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

44–128 PDF 2009

S. Hrg. 110–704 

MAJOR DISASTER RECOVERY: ASSESSING FEMA’S 

PERFORMANCE SINCE KATRINA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 17, 2008 

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

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

DONNY WILLIAMS, Staff Director 

APRILLE RAABE, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 7 

Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 8 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2008 

Major General Tod Bunting, Kansas Adjutant General, Director, Kansas 

Emergency Management and Homeland Security ............................................ 5 

Stephen Sellers, Deputy Director, Regional Operations Division, California 

Governor’s Office of Emergency Services ........................................................... 8 

David Maxwell, Director, Arkansas Department of Emergency Management ... 11 

James Bassham, Director, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency ............ 12 

Harvey E. Johnson, Jr., Deputy Administrator, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................................................................................... 22 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bassham, James: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 58 

Bunting, Major General Tod: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 31 

Johnson, Harvey E., Jr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Maxwell, David: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Sellers, Stephen: 

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

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

APPENDIX 

Charts referred to by Senator Landrieu ................................................................ 85 

Questions and responses submitted for the Record from: 

Mr. Maxwell ...................................................................................................... 96 

Mr. Bassham with attachments ...................................................................... 97 

Mr. Johnson ...................................................................................................... 103 

(1) 

MAJOR DISASTER RECOVERY: ASSESSING 

FEMA’S PERFORMANCE SINCE KATRINA 

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu, Pryor, and Stevens. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. Good afternoon. I would like to call the Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery to order. 

This is a Subcommittee devoted to major disaster recovery assessing FEMA’s performance since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I 

am going to begin with just a brief opening statement and I thank 

so much the panelist that are with us today and we will introduce 

you all shortly. 

I would say that since we scheduled this meeting, there has been 

a slight change in the schedule. We normally have 2 hours for a 

hearing. Today we only have an hour and 15 minutes and we just 

found out about that a few minutes ago. So I am going to try to 

be as brief as I can. 

You have all been given 5 minutes for opening statements. You 

might want to think about shortening it somewhat, but we want 

to hear your testimony and we are very grateful for what you have 

submitted and we are going to try to provide as much question and 

answer time. 

I do expect one or two other Members to join me, but we are 

going to go ahead and get started because of our limited time. 

It may come as a surprise to many people following this hearing 

that since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita we have had 169 major disasters and over 250 Federal emergencies and fire emergency declarations made by the President of the United States which would 

call our system into play. 

These figures should cause us to remain vigilant that we have 

to continue to improve and strengthen our responses at the local, 

State and Federal level. 

The Stafford Act makes only two distinctions with regard to disaster declarations. There are emergency declarations which are 

generally reserved for the smaller events that require limited FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:32 Feb 24, 2009 Jkt 044128 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44128.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
2 

eral funding for items like, debris removal, etc., and for assistance 

that does not require significant resources. 

There are also major disaster declarations of which you all represent some. Clearly, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other major 

hurricanes received that designation, which generally requires significant Federal aid over longer periods of time and include funding 

from public assistance as well as individual assistance programs. 

These disasters often require long sheltering, disaster housing programs and other forms of assistance. 

Today, this Subcommittee will convene its first hearing on a 

sample of the 169 major disasters that have been declared. While 

not as massive as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in scope, they have 

had a significant negative impact on the families struggling to recover, the businesses that are struggling to recover. 

Our Subcommittee’s focus will be to redesign and retool, to improve the response and recovery for all levels of disasters and to 

begin our work to create actually a third level which is, in my view, 

in great need for major catastrophic events. 

I will personally look forward to working with all of you and 

many others as we build a better system. 

It is my belief that the best way to continue to refine our responses to the small, as well as the major, as well as the catastrophic is to really understand the good and the bad and the ugly 

of our response and to continue to improve it as we can. 

So we are looking forward to hearing first from you, Major General Tod Bunting from the State of Kansas, who is the Director of 

the Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. 

You will discuss tornados that touched down in Greensburg, Kansas. Greensburg, a city of over 1,500 people, was hit by an EF–5 

tornado. The tornado was 1.7 miles wide on the ground for 22 miles 

with winds up to 205 miles per hour. 

In the wake of the storm, that city was 95 percent destroyed with 

the other 5 percent being severely damaged and 15 people lost 

their lives in that storm. 

The city has taken some innovative steps. We look forward to 

hearing about that today. 

Next, we will hear from Stephen Sellers, Deputy Director, Regional Operations from the Office of the Governor in California. 

I want to thank you for making the long trip from California, 

particularly because you all are in the midst of ongoing challenges 

right now. We are very interested in your perspective on what is 

happening there. 

We also will hear from David Maxwell, the Director of the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management, about one of the 

deadliest outbreaks of tornados in years. 

On February 5, more than 100 tornados, I understand, Mr. Maxwell, devastated communities in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, 

Mississippi and Tennessee. I do think I will be joined by the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, all the other Senators have 

been invited as well. 

More than 50 lives were lost, making this one of the deadliest 

tornado outbreaks in the United States in more than 20 years. We 

hope to hear from you today how some of those communities are 

faring. 

3 

1The charts referred to appears in the Appendix on page 85. 

I want to particularly thank you recently for cooperating so closely with the State of Louisiana in returning some of those goods 

that were lost in the system back to the victims that they were intended to serve initially. 

And finally we will hear from James Bassham, Director of the 

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, who will describe how 

those same storms that hit Arkansas, how they hit Tennessee, 

damaging, destroying more than 1,000 homes and 33 victims in 

Tennessee. 

And after this panel, we will be hearing from our newly confirmed Deputy Administrator, Admiral Harvey Johnson, who will 

give his assessment from his perspective how the response has 

been for these disasters, but again, we must stay vigilant in our 

efforts to improve our response and that is the basis of our hearing 

today. 

I would like to, just before I start, call your attention to the posters that we have tried just to give the scope of the disaster.1

If you turn to the second one, the closest to me, you can see that 

of the ones we are speaking about today, the California wildfires, 

the Kansas storms, the Tennessee storms and the Arkansas storms 

while they have been significant, $8 almost $9 million in the case 

of Arkansas, $12 million in Tennessee, $71 million in Kansas, the 

California wildfire to date is $112 million, there is just absolutely 

no comparison to the $24.9 billion in individual aid and public assistance for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

And I know people would think that I just sort of manufactured 

the scale to make it look bad, but it really is that bad in terms of 

the scale of the disaster of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita relative to 

these others which are very significant. 

They are not minor disasters, the ones that you all are dealing 

with. I mean, they are classified as major disasters and I think 

that you all would agree because you are dealing with them, they 

are substantial and major; and yet you can see how the relative 

size of these really requires us to think about a third category 

which this hearing will be the first to kind of start pulling out what 

might be possible when you have, like on the side of Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, a truly major catastrophe. 

I think the other poster, I think this is a ranking of other storms 

or of other hurricanes. If you could hold that up, I think it is the 

earthquakes in Colorado, in California in 1989, Hurricane Andrew 

in 1992, the North Ridge earthquake in 1994, and Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, you can still see with some of the largest that 

we have dealt with, still Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are just catastrophic in scope. 

So one thing as we start this hearing, it is important for the 

country to understand there are different sizes of disasters. There 

are different tools required to deal with them. 

And we are looking forward to hearing from you today about how 

the tools that we have currently available, how they have worked 

for you or how they have not worked for you and how you would 

suggest we retool them or redesign them to help you next time 

based on the scope of the disasters that we face, and we thank you 

4 

very much for being a part of this very important effort for our 

country. 

[The prepared opening statement of Senator Landrieu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

You may be surprised to know that since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there have 

been about 169 ‘‘major disasters’’ and over 250 ‘‘Federal emergencies’’ and ‘‘fire 

emergency’’ declarations made by the President of the United States. These figures 

are astounding and they are a reminder that at any given time, we are only a moment away from the next disaster or catastrophe. 

The Stafford Act makes only two distinctions with regard to disaster declarations. 

There are ‘‘emergency declarations’’ which are generally reserved for smaller events 

that require Federal funding for of debris removal and other assistance that generally won’t require significant resources. 

There are also ‘‘major disaster’’ declarations, which generally require significant 

Federal aid, and include funding from the Public Assistance and the Individual Assistance programs, These disasters often require long term sheltering, disaster housing programs, and other forms of assistance that are required over a period of time. 

Today, this Subcommittee convenes its first hearing on a sample of the 169 ‘‘major 

disasters’’ that have been declared by the President since Katrina. While they are 

not as massive as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in scope, they have had a monumental impact on the families who have worked to rebuild their lives in their wake. 

Our Subcommittee’s focus throughout its existence has been to highlight the need 

to improve the response and recovery tools for all levels of disasters: emergencies, 

major disasters, and a third category, which I will personally work to put in place, 

catastrophes. It is my belief that the best way to understand the good, bad, and ugly 

of responses and recoveries is to look at case by case examples. Today we will hear 

from emergency managers from states that have experienced major disasters in the 

recent past. 

