[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEMA REAUTHORIZATION:
RECOVERING QUICKER AND SMARTER
=======================================================================
(113-35)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-819 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
------ 7
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas Columbia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Vice Chair MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
Officio) (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Panel 1
Joseph L. Nimmich, Associate Administrator, Office of Response
and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency.............. 5
Yolanda Chavez, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs,
Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development............................... 5
James Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration................. 5
Panel 2
Glenn M. Cannon, Esq., Director, Pennsylvania Emergency
Management Agency, on behalf of the National Emergency
Management Association......................................... 24
Gayland Kitch, Director of Emergency Management, City of Moore,
Oklahoma, on behalf of the U.S. Council of the International
Association of Emergency Managers.............................. 24
Michael O. Finley, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation.................................................... 24
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Joseph L. Nimmich................................................ 36
Yolanda Chavez................................................... 64
James Rivera..................................................... 70
Glenn M. Cannon, Esq............................................. 73
Gayland Kitch.................................................... 84
Michael O. Finley................................................ 93
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Lou Barletta, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania, request to submit written statement from the
BuildStrong Coalition.......................................... 15
Joseph L. Nimmich, Associate Administrator, Office of Response
and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, responses to
questions for the record from the following Representatives:
Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania........................... 47
Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia.................... 59
Hon. Dina Titus, of Nevada................................... 62
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.007
FEMA REAUTHORIZATION:
RECOVERING QUICKER AND SMARTER
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Barletta. The committee will come to order. First I
would like to welcome our new subcommittee ranking member, Mr.
Carson.
Mr. Carson. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. I look forward to working closely with him on
these important issues. And I also want to thank Ranking Member
Norton for a decade of service as either ranking or chairman of
this subcommittee. I know she will continue to be active, an
active member of this subcommittee. I look forward to working
with her on these issues.
I also want to welcome Mr. Cannon, who will be on the
second panel today. He is from my home State of Pennsylvania,
and serves as director of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management
Agency. I look forward to hearing from him today.
Before we begin, I want to take a moment to send our
prayers to the people of Colorado. Just this past weekend, a
major disaster declaration was issued for the severe storms,
flooding, landslides, and mudslides that began on September
11th. Thousands of homes have been damaged or destroyed, and
the search and rescue operations are ongoing. Tragically, there
have been deaths and many still unaccounted for. We know, even
after the storms have passed and the rescue and response
operations are completed, these communities will continue to
face a devastating situation.
They will be tasked to try and put their lives back
together again, and rebuild their homes, businesses, and
communities, a process that has been bogged down with red tape,
creating a bureaucratic nightmare for communities already
devastated by the loss of loved ones, and by the disaster
itself. It is for this reason, earlier this year, we enacted
the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. That Act included key
provisions to streamline the rebuilding process following
disasters.
The purpose of the hearing today is to review how those
reforms are being applied and implemented, and how they can
help communities like those in Colorado rebuild faster. We will
examine how these reforms are currently being used in the
recovery efforts to Hurricane Sandy, the tornadoes in Oklahoma,
and other recent disasters. We will also examine how we ensure
effective coordination among Federal, State, tribal, and local
agencies, in helping communities recover quicker and smarter.
Last October Hurricane Sandy made landfall and brought with
it storm surges of more than 11 feet, killing more than 100
people, destroying or damaging thousands of homes, and leaving
more than 8 million people without power. Communities and
States all along the eastern seaboard were hit, including my
home State of Pennsylvania. Just this May we saw Oklahoma hit
by an F-5 tornado with winds up to 210 miles per hour and over
a mile wide, devastating homes and businesses and leaving
dozens dead, including children and infants.
We know we will have natural disasters. We know we can
expect hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, wildfires, and even
earthquakes. We cannot stop them. But we can prepare, mitigate
against, and plan for recovery to minimize their impact.
There have been a lot of lessons learned from previous
disasters. Following Hurricane Katrina, we saw and continue to
see, years after that disaster, the rebuilding still ongoing.
When communities are devastated by disasters, and people have
lost loved ones, their homes, the businesses where they worked,
and their communities, we must do better at helping those
communities recover and rebuild and put their lives back
together again. A lengthy rebuilding process riddled with red
tape serves no one. It not only prolongs the harm to those
communities, but it results in higher costs. The longer it
takes to recover, the more it costs to rebuild, and the more of
an impact there is on the local economies.
While Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Act to reform
preparedness and planning for disasters, recovery remained a
slow, costly, and frustrating process. In January of this year,
Congress enacted the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013.
That Act incorporated many of the reforms this committee
crafted to streamline and reduce costs in the recovery process.
That bill included reforms to cut the red tape in debris
removal and public assistance for public infrastructure and
building projects by allowing States to choose to receive
funding based on cost estimates and consolidate projects. The
bill also required FEMA to finally clarify its criteria for the
individual and household assistance, so that States can have a
better idea when their constituents will qualify for aid.
We also worked to encourage more advance funding for
mitigation, so communities can rebuild smarter and better.
These and other reforms in that legislation should help ensure
communities can rebuild faster and in ways that make the most
sense for them. But while FEMA is the lead agency in disasters,
we know their Federal partners are critical. HUD, for example,
through its community block grant program, is a key component
to the rebuilding process. SBA is critical in ensuring business
owners and homeowners can obtain affordable financing in their
rebuilding process.
I know how important these partners are. When my district
was hit by Hurricane Irene and homes and businesses were
flooded, I saw how important SBA loans were in the rebuilding
process. I was concerned and continue to be concerned about the
affordability of SBA's loans.
When people have lost everything from a disaster, we must
ensure we do what is possible to help them. That is why I
introduced the Disaster Loan Fairness Act of 2013. That bill is
intended to make SBA loans more affordable for borrowers,
including homeowners, following a disaster. I hope to work with
the SBA on solutions to this issue.
And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today who
represent all levels of Government--Federal, State, tribal, and
local--to hear how the recovery efforts are going in recent
disasters, how the Sandy reforms are being implemented, and
recommendations on any further improvements to the process. I
thank all of the witnesses for being here today.
I now call on the new ranking member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Carson, for a brief opening statement.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, and welcome
to our distinguished panel of witnesses. I am very pleased to
be here this morning for my first hearing as the ranking member
of this subcommittee.
Chairman Barletta, I look forward to working with you as we
advance issues of importance to the subcommittee, and hope we
can continue to work in a bipartisan manner in which you have
worked with the legendary Madam Eleanor Holmes Norton.
While new to this subcommittee, I am not new to emergency
management. As a former law enforcement officer, I have
experience as a first responder. I have also worked on homeland
security issues, and I understand the need to prepare for
disasters, as well as the challenges facing our emergency
responders.
No place, including my district, is immune from potential
disasters and emergencies. In Indianapolis, we have experienced
severe windstorms, tornadoes, and floods. We are located close
enough to the New Madrid seismic zone that my district could
potentially be impacted by earthquakes. Unfortunately, I
understand that disasters can sometimes result in the loss of
life. My thoughts and prayers go out to those families and
communities still struggling to recover from recent disasters,
including the ongoing efforts in Colorado.
And I sympathize with our witnesses who are here today.
Even as you are still mourning your friends and neighbors,
after any disaster the recovery phase is a very important step,
helping disaster survivors to heal and provide communities with
an opportunity to implement long-term goals.
This morning's hearing on quicker and smarter recovery is
essential to identifying any unnecessary delays during the
recovery process. The challenges faced by one community may
actually be faced by several communities. It is through
hearings like this that we can identify problems, raise public
awareness of the issues, and seek solutions to these problems.
Earlier this year, Congress passed the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act of 2013, known as the Sandy Reform Act. The
Sandy Reform Act included many reforms to address issues raised
in prior oversight hearings, and is intended to expedite and
streamline the recovery process. It included several tools to
ensure that FEMA operates in a more efficient and logistical
manner--and logical manner, for that matter--such as expanding
on FEMA's cost-estimating authority, clarifying FEMA's
authority to delegate certain authorities to States, and
requiring FEMA to update its regulations for determining when
individual assistance will be provided. I look forward to an
update from FEMA on the status of implementation of these and
other Reform Act provisions.
Finally, Congress appropriated over $60 billion for Sandy
relief. And I am interested in hearing from different agencies
about the status of these funds. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for calling today's hearing, and I thank the witnesses for your
testimony.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. And now I
would like to recognize Representative Mullin of Oklahoma to
introduce Gayland Kitch, director of emergency management, city
of Moore, Oklahoma, who will be on our second panel. Mr.
Mullin?
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Chairman. And it's an absolute honor
to introduce Mr. Kitch this morning. The first time that we had
an opportunity to meet was the day after the tornado that hit
Moore. And, as you can probably expect, it was extremely hectic
that day. And we had flown in, went to the command center,
which was at a fire station. We walk in with the entire
delegation, the Governor is there, and they introduce Mr. Kitch
as the emergency management for Moore.
He spoke a little bit and went to the side and I walked
over there to him and I asked him how he was holding up. And he
told me something that I will probably never forget. He says,
``Unfortunately, I have been through this twice already,''
because, see, Moore's been hit by now three major tornadoes.
And he says, ``Unfortunately, I have been through this twice.''
He says, ``Fortunately, this is my third time to deal with
this, and we know how to act.'' And man, did they ever.
