past disasters and also possibly in this one that some agencies or individuals have been given money that—that FEMA had already reimbursed the people or they had gotten from insurance proceeds. 

And I am wondering—so I have two questions. One, what is 

being done, or is enough being done, to make sure that there is not 

as much fraud in this situation as there has been in some of the 

other disasters? And, secondly, what happens when you later find 

out—or do you later make efforts to find out whether agencies have 

gotten money from more than one source? 

Mr. Rogoff, we will start with you. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure. Well, Chairman Duncan, we have a very limited universe of grantees. We are making grants directly to transit 

agencies, so we are not making them to individuals within the communities. 

But we have stood up a number of measures to ensure that we 

ensure the absolute minimum and hopefully embody a zero tolerance for waste, fraud, and abuse. For any grantee receiving over 

$100 million or more, which includes all of the big ones in the New 

York-New Jersey region, we are requiring them to have their own 

integrity monitors. We are doing a risk-based approach not only to 

every grantee but to every grant. 

We have procedures in place with FEMA. We see every award 

they might make to any transit agency and they are seeing every 

award that we make to every transit agency to ensure that there 

is no duplication. And we are currently working with FEMA to 

make sure that transit agencies cannot double dip on insurance 

and Federal assistance, and we are going to be modeling our approach on theirs. 

It gets complicated. We have hired insurance experts to help us 

in the following respect. Some transit agencies have individual facilities that were insured. Some are getting a lump-sum settlement 

from their insurer for all of the damage, which includes both transit assets and nontransit assets. And we are going to make sure 

that even when they get a lump sum, it is prorated on their transit 

damage so they are not just putting their insurance settlement 

against some other universe of cost and letting us pay for all of the 

transit damage. So I think we have a very good series of procedures in place. 

38 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Ms. Zimmerman. 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. Going back to the cases for individual assistance, post-Katrina we had an improper payment rate of between 9 

and 14 percent. Since that time, we put into place a number of 

stopgaps and a number of things that we do internally to be able 

to doublecheck, and a year ago, our improper payment rate was .03 

percent. So as we go forward in trying to get the money out there 

quickly to disaster survivors following disasters, there are a lot of 

checks and balances that we do within our own system at our processing centers. 

So moving forward we are hopeful there won’t be a lot of that. 

But, as you know, when we get the money out there after we have 

been able to validate damages in someone’s home, if they do get insurance coverage, then we do go back and ask them to see what 

the insurance covered and what things were not covered and if we 

are able to cover those, so there will be some cases where we may 

have to ask for refunds back based on money that we have provided to disaster applicants. 

For our public assistance projects, as was stated, we are working—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Have you asked for any refunds in this situation 

yet? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. From disaster applicants? I believe we have 

from a few. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask you about something else. When Mr. 

Sires mentioned, as he said, a ton of generators that were sent 

there that couldn’t be used, I remembered when FEMA had many 

thousands of trailers that they ended up with, brand new trailers 

but for another disaster that just ended up sitting there. Are you 

familiar with the generators that he is asking about and are we 

going to read about things like in the future on this? 

Ms. ZIMMERMAN. I know we work very closely with the Corps of 

Engineers when it comes to generators. We provide generators, 

working with the Corps of Engineers to install them. General 

Bostick? 

General BOSTICK. What we did in post-Sandy, I think there was 

an effort from the President on down, including the Governors, to 

push forward with as much assets as we could. So we had more 

assets available in some areas than they needed. 

The other thing that Representative Sires brought up is the connections. What we do prior to a storm is to conduct assessments, 

and the Corps conducted about 2,400 assessments of critical infrastructure, like hospitals, police stations, fire stations and those 

sorts of things. Since Sandy hit a major city, the type which we had 

not seen before, there were generator requirements on things that 

were not critical infrastructure. So we did not have connections on 

those. And it is really up to the States to help us with that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. With that, Ms. Esty, 5 

minutes, please. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the 

panel for your answers and for staying all the way to the last person, who I think is here today. I, too, have been shuttling back and 

39 

forth with the Science Committee where we are having a vigorous 

debate about climate change. 

It is my hope that we can learn from what your agencies have 

done, what best practices should be going forward. I come from the 

State of Connecticut. We still have people rebuilding in my State. 

So there are two areas I would like to get your comments on and 

feedback about. 

First, to return to the remarks from my colleague, Mr. Gibbs, a 

little bit earlier, so General Bostick, this is for you, we have 

learned a lot in Connecticut about the vulnerability of our shoreline, most of which is unprotected. The State has been trying to address through nonstructural alternatives, but, frankly, there just 

hasn’t been support for that. And as our policies tend to focus on 

replacement, I would hope that these comprehensive surveys are 

used with now rising sea levels, increasing severity of storms, to 

really take a good hard look at nonhard structure alternatives that 

may allow us in places like Long Island Sound, both on the Connecticut and the New York side, and I would like your comments 

and thoughts about what we could do on a congressional level to 

facilitate the Corps and any of your agencies to really explore costeffective ways of expending taxpayer dollars to better protect life, 

limb and property. 