First, we will hear from Major General Tod Bunting, of Kansas’ Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. He will discuss the horrific tornado 

that touched down in Greensburg, Kansas in May of 2007. Greensburg, a city of 

over 1,500 people was hit by an EF-5 tornado. The tornado was 1.7μmiles wide and 

was on the ground for about 22μmiles with winds of up to 205 miles per hour. In 

the wake of the storm, 95 percent of the city was confirmed to be destroyed, with 

the other five percent being severely damaged. 15 people perished in the storm. 

Since then, the City has taking some innovative steps in the road to recovery. 

Rather than a traditional rebuild, the City worked with groups to rebuild smarter 

and better. I will ask Major General Bunting to tell us more about those efforts. 

Next, we will hear from Stephen Sellers Deputy Director Regional Operations Division, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. I want to thank you especially for making the trip form California, particularly during a time when California is facing another round of threats from wildfires. Thank you for joining us 

and God bless the people of California as the face these fires once again. 

Mr. Sellers will share his assessment of the joint Federal and State collaboration 

during the October 2007 California Wildfires at least 320,000 evacuees were housed 

in temporary shelters, including more than 11,000 at Qualcomm Stadium in San 

Diego. When firefighters finally gained the upper hand, 1,676 homes succumbed to 

the flames, and 10 people had perished. 

We will then hear from David Maxwell, the Director of the Arkansas Department 

of Emergency management about one of the deadliest outbreaks of tornadoes in 

years. On February 5th, more than 100 tornadoes devastated communities in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee. More than 50 lives were 

lost making this the deadliest tornado outbreak in the United States in more than 

20 years. 

The tornadoes hit Arkansas particularly hard. One of the tornadoes tracked 123 

miles, which is the longest track on record in Arkansas since 1950. The tornadoes 

destroyed as many as 300 homes in Arkansas. The tornadoes claimed the lives of 

14 Arkansans. 

James Bassham, Director of the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency will 

describe how the same storm system that ravaged Arkansas moved westward towards Tennessee. Several tornadoes touched down devastating areas of Middle Tennessee in the late evening hours. The Tennessee tornadoes damaged or destroyed 

1,138 homes. On March 12, the last victim died at a rehabilitation center as a result 

of injuries sustained during the storm. The death toll for the February tornadoes 

in Tennessee reached 33. 

5 

1The prepared statement of General Bunting with attachments appears in the Appendix on 

page 31. 

Last, the newly confirmed, Deputy Administrator of FEMA, Admiral Harvey 

Johnson, will give his assessment of FEMA’s progress in the wake of Katrina. Admiral Johnson has often come before this committee to explain why, in his view FEMA 

is better able to respond to those disasters. We will ask him to provide specific examples of the ‘‘new FEMA’’ and how it has handled the disasters experienced by 

the emergency managers before us today. 

I want to caution that we must stay vigilant in our efforts to improve the disaster 

response and recovery system in this country. I have created these graphs based on 

FEMA numbers to illustrate one point: FEMA’s and response and recovery efforts 

to major disasters, such as those we are dealing with today, do not give us a good 

indication of FEMA’s capabilities during a catastrophe. 

We use a bar graph here to show the magnitude of a catastrophe compared to 

major disasters. This compares the Public Assistance and Individual Assistance program dollars spent from the four declared disasters discussed today, with that of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I show this graph not to belittle the dramatic impact 

of an EF-5 tornado, or of hundreds of homes lost in wildfires, but to illustrate the 

true challenge that we could be up against should another catastrophe strike. 

In addition to assessing the performance of FEMA and hearing the stories of the 

people who suffered through these events, I hope this hearing will demonstrate the 

need for a disaster response and recovery system that is well equipped to handle 

all levels of disasters, emergencies, major disasters, and catastrophes. 

I have instructed my staff to draft legislation to amend the Stafford Act to create 

a third declaration—catastrophe declaration—that will free the President and 

FEMA from the current limitations of the Stafford Act. I will not stop until we effectively redesign the Stafford Act so that the government has what amounts to a tool 

box at its disposal that will allow it to construct a response and recovery that fits 

any given disaster. 

I thank our witnesses and look forward to hearing your statements and asking 

you some questions. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So with that, General, can I turn it over to 

you for your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL TOD BUNTING,1 KANSAS ADJUTANT GENERAL, DIRECTOR, KANSAS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

General BUNTING. Madam Chairman, I am General Tod Bunting, 

the Adjutant General of Kansas, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of all of the emergency management professionals in Kansas and our volunteers. 

You mentioned our tornado in Greensburg which was an EF–5. 

Twenty-two tornados were also reported in Kansas on that night 

on May 4. The storms resulted in 15 fatalities statewide, 12 in 

Greensburg. There were 95 percent damage of businesses and 

homes. 

With the exception of the Kiowa County Courthouse, all government-owned facilities were destroyed including the city hall, the 

county hospital, police, fire and maintenance, all three schools, and 

all seven churches were destroyed. 

FEMA Region Administrator, Dick Hanjie, contacted me just 

minutes after being notified of the devastation. He continued his 

contact with me throughout the evening and the next day and arrived in Greensburg with me within 24 hours after the storm with 

Federal coordinating officer Mike Hall, and I believe that was a 

significant effort. 

They brought considerable communication assets and the efficient logistic teams, all of which arrived within 36 hours of the 

storm. 

6 

I would particularly note that all Federal, State, county and volunteer partners worked in a unified command structure. 

We would like to give special thanks to the Small Business Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Weather Service, 

which was instrumental in giving advance notice to the people in 

Greensburg, and the Environmental Protection Agency, who all did 

a fabulous job with us in Greensburg. And we would also want to 

highlight the recognition to Ameri-Corp which coordinated the 

thousands of volunteers. 

With major damage in 23 counties, we did have a Joint Field Office but I want to note that FEMA did not lose sight of the 22 other 

counties that were impacted by this storm and received good service. 

The U.S. Forestry Service established a 300-person base camp in 

Greensburg because there was no where to stay within 40 miles of 

the storm. 

FEMA direct housing operations housed 84 families in travel 

trailers or mobile homes and so within 10 days we no longer had 

people in shelters or mass care. 

There was no rental housing available, and as such, a group site 

was constructed just outside the city limits of Greensburg with 225 

families occupying mobile homes. 

If Greensburg was to recover, it was critical to allow residents to 

remain close to home, instead of relocating to distant urban areas. 

We believe that was a success. 

Through the public assistance program, a total of 430,000 cubic 

yards of debris were removed from the city of Greensburg. I would 

note that as part of how people in Greensburg recovered, they refer 

to the landfill as old Greensburg and the city now is new Greensburg. 

An area for improvement is some inconsistencies exist within the 

public assistance program. At times inconsistencies in policies and 

cost estimating formulas have created confusion on the part of local 

applicants in the State, and in some instances disaster payments 

or actual repairs are being delayed until such matters are resolved. 

This was the case with the Kiowa County Courthouse. 

I would like to note a great success with FEMA’s long term community recovery program which helped established a community 

process and jump-started our redevelopment. I have a copy of that 

plan if you would like to see it. 

Together, citizen civic groups, business owners, local, State, and 

Federal officials, and the long-term recovery planning team developed a sustainable comprehensive plan that serves as a vision for 

redevelopment. 

An area for improvement is in some recovery areas progress was 

slowed because of lack of viability of various programs. 

It is our recommendation that Federal agencies having a role in 

recovery, such as the Departments of Commerce, Labor and Agriculture, be co-located in the Joint Field Office to provide guidance 

to State and local leaders. 

The establishment of a business incubator was not accomplished 

in a timely manner. 

Another example, USDA has been a strong partner in the recovery effort, funding portions of the city’s water tower, courthouse 

7 

and single family homes; but as recovery efforts proceeded, these 

USDA partnerships were unknown to the State and we were not 

aware of the various programs they bring to bear. 

So our suggestion is perhaps if they were co-located also with 

FEMA and State officials and attended the briefings, information 

could have been more readily shared and coordination of benefits 

would have been more seamless. 

In the last 18 months, Kansas has had five major disaster declarations, and our close relationship with Mr. Hanjie and the 

FEMA VII staff has proven invaluable. 

The devastation in Greensburg is one of the worst in our history 

leveling our entire community. Extraordinary efforts were required 

not only to respond and save lives but also to rebuild an entire city, 

which you mentioned many times, over in Louisiana and Mississippi. 

But I am pleased to report that FEMA and our Federal partners 

responded quickly and with a positive can-do attitude. Certainly 

there remains much work to be done to rebuild an entire city, but 

the resiliency of the people of Greensburg who I have become very 

close to, the thousands of volunteers coupled with the strong support of the State of Kansas and our Federal partners has Greensburg well on the way to being a model and, in fact, one of the Nation’s first ‘‘Green Cities.’’ 

Thank you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. 

I am pleased to be joined by my Ranking Member Senator Ted 

Stevens from Alaska, and one of our most active Members of our 

Subcommittee, Senator Pryor from Arkansas. 

I have asked them if they have any opening remarks or something they would like to say briefly before they may have to step 

out. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. I will just put a statement in the record. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Pryor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Thank you Chairman Landrieu. 