Moore picked themselves up and was moving fast, the
citizens of Moore, the emergency response of Moore was all
moving, and it is because of the leadership that is absolutely
irreplaceable when we have someone like Mr. Kitch in place. And
it is an honor to have you here, it is an honor to have you
here, it is an honor to hear what you have to say, and what you
have learned, and from the mistakes that you learn. You know,
we can all learn from our mistakes sometimes more than we can
our successes.
And so, thank you. It is an honor to introduce you. Thank
you for taking this trip to be here.
By the way, he said it is his first time to be to DC, too.
So I hope you get to enjoy the time while you are here, sir. I
yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Representative Mullin.
We have two panels of witnesses today. On our first panel
we have Mr. Joseph L. Nimmich, Associate Administrator for the
Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management
Agency. We have Ms. Yolanda Chavez, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Grant Programs, Office of Community Planning and
Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Mr. James Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered. Since your
written testimony has been made a part of the record, the
subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes.
Mr. Nimmich, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH L. NIMMICH, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY;
YOLANDA CHAVEZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GRANT PROGRAMS,
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AND JAMES RIVERA, ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE, U.S. SMALL
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Nimmich. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carson, members
of the subcommittee, good morning. As you have indicated, I am
Joe Nimmich, the Associate Administrator for the Office of
Response and Recovery at FEMA. I am here today to discuss how
FEMA is assisting communities affected by Hurricane Sandy, the
tornadoes in Oklahoma, the numerous floods in the East,
Midwest, Alaska, and now Colorado, and how the new authorities
provided by Congress under the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act
of 2013 allow us to better help disaster survivors and
communities rebuild.
I need to thank the subcommittee for its important role in
providing the Agency with the additional authorities included
in the Act. I was on the ground after the tornadoes hit in
Oklahoma, and just returned from Colorado. I can report
firsthand on FEMA's support to survivors and communities.
At FEMA, our entire team is committed to helping survivors
get back on the road to recovery. And that guides our approach
to everything we do, whether that be stabilizing an area in
support of first responders, providing public or individual
assistance, or supporting the rebuilding of long-term
infrastructure in an affected area.
We are also pleased that our efforts in support of
survivors of Hurricane Sandy garnered the support of the DHS's
Office of Inspector General, which recently concluded in their
report titled, ``FEMA's Initial Response in New Jersey to
Hurricane Sandy,'' that FEMA had performed well in the response
to Hurricane Sandy in the State of New Jersey.
Outlined in the report--and I quote--``FEMA normally
requires several days to deploy and position staff to areas
of--for disaster response. In this instance, FEMA had
facilities and staff in New Jersey when Sandy made landfall.
FEMA's access to the resources allowed a fast and effective
response. FEMA prepared well for the disaster, faced challenges
with innovative solutions, quickly resolved shortfalls, made
efficient disaster sourcing decisions, overcame obstacles, and
coordinated its activities effectively with State and local
officials. All disasters generate unexpected issues. But the
FEMA disaster team was able to adjust and adapt to fulfill its
mission efficiently and effectively.''
FEMA's success comes not only from the all-out deployment
of critical staff, but from creative and innovative ways to
support survivors and communities. FEMA partnered with the
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency to analyze satellite
and aerial imagery to determine which areas were inaccessible,
allowing immediate support to survivors. This partnership
continues to grow, allowing FEMA to identify houses that were
destroyed or had major damage, expediting individual housing
support, not just in Sandy, but in Oklahoma and already in
Colorado.
FEMA has improved its processes to establish disaster
recovery centers, helping inform and register survivors for
quicker assistance. In addition to the DRC's, FEMA now employs
disaster survivor assistance teams who go door to door in many
areas, helping residents who have lost power and Internet
access sign up for the disaster relief that they need.
At the same time we are supporting the communities impacted
by Sandy, we are actively implementing the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act, which authorizes several significant changes
to the way FEMA delivers disaster assistance, making us more
flexible and efficient. All elements of the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act are being implemented on time: public
assistance alternative procedures for permanent work; public
assistance alternative procedures for debris removal; and
dispute resolution/arbitration are most apparent in affecting
communities. And you will hear from Moore, Oklahoma, how the
public assistance alternative procedures for debris removal has
helped their recovery.
On one of the major provisions of the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act gives federally recognized tribal governments
the option of requesting an emergency or major disaster
declaration through FEMA to the President, instead of going
through their representative States. To date, four tribal
disasters have already been declared by the President.
Improvements in FEMA's response capabilities and Sandy
Recovery Act improvements have played out in both Oklahoma and
Colorado. On the 20th of May, the State of Oklahoma received a
major Presidential disaster declaration, and within 12 hours of
touchdown we had FEMA employees in place, helping. Our enhanced
incident management teams were deployed and working in Colorado
within a day of the start of the disaster, and well before the
flooding finished.
Pursuant to the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, FEMA also
implemented the debris pilot program in Oklahoma to expedite
the removal of debris, which allows the community to rebuild
and recover more quickly. The program has been successful. As
of September 4th of this year, 96 percent of the debris has
been removed; 40 percent was removed within the first 30 days.
And just like after Sandy, we are focusing on helping
communities build stronger. Oklahoma is already receiving
expedited funds to pay for approved mitigation projects; $3.6
million in HMGP funding is obligated to date.
At FEMA we seek constant improvement to better support
America's disaster survivors, the citizens, and first
responders, through constant improvement. And by the authority
given to us by Congress under the Sandy Recovery Improvement
Act, we are confident that we can be more effective and
efficient in each new event. Our ultimate goal, of course, is
to support our fellow Americans, providing survivors the
assistance, flexibility, and incentives they need to start the
recovery process.
We look forward to continuing our work with Congress
towards this common goal. Thank you, and I am happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Nimmich.
Ms. Chavez, you may proceed.
Ms. Chavez. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
Carson, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify regarding the Department's recovery
efforts for Sandy and post-Sandy disasters. This morning I will
address the following five areas: Federal agency coordination;
the policies that HUD has implemented to ensure that community
development block grant disaster recovery, or CDBGDR funds, do
not duplicate assistance provided by other Federal agencies; as
well as the policies we have implemented to prevent waste,
fraud, and mismanagement. I will also touch upon the status of
the allocations under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of
2013 and the areas in which we may improve recovery efforts.
In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, President Obama
directed Secretary Donovan to lead the Federal response, and
issued an Executive order creating the Hurricane Sandy
Rebuilding Task Force. The task force has developed a
comprehensive regional rebuilding strategy which includes
recommendations for enhanced Federal coordination.
The Secretary and the Department also play a central role
in the disaster--excuse me--in the national disaster recovery
framework, or the NDRF. The NDRF is the coordinated
governmentwide approach to recovery and rebuilding with HUD
acting to implement the full range of Federal housing
resources. Federal coordination is also at work in HUD's
implementation of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. Eight
days after the President signed the law, HUD announced an
allocation of $5.4 billion to five States and the city of New
York to begin the Sandy recovery effort. Less than 30 days
later, HUD published a Federal Register notice outlining the
requirements for the use of these funds.
The Department's aggressive implementation of the Sandy
appropriation would not have been possible without close
coordination with our partner agencies. HUD relies on data and
the financial assistance provided by FEMA and SBA to determine
the unmet housing, economic development, and infrastructure
needs that remain to be addressed through CDBGDR funds.
However, as described in greater detail in my written
testimony, HUD coordination with FEMA has extended beyond data
sharing. Our work on Sandy has led to expedited historic
preservation and--to an expedited historic preservation and
environmental review process.
With substantial Federal resources flowing to individual
communities and entire regions, HUD has established policies to
ensure that our funds are being used to supplement and not
replace recovery funds from FEMA, SBA, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and other sources. The Department has published
guidance to guard against the duplication of benefits, and
provided training and technical assistance to help State and
local governments comply with the law.
In order to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement, the
Department has reinforced its own internal controls with the
new cradle-to-grave plan for these funds that has been
submitted to OMB, the GAO, and House and Senate appropriators.
Moreover, we have committed to an enhanced level of
technical assistance and monitoring of Sandy grantees with
biannual, on-site monitoring of each grantee. These efforts are
only possible because of the $9.5 million in administrative
funds provided by Congress under the Act. We also meet monthly
with our Office of Inspector General to identify issues of
concern, and work jointly on IG and HUD staff training.
I must note that, prior to the approval of a grantee's
action plan, HUD must certify that the grantee has the policies
in place to guard against duplication of benefits, and also
certify to the adequacy of each grantee's internal financial
controls and procurement practices.
The next allocation for Sandy grantees will be informed by
FEMA data and focus on unmet infrastructure needs. We expect to
announce that shortly. The Department has also allocated $514
million to 21 State and local governments for 2011 and 2012
disasters. This includes about $47.2 million to Luzerne and
Dauphin Counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
recovery needs from Hurricane Irene and Lee.
We have also started to address 2013 disasters; $37 million
was allocated to the city of Moore in the State of Oklahoma for
recovery from this year's tornadoes. And $28.8 million has been
allocated to State of Illinois grantees to address damage
caused by heavy flooding in the spring.
Finally, providing increased flexibility to Federal
agencies and improved data accessibility for both agencies and
grantees will lead to a more timely Federal response.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Chavez.
Mr. Rivera, you may proceed.
Mr. Rivera. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member
Carson, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting me to discuss SBA's role in Federal disaster
response and recovery efforts. The SBA Office of Disaster
Assistance is responsible for providing affordable, timely,
accessible financial assistance to businesses of all sizes,
homeowners and renters impacted by disasters.