General BOSTICK. Thank you for that question. I think we are 

going to learn a lot from the comprehensive study. It will come to 

Congress in January of 2015, and I think Congress will have the 

opportunity to act on that and determine the way forward. We will 

and have considered climate change and sea level rise and more 

frequent storms and higher storm surges and the impact that that 

could have. Part of that study will include the kind of options that 

you are talking about, nonstructural options, as well as structural. 

So I think all of that is on the table and we will have great flexibility in the way forward. 

I think the critical thing for the country is to decide how it wants 

to prioritize and where it wants to prioritize its precious resources; 

and realize it is going to be not just a Federal solution, but a nonFederal, local, tribal and all of us working together. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. Now I would like to turn to the transportation side. As you well know, we had rail lines underwater in Connecticut for a considerable period of time. That will not be the last 

time we have that happen. So I would like you to talk a little bit 

about what alternatives, particularly given the complexity of the 

ownership of those rails in Connecticut, and whether there might 

be funding that is available to address what, in some ways, this is 

the resilience question we have been talking about over and over 

again here today, what that has to do with everything from 100- 

year-old catenary lines that we are relying on, and an energy 

transmission system that is inadequate to deal with these issues, 

as well as rail beds that are too low. And all of these, and as we 

know, any one piece, the weakest piece is going to bring the whole 

system down on the most heavily used passenger rail system in the 

country. 

So if you can talk about sort of the intermodal impact of that, 

I–95 is already jammed, there is no place for those cars to go. We 

have experienced this twice already this year, and it wasn’t Sandy, 

40 

it was accidents that caused this. So if you can give us some 

thought. And frankly, the Governor is here for Connecticut today 

and he is going to want to know from me is the State going to be 

able to get some assistance in raising those rail beds, which is, indeed, clearly one of our choke points and one of our risks for resiliency. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Ms. Esty, I can tell you that all the transit 

agencies that were impacted by Sandy are eligible for this resiliency funding. And we are already obviously in a detailed conversation with Metro North about it. 

Certainly, you make a good point. The fact that Joe and I should 

jointly address this question is indicative of the challenge. The line 

that runs along the shoreline is shared by Amtrak, ConnDOT 

trains and Metro North trains. It is a critical asset. Probably more 

rail passengers use that than most every other district represented 

here on the dais, with the exception of Mr. Nadler’s probably. 

That is why our priority for our resiliency funding is going to go 

to regional approaches where we see that cooperative conversation 

between Metro North and Amtrak and ConnDOT—making sure 

that there is one comprehensive solution, not a solution that protects one segment of rail only to flood another. 

Mr. SZABO. I think I would just add to that, I mean, Peter gave 

the appropriate answer for the immediate solution. For the longer 

term solution I come back to a couple points I made in my testimony talking about the importance of regionalism, regional planning, the importance of moving forward with our NEC Future vision and making sure that we are then meeting the needs of all 

of these transit and intercity passenger rail operators comprehensively, because the point has been well made, it is the weakest 

part, you know, link in the chain, that ultimately breaks down the 

whole system. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlelady. I have just one final question and just a remark. Mr. Rogoff, the final question will be to 

you, but I have a remark first. 

I just want to make sure that Members and panelists know and 

one of my colleagues may have alluded to that I think we are only 

about recovery, when certainly this committee and what you do 

with these funds are about recovery. They are also about mitigation. But we certainly want to do what is smart and try to raise 

the level to prevent these things from happening again or mitigating so that there is a lot less damage. 

But there comes a point, with the limited dollars that we have, 

that we may be able to raise it a level or two. But to go to that 

third and fourth and fifth level, I believe that is when the States 

and the local governments have to step in and say, OK, if we want 

to take it three or four levels up, that is something the taxpayers 

of New York or New Jersey or New York City need to do, because 

the Federal Government is coming in with taxpayer dollars from 

the States that are not directly impacted by it. 

So, again, I want to make it clear that I think that certainly recovery, raising it up, let’s be smart about it, make the investment, 

if it makes sense to do it. 

41 

The other concern that I have is this is a new program, the transit program, and many times administrations spend the money 

that is not intended, what Congress had intended. In fact my mother used to say to me, I gave you an inch, you took it a mile. And 

whether it is a Republican administration or a Democrat administration, that kind of thing, my mother’s wisdom is right, we give 

you an inch and you take a mile. 

So the final question, Mr. Rogoff, is back to the cost-benefit. I 

think it is so important to make sure that a cost-benefit is paramount, also making sure it is transparent so the public can see 

that, and I think the public understands cost-benefit analysis. 

What would you see as a scenario where you would say, well, the 

cost-benefit analysis is here and we really have got to take a different tact on that? Because maybe there are those scenarios out 

there. Can you think of one that might give us some guidance? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Quite frankly, not offhand. Well, let me provide one. 