First, I want to thank you and Ranking Member Stevens for holding this hearing. 

I appreciate the disaster recovery work this subcommittee has done. I think that 

the two of you have shed light on and helped to improve many important aspects 

of the disaster recover process. 

I also appreciate the witnesses for being here today. I want to especially thank 

Dave Maxwell, the Director of Emergency Management for my home State of Arkansas. Arkansas has been dealt a tough hand in terms of natural disasters this year 

and Dave has done a tremendous job helping get Arkansas through it. I want to 

publicly thank him and his staff for that. 

The southeast and mid-west have had an overly active severe weather season. 

We’ve seen storms, tornadoes and flooding at almost unprecedented levels. In Arkansas, 62 of our 75 counties have been included in disaster aid requests—and 

many of these counties have been included in more than one request. Twenty six 

people in Arkansas have lost their lives as a result of severe weather and over 

13,000 people and households have applied for assistance. And I’m only referring 

to Arkansas here. 

With disasters that are this devastating, this far-reaching, and this frequent, it’s 

crucial that we take time to assess the response of the federal government. There 

8 

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

are undoubtedly some lessons learned here that can help with future disaster response and even help with the ongoing recovery efforts. 

Today, I’m particularly interested in hearing about coordination between the Federal Government and State governments. I think a lack of communication and coordination has been a significant barrier to quick, effective response in the past. 

I am also interested in hearing about disaster housing. With the exception of the 

loss of life, losing a home is one of the most devastating outcomes of severe weather. 

And we’ve seen a lot of that this year. I hope we have a practical and workable 

strategy in place to get victims in safe housing immediately after a storm strikes. 

Then we need to be sure that families have the necessary assistance to rebuild or 

repair their homes. 

In terms of temporary housing units, I want to talk about a bill that I introduced 

that recently passed out of this committee with unanimous support. It is called the 

FEMA Accountability Act. It requires FEMA to do an assessment of the number of 

temporary housing units necessary to keep on hand for future use in disasters, come 

up with a plan to get rid of the excess units—by transferring, selling or dismantling, 

then implement that plan and report to Congress. I know that FEMA has self implemented much of this legislation. I hope you, Admiral Johnson, can give the subcommittee an update on that work. 

If the witnesses have suggestions for Congress on how we can facilitate quicker, 

more effective disaster response, I am certainly interested in hearing those suggestions. 

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks. Again, I want to thank everyone for being 

here and thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for taking the lead on this important issue. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator STEVENS. I, too, ask that my statement be put in the 

record. I am sorry to be late. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

If we learned anything from the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it was that we 

were in desperate need of better planning and response capabilities for major disasters. 

Alaska has more natural disasters than any other state, including earthquakes, 

volcanoes, floods and severe storms. 

Alaska also has many villages on its coast eroding away at an astronomical rate 

due to severe storms. 

We have seen many major disasters hit the United States in the years since 

Katrina. Tornadoes have swept through our country, and more recently, floods have 

destroyed homes and important farm land. 

It is important that we take the time to look and see what improvements have 

been made to our disaster response systems so that we can be better prepared for 

future events. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and hope that significant improvements have 

already been made in FEMA’s ability to respond to major disasters. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Without objection, that will be done. Mr. Sellers. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SELLERS,1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OPERATIONS DIVISION, CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S 

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES 

Mr. SELLERS. Thank you, Chairman, Senator Stevens, and Senator Pryor. 

I am Stephen Sellers, Deputy Director for Regional Operations in 

the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. I am here 

today to talk about our experience with FEMA and our response 

and recovery efforts due to the 2007 wildfires we experienced a few 

months ago. 

9 

I would like to start out by saying, although we are a large State, 

very capable State, these firestorms, as the recent storms we are 

having, firestorms we are having now, greatly challenge us at the 

local, State, and Federal level, indeed. 

We have a long history in California of strong emergency management systems. We invented the incident command system in 

California in the late 1970s. We instituted something called the 

standardized emergency management system after the 1991 Oakland Hills fire which defined fundamentally how all agencies can 

work together in a multi-jurisdiction response in the State and we 

certainly have strong mutual aid systems. 

However, these fires required a great deal of support not only 

throughout the State from our local governments and our State 

agencies, but also nationally and internationally. 

We had roughly 31 States assisting us either through the National Interagency Fire Center or through mission assignments 

through FEMA and we also had support from Canada and Mexico. 

It was very much needed and very much appreciated and I think 

that certainly one of the things we are noticing is the emergency 

management assistance compact is certainly helping us to get the 

resources we need in a more coordinated way from our State 

friends across the country. 

As you will see in the testimony, the fires themselves, there were 

24 fires affecting seven counties in southern California in which 

over a half-million acres burned and some 10 fatalities and 2,776 

residences were lost. It is hard to pin down, but we had roughly 

at least 300,000 to 500,000 evacuees in this disaster which put 

great pressure on the emergency management systems in terms of 

care and shelter operations which is not really normal and that is 

kind of a scale in a firestorm. We did not even get a 10th of a percent of that in these recent storms, for example. In terms of recovery, we have had about $10 million in FEMA housing and $4 million in other needs assistance as a result of 

these fires coming to the State, $1 million in low interest loans 

from the Small Business Administration. Roughly about 7,700 

housing inspections were conducted with just over 1,000 pre-placement interviews to try to find temporary housing solutions for the 

victims. 

More than $141 million in public assistance grants representing 

199 eligible requests for public assistance have been identified and 

this is one area that I echo my counterpart from Kansas is this 

whole process with project work sheets and reimbursement. 

We have worked side by side with FEMA in this disaster to try 

to identify problems and minimize any kind of appeals post-disaster. So far we have actually obligated over $98 million in Federal 

funds to State and local agencies as a result of the process we established with FEMA in these firestorms. 

I would add too that if you look at 2003 which was even worse 

for us in terms of the devastation and impact on our citizens in 

California that we were able locally at the State level through the 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funded through FEMA, a lot of 

local jurisdictions did take the responsibility to enact hazard mitigation efforts, changing business codes and practices, green belts 

and those sorts of activities. 

10 

The full story is not in yet, but we have certainly documented a 

number of cases where in these firestorms, those mitigation efforts 

proved very effective. So going forward with our $41 million as a 

result of these 2007 firestorms and hazard mitigation grant program, we are certainly going to be able to impact even greater the 

risk that we need to lower in the State in terms of our wildlandurban interface. 

I would like to, since we have a challenge with time, just give 

you some major conclusions that we have in terms of what we have 

been asked to present today. 

First of all, there was no discounting the fact that without strong 

local and State capabilities, no disaster can be well managed; and 

certainly, as we look forward to funding through things like the 

Emergency Management Performance Grant that local capability, 

all disasters are local but certainly need a lot of regional, State and 

Federal support. Without that, you really have a challenge getting 

in and making it work. So I want to say great job to some of our 

cities and counties in California for these firestorms. 

If you look at Qualcomm, for example, that operation went on 

there which was really going to be an evacuation center, ended up 

more of a shelter site as well as the Del Mar Fairgrounds and our 

working with FEMA to get cots and blankets in there as quickly 

as possible. I think that local capability and certainly the systems 

we put in place were effective. 

Strong leadership and staff capabilities at FEMA Region IX 

made a tremendous difference. I think the regional level of support, 

as you have heard already, is critical to success in a disaster. 

The Federal coordinating officer’s qualities, abilities, training and 

the team he put together was also a huge difference. 

Going forward, I hope that the Federal coordinating officers who 

are part of all disasters are as strong as Mike Hall was in this one 

for us, a great partner. 

The use of Incident Command System under NIMS was certainly 

a great plus for us. I think as FEMA goes forward with the Federal 

agencies in taking on the concepts and principles of the Incident 

Command System will be greatly benefited across the Nation. 

The other part is establishment of joint task forces. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Try to wrap it up. 

Mr. SELLERS. Yes. We established housing, tribal and debris 

management task forces. We had problem areas where we brought 

a collection of State and Federal agencies together to focus on problem solving. 

I think as you move forward in catastrophic planning, that kind 

of focus in a task force in a collaborative way is going to make a 

huge difference in how we manage disasters. 

And finally, we are working with FEMA Region IX to do catastrophic planning around earthquakes. We have a Bay area plan 

in place that is just about ready to get out and work on. We hope 

to move that effort to Southern California. 

But basically our major point to conclude is if this is the new 

FEMA and we hope it is, we really want a lot more of it. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Sellers. Mr. Maxwell. 

11 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Maxwell appears in the Appendix on page 56. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MAXWELL,1 DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS 

DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Mr. MAXWELL. Chairman Landrieu, Senator Stevens, and Senator Pryor, thank you very much. 

I am David Maxwell, Director and State Homeland Security Adviser for the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Subcommittee today. 

I am here to discuss FEMA’s response to the three Presidential 

declarations in my State following the tornadoes and flooding of 

February 5 and beyond, the tornadoes and flooding that occurred 

March 18–28 and the tornadoes and flooding that occurred on May 

2 and May 10. 