Many disaster survivors have insurance, which covers part
or all of the physical property loss due to a disaster. For
those losses not covered by insurance, the primary form of
Federal financial assistance is a low-interest SBA loan. Since
SBA's inception in 1953, we have approved more than $53 billion
in disaster loans to almost 2 million families and businesses
across the country.
While SBA is not a traditional first responder agency, we
are on the ground immediately following a disaster. We
coordinate with Federal, State, and local partners to set up
disaster and business recovery centers and deploy critical
financial assistance.
In the aftermath of a disaster such as Superstorm Sandy and
the devastating tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, SBA's primary role
is to provide families and businesses with low-interest, long-
term loans. These disaster loans are a vital source of economic
stimulus that enables survivors to get back on their feet.
Under our disaster loan program, homeowners may borrow up to
$200,000, and business and nonprofit organizations are eligible
for loans up to $2 million. These funds can be used to assist
with many uninsured and otherwise uncompensated physical losses
sustained during a disaster to repair, replace damaged physical
property.
In addition to our disaster loan products, we also help
small businesses recover through our Government contracting and
business development programs. We aggressively seek to fill
gaps in the market and provide survivors with access to
capital, counseling, and contracting they need to rebuild their
lives and their livelihoods.
Throughout my career at SBA, I have seen firsthand the
benefits of the disaster assistance program, perhaps most
notably in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. Due to the immense--
due to the storm's immense footprint along the densely
populated east coast, Sandy was one of the most destructive
natural disasters in recent history. As such, I can assure you
that SBA leveraged all of our resources to provide timely and
effective assistance throughout the impacted States.
Working closely with our response and recovery partners at
FEMA and HUD, as well as with State and local agencies, we used
every tool available to assist the maximum number of families
and businesses affected by the storm. SBA deployed over 390
disaster specialists to the region, setting up 146 disaster
recovery centers with FEMA, and 38 disaster loan operations
centers. SBA also established 49 business recovery centers,
where survivors could apply for a disaster business loan and
receive additional business counseling from our local resource
partners.
Between our loan processing centers, call center, and on-
the-ground staff, SBA had over 2,400 disaster employees
dedicated to Superstorm Sandy. This is in addition to our local
district office staff and extensive network of resource
partners across the region. As a result of this increased
presence, we were able to meet with over 130,000 survivors and
respond to over 212,000 phone calls throughout the declaration
period. We approved over $2.4 billion in loans to more than
36,000 homeowners, renters, and businesses, with an overall
approval rate of 53 percent.
While we are proud of our response efforts, we are always
looking for ways to better support those communities impacted
by disasters. In recent years, SBA has made a number of
improvements that have allowed us to better respond to disaster
survivors.
For example, in order to create more transparent and user-
friendly processes, we streamlined our loan application forms
and implemented a redesigned electronic loan application. In
fact, we successfully increased the use of the electronic loan
application from 26 percent to 55 percent over the past two
fiscal years. We also designated case managers for each
approved application, so borrowers know their principal point
of contact when they have a question or need help through their
loan closing disbursement process.
These reforms played a key role in allowing SBA to
effectively and efficiently respond to disasters--to Sandy and
subsequent disasters like the massive tornado that struck
Moore, Oklahoma, and recently, the flooding in Colorado.
Whether on the ground in the affected areas or at regional
centers, we keenly focus on meeting the needs of the families
and businesses impacted by disasters.
We know that recovery is a long-term process, and we are
committed to ensuring that small business owners and their
communities are able to emerge stronger than ever.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify this morning,
and I look forward to answering any questions.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony today, Mr.
Rivera. I will now begin the first round of questions, limited
to 5 minutes for each Member. If there are any additional
questions following the first round, we will have additional
rounds of questions, as needed.
Mr. Nimmich, I understand that you have been on the ground
in Colorado. If you can, give us what is the current situation
there. And can you update the subcommittee on the response
efforts occurring regarding the recent disaster in Colorado?
Mr. Nimmich. Mr. Chairman, the search-and-rescue events in
Colorado continue today. There are still communities that are
isolated, there is over 300 unaccounted for individuals. FEMA,
as well, is supporting State and local responders with four
urban search-and-rescue teams that are going to those
communities door to door, to ensure that every survivor is
located and then provided the necessary resources to start
their lives over.
To date, there are over 8,000 registrants already in the
FEMA's database, identifying themselves as potentially
qualified for support, either from FEMA or Small Business
Administration. And over 800 individuals have already been
receiving support in terms of individual funding to take care
of their immediate needs.
There are over 16,000 houses that are likely destroyed, and
that there are 20,000 additional houses that are endangered.
This will be a long-term recovery. We don't have a good handle
yet on how much of the infrastructure is impacted. We do know
that there are sewage and wastewater facilities that are likely
destroyed at this point in time, sir.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Rivera, I understand SBA is already on
the ground in Colorado. Where are you in your operations there?
Mr. Rivera. Yes, sir, Chairman. We were collocated with
FEMA, and we joined them on the individual assistance side. We
have deployed about 25 people so far. We are currently working
with FEMA and the State to set up disaster recovery centers,
and will also set up a couple of business recovery centers that
include our small business development centers and our resource
partners.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Ms. Chavez, has HUD begun its
operations in Colorado? And, if so, can you update us on those?
Ms. Chavez. Sure. So we have started to assess damage to
HUD assets. We are also working to collect the data as it is
coming in from FEMA and SBA, so we can be ready to make a
disaster recovery allocation to Colorado when we are ready.
Data usually takes a month or two to come in, but we are
starting very early to start to collect that.
We are also ready to send TA providers to the State so they
could start their recovery planning process, even before we
make the allocation.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Mr. Rivera, my bill, the Disaster
Loan Fairness Act of 2013, it would allow for market-based
interest rates for Small Business Administration disaster loans
for homeowners, renters, and businesses. My question to you is,
how do you think this interest rate change would impact the
disaster loan volume that the Small Business Administration
would be able to support?
Mr. Rivera. Chairman Barletta, we feel that the interest
rates that are currently being provided are reasonable on the
homeowner side and the business side.
For example, there are two rates, as you know. There is a
credit elsewhere rate and noncredit elsewhere rate. On the home
side it is less than 2 and 4 percent. On the business side it
is 4 percent and 6 percent. From a credit worthiness
perspective, we would have to do an analysis with the proposed
bill and determine, you know, the number--how many more loans
we could make, based on the interest rate adjustment.
Mr. Barletta. Do you believe the SBA would experience a
significant amount of new activity with a market-based rate
system?
Mr. Rivera. We would have to go back and do the analysis.
It is just hard for me just to determine, based on that, and
then the impact that it would have on the subsidy rate. But
from, you know, having to safeguard taxpayer funds and stuff,
there would probably be some sort of an adjustment to the
subsidy model, which may result in an increase in subsidy.
Current subsidy rate is about 11 percent, and we haven't run
the numbers as far as what impact that would have to the
subsidy model.
Mr. Barletta. And what are you doing to ensure that the SBA
loans are affordable? As I said, you know, when the floods hit
Pennsylvania--I come from, as I told you, the coal region of
Pennsylvania. And when people have lost everything that they
have owned, it was pretty hard for me to go back there and tell
them that I am from the Federal Government and, ``I can get you
a loan at 6-percent interest.'' They would probably beat the
daylights out of me at that point.
So, what are we doing to make those loans more affordable?
Mr. Rivera. So I clearly understand, from--where you are
coming from. I was a former banker, I have been with SBA for 23
years right now. We are the most aggressive lender in town.
There is no doubt about it. We try to make every loan. The
credit elsewhere rate, as you are citing, the 6-percent rate,
does go to a smaller percentage of the borrowers that we have
who do have credit elsewhere. A lion's share of our loans are
made at the 4-percent rate. And it is a fixed rate that we can
make up to 30 years.
So, as I have mentioned before, we feel it is reasonable,
and we try to make as many loans as we possibly can. On
average, we are--as in Sandy, we are in about the 53-55 percent
approval rate percentage.
And when we don't make those loans, what we do--as a result
of Irene, when we had the discussion a couple of years ago--we
do refer these declined business owners to small business
development centers so they can help with repackaging their
debt structure. And what we found, as a result of the SBDC
connection, is that we do--we are able to provide more loans,
because the SBDC's can work successfully with their current
bankers and their debt structure from that perspective.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I would like to now recognize
Ranking Member Carson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rivera, please
describe the SBA's loan disaster program, such as the criteria
used by the SBA to determine whether to grant an SBA loan, the
debt-to-income ratio used, the loan recovery rate over the
years, and the process used in the event of a default--the loan
default rate.
Mr. Rivera. OK. So, the process is we encouraged everybody
in a Presidential declaration to start registering with FEMA.
What we do is we provide FEMA with an income test table. And if
they are below that income test table, those disaster survivors
stay with FEMA and they go from--to the unmet needs program,
where they get a grant immediately. If they are above that
income threshold, they are referred to SBA. We encourage
everybody to apply online with our electronic loan application.
As I have mentioned, we have gone from 25 percent up to 55
percent. So it is a pretty seamless process, from that
perspective.
When we look at an application, when we receive an
application, we do an analysis. We look at income and debt. We
actually use what is reported on an individual's Federal tax
returns. We don't ask for copies of their tax transcripts--I
mean Federal tax returns. We ask for them to give us
authorization to get a copy of their tax transcript.