Depending on what you include in costs and what you include in 

benefits, there could be a community for which the transit access 

is absolutely critical but the number of transit riders doesn’t generate as much by way of benefits so the solution is that those people lose service. I don’t even have a place in mind when I think 

about that right now. 

But why do we have an Essential Air Service program? Well, a 

decision has been made by some that we need to maintain that 

connectivity for those communities and those airports where they 

otherwise wouldn’t get it. I could see a scenario where we would 

make a judgment that it is absolutely essential that that community continue to have access to transit, even if there are comparatively few riders. But we are not there yet. I can assure you, as I 

said earlier, cost-benefit is going to be elemental to our analysis. 

If I could raise one other thing only because Mr. Webster is still 

here and he raised a question that I feel I could help answer. He 

asked earlier if resiliency investments were defined anywhere on 

paper. They will be shortly, at least for purposes of the Federal 

Transit Administration, because we will be putting out a notice of 

funding availability inviting applications for those resiliency investments and we will obviously, in that notice, have to define what 

is eligible and what is not. So I just wanted to call that to his attention, because there will be something on paper to look at at that 

time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate that. And, again, this committee and 

this Congress needs to have that transparency. We saw the TIGER 

grants and nobody can ever figure out exactly why they went 

where they did. I have my own thoughts on that. But, again, transparency is important and I think cost-benefit analysis is absolutely 

central to the whole question. 

So, again, I thank all you for being here. I appreciate you spending your time here. Are there any further questions from any Members of the panel? Seeing none, I would like to thank each of our 

witnesses for their testimony today. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to any questions that may be submitted in writing and unanimous 

consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional 

42 

comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to 

be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Again, thank you all for taking the time today. I appreciate it 

greatly. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

43 


Insert offset folio 6 here 85550.006
44 


Insert offset folio 7 here 85550.007
45 


Insert offset folio 8 here 85550.008
46 


Insert offset folio 9 here 85550.009
47 


Insert offset folio 10 here 85550.010
48 


Insert offset folio 11 here 85550.011
49 


Insert offset folio 12 here 85550.012
50 


Insert offset folio 13 here 85550.013
51 


Insert offset folio 14 here 85550.014
52 


Insert offset folio 15 here 85550.015
53 


Insert offset folio 16 here 85550.016
54 


Insert offset folio 17 here 85550.017
55 


Insert offset folio 18 here 85550.018
56 


Insert offset folio 19 here 85550.019
57 


Insert offset folio 20 here 85550.020
58 


Insert offset folio 21 here 85550.021
59 


Insert offset folio 22 here 85550.022
60 


Insert offset folio 23 here 85550.023
61 


Insert offset folio 24 here 85550.024
62 


Insert offset folio 25 here 85550.025
63 


Insert offset folio 26 here 85550.026
64 


Insert offset folio 27 here 85550.027
65 


Insert offset folio 28 here 85550.028
66 


Insert offset folio 29 here 85550.029
67 


Insert offset folio 30 here 85550.030
68 


Insert offset folio 31 here 85550.031
69 


Insert offset folio 32 here 85550.032
70 


Insert offset folio 33 here 85550.033
71 


Insert offset folio 34 here 85550.034
72 


Insert offset folio 35 here 85550.035
73 


Insert offset folio 36 here 85550.036
74 


Insert offset folio 37 here 85550.037
75 


Insert offset folio 38 here 85550.038
76 


Insert offset folio 39 here 85550.039
77 


Insert offset folio 40 here 85550.040
78 


Insert offset folio 41 here 85550.041
79 


Insert offset folio 42 here 85550.042
80 


Insert offset folio 43 here 85550.043
81 


Insert offset folio 44 here 85550.044
82 


Insert offset folio 45 here 85550.045
83 


Insert offset folio 46 here 85550.046
84 


Insert offset folio 47 here 85550.047
85 


Insert offset folio 48 here 85550.048
86 


Insert offset folio 49 here 85550.049
87 


Insert offset folio 50 here 85550.050
88 


Insert offset folio 51 here 85550.051
89 


Insert offset folio 52 here 85550.052
90 


Insert offset folio 53 here 85550.053
91 


Insert offset folio 54 here 85550.054
92 


Insert offset folio 55 here 85550.055
93 


Insert offset folio 56 here 85550.056
94 


Insert offset folio 57 here 85550.057
95 


Insert offset folio 58 here 85550.058
96 


Insert offset folio 59 here 85550.059
97 


Insert offset folio 60 here 85550.060
98 


Insert offset folio 61 here 85550.061
99 


Insert offset folio 62 here 85550.062
100 


Insert offset folio 63 here 85550.063
101 


Insert offset folio 64 here 85550.064
102 


Insert offset folio 65 here 85550.065
103 


Insert offset folio 66 here 85550.066
104 


Insert offset folio 67 here 85550.067
105 


Insert offset folio 68 here 85550.068
106 


Insert offset folio 69 here 85550.069
107 


Insert offset folio 70 here 85550.070
108 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 71 here 85550.071