First, let me say I was very pleased with FEMA’s response to the 

first two declarations. During these two disasters, I thought FEMA 

displayed a proactive response in addition to some creative out-ofthe-box thinking. One example was the use of helicopters in conducting preliminary damage assessments which tremendously sped 

up the entire process. 

However, this was not the case for the third disaster in which 

FEMA’s response took much longer. For example, the date of the 

first request for assistance, individual assistance only, was May 6. 

While the second request for assistance, individual assistance and 

public assistance was made May 14, the Federal declaration did 

not occur until May 20, delaying Federal assistance by as much as 

14 days from the first request. 

We initially asked for only individual assistance to speed the 

process as we felt like the individual assistance request was certainly valid because we had over 250 homes either destroyed or 

with major damage. This is especially true when you consider that 

some of the counties impacted had been declared in both the previous disasters. 

I think direct dialogue with the reviewers could ensure questions 

are answered and the process stays on track, averting such unnecessary delays in assistance. 

Arkansas has State disaster programs for events that are within 

our capabilities to manage. When an event reaches a magnitude 

that warrants requesting a Presidential declaration and assistance 

is delayed in the declaration process, we face the difficult decision 

whether to implement the State disaster programs or not. 

We feel like having the State program is the right thing to do. 

It is the important thing to do for our citizens. Yet sometimes we 

feel we are penalized for having those programs and we need to 

work on that and work through those issues. 

In summary, FEMA’s response to our disasters was much improved. We still feel there are some additional improvements that 

can be made and stand ready to assist Administrator Paulison in 

achieving the goals he has set forth for FEMA’s response and recovery efforts. 

We all understand we are working toward the same ultimate 

goal and that is to better serve disaster victims. As long as we keep 

that basic purpose in mind, we will be able to work together to 

12 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Bassham with an attachment appears in the Appendix on 

page 58. 

strengthen the system and work through problem areas as identified. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this important subject. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Mr. Bassham. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES BASSHAM,1 DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. BASSHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, 

and Senator Pryor. 

My name is Jim Bassham. I am the Director of the Tennessee 

Emergency Management Agency. 

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. 

Governor Phil Bredesen has asked that I convey his personal 

thanks for your interest in the State of Tennessee’s perspective on 

FEMA’s response to our disasters in Tennessee. On February 5, it 

took 33 lives. 

I would like to brief you on the sequence of events that took 

place in Tennessee on February 5 and the resulting response and 

recovery efforts which officially ended for us on April, 25, 2008 

when FEMA closed the Joint Field Office in Nashville, Tennessee. 

The Tennessee Emergency Management Agency has regional offices in Jackson, Tennessee, Nashville and Knoxville. 

On that afternoon of February 5, conference calls were conducted 

with each of our three regional offices, the National Weather Service that serves each of those regions and the county emergency 

managers in those regions in each county to ensure that they were 

alerted to what was going on, the threat that was imminent and 

that they had taken whatever precautions that were necessary. 

I would add that this is a routine practice for us in Tennessee 

when a threat appears imminent. 

At 5:48 p.m. on February 5, our State Emergency Operations 

Center received confirmation from the Memphis/Shelby County 

Emergency Management Center that a tornado had, in fact, 

touched down in South Memphis. 

Our State on-call officer notified me of the Shelby County weather event, and at 6:30 p.m., I ordered the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) activated, and by Tennessee State law, the 

activation of that operations center declares a state of emergency 

in our State. 

I responded to the operations center and notified Governor 

Bredesen’s staff and Major General Gus Hargett, the Adjutant 

General. I then called Phil May, the FEMA Region IV Administrator in Atlanta. I briefed Mr. May on the weather conditions and 

alerted him that our operations center was activated at a Level 

Three. 

Mr. May asked if I would like a FEMA liaison deployed, and one 

was in place within 2 hours. As it turned out, FEMA had a liaison 

representative that lived in Norcross, Tennessee. They almost beat 

me there to the SEOC. 

13 

FEMA also provided an incident response support team. That 

team responded immediately and they showed up in our operations 

center at 3 o’clock the next morning, out of Atlanta. They were immediately deployed to Macon County which was our hardest hit 

county up on the north of Nashville on the Kentucky border. 

Over the next 48 hours, the State responded to the needs of the 

local jurisdictions through local mutual aid and State resources. No 

out of State assistance was required. 

Senator Landrieu, I think that the distinction you make between 

a disaster and a catastrophe is probably the most important thing 

that we need to be thinking about right now because we did not 

really need any outside help; but if we had the New Madrid scenario, we will all need outside help and I want to speak to that 

again in just a second. 

FEMA deployed a Federal coordinating officer to begin the process of setting up a Joint Field Office which was operational on February 11, which was about 5 days after the tornado, and I thought 

that was really pretty good. That was as soon as we needed anything. In fact, they got there a little before we were ready for them. 

A preliminary damage assessment was far enough along that 

Governor Bredesen requested a presidential disaster to be declared. 

He requested this at 5:23 p.m. on February 7, and we were notified 

at 10 p.m. on that same evening that the President had declared 

five counties. This number would eventually increase to a total of 

19 counties. 

During the subsequent days, weeks and months, FEMA was a 

full partner with the State as we worked through the myriad of 

challenges associated with both public and individual assistance. 

The Joint Field Office performed admirably under Gracia Szczech 

as the disaster field offices were set up to serve our citizens. As I 

mentioned, the Joint Field Office closed on April 25, 2008. 

FEMA responded rapidly with appropriate assets and worked 

with the State and local officials to achieve the very best outcomes 

under the circumstances. I have no negatives to report on FEMA’s 

response and recovery. 

I will say that there was an issue with the manufactured housing 

that we had to bring, and it dealt with the formaldehyde levels in 

those units—and that became a little contest of wills between the 

Federal Government and the States with the insistence that the 

States set a level below which they would accept those units, and 

I believe that that is a Federal responsibility because they own 

those units. 

My time is up, but I would like to say one other thing. I am also 

the chairman of the Central United States Earthquake Consortium 

(CUSEC) which is a consortium of eight States that revolve around 

the New Madrid scenario, the New Madrid Seismic Zone in Arkansas. My friend here is from another one of those States. 

FEMA has, for the last couple of years, been funding a Catastrophic Planning Initiative through CUSEC to the States for some 

important catastrophic planning around that scenario and I think 

it is really important that planning effort continue and we will be 

prepared. Tennessee will be prepared in about another month to 

provide you with a copy of a catastrophic plan if you want to see 

what a good one really looks like. 

14 

Senator LANDRIEU. We will absolutely look forward to receiving 

that and I am very happy to get that information and we look forward to working with your consortium as we build a better system. 

As my colleagues were coming in, I wanted to just call again to 

their attention that it may be a surprise, Senators, but we had 169 

major disasters declared since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and 

250 Federal emergencies and fire emergencies declared. 

This is just a sampling of some of them, but the scale of these 

really varies and that is what our Subcommittee is really charged 

with which is coming up with the right tools for the right size disasters so that we can improve it at every level. 

So with that, I am going to just do a 5 minute round of questioning and I will begin and then turn it over to my colleagues. 

General Bunting, in your testimony you said one area that 

FEMA could improve was with the public assistance program. You 

stated in your testimony ‘‘inconsistencies and policies and cost estimating formulas have created confusion on the part of local applicants in the State and in some instances disaster payments are 

being delayed until such matters are resolved.’’ 

Could you go into a little bit more explanation of what you 

meant, maybe give us a few examples. 

General BUNTING. Yes, ma’am. We have several examples, a lot 

of them recently with ice storms, but in this particular case, a lot 

of times it centers around the insurance proceeds and just the difference of what is or is not going to be paid and the different estimates of the extended damage there. 

Public assistance sometimes has a turnover in personnel; and 

when that happens, sometimes different people come in and take 

a different approach to things. 

I think overall public assistance has gotten better, but there is 

still the challenge of lengthy debates about who is going to pay for 

what and as such the net result is work does not get done. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Was the turnover on the State’s end in this 

case or the turnover on FEMA’s end? 

General BUNTING. No. It is the turnover on FEMA’s staff. 

Senator LANDRIEU. We experienced that same problem significantly in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and we have been leaning 

very hard on FEMA to correct that. And in a completely different 

area, but just like in our child welfare system we are trying to get 

one judge per family instead of three different judges looking at the 

same family’s case, try to move it through by keeping the same 

judge connected to that family. 

That is the same kind of system we are hoping FEMA will set 

up that the first assessment person that shows up stays with that 

program until it is resolved because otherwise it just becomes a rotating case. 

Since the storm, I think all of these disasters were the part 

where there was one unit of government, in this case the city of 

Greensburg that was virtually completely destroyed, a small city 

but nonetheless it was completely destroyed. 

Can you explain a little bit more about how under current FEMA 

rules, the mayor of that town, with your help, is rebuilding a new 

city on either higher ground or better ground—new buildings? How 

are you using the current FEMA rules and regulations to actually 

15 

accomplish that because we are still having a great deal of difficulty? 

General BUNTING. Yes, ma’am. It is also Kiowa County, Greensburg was the country seat, so we lost all government for the city 

of Greensburg and it also was Kiowa County so we lost everything 

in that county. 