So, what is reported to the IRS is what we use, from an
income perspective. We run credit bureau reports, and we also
credit score those individuals. If somebody has a credit score
that is in the lower 500s, what we end up doing is we decline
them and refer them back toFEMA on the homeowner side. And, as
I mentioned to Chairman Barletta, we refer the businesses to
the small business development centers.
On average, you know, we make about 50 percent of the loans
that we--that are--of the applicants that apply to us. Once we
fully process and once we fully disperse the loans, we have our
own--we are basically a disaster bank. We will hand off the
relationship from our office to the Office of Capital Access
that service the loans. They are very lenient, from the
perspective--from a collection perspective. But we do follow
private-sector collection practices. On average, home loan
default rate is about 10 percent, and the business loan default
rate is about 15 percent.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. Ms. Chavez, what types of housing
tools did HUD use in relationship to Sandy to provide housing
to displaced residents, especially for low-income individuals?
Did HUD have adequate authority to implement all the various
housing options considered?
Ms. Chavez. Yes, we do. In fact, the Act provides for HUD
to approve the jurisdiction's plan. So when State of New
Jersey, New York, New York City submitted their plans, they
needed to ensure they were meeting the housing needs of low-
income individuals, and also address damage to public housing
units and include that as part of their plan.
So, their housing programs really include the spectrum of
assistance to low-income individuals, development for
multifamily rental housing, as well as assistance to
homeowners.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. Mr. Nimmich, FEMA's ability to use
cost estimating was first authorized in the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000, yet it was never implemented. That authority was
expanded on in the Sandy Relief Act. What obstacles or
challenges, in your mind, if any, have been identified that may
impact implementation and use the cost of estimating authority?
Mr. Nimmich. I think the biggest challenge is the
uncertainty of a new program. We have already started and have
actually implemented a program with Vermont that was signed on
the 29th of August of this year. We are working very closely
with Oklahoma. But any time you go from a well-established
process of actual cost to a new process of estimation, where
the grantee is ultimately responsible for the final cost of the
improvement, or the replacement, there is a certain degree of
uncertainty.
So, we are in an education program, sir, to make sure that
they understand, and that we use very good cost estimates from
both the grantee's perspective, as well as FEMA's perspective,
to ensure that we have a capability of completing that project
within the estimated cost.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. I would
like to recognize Mr. Walz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Chairman. And I would like to thank
each of you and the folks who work in your agencies for being
there at some of the most difficult times for our constituents
across the country. And my district is no different. A 2007
flood, each of your agencies were there, providing that
assistance and trying to work through the individual issues.
And they are always challenging.
I have a specific question, Mr. Nimmich, to help me on
this. We had an ice storm in April of this year. And, of
course, those most often--the most devastating part is it pulls
down our electric utilities. And my district, being rural
Minnesota, just like a large part of the country, is served by
rural electric cooperatives. And those cooperatives serve 12
percent of the population, but cover over 55 percent of the
geographic land. So they are nonprofits, it is very, very
narrow.
Well, in this ice storm, brought down lines, we applied to
FEMA to try and get help. FEMA denied two of my cooperatives,
Federated and Nobles, any help because of their determination
that they did not have--I guess the word here is ``appropriate
board policy'' on this. The problem we are having is the
interagency fight. These cooperatives follow rural utilities,
RUS, Department of Agriculture. The proposal is in there.
Now, this is not a question of whether there was
maintenance on the line. That is not in question. It was done
right. It wasn't in paper accordingly. Their confusion lies is
their main funder is RUS loans. And they followed those
procedures absolutely correctly, but they are being denied the
assistance that they were--they tried to appeal it, and the
only thing we are hearing is a FEMA declaration that it wasn't
appropriate board policy.
So, this creates great confusion amongst them. It created--
again, cooperatives are so narrow, and their consumers are so
narrow, their members, that one like this has a devastating
impact on rates, 100-percent increases in some cases.
And so, I guess my question is--and I am not putting--yes,
I am putting you on the spot a bit--maybe more for your staff.
We still don't understand. Those rules were not given
correctly. It was an interpretation after the fact. No one has
ever questioned the service commitment or how these were done.
And all documentation indicates the lines were completed within
FEMA guidelines. In no instance was a conductor replacement
done incorrectly. No one is disputing that. But it is like,
``You didn't have the right set of paperworks in the policy,
and because of that we are denying you.''
So, my question is, what is our course of action? This is
devastating to these rural electrics, it is devastating
economically. And they feel they followed exactly what they
should, they saw the Department of Agriculture as the authority
propagating the rules, not FEMA. So how do we go about that?
Mr. Nimmich. So, Mr. Walz, I don't have the specifics of
why the denial was put in place. But I will offer you that we
will answer that question for the record.
Mr. Walz. I appreciate that. And again, I want to be very
clear. I thank all of you. These are challenging. Every
individual situation in every disaster is different in its own
way. I am very appreciative of the chairman and the ranking
member in this committee I think trying to streamline this and
trying to understand that, and recognize each of your agencies
are absolutely critical. But if we can do a better job at it,
then we should continue to try and do a better job. So I thank
you for that.
Mr. Nimmich. Yes, sir. I recognize the sense of
frustration. And it does become more difficult, as we move from
State and public-owned utilities to privately owned utilities,
and it becomes a gray area. But we owe you a better answer, and
we will provide one for the record.
Mr. Walz. I appreciate that. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Walz. I would ask unanimous
consent to insert into the record a letter from the BuildStrong
Coalition, thanking the committee for today's hearing, and
encouraging us to consider mitigation strategies for saving
lives, reducing property damage and Federal disaster costs. The
Coalition consists of a variety of fire service groups,
property insurers, and code councils.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2819.010
I would now like to recognize Ms. Edwards for 5 minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is great to
see the leadership of this committee including our new ranking
member, as well. And thank you all for--the witnesses today--
for your testimony.
I was just recently at a family reunion and one of my
cousins is still displaced from Hurricane Sandy and was just
incredibly frustrated by the process of trying to figure out
getting assistance and rebuilding, moving from, you know, one
temporary housing location to another temporary housing
location. And I sympathized with her, but I don't know what an
answer is for a family like that. And you can imagine the
challenges also still trying to maintain getting up and going
to work every day, and trying to balance all of this.
And it is true that across this country, whenever we have a
disaster, we expect that our Government, whether it is our
local and State government or our Federal Government, to be
able to, you know, respond in a time of need. And I find it
very, you know, amazing that, you know, for all of the beating
up on Government that goes on around here, and I look at the
work that your agencies do and that so many of your workers do,
and when it comes to a disaster, the first thing that we call
for is Government.
And, thankfully, we have learned a lot over the last
several years. I know your agencies have. I have seen on the
ground--members of this committee actually went up to New York,
New Jersey, to visit with some of the immediate responders and
saw, on the ground, the coordination that goes on with FEMA,
with various State and local partners and agencies. And we can
see that there are problems, but there are also some things
that are really working well.
I, you know, witnessed, for example, the coordination that
is taking place that allows flexibility for FEMA to make
determinations about what kind of mitigation assistance to
offer homeowners who may be able to stay in their home, even
though their home doesn't necessarily have water or
electricity. That actually ends up saving us money, because you
are able to engage in that kind of flexibility. So I really do
appreciate the work that you do.
And I know in Maryland, you know, we were fortunate, where
other people were not. Our Eastern Shore was skirted by
Hurricane Sandy. We received about $8 million in assistance.
You know, any State or jurisdiction always wants to receive
more.
But my question just to you is, you know, when you think
about the ability to pay and what is considered to calculate
income and debt ratios, I am curious as to how you look at a
business or a homeowner that has lost everything and still has,
even with an insurance payment, still has a piece of a mortgage
or a business loan to repay, and how you consider that in your
determinations of income and ability to pay back a loan.
And I am also curious as to what kind of pressure is
brought to bear on banks and financial institutions to make
loans that, even if guaranteed by the SBA, for example, that it
doesn't necessarily mean that the financial institution is
going to make the loan. And so I wonder what you do in those
circumstances to more strongly encourage those institutions to
give up their capital to make these loans that, in many cases,
are like 100-percent guaranteed. Thank you.
Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Congresswoman Edwards. The disaster
loan program is--the SBA disaster loan program is a direct loan
program, contrary to the SBA's 7(a) and 504 loan programs,
which are--you know, it is a guarantee based on a percentage
worked out with the bank.
In situations where we are working to respond to
individuals----
Ms. Edwards. Is that 100 percent direct?
Mr. Rivera. Yes, the SBA disaster loan program is direct.
And that is the 11-percent subsidy cost that the--for--it is 11
percent, or 11 cents on every dollar is what we get from the
taxpayers. It is a subsidized program, from that perspective.
The--we look at the 3 years prior to the disaster. So, in
situations where somebody is completely wiped out or partially
damaged, or whatever the uninsured loss is, what--we encourage
them to apply with us, we will try to make the loan, and we can
start the rebuilding process while they work with their
insurance company to try to get, you know, back to where they
were prior to the disaster, from that perspective.
If they have an existing SBA-guaranteed loan on the 504
side, we actually reach out to the lender and ask that they
provide some sort of deferment period so there is no payments
made during that 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-month period, where it goes
from a recovery perspective. And also, we stage our first
payment after the recovery has been completed. So, it takes
them 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months to rebuild, we can
go up to a couple of years if we need to, in order to make it
as flexible as possible for the business.