We are fortunate in that Greensburg is not in a flood plain and 

that can significantly complicate rebuilding because you cannot rebuild in an area that was a flood plain. We have that challenge 

right now in the City of Chapman, Kansas, which some of the 

homes that were destroyed have to be elevated. The criterion 

changes. 

We think that the FEMA long-term recovery team, though, that 

came to town and only left 4 or 5 months ago is a great success. 

So that aspect of the new FEMA that brings that long-term recovery team in and works side by side with community has been very 

successful. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And you say that because you were not in a 

flood plain it was easy to make some quick decisions about how to 

rebuild, and the schools did not have to rebuild on the same site. 

They could rebuild on different sites. You said you lost three 

schools? 

General BUNTING. Yes. Now, it turns out in the long-term recovery plan, they may or may not rebuild on the same site. If there 

is a silver lining, it gives you an opportunity to rebuild your town 

and maybe relocate some things that you would not have otherwise 

because you would have had to have done the demolition on your 

own, but because there is no other significant environmental challenges for Greensburg versus other communities that are destroyed, I believe that was an advantage that we had for Greensburg. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Sellers, it was reported that some California residents were forced to wait for months for mobile homes. 

According to an AP story on February 17, California wildfire victims waited for months there significantly because the manufactured homes were too difficult to move up winding roads to remote 

mountain tops. 

How did you all deal with that? What was the outcome? And do 

you have a better suggestion for how we help house victims or disaster survivors on mountain tops in the future? 

Mr. SELLERS. Yes, Senator. One of the task forces I mentioned 

we established was the housing task force and it quickly became 

an issue, first of all, because the travel trailers were taken off the 

table in the middle of our disaster because of the formaldehyde 

problem. Those would have worked in the situation you are talking 

about. It ended up being some 25 some odd individuals that we 

really had no solution for ultimately. 

It was handled in a myriad of ways. Certainly in the tribal lands, 

a couple of the tribes that were severely affected who were not a 

part of that calculation, there was a donation made for other smaller units from another tribe. 

What FEMA did, I think in their favor actually, was to try to add 

more money for site preparation, to get the sites capable of handling the larger units. The pads were too small. Some places, the 

16 

infrastructure was not there to begin with in terms of power or 

under-powered power as well as sewage. 

They added, I forget the exact number, but extended like an 

extra $30,000 per site to try to get those sites available. But again, 

a lot of these larger units could not get up the road. 

So ultimately they worked through that process and some individuals just basically are out of luck in that regard. 

So what I would really urge focus on is if we have a catastrophic 

earthquake in a large metropolitan area, a one-size solution is not 

going to work. And so we really need to work forward, go forward 

with the Federal Government to talk about reasonable housing options when we do lose a significant level of our housing stock. 

We did what we could in the situation to be adaptable and ultimately a few people did not get what they needed, and again, some 

donations and other means helped others out. 

But I think in going forward, certainly if a New Madrid affects 

a sizable amount of housing stock in the Midwest or certainly in 

Southern California, the Bay area, we will be very challenged in 

the area of housing if we only have one solution. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And I think it would make sense, as I conclude, to give people and communities choices that are cost-effective, common sense choices for housing and not try to provide just 

one solution, take it or leave it when it really depends if you live 

in a flood plain or not, if you live on the top of a mountain or not, 

if you live in a rural area or not, or if you live in an urban area. 

I mean, it seems to me that just common sense for us to provide 

cost-effective choices and options and I thank you for that testimony. 

Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Maxwell, thank you for being here today. I should have said 

this in the beginning, but you have been a great role model I think 

for all of the emergency folks around the country and you have had 

your hands full this year. 

If you do not mind, just briefly tell the Subcommittee the various 

disasters we have had just this calendar year because I know we 

have had floods, tornados, you name it. 

Just kind of give the general month and what you have gone 

through this year. 

Mr. MAXWELL. Well, we have had the three disasters that I mentioned. It started in February, actually it started in January. We 

had a round of tornadoes that ended up being a State-declared disaster and unfortunately some of those counties have been impacted 

three, four, five times this year. So it has been a major challenge 

for our local governments. 

The first round of tornadoes, one tornado stayed on the ground 

for 123 miles. That is almost unprecedented for us. I cannot find 

a record of one being on the ground that long and you have seen 

the damage so you are well aware of the impact of that tornado. 

The flooding in March just continued and continued and continued. As rivers got up, they just would not go down. But it seems 

most of our damage was in the hill country that is flash flooding, 

that did tremendous amounts of road damage to county roads and 

17 

the recovery pace has been pretty slow in a lot of areas. Just assessing the amount of damage that has taken quite a while. 

Senator PRYOR. Let me ask about your interaction with FEMA. 

I know that normally you probably deal with the FEMA regional 

staff. But have you ever had any dealings with the DC staff? Do 

they ever come to a State like Arkansas to see it for themselves? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Administration Paulison has been to the State, I 

think twice, maybe three times this year. We talk on a fairly regular basis. I was here last week or the week before working on the 

integrated planning system that FEMA is working on. And so there 

is quite a bit of contact nationally as well as I cannot stress the 

importance of the regions and the good working relationship that 

we have with Region VI. 

Senator PRYOR. What about besides the director of FEMA? I am 

glad he has come because he has been great this year, but what 

about the other decisionmakers in FEMA? Do they ever, as far as 

you know, get out of the Washington office? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Not to my knowledge, and frankly, I think that 

is an important point. Even the people that are reviewing the declaration request, if they have not gotten out and met disaster victims, I do not think they have a feel for the importance of what 

they are doing. And getting people out of Washington, getting people to actually see victims, meet disaster victims is incredibly important. It is one of the things that I make sure we do with all of 

our staff. 

All of my staff has been out working in these disasters and it 

gives me better employees back because they understand whether 

they are working on grants, whether they are working on disaster 

programs, it all boils down to working with disaster victims or for 

disaster victims. 

Senator PRYOR. I agree with that. On a related topic, you mentioned this year we have had three Federal disasters in Arkansas 

plus some State disasters as well. Of these three that you are talking about you have been very pleased with FEMA with two but not 

on the third. 

Could you tell us a little bit about the difference and what made 

the third one different? 

Mr. MAXWELL. It was a surprise to me. I thought we had a very 

clear-cut case for an individual assistance declaration. We did a 

preliminary damage assessment and had over 250 homes either 

with major damage or destroyed. 

I felt like that was a major disaster. If we had not had the two 

disasters—coming on the heels of the other two disasters, it really 

puzzled me when we got word that we needed to get the public assistance request in and those preliminary damage assessment figures along with the individual and ask for it all at once to make 

it a clear-cut case. 

Senator PRYOR. All right. Let me ask one last question, if I may, 

Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Maxwell, you have mentioned this in your testimony, but 

also, General Bunting, you did as well and so let me direct a question related to floods to you, General Bunting. 

One of the things that we have been working on in the Subcommittee is this Predisaster Mitigation Program, the PDM proVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:32 Feb 24, 2009 Jkt 044128 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\44128.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
18 

gram, where right now, FEMA’s position is that they do not utilize 

any of that money and any of those resources for flooding issues, 

before the rains come. 

I think that they ought to reconsider that and they should make 

some of that Federal money available for non-Corps of Engineers 

flood control and levies. 

In our State, and I do not know about Kansas, so this is what 

I would like to hear your thoughts on, but in our State, we have 

a lot of these little levy districts and little flood control districts. 

Some of them are cities and some of them are just out in the counties. 

How is the levy system in your State? Is it in good shape? Do 

you think that there might be some benefit from some of the local 

people receiving some Federal grant money to help maintain the 

levies? 

General BUNTING. Sir, I would agree with that totally. We have 

had several meetings on levies because the worst part of the floods 

is sometimes with 500-year floods people did not realize they were 

in a flood plain and so they get really hurt by that. 

I think our levies are in decent shape, but any kind of help would 

be great because those communities have been hard pressed with 

all of our storms and it is hard to find out just who owned the levy, 

who built it initially. The maintenance of levies is very difficult for 

small communities. So I would fully support any initiative to improve those because it is a big issue. 

In a flat State like Kansas, we have a lot of water and a lot of 

levies and some of them could use some improvement. 

Senator PRYOR. And I assume for some of those communities, 

really flooding is the primary risk, is that right? 

General BUNTING. In Kansas, other than tornadoes, the primary 

risk that we have is flooding, yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Stevens. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

I am sure you realize that our State is one that is just disaster 

prone in so many ways, it is so large. 

How many times do you have disasters that are not recognized 

as national disasters in your States? 

Mr. MAXWELL. For Arkansas, we probably do 10 to 12 governordeclared disasters for every presidential request. 

Mr. SELLERS. California is certainly 10 to 20, at least. 

General BUNTING. I say the same for Kansas. 

Senator STEVENS. Do you differentiate under State law between 

meeting the disaster and recovering from it, do you have one team 

working with disaster-immediate assistance and another in terms 

of long-term recovery? 

General BUNTING. It depends upon the disaster but yes, sir. It 

is always the same team that is going to go out from the State. The 

recovery is often times a different skill set so the response team is 

usually different than the long-term recovery team. 

Mr. SELLERS. The same for California although they are all within the Office of Emergency Services. 

Senator STEVENS. It is one office, right? 

Mr. SELLERS. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. BASSHAM. In Tennessee it is also. 

19 

Mr. MAXWELL. One office in Arkansas. 

Senator STEVENS. What do you do in areas where they have had 

a prevalence of repeated disasters? Are you changing the boundaries for your flood zones? Are you re-proportioning warnings to the 

people in terms of rebuilding in areas where they have really a disaster-prone situation? 

Mr. MAXWELL. I can speak as far as Arkansas is concerned. We 

have a State mitigation program. We utilize the Federal mitigation 

programs, but we also have a State mitigation program that we 

look very closely at repeat examples of flooding, the repetitive 

losses and try our best to do away with those situations. 

Mr. BASSHAM. In Tennessee, I believe probably the best use we 

make of mitigation money, particularly on the Federal side, is flood 

mitigation. 

Mr. SELLERS. We do that in California as well with our mitigation funding, although building decisions are local decisions and 

that has been a big challenge for us obviously. 

Senator STEVENS. They are local? 

Mr. SELLERS. Yes. So it is up to the local building officials and 

local political leadership to identify the risk and try to mitigate it. 

We can do the mitigation program and through the mitigation program affect changes broadly. 

For example, we had 288 notices of interest for the hazard mitigation program as a result of the fires. Only 49 of those were for 

fires. Others were for things like flooding and so forth. So that can 

be helpful. 

Senator STEVENS. What do you do, General? 

General BUNTING. The same. Flood plain buy-out is a very common use of our hazard mitigation funds. I would just say that 

floods, I think, are the hardest disaster to do long term and those 

are very emotional when you do those buy-outs. 

Senator STEVENS. Just sitting here, I would be interested that 

none of you have mentioned any concept of the insurance, impact 

of insurance in the areas of the disaster. 

What is the situation with regard to the impact of insurance on 

recovery in the disasters in what we call the lower 48, what happens? Do your insurers limit the number of recovery for a second 

disaster in the same area? How does that work with your State 

law? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Are you talking any disaster or flooding in particular? 

Senator STEVENS. I am talking about any disaster. We have the 

normal concepts of flood plain, but we also have areas where really 

forest fires are very prevalent from natural conditions. We try to 

limit building in those areas. 

Do you have State laws, city laws that applies to those areas and 

what do the insurers do about insuring in areas where there have 

been repeated disasters? 

Mr. MAXWELL. We really do not have that problem because our 

repeat disasters are tornadoes, or floods or tornadoes, and they are 

going to be covered. Certainly we work with the jurisdictions to 

prevent repetitive loss on flooding. There is not a whole lot we can 

do about the tornado situation. They are going to hit where they 

are going to hit. 

20 

Mr. SELLERS. In California with wildfires especially, we are going 

through a process with our CAL FIRE office of identifying high-risk 

areas in the urban-wildlife interface. 

I cannot speak for our insurance commissioner. He has the insurance programs for the State. We would expect that would effect ultimately the decisions by the insurers and how they rate the risk 

in those areas and what actions are taken to mitigate against 

them. 

Senator STEVENS. Are they part of your recovery concept, the 

contribution of insurance? Do you take that into effect, into account 

as you deal with an area that has been hit by a flood or by fire? 

Mr. SELLERS. It is a major component and it is always insurance 

first for the victims. So as you go through the FEMA process, they 

are discounting any kind of insurance levels that are applied as 

well as debris management. So when we try to remove debris from 

an affected area, those proceeds, depending on how you structure 

the debris removal process, are used for that as well. 

Senator STEVENS. How much do you allow individual participation for individual initiative to rebuild on their own? We worked 

out some situations where we allow people who are going to get 

coverage from a disaster to go in and rebuild their own places and 

have self-help and increase and get their recoveries done faster. Do 

you do that? Do you allow people to do their own work rather than 

have to wait for bidding and whatnot through the general contracting process? 

Mr. MAXWELL. We do, yes. 

Mr. BASSHAM. Yes, sir. 

General BUNTING. I think what is noteworthy too is that there 

is a lot of nonprofit organization support. The Mennonites, for example, come in a big way and Habitat for Humanity, for example. 

We do try to expedite the building code process locally, waive fees, 

and the governor can waive fees in certain areas that help with the 

rebuilding process and he typically does that after any disaster. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Maxwell, you come from an area, from 

Senator Pryor’s area that there was a James Lee Witt that worked 

out with us some far reaching processes to deal with sort of one 

stop coverage where people can go just to one agency and in effect 

have reference to all agencies and we worked out how people could, 

instead of getting rental allowances to go somewhere else, could actually bring rental trailers and bring them on their own property 

and start rebuilding immediately so they could beat the winter. 

We really had a re-assessment of how to get recovery done on a 

short period of time and lessen the actual cost of the recovery over 

the long period of time. I would hope that we would find somebody 

to work that into Federal law. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. We wish you well and a short trip 

to Fairbanks. 

Thank you, Senator Stevens. 

We are going to move to the next panel in just a minute, but I 

do have a few wrap-up questions. 

One of the things that we tried to change after Hurricanes Rita 

and Katrina was the program that lent loans to public entities for 

their operating expenses. 

21 

1The information provided by Mr. Bassham appears in the Appendix on page 97. 

Do you all have anything you want to share on the record about 

how that has been improved? Did your cities or counties get the 

loans necessary to keep their operations going? Are there repayments schedules reasonable? Do you have anything you want to 

share on community loan programs? 

Mr. MAXWELL. We had no experience with it. 

Mr. BASSHAM. We do not either but I would say that one thing 

that had not been mentioned much here today is the SBA small 

business. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you for bringing that up. 

Mr. BASSHAM. The work that was done in Tennessee through the 

joint efforts of FEMA and TEMA to put together disaster field offices out to the public, some of them are mobile, some of them are 

fixed for a period of time, and SBA was a large player. They were 

represented in every one of these and they made themselves available and they really reached out. I would like to really plug those 

guys. They did good work out there. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. And if you could submit, Mr. 

Bassham, if you do not mind, some more information about the 

SBA because we, after those two storms, really leaned hard for 

them to come up with a new response plan and we would like to 

have some information as to whether that is working or not. 

Mr. BASSHAM. I can provide that.1

Senator LANDRIEU. We appreciate that. 

Anything else about SBA or community loan program that anybody might want to mention or say, good or bad or otherwise? 

General BUNTING. I would just echo. SBA has been successful for 

us and we can provide detail on that. 

Mr. MAXWELL. I would echo that as well. 

Mr. SELLERS. In California, also SBA has been effective in the 

past fires and present fires. 

We do some of the advance funding for communities. We did 

some for debris removals, particularly for San Diego County and 

San Bernardino County and the City of San Diego. To get the debris removal process expedited was essential in forwarding that 

money to those communities. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And just to be clear on the record, you all 

said and each of you I would like for you to say it again for the 

record, besides these storms that took place or floods or disasters 

that were declared either Federal emergencies or disasters, how 

many State-declared disasters did you have for every one of these 

approximately? 

I think you all gave those numbers to Senator Stevens. Could 

you just repeat them for the record, just to get a relative number 

between Federally declared disasters in a year in your State and 

State-declared disasters, approximately what it would be? 

General BUNTING. Approximately for Kansas it would be 10 to 12 

disasters. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Ten to 12 for every one Federal disaster? 

General BUNTING. Yes. 

Mr. SELLERS. I would say in California, I would estimate at least 

about 15. 

22 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 75. 

Mr. MAXWELL. Similar in Arkansas, 10 to 15. 

Mr. BASSHAM. It is probably less in Tennessee. I would say five 

or six a year on an average, something like that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Do each of your States have any kind of 

emergency funding set aside to take care of State and Federal 

emergencies to do their part of the Federal emergency? Do they 

have rainy day funds or emergency funds? How does it work, Mr. 

Maxwell, in Arkansas? 

Mr. MAXWELL. We have the governor’s disaster funds. There is 

an amount set up for public assistance and an amount for individual assistance. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And is there a requirement that that be a 

certain percentage of the budget? 

Mr. MAXWELL. It is established in law. The amount, I think it 

is $4 million for public assistance, $3 million for individual assistance and $.7 million for mitigation right now. 

Senator LANDRIEU. This has been an excellent panel. We almost 

certainly will keep the record open for any other comments that 

you all want to submit, but because our time is short, I would like 

to move now to Deputy Administrator Johnson. 

Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Johnson, and congratulations on your confirmation and thank you for the attention you have given to our ongoing 

recovery in Louisiana and Mississippi along the Gulf Coast and we 

still have quite a ways to go, as you know, but we appreciate your 

help. 

I do not think you need an introduction before this panel. You 

have been here several times before so why do we not just go right 

to your opening statement and then we will have a round of questions. 

STATEMENT OF HARVEY E. JOHNSON, JR.,1 DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Landrieu and Members of 

the Committee. 