Ms. Edwards. And what about for homeowners?
Mr. Rivera. Homeowners, it is the same situation. Most
insurance--I mean most homeowners' mortgage companies are--they
are pretty straightforward. If they don't provide their monthly
payment, they probably fall into foreclosure. In situations
where there is walk-away states, we have discussions with the
mortgage company and with the individual on what they plan to
do and how they plan to proceed. But we follow the same--we
request the same type of deferment process for individual
homeowners that have existing mortgages, where they have lost
their house.
Ms. Edwards. Is that--I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but is
that also true? Because one of the things that I have heard are
frustrations is about homeowners who are also business owners
and they have used their home to get a second mortgage to
subsidize--to--you know, to help them with their business, and
they fall into this kind of in-between category.
Mr. Rivera. So, you know, we treat them as--for example,
there are a lot of home-based businesses. So, if you have a
home-based business and you are damaged by a disaster, we will
go ahead and make you a home loan on the physical side. And we
can also make a physical business loan for any equipment that
was lost, or anything regarding the home-based business, and
then provide a working capital loan to help them with their--
pay their fixed operating expenses during the disaster period
while they recover.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Mullin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, sir. Appreciate once again to be
here. Sorry I have to run in and run out. That is the juggling
of, I guess, being elected now.
My question is for Mr. Nimmich. Am I saying that right,
sir?
Mr. Nimmich. Nimmich.
Mr. Mullin. Nimmich. OK, I am sorry. Can you explain how
FEMA applies its policies to electric utility repair companies
to applications for public assistance for electric
cooperatives? How does FEMA manage the process so that regions
that develop and apply standards that are outside FEMA's own
policy? What is FEMA doing to address inconsistency of rulings
and decisions between its regions?
Basically, what I am saying is that there has been a lot of
inconsistency when FEMA has been needing to be called in for
assistance with these co-ops. And when we are trying to get to
a role that everybody is dealing with, we seem to have a lot of
people injecting their own opinions on the role of FEMA.
Mr. Nimmich. As I indicated to Representative Walz, when it
comes to electric co-ops, you start into that gray area between
publicly owned and privately owned entities.
I can't give you the specific answer at the moment, but I
will answer your question, Mr. Mullin, for the record.
Mr. Mullin. OK. The issue--let me address it--to be a
little bit--bring it down to a different level. I am from
Westville. I live right on the border. My back fence is
literally Arkansas. Westville, Oklahoma-Arkansas back fence.
When a ice storm came in, we were having issues with being able
to bring in utility companies over the State line to help with
repairs to our electric system because of an interpretation
that we couldn't find--saying that we couldn't bring out-of-
State contractors to help us in the repair if we were deemed to
have the manpower to do it, no matter how long it was going to
take.
That was an issue. When you are on a border--I can
understand that if maybe you live in Oklahoma City. But when
you live in a border town like ours, that creates some pretty
big problems.
Mr. Nimmich. Sir, so are you talking about the decision on
whether we would fund the support or the resources from another
State? Because the utilities usually have emergency management
agreements, where they work with each other----
Mr. Mullin. Right.
Mr. Nimmich [continuing]. To support it. So I presume you
are getting to the point you were denied payment because the
decision was made that the utility could have affected its own
repairs, as opposed to using an EMAC-type of support.
Mr. Mullin. I don't know the details to it. We were told
that FEMA wasn't going to pay for out-of-State contractors to
come in and help us.
Mr. Nimmich. OK, so that is part of the Federal
coordinating officer's processes of determining what are
equitable costs or not equitable costs. The question, I think,
is that the cooperatives become a gray area. And I owe you an
explanation of what is eligible and what is not eligible in
costs for a cooperative, in terms of repairs to the electric
system, and I will provide that for the record.
Mr. Mullin. OK. Appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Mullin. Mr. Nimmich,
Pennsylvania was hit with severe weather and flooding during
June and July. However, last month, Pennsylvania was denied a
request for major disaster declaration based on FEMA's
assertion that these storms were not part of the same weather
system. Now, this conclusion directly contradicted the
conclusion of the National Weather Service that indicated the
same weather system caused these storms.
Now, disaster declarations have been issued for other
States in which storms occurring over a period of time were a
part of the same system.
My question is, what are the clear criteria that FEMA uses
to determine if--whether events are part of the same overall
system? And then how are they applied in this particular case?
Mr. Nimmich. Chairman Barletta, we currently have the
appeal from the State of Pennsylvania for that request for a
major declaration, and it is in processing now. We work very
closely with the National Weather Service in terms of
identifying what are, in fact, complete cells or not cells. We
have gone back to them for validation and make sure we have the
right interpretation of that weather pattern at that time, and
it will be reviewed as part of the process of the appeal.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. How do you anticipate the reforms
in the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act may be used in the wake
of the recent storms and flooding in Colorado?
Mr. Nimmich. Administrator Fugate has already had
discussions with the Governor, and the Governor clearly is
interested in the alternate public assistance procedures that
would allow him to rebuild better and stronger, based on
accurate assessments of what the damage is. We fully expect
that both the debris and the alternate procedures, public
assistance procedures, will be utilized by the State of
Colorado, as the debris pilot was used in the State of Oklahoma
for the Moore tornadoes.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Nimmich, as you know, we are in the
process of drafting a FEMA reauthorization bill. In the Sandy
rebuilding strategy report issued last month it recommends
cutting red tape, but gives little guidance to Congress as to
how to do so. Are there additional authorities or reforms you
believe are needed to improve--to further improve recovery and
rebuilding efforts following disasters?
Mr. Nimmich. Mr. Chairman, the authorities that this
committee helped give us in the Sandy Recovery Act are a long
way forward to being able to be more efficient, more flexible,
and more capable of meeting States' needs. We are just at the
part of implementing those particular elements of the Recovery
Act, and we do not, at this point in time, have additional
requests of the committee.
However, as we do work these procedures through, and
identify areas where there may be additional capabilities, we
will come back to the committee for that--or to provide that
information.
Mr. Barletta. Now, as you know, earlier this year we
enacted reforms to the recovery process through the Sandy
Recover Improvement Act. That Act was intended to cut through
the red tape and speed up the rebuilding process. How many
applicants have accepted the public assistance pilot program?
Mr. Nimmich. Thus far, Mr. Chairman, the State of Vermont,
not having started any of the construction work on their damage
from Hurricane Irene, has moved forward and accepted the
alternate procedures.
The challenge we have is, as I have indicated, alternate
procedures create a degree of uncertainty from what has been a
standard process. So we are actively engaging with the State of
New York, the State of New Jersey, Oklahoma, Colorado, Alaska,
all of these States, to ensure they completely understand the
new alternate procedures and are comfortable with them, so that
we can move forward. That education process is taking some
time.
Mr. Barletta. Are there any regulatory or legislative
hurdles preventing applicants from not wanting to use the
program?
Mr. Nimmich. Not at this time.
Mr. Barletta. Ms. Chavez, FEMA mitigation projects meet a
cost-benefit test in order to receive funding. HUD has billions
of dollars for mitigation after Sandy. Does HUD require a cost
benefit test? And, if not, how do you ensure taxpayer dollars
go to the most beneficial projects?
Ms. Chavez. So the next allocation of Sandy dollars will be
focused on infrastructure and, of course, on mitigation. And I
think that when we issue the notice, you will be happy to see
the requirements that we are placing on grantees to ensure that
they analyze the cost benefit of the project.
But even in the regular projects, and what they are doing
now with housing and small business, we do ensure that they are
really addressing just the unmet need. So our grantees are
required to look at all the financial assistance that has been
provided, again, by FEMA, SBA insurance, any other sources,
before they actually fund unmet need.
So, our disaster recovery funding is focused on ensuring
that they are really addressing the unmet need and not
duplicating benefits.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking
Member Carson.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Chavez, when
Congress enacted the Sandy supplemental appropriations bill
earlier this year, we effectively required grantees to expend
the funds within 24 months of the funds being obligated. In
order to ensure that this process is transparent, please
describe the process HUD uses to submit waiver requests to OMB,
the type of data provided to OMB, and what information about
the request, if any, that you share with the grantee.
Ms. Chavez. Sure. So, first of all, you know, we ask
grantees to obligate the funds that they are going to need
immediately. So, again, if they have a 2-year expenditure
deadline on all allocations. So, although we may allocate a
large portion of their grant, they only have to obligate with
us, in terms of a grant agreement, the funds they are going to
use immediately. Because as soon as they obligate, that is when
the 2-year clock starts.
But in terms of the--to OMB, we have submitted our proposal
on how we will be approving waivers as grantees request them
from HUD. And we are clear that some activities take much
longer, and will take much longer than 24 months. You know,
housing rehab is usually very fast. Of course, infrastructure
can take years. So what we are asking grantees to do, as they
start to request waivers--and, of course, that has not started
yet--but when they do, is to outline the type of activity they
are requesting the waiver, and the reasons why. So we have a
whole system that--but the waivers will come through to HUD,
and HUD will then review them and provide the approval.
Mr. Carson. Recently there have been complaints by Sandy-
impacted residents about mold growth in their homes. Does HUD
have any program to help address these mold issues?
Ms. Chavez. CDBGDR, the recovery funds, can be used for
mold remediation. And we have made that clear to grantees and
provided a lot of guidance on that issue. And we are also going
to reinforce it in the next notice, so the grantees are clear
on that----
Mr. Carson. Thank you.
Ms. Chavez [continuing]. Activity.
Mr. Carson. Mr. Nimmich, FEMA has adopted wildfire
mitigation policies for hazard mitigation grant programs and
the pre-disaster mitigation programs. Has FEMA examined the
debris removal program in forested areas, and evaluated how the
debris removal program can be also used to mitigate wildfires?
Mr. Nimmich. The debris removal program is associated with
a disaster. There are wildfires that qualify, and then there
are some that are not. We have not had a request, nor have we
reviewed how the debris removal program may remove what is
normally a Forest Service requirement to take out the
undergrowth or the challenges of the fuel for the fire.
Again, debris has to be associated with the disaster. So it
would be removing the burnt debris out, rather than a pre--the
debris program would not take out the fuels that exist pre-
fire.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I expect there will be additional
questions that will be submitted for the record. And I welcome
Ranking Member Carson to submit any that he has, as well.
I would like to thank you all for your testimony. Your
comments have been very helpful to today's discussion. I will
now call on our second panel.
I thank you. On our second panel we have Mr. Glenn M.
Cannon, director of Pennsylvania's Emergency Management Agency,
National Emergency Management Association; Mr. Gayland Kitch,
director of emergency management, city of Moore, Oklahoma, U.S.
Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers;
and Mr. Michael Finley, chairman, Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered. Since your
written testimony has been made a part of the record, the
subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes.
Mr. Cannon, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF GLENN M. CANNON, ESQ., DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; GAYLAND KITCH, DIRECTOR OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, CITY OF MOORE, OKLAHOMA, ON BEHALF OF THE
U.S. COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGERS; AND MICHAEL O. FINLEY, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED TRIBES
OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Chairman Barletta and Ranking Member
Carson, for the opportunity to represent the National Emergency
Management Association this morning, along with my home State
of Pennsylvania, at this important hearing today.
Sandy was a unique storm in that, since it was so
widespread, it gave us the opportunity, as a Nation, to reflect
back on what happened: improvements that can be made, how to
implement those improvements, and an evaluation of the final
products. I will cover these aspects today of Sandy and her
aftermath.
As Sandy moved towards the east coast, Pennsylvania closely
monitored the storm and its projected tracks. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers continually generated models utilizing the
National Hurricane Center storm track predictions to project
the storm's path and the anticipated catastrophic damages. We
quickly deployed swift water rescue teams and other rescue
assets, sought a Stafford Act declaration from the President,
and prepared for the worst.
Sandy's actual landfall occurred north and east of those
projections. But flooding, widespread wind damage,
infrastructure damages, extensive power outages, and
transportation interruptions occurred throughout our State.
The damage we experienced and subsequent Presidential
disaster declaration was significant for us, but nothing near
what our neighbors in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut
experienced. We are all well aware of the scale and scope of
the damage to New Jersey. But the true story of success there
is in the tremendous response and recovery they mounted. I
worked with my counterpart there to help put together this
testimony today, and he gave me some thoughts which he would
like me to share with you.
In the month following the storm, New Jersey quickly began
focusing on long-term recovery challenges. The Governor's
Office of Recovery and Rebuilding directed all stakeholders in
State government to consider strategic approaches to rebuild a
safer, stronger, and more resilient State. Now, 11 months after
the disaster, New Jersey is still working to meet unmet needs.
But by continuing to work with HUD, utilizing community
development block grant funding, working with their new
reconstruction, rehabilitation, elevation, and mitigation
program, and traditional FEMA programs, I am confident that
they will prevail. And, as you recognize, they recently had a
set-back with a fire on their boardwalk, which undid much of
their work.
So far in New Jersey, FEMA's assistance has amounted to
$1.1 billion in Federal allocations, $388 million approved for
housing and other needs assistance, $650.6 million in Federal
share obligated for public assistance, and $35 million in
Federal share for hazard mitigation.
After the storm, however, is when the real change started
to come about. Your committee and partners in Congress swiftly
moved to pass critical disaster aid, as well as the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act. Once NEMA had adequate time to
address all these sweeping changes, the association has
enthusiastically come to support this legislation. We dedicated
more than 7 hours of discussion time on the agenda at our mid-
year forum, just 3 weeks after its passage. We also submitted
comments to FEMA on the new individual assistance program and
the strategy of reducing costs of future disasters. These
comments on the strategy have been submitted, along with my
statement, for the record.
But perhaps nowhere have we seen firsthand the success of
your legislation than in Oklahoma. After the massive sweep of
tornadoes in Oklahoma back in May, they were able to act as the
first test bed for the alternate procedures pilot program for
debris removal. With that, they were able to utilize the
sliding scale for accelerated debris removal, take advantage of
recycling revenues from that debris, reimburse straight time
for labor costs, and allow an increased Federal reimbursement
share for two communities that had in place debris removal
plans before the event. These reforms are working and
demonstrating how Government can work smarter in disaster
recovery.
So far, we applaud FEMA for their efforts and look forward
to continuing our work with them and you to ensure the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act is implemented smartly.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I will
look forward to any questions you might have.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Cannon.
And, Mr. Kitch, you may proceed.
Mr. Kitch. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Carson, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, good morning to you.
My name is Gayland Kitch, and I am representing the United
States Council of the International Association of Emergency
Managers. It is an honor to provide testimony today concerning
recovering quicker and smarter from disaster.
During my 22 years as the director of emergency management
for the city of Moore, Oklahoma, I have seen violent tornadoes
damage parts of my city on several occasions. I suspect many of
you watched our large, violent tornado live on television on
the afternoon of Monday, May 20th, of this year. Winds in this
storm are estimated to have been over 200 miles per hour. The
damage from this storm has been rated by the National Weather
Service as EF5.
The tornado began near New Castle, Oklahoma, and moved
northeast into Oklahoma City. It entered my city at our west
city limits and tore a path of destruction one-half-mile wide
as it continued to track completely through Moore. Some 14
miles from its beginnings, the tornado finally dissipated east
of my city. In its wake, the storm left 24 fatalities and
hundreds of injuries. It destroyed more than 1,300 homes within
my city, 2 elementary schools, our hospital, post office, some
50 businesses, and several beautiful parks.
Unfortunately, my city has a history with tornadoes, with 6
separate events in the past 15 years. This history includes
another F-5 tornado, which occurred on May 3, 1999. The highest
winds ever recorded, 316 miles an hour, were measured in that
storm. More than 800 homes and numerous businesses were rebuilt
then, after that.
We deeply appreciate the continuing support that this
subcommittee has provided to the emergency management
community, particularly your strong support in strengthening
FEMA and in streamlining disaster assistance. This has
contributed greatly to our city's preparedness and ability to
respond and recovery from events, such as our recent tornadoes.
For instance, emergency management performance grant
funding received by the city of Moore allows us to emphasize
mitigation and preparedness activities. Many of these
activities have promoted awareness of hazards and disasters
within our community, and raised the level of preparedness of
both our residents and responders alike.
In 2009, the city of Moore and the Moore public schools
sent a dozen responders and school administrators to FEMA's
Emergency Management Institute. There we learned about the
various hazards at our schools, and were trained on how to plan
for emergencies occurring at our educational campuses. Many of
the lessons we learned at EMI were put into action during this
last disaster and in previous emergencies.
Our city strongly endorses the hazard mitigation grant
program. After the 1999 and 2003 tornadoes, HMGP funding
assisted many of our residents in constructing safe rooms in
their homes. As a result of this, safe rooms are now a widely
accepted preventative measure for severe winds in our city and,
indeed, throughout Oklahoma. Nearly 15 percent of the homes in
our city now have safe rooms. And nearly a quarter of those had
funding assistance through HMGP. There is no doubt that these
safe rooms saved many lives on May 20th.
HMGP funding has also allowed us to expand our outdoor
warning siren system as our community has grown, and we know
that these sirens were a key component in alerting our
residents and guests of impending danger during our recent
storms.
As others have noted earlier today, our city has benefitted
greatly from participation in FEMA's alternate procedures pilot
program for debris removal that was part of the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act. This program afforded us the opportunity for
reimbursement on a sliding scale, emphasizing expedient removal
of some nearly 12,000 truckloads of tornado debris. From
experience with previous events, we already knew the value of
quickly cleaning our city, which promotes our swift rebuilding.
However, this pilot program will result in an overall savings
to our city conservatively approaching $1 million. We do have
some suggestions for improvement to the pilot program, and we
are passing those along.
As I conclude, let me recognize not only FEMA and their
programs, which have been so well supported by this
subcommittee, but also the efforts of the thousands of
volunteers from all over the Nation which have helped our
community to pick up and dust ourselves off, as well as the
many generous, heartfelt donations that we have received. Added
to the Federal and State assistance and our own native Oklahoma
resilience, we will soon return stronger and better. And our
new motto is, ``We are more strong.''
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you
might have.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Kitch.
Chairman Finley, you may proceed.
Mr. Finley. Thank you, Chairman. And good morning to you,
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Carson. It is a pleasure and
honor to be before you today to offer this testimony on behalf
of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. I
presently serve as chairman. And this is now my fourth year as
chairman for our tribes. We are located in northeast Washington
State, have a land base of approximately 1.4 million acres,
which is slightly larger than the State of Delaware. About
800,000 of those acres is forest timber property, which--
historically, we have been a huge timber tribe, and that has
been our main source of income for a number of years.