I am pleased to be here this afternoon. As you know, I am 

FEMA’s Deputy Administrator and recently confirmed and I appreciate your support for that. 

The change in FEMA, I think, is self-evident. It is not just from 

FEMA’s view. In fact, this past Monday, an editorial appeared in 

two local Illinois newspapers that were entitled, ‘‘Disaster agencies 

got it right in Illinois.’’ 

The editorial notes that Federal, State, area, local and other disaster aid agency took a public beating in the wake of the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. 

The impression of millions of Americans got of FEMA was a disaster. Now, we tend to regard all disaster aid agencies with a jaundice eye. We are pleased to say that the disaster aid agencies from 

the Federal Government on down have performed wonderfully in 

the aftermath of recent tornadoes, raging winds, and flooding. 

23 

The article goes on to praise FEMA, State and local agencies. 

Emergency agencies worked in a recalibrated and a coordinated 

manner amid confusion. 

The editorial appears in Illinois, but I feel confident it could just 

as well have appeared in Iowa, California, Arkansas, Kansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, or any of the other communities where we have 

responded to disasters over the last 2 years. It summarizes the 

progress that we are here to review and to evaluate today. It also 

substantiates from a FEMA perspective the headline in another Illinois paper that read, flood victims say FEMA is doing a heck of 

a job. 

The improved level of performance did not just happen by natural evolution. It is the product of experienced leaders at the Federal, State and local level. It is the investment in resources, renewed focus on partnerships at every level of government and the 

dedicated efforts of thousands of FEMA professional men and 

women. 

The transformation in FEMA began in July 2006 with the confirmation of David Paulison as the Administrator of FEMA. He laid 

out a vision for a new FEMA and he committed to making FEMA 

the Nation’s preeminent emergency management and preparedness 

agency. That vision contained two very important elements. 

First, it put forward a new focus of leaning forward to provide 

more effective assistance to disaster victims and communities. 

And second, it identified specific objectives to achieving the vision for FEMA and these goals included marshaling an effective 

national response, speed the recovery of communities, strengthen 

our partnership at the Federal level and with States and the private sector, and instill public confidence. 

Over the past 24 months that vision driven by FEMA leadership 

in Washington and at every one of our regional offices has guided 

our plans and our actions. 

We are building a new FEMA which is dedicated to delivering 

the support and the aid necessary without bureaucratic red tape to 

provide essential services. 

We are focusing our partnerships across the Federal departments 

and agencies with States and local communities and non-government and volunteer agencies, with the private sector and with individual citizens, all to marshal by cooperation and collaboration 

more effective national response. 

The national response framework released earlier this year has 

helped to established just how we all work together when disaster 

strikes. These efforts have accelerated the speed of recovery for individuals and communities. It is now common for us to have the 

needed supplies pre-positioned, for us to be able to register disaster 

victims immediately upon the President’s declaration of disaster 

and to have the first assistance payment to an individual within 

24 hours. 

And by these consistent efforts, we believe that we are instilling 

public confidence in FEMA and the broader emergency management community. 

In striving to achieve the vision for new FEMA, we are supported 

by President Bush and by Secretary Chertoff and by you, Madam 

Chairman, and your colleagues in Congress, all of who have seen 

24 

first hand the needs on the ground and those who have provided 

us with additional support and the resources which can better accomplish our missions. 

The return on investment in FEMA has been to the benefit of the 

Nation in terms of more effective response and recovery to disasters. And actions speak louder than words so let me give you a few 

specific examples. 

In May 2007 FEMA responded to the devastated community of 

Greensburg and set the bar for personal involvement by a FEMA 

regional administrator as the leadership of our on-the-ground 

forces in helping to coordinate the Federal response with our State 

and local partners. 

FEMA went on further in October 2007 when California experienced severe wildfires. FEMA and California together signed a 

charter for the first time, committing to an effect recovery effort. 

And for the first time we established a series of State-led task 

forces on housing, on air quality, on debris and tribal issues. 

I was particularly pleased to hear Senator Boxer comment the 

following: An important difference between FEMA during Katrina 

and now is that they have actually learned how to bring people together as a team. 

We have been active in a series of events across Arkansas this 

year. Storms and tornados had struck over a period of weeks in 

early May, and FEMA responded by providing more than $2.5 million in aid just in the first 3 weeks after that disaster. 

Similarly when storms and tornadoes struck in February in Tennessee, FEMA worked with State and local officials to reach out in 

relatively rural communities. Using mobile registration centers, online capabilities and expanded phone centers, we registered more 

than 3,000 households and distributed more than $3.6 million in 

assistance in just the first 2 weeks after those disasters. 

In one of the largest events since Hurricane Katrina, FEMA is 

on the ground today responding to flooding across the Midwest. Beyond successful response efforts across five States, we are focused 

now on recovery and we are there to stay as communities begin to 

recover and rebuild. As of the first of this month, FEMA has already provided more than $181 million in financial aid to residents 

in these communities. 

In addition, the national housing task force was established to 

support State needs and field operations as they work to provide 

temporary long-term housing. 

As you can see, FEMA, with your help and that of the partners 

at the Federal, State and local level has made significant progress 

since Hurricane Katrina in building the emergency management 

system, an agency that America can rely on and be proud of. 

That is not to say that we are not without challenges. Within 

FEMA we continue to strengthen our work force both in its numbers and its better training. With intent to provide better and more 

effective services to disaster victims, we are focused soon on beginning the process of regulatory and policy reform and across the Nation will bring a sharper focus on the direction we should take in 

the Nation with regard to disaster housing next week, as we release the national disaster housing strategy. 

25 

Amid success and challenges, FEMA remains committed to provide effective assistance to disaster victims and communities. 

I am prepared to respond to your questions. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. I do have several questions. 

As you know, the Homeland Security Committees, both in the 

House and the Senate, right after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

passed a piece of reform legislation that provided new tools to 

FEMA. There are some of those tools that were not included in 

that legislation that I am continuing to work on, but there were 

some new authorities given to FEMA. 

Can you testify right now what parts of that law were most helpful to you in building the new FEMA that you are beginning to describe? If one or two or three things come to mind now, you can 

share them; and if not, if you would have you or your staff give us 

in writing, let us say, the top 10 new authorities that you believe 

have helped you to become a new FEMA. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The PKEMRA Act was a very important piece of 

legislation to FEMA and it helped to broaden and refine the mission of FEMA beyond just the response and recovery. It was particularly helpful to define our role in preparedness as it brought 

elements of the department of preparedness into FEMA. 

So I think one of the strongest things that we are doing, and Mr. 

Maxwell talked about it just a few minutes ago, is the focus on preparedness. Mr. Maxwell is part of a working group that has represented State and local level members who are beginning to build, 

for the first time in our Nation, an integrated preparedness system, 

integrated planning system. 

And so with the work and with the help of NEMA and IAM and 

other representatives, it will not be long before we will be able to 

plan for events in a common way across America from Maine to 

Florida to California. With the common terminology, common terms 

of reference, it will make it much easier at the region level to integrate Federal, State and local plans and be better prepared for disasters. 

As you all know well, in Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi, 

case management is a very important issue. As we talk about the 

national disaster housing strategy, an issue that you pointed out, 

is that it used to be OK just to provide a housing unit and that 

is not the success any more. It is those services that supports that 

disaster victim that become as important as providing a housing 

unit. 

And so PKEMRA gave FEMA for the first time authorities to get 

into case management and beginning to work that and understand 

that better by working with the Department of Health and Human 

Services and also right now, Louisiana and Mississippi, as we refine a contract that they continue case management beyond that 

which expired about 2 months ago. 

We have authorities inside FEMA. One of the comments that 

came up from Kansas is the talk about the FEMA member, our disaster reserve work force and how do we acquire the right numbers 

of people in FEMA; and when we have the right numbers, how do 

we really train them and professionally develop them in ways that 

we have not done previously before PKEMRA and before Mr. 

26 

Paulison’s focus on improving the professional development of people inside FEMA. 

And so you are going to see the benefit of that. It sometimes 

takes a while for it to provide results, but we are focusing more on 

how we hire people, select people and a number of authorities in 

that law gave us a greater range to be able to do that. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I would like to follow up because General 

Bunting mentioned this again as still a problem, the turn over 

within FEMA’s public assistance which was a real problem that 

showed itself in Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. 

So could you elaborate again, for the record, what you all have 

done to stabilize your force to make sure that those professional 

full-time or part-time workers are familiar to the local officials that 

may or may not be dealing with and have we made any progress 

on the idea that some of us have had about a trained and ready 

reserve that could step in, in a catastrophic disaster that are familiar with the rules, understand the rules, familiar with the territory 

in which they are working and the people that are working with? 

Are we making any progress in that regard? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think we are, and of course, progress never 

comes at the pace you expect or that I do or that Mr. Paulison does. 

But let me mention a couple of things in particular. 

As your charts show, the challenges in Hurricane Katrina were 

just catastrophic. The length, 3 years now into recovery from Hurricane Katrina and individual assistance and public assistance, initially that was very challenging for the FEMA work force to be deployed into that area that was still devastated and not even have 

good places for those people to stay as well. 

So FEMA employees as much as contractors rotated through 

with far greater frequency than we were happy with. And as you 

know, Gil Jamison, who was our assistant administrator for Gulf 

Coast recovery at the time, worked both in Mississippi and Louisiana and we worked both with our contractors and at our own 

work force to lengthen the stays before they might rotate out of 

State. 

We also increased the number of local hires, and as you know, 

we have a number of people at our transition recovery office in 

Louisiana that are Louisiana residents and themselves experienced 

in disasters having been a disaster victim and that has helped us 

to both understand better and relate better to those that we need 

to provide assistance to. 

The second thing I mentioned is that we recently established for 

the first time in FEMA the office of disaster reserve work force; 

and Donna Daniels, who is a member of the senior executive service, 30 years experience in FEMA, heads that brand new office and 

she has been able to coalesce into a single office oversight of all of 

the hiring, the training and the development of all of our disaster 

assistance employees and that is an area of intense focus in FEMA 

as we try to do a much better job of training and developing those 

employees. 

So I think across the board that we have recognized that as a 

key area. It is a challenge today in five States across the Midwest; 

and if we had a hurricane today to challenge to do that disaster 

as well as respond to a hurricane, we are focused on that issue and 

27 

I think we are on the right road. But it is a road that is going to 

take a while to achieve the successes that I think we are looking 

for. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Maxwell from Arkansas raised this in his 

testimony, that in the three disasters that he spoke about, in the 

first two the response from the Federal Government was fairly immediate, but on the third, there was a 14-day delay. 

Can you respond to the record about why that happened from 

your perspective and will it be corrected in the future or do you 

have an explanation as to why that happened? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me give you a couple thoughts just in 

recollection; and then if I may, for the record, I can provide, if I 

need to, to add some additional comments, I will do that. 

We approach—in the declaration process when a disaster occurs, 

the question that we sometimes need to deal with is, what is the 

first resource to respond in a disaster? Is it the Federal dollar, the 

Federal resource or State and local? 

All disasters are local, but at some level we need to determine 

whether this is, in fact, a disaster that merits a presidential declaration and we need to formulate a recommendation to the President to make that determination. 

And in that process, there is often a need to look at what is the 

extent of damage in terms of houses damaged, destroyed; to what 

level they are damaged or destroyed; to look at public infrastructure where there is a formula in law about how we handle public 

assistance and make that determination. 

Every disaster on its face needs to be evaluated individually. I 

think in Mr. Maxwell’s case, as he acknowledged, I believe he testified that there were about 250 homes that were either destroyed 

or had major damage and that is about at the level that we really 

ask those questions about whether this is a disaster that merits a 

Presidential declaration or whether this is a disaster we believe is 

within the capabilities of the State. 

I think that when we have that range of disasters, those questions come up and it is important to get the preliminary damage 

assessments and to validate the extent of damage. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I want to pursue this for just a moment and 

I am going to ask the others to submit testimony in writing because I think this is one of the important keys. 

I want us to develop a system where when a catastrophe happens whether it is 50 homes that are destroyed, or 100 homes that 

are destroyed, or 250 homes that are destroyed, or 250,000 which 

was our case, that there is a system that there is immediate action 

taken and the worries about who is going to reimburse who are settled later by the bureaucracy, but that no homeless person has to 

sleep three nights on the street or four nights or five nights or on 

our situation, 5 months, while the government is figuring that out. 

And I am determined to get that figured out whether it is something like everything under x-number of houses there is an automatic understanding at the local level that they will be reimbursed 

by their State so there are no questions because I will tell you what 

happens or what I think is happening and I am learning a lot 

about it. 

28 

In a big State or a big county where there are resources, these 

things have sort of become automatic. The county realizes they 

have got a lot of assets. 

But if you are a small community out in the middle of no-where 

or you are a community that has been completely destroyed, the 

mayor or the council leader or the local leader says, ‘‘I do not even 

have enough money to pay the light bill next week so where am 

I going to get the money now to pay my people to do this.’’ 

And those first early days, I think, are very important and I do 

not think that is worked out yet and I think this is an example of 

what we are still not working out which is important. 

So our time is limited today, but I want to pursue this with the 

governors, with the mayors, with the county officials so that within 

24 hours of this disaster, it becomes very clear to everybody whether it is a green disaster, a yellow disaster, or red disaster and then 

actions can start going. 

The hesitation in the beginning is really very harmful and I 

think we need to get that straight. That is one of the things that 

I do not think is being done correctly at this point, but we will follow up. 

Let me just check with my staff to see if there is anything else 

because we have to end this hearing. 

The private section, the last question, understands that it must 

get feedback from customers to determine whether they are meeting their customers’ expectations. I do not know if FEMA has a disaster survey routinely done, not just to your local counterparts but 

to the tax-paying citizens themselves who have been recipients on 

the other end. 

So I understand that FEMA has finally begun a process of surveying individuals. Could you comment about that for the record 

and tell us what some of the feedback has been or how you are 

going about doing that, which I think is an excellent idea, by the 

way. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me give you a general comment and then submit to the record the actual statistics. I do not think I have them 

with me. 

But we have, at your suggestion and others, how do we know 

how well we are doing and why would we not ask questions of 

those who receive assistance from FEMA, and so we have, in fact, 

begun to ask several specific questions. 

We ask these questions about 30 or 45 days after they register. 

So it is a time for them to register with FEMA, to receive services 

or not from FEMA, qualify or not, and go through our process. And 

while I do not have the number specifically, in general our numbers are very good. 

We are receiving more than 80 percent positive responses. We 

have done this in several disasters since we began this survey process and I think that it has become useful information for us both 

in terms of refining our processes and understanding where some 

of our challenges are and also to convey that, as I think we have 

seen in these States who testified today and as I think you will find 

in Illinois and Iowa and Wisconsin and Missouri with the Midwest 

floods, as I have talked about these newspaper articles, people who 

29 

interface with FEMA today generally come away with a much more 

positive impression than they have had 2 years ago. 

It is very difficult to make that transition for people who have 

just seen us and touched us in Hurricane Katrina. So I think we 

are going to learn a lot from these surveys and I will be glad to 

provide that detailed information to your staff. 

Senator LANDRIEU. OK. And let us say the record will stay open 

for 14 days for anyone that wants to submit anything to the record 

and I will look forward to continuing to work with the first panel 

and others to continue to craft a better, more comprehensive response to catastrophic disasters, the scale of which would be something for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Northridge earthquakes. I mean, there are some catastrophes that have taken place 

in this country where the tools that we have discussed today are 

just wholly inadequate for what has to be redone. Rebuilding a 

major metropolitan area comes to mind. 

There are serious threats that we are all too familiar with that 

could potentially happen. Earthquakes in certain areas, Category 4 

or 5 hurricanes hitting certain metropolitan areas. And besides the 

housing strategy that has not yet been submitted, from what I understand it may be—how adequate it will be, I do not know—we 

have a lot of other work to do with coordinating Federal agencies 

like health, like mental-health, human services, HUD, etc., in that 

long-term rebuilding process that is still going on in the Gulf Coast 

and in some other areas of the country. 

So we will leave this open for 14 days. 

Do you have any closing comments, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I just want to thank you again for this hearing 

today, and I think the chance to hear from four States that I think 

are representative both in terms of things where things have gone 

well and where we continue to have challenges. 

And just to say that from a FEMA perspective, we work with 

each of these gentlemen that you have heard from today and we 

value their opinions and we recognize where we need to make improvements and I believe we have got a track record doing that. 

You have provided us an opportunity both to recognize the challenges and an opportunity that you have given recognition where 

we succeeded, and so I appreciate your support and your view on 

our performance. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 


44128.001
32 


44128.002
33 


44128.003
34 


44128.004
35 


44128.005
36 


44128.006
37 


44128.007
38 


44128.008
39 


44128.009
40 


44128.010
41 


44128.011
42 


44128.012
43 


44128.013
44 


44128.014
45 


44128.015
46 


44128.016
47 


44128.017
48 


44128.018
49 


44128.019
50 


44128.020
51 


44128.021
52 


44128.022
53 


44128.023
54 


44128.024
55 


44128.025
56 


44128.026
57 


44128.027
58 


44128.061
59 


44128.062
60 


44128.063
61 


44128.064
62 


44128.065
63 


44128.066
64 


44128.067
65 


44128.068
66 


44128.069
67 


44128.070
68 


44128.071
69 


44128.072
70 


44128.073
71 


44128.074
72 


44128.075
73 


44128.076
74 


44128.077
75 


44128.031
76 


44128.032
77 


44128.033
78 


44128.034
79 


44128.035
80 


44128.036
81 


44128.037
82 


44128.038
83 


44128.039
84 


44128.040
85 


44128.041
86 


44128.042
87 


44128.043
88 


44128.044
89 


44128.045
90 


44128.046
91 


44128.047
92 


44128.048
93 


44128.049
94 


44128.050
95 


44128.051
96 


44128.052
97 


44128.053
98 


44128.054
99 


44128.055
100 


44128.056
101 


44128.057
102 


44128.058
103 


44128.059
104 

Æ 


44128.060