Before I begin I would like to express my appreciation on
behalf of the tribes for the subcommittee and the full
committee's work on implementing the amendments to the Stafford
Act, and--that--which allows tribes to make declarations
directly to the President, rather than going through States. I
am going to speak about an incident that occurred on Colville
prior to those amendments being made. But I just wanted to
recognize that at the outset, that we are extremely
appreciative. It is something that the tribes have been looking
for for a number of years. I personally have been working on
that. And we are just now grateful that the committee was able
to recognize those concerns and bring them forward into law. So
we are greatly appreciative for that.
In July of 2012 we suffered a pretty devastating disaster
on Colville in the form of a wind storm and flash flooding that
took place on several hundred thousand acres of our lands, but
the primary focus, or at least the devastation, was more
apparent in the center part of our reservation in our community
of Keller. In some areas, the winds exceeded 100 miles an hour,
which--in our area that is pretty extreme, given the large
stands of timber that we have. They were unaware to sustain
those winds, and so, consequently, a lot of our prime timber
property in that area either broke in half or fell completely
down. It was scattered all over that entire area.
As you might imagine, we do have a lot of community members
that live in that area. They experienced extensive damage. You
know, some houses were destroyed by fallen trees, outbuildings
were destroyed by fallen trees. And a lot of the
infrastructure--power lines, et cetera--fell victim to that
storm, as well. And so it took us a while to gather the pieces,
so to speak. And, as I stated, this was prior to the amendments
being made. So, luckily, we had a good relationship with the
State of Washington, and we were able to work with them on
having them include those portions of our reservation in the
declaration that ultimately was approved.
But in doing the work on the ground, our technical people
had a lot of difficulty working with FEMA. There were a lot of
laws, there were a lot of policies that really didn't apply to
tribal lands, and especially with the incident that we were
dealing with on the ground. It occurred at a--in a area--in
areas where a lot of our tribal members would gather
traditional foods. A lot of our members are subsistence
gatherers still. And so a lot of those trees crossed roadways
and pathways that took our members to these areas. And so,
because of that, they were unable to get to those areas. And
some of the areas today they are still unable to get to,
because the FEMA debris removal that you mentioned, Mr. Ranking
Member Carson, didn't apply, and it still doesn't.
And so, not only did that create a problem for our people
there, it creates a problem for fire hazards. We try to do our
best to protect our forests and make them a sustainable--and to
create a safer environment that was more like the historic
levels that we once experienced. But, unfortunately, with those
areas not applying to the Federal trust lands that we have on
Colville Reservation, we are unable to clean up a lot of that,
and a lot of it remains on the ground today, even drier than
what they were before.
Another problem we had was getting an emergency
preparedness plan in place. And we were unable to access any
Federal dollars for that. We ultimately use our own tribal
dollars to get the preliminary draft out for that, and that is
the draft we used when this disaster struck.
And so, we are still at a disadvantage. We need the
training and we need the resources to better equip our
emergency management personnel. And I think that it isn't
something that we need, the FEMA sponsored or supported
training. We just--which is the current FEMA model. We need
resources to do it ourselves. And we strongly believe we can do
it ourselves. And we did a tremendous job, given the limited
resources we had at the time.
We also need to improve the coordination with other Federal
agencies. During the course of cleanup and response, we ran
into a situation to where some of the equipment we needed was
readily available through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but
there wasn't an appropriate mechanism in place that allowed us
to use those. And so, instead of using the warehouse that was
full of the generators and all the back-up stuff that we
needed, we had to seek outside sources to get those.
So, I think moving in the future, if this committee could
work on implementing MOUs or what have you through the
Department of the Interior with BIA to have more access to
those resources in the immediate nature, I think that would
benefit not just Colville, but a lot of other tribes around the
country.
Same with the National Interagency Fire Center. Again, they
had radio repeaters, generators, and stuff that they had on
their shelves that, you know, we were willing to pay at cost
out of our pocket. But there wasn't a mechanism within DOI that
allowed for that accounting to take place.
And so, I think there are just small changes that could be
made that can help not just our tribe, but other tribes
nationwide, as they face similar disasters on their homelands.
So, earlier, when Mr. Walz mentioned that due to
technicalities they were unable to access certain funding
streams to help to clean up the mess or to pay for some of the
costs that were incurred as a result of the disaster, you know,
we faced a number of those on many different levels. And a lot
of those are explained in my original testimony that I had
submitted to you. So I encourage you to please look over those
and take those into consideration as you implement changes to
the FEMA, moving forward.
And lastly, I just want to mention this because it was a
great burden to me, as a tribal leader, and to many of us
working on the ground, that if FEMA's public assistance team,
when they arrived, just the mere fact that they are named
``Public Assistance'' gave the false hope to our people that
they are there to provide some of the most basic needs, such as
drinking water, supplies, and tangible relief. But that was not
the case. They were there for the Government to assess the
damages to decide whether or not they met the threshold.
Ms. Edwards had mentioned earlier that she had a family
member that was experiencing problems getting housing. We have
the same problem at Colville with some of the lands that were--
that sustained damage on Federal properties. The individual
assistance program does not cover those damages on trust lands,
incurred on trust structures on our reservation. So many of our
tribal members live on our trust lands: 1.2 of the 1.4 million
acres is in trust on Colville. So you can imagine that a lot of
those properties that did sustain the damage, they were unable
to access those programs.
And so, again, here--we would highly encourage you to look
at those changes and consider them as you make amendments.
With that, that concludes my oral testimony at this time. I
would be happy to answer any questions. I appreciate your time.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Finley. I
will now begin the first round of questions limited to 5
minutes for each Member. If there are any additional questions
following the first round, we will have additional rounds of
questions, as needed.
Mr. Cannon, I saw firsthand how devastating Hurricane Irene
was and how our State was impacted by that and Hurricane Sandy.
Can you tell us where you are in the rebuilding process for
both of those disasters?
Mr. Cannon. We suffered significant housing loss in Irene
and Lee, and then exacerbated with Sandy. So we have been
moving forward with temporary housing, sheltering, and then
into the mitigation program. And we are in the process now of
conducting the buy-outs for the areas that are flood-prone and
have repetitive flooding. That process is extremely
bureaucratic and time-consuming. The environmental and historic
reviews consume significant time.
And, additionally, in northeastern Pennsylvania, there are
a lot of mineral rights that were transferred to someone 100
years ago that is no longer in existence. And under FEMA's
policy, when you buy out a property nothing can be on the
surface of that ground again. And so, the fear that someone
from 100 years ago might show up and put some structure to
remove the coal prevents that house from being able to be
purchased. So we have been doing a lot of work trying to deal
with the mineral rights issues as it delays the mitigation
process.
You are probably aware that in Sandy, you know, we had
extremely difficulty with that declaration and that process. I
tried to get people to understand that there is a river called
the Delaware River that is between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
On the New Jersey side of the river they were declared; on the
Pennsylvania side of the river they were not declared. And
there certainly is no wall that goes down the middle of the
river that stopped the storm. So, to go back to the public and
try to explain that is extremely difficult.
One of the most amazing issues was the denial of emergency
protective measures for the communities that prepared for Sandy
as a historic event. You know, never heard of before,
unprecedented. We took great steps to prepare for that storm.
Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth with 2,600 local municipal
governments. People preparing for that event spent their public
works overtime money, their salt budgets for the winter, all
getting ready, and then we are not reimbursed for that. So, the
next time I approach them in the next major event, they will
say, ``I am sorry, but I can't do as much as I did the last
time, because we just can't afford it.''
And so, it was an amazing adventure to see a denial of a
declaration not based in law and not based on the CFR, but on a
new standard of review that evaluated how you prepared based on
the threat by the impact you had after the event. No one knows
what the impact is going to be when you have the storm of the
century that you are preparing for.
So it has been difficult, and we continue to file appeals,
and we will attempt to take every option available. Because at
the end of it, of that process, are the people who suffer from
these storms and these events.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. As a former mayor, I
certainly understand what is involved in being prepared for a
storm and the costs that are incurred, especially when so many
communities are cash-strapped and do what they can to try to
prevent lives from being lost and property lost, which--I
certainly understand what you are saying.
From your perspective, how well has Federal coordination
with State and local governments worked in the recovery
process?
Mr. Cannon. That has been outstanding. Once we have gotten
past our disagreements on things, the actual work itself has
been outstanding. And I think key to the successful major
disaster operations is the position called the Federal
coordinating officer. And the FCO cadre, being highly skilled,
highly trained, highly experienced, you know, they tend to try
as much as possible to eliminate bureaucratic obstacles and to
get the actual resources on the ground that people need to do
it.
And so, we have had a great working relationship. And
together, between State resources and Federal resources, I
think we have done a real good job on that recovery, working
through those issues. But overall, it has been very good.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking
Member Carson for his questions.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Finley, in your
testimony you suggest the need for tribes to hire and train as
emergency managers. Has your tribe sent staff to FEMA's
Emergency Management Institute for training, or do you have any
suggestions on how FEMA can improve outreach about the
availability of such training programs?
Mr. Finley. I don't have the exact answer for that, other
than I know I have talked with some of our emergency response
individuals, and they had expressed concern over some of that
training. And I didn't get into the exact details, but if you
are interested in having that information I can certainly get
that for you and make that available to you as soon as I
possibly can.
Mr. Carson. It would be helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Finley. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Carson. Mr. Kitch, do you have data or an estimate of
how many of the private homes that are being built, or rebuilt,
are incorporating mitigation activities such as safe rooms or
different roofing techniques into the rebuilding of their
homes? And what is the city doing to encourage residents to
incorporate mitigation activities in their effort to rebuild?
Mr. Kitch. Ranking Member Carson, thank you for the
question. The--we are seeing a lot of the homes that are being
rebuilt incorporating some sort of safe room or shelter within
them.
Mr. Carson. Good.
Mr. Kitch. We will be encouraging that. Some of the long-
term recovery money that we are just now starting to receive we
will be earmarking for assistance with safe rooms. And I know
that several of the homes that we have already seen go up
already have those in them. So----
Mr. Carson. OK.
Mr. Kitch. So there is quite a bit of activity with that.
And I can tell you there is a lot of interest in my community
for that, even from folks who weren't.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. Mr. Cannon, based on your
description, it sounds as though the State of Pennsylvania
engaged in extensive preparedness for Hurricane Sandy's
landfall. How have the extensive preparedness activities
affected the State's recovery effort?
Mr. Cannon. Well, certainly, where it really makes a
difference is in the response to the event immediately. Because
when you lean forward and prepare those resources, you can
minimize loss of life and suffering.
But on top of that, making sure that we prepare in terms of
each county and each local government's preparedness reduces
the impact, as well. So, when you can get people to evacuate
ahead of time, rather than in the middle of the night, when
your shelter system is open and in place, when you have done
hazard mitigation planning on the front end, all of that helps
reduce the impact to these bad events. It is when nothing has
been done, and people just are lost, that it makes the
situation much, much worse.
Mr. Carson. Well, given the number of storms experienced in
Oklahoma, I found it quite interesting in your testimony that
you stated that most of the Oklahoma communities do not have
debris management plans. Do you think that this is commonplace?
And, if so, what is the reason?
Mr. Cannon. I believe it is.
Mr. Carson. OK.
Mr. Cannon. And it is within the Improvement Act that the
new pilot program will incentivize the local government to have
a debris removal plan. So, while that hasn't been the case in
the past, I believe we will see significant numbers of
communities with those plans in the future.
Mr. Carson. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my
time.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ranking Member Carson. And the
Chair recognizes Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question will be to
Mr. Kitch. You know, the idea that you have recently had to go
through this horrific event and more, I would be curious to
know, like I said when I had the opportunity to introduce you,
the mistakes that you made that you got to correct with your
second time and your third time going through this.
On the first time I know you had to make mistakes. Not that
they were detrimental mistakes, but they were mistakes. So
could you share with this committee maybe some lessons that you
learned, some things that you did different that maybe we could
all take away and maybe apply them to different areas of the
country if this ever happens again?
Mr. Kitch. Thank you, Representative Mullin. Some of the
challenges that I think that we have identified out of this
round of tornadoes, number one, is our sheltering. As we spoke
about a moment ago, we are working more on individual safe
rooms for the residents of our city.
For those who may not be from Oklahoma, we don't build
basements there to a great degree, because the soils just don't
allow that sort of thing to be done and--without the concrete
cracking and them filling up with water.
We also have recognized that we have a significant issue in
sheltering in some of our public buildings such as our schools.
And we have an initiative right now in our State legislature.
We have several State legislators who are attempting to gather
interest in a large bond from the State that would require and
allow funding for the building of shelters in each one of our
schools for the children and the staff that work there.
The other challenge that we have definitely identified is
that we are a little bit weak in our management of donations.
We have received--you just cannot understand the amount of
heartfelt donations that we have received from all over the
country, and actually, from all over the world, that have come
in by the truckloads. And the challenge there is that not all
of the donations are necessarily appropriate for the type of
event that we had, or the population of our city. And then the
issue that goes along with, well, where do we put all of the
stuff, how do we sort it, how do we make it available to those
who do have needs, and what do we do with the rest of it.
So, there is some significant challenges. And I don't know
that we have necessarily had mistakes as such, but the--there
is definitely a lot of work to be done in front of us.
Mr. Mullin. Did you by any chance come up with a solution?
I mean did you donate some of material back to other shelters?
Mr. Kitch. The materials that we received--and are still
receiving, I should add--were finally warehoused by the State.
And my understanding is that they have, I think, taken care of
most of that. And I am sure that a lot of that----
Mr. Mullin. OK.
Mr. Kitch [continuing]. Went elsewhere to other disasters.
I can tell you all of these shelters in Oklahoma were
completely full of items. And even our nonprofits----
Mr. Mullin. Right.
Mr. Kitch. We received, you know, truckloads of diapers.
Mr. Mullin. Let me ask you one more question. Seeing that
you have just gone through this disaster again, what kind of
hurdles did you face with the coordinating between Federal and
local situations that maybe could have helped speed up the
situation to get help in areas of need?
Mr. Kitch. We have actually been very pleased with this
round, with the response from FEMA and their Federal partners.
Having done this before, it hasn't always been that way. But I
can tell you that during this round of tornadoes, FEMA's--some
of their streamlined programs have certainly helped.
And they have also streamlined some of their own procedures
internally. I can tell you that within a day or two, that I had
a--FEMA's single point of contact that was--he almost lived in
my office with me for a while. And when he wasn't in my office,
he was in our city manager's office. And he was our go-between
for everything FEMA. And if we had a question, it didn't matter
which part of FEMA we needed to deal with, he was our contact.
And he--in addition to being just an outstanding gentleman to
begin with, he completely streamlined that process for us. And
I can tell you that my city management is so appreciative of
that.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Mullin. Mr. Kitch, in your
testimony you account what happened leading up to the tornadoes
in May. One aspect in particular you highlight was the
importance of alerting the public in as many ways as possible.
Our committee has a long history of overseeing the
development of FEMA's integrated public alert and warning
system, IPAWS, and we are exploring authorizing legislation as
part of the FEMA reauthorization. Can you talk about how
effective public alerts were, and did you utilize FEMA's
alerting system?
Mr. Kitch. Mr. Chairman, the IPAWS system, or the alerting
system, is just starting to come online in Oklahoma right now.
My understanding was that there was some limited alerting
through that on May 20th. My particular device did not receive
that. I have an older device, and it is not quite there yet.
But I do know that there was some very limited use of that.
So at this time it is probably not quite ready. At least--it is
probably ready today. If we were to have the same event today,
we would probably have a lot more to say about that. But it
just wasn't quite deployed at the time of our tornado.
Mr. Barletta. You also mentioned in your testimony how
critical emergency management preparedness grants are in
preparing the city of Moore for disasters. Can you explain how
these funds helped prepare your city?
Mr. Kitch. Absolutely. We have been a recipient of the
emergency management performance grant for some many years,
probably about 15 years, the entire time that we have had an
emergency management full-time program. And without those
funds, first of all, we probably wouldn't have an emergency
management program and an emergency manager. We would probably
still be in the days of having a volunteer emergency manager
that worked either at some other job or may not even have been
an employee of our city.
The funds allow us to have the office, allow us to have the
person, which then allows us to be more proactive in our city
to write the plans that are necessary, to work with our
citizens, to make trips to our senior citizens center, to work
with the seniors on their preparedness activities. It is so
critical to us.
And I can tell you, as a person that is very active in
Oklahoma emergency management throughout the State, that we
literally would not have nearly the number of emergency
managers in our State that we do now without these funds. They
are absolutely critical, particularly in our smaller
jurisdictions.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Cannon, the Sandy Recovery Improvement
Act included an arbitration program to ensure there is a
neutral process for resolving eligibility disputes between FEMA
and the States. What do you think the benefits of these
arbitration processes are, from a State's perspective?
Mr. Cannon. It is one of the things in the Act that we
really appreciate and look forward to it being successful. One
of the greatest weaknesses in the relationship between FEMA and
States is the ability to, one, have transparency of the
process, but, two, to have a forum in which to appeal those
decisions.
When you file for a declaration and it is denied, your
appeal goes back to the very person who denied you. And when
you appeal that appeal, it goes back to that same person again.
So you never have a chance to have a hearing on the issues.
Now, after Katrina there was also an arbitration procedure
temporarily in the Post-Katrina Reform Act for Katrina and
Rita. That since had expired. You included one in this Act that
is for Sandy.
I think what we really need to is get some kind of a
dispute resolution process that is permanent and ongoing in
these relationships, so that we have a chance to understand why
we were denied, but also to provide the argument on the merits
that maybe something had been misinterpreted. There is no forum
to do that. So I was--and most of my colleagues, as State
directors, were very glad to see this arbitration section
within the Sandy Improvement Act.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Finley, are there additional reforms or
clarifications in the law that are needed to further streamline
the rebuilding process? And, if so, what would they be?
Mr. Finley. Yes. For tribal lands I think maybe needs--
there need to be some explicit language that distinguishes
beyond urban parks, trees, debris that cover areas, access to
those urban park areas, access to fishing areas, that would
include more of an inclusive understanding and appreciation of
the tribal perspective, that there are many tribes in this
country that still rely on subsistence gathering activities,
and that those roadways and pathways that obstruct those areas
should be viewed in the same context as those others who are
explicitly considered within the laws that exist today.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Kitch, how can we further streamline the
rebuilding process?
Mr. Kitch. The--one of the areas that I think that needs
just a little bit of work is in the hazard mitigation planning
process. We are finding that very cumbersome. I know that my
jurisdiction, along with our county and another jurisdiction in
our county, have been working on our plan for nearly 2 years
now. And it seems to be being bounced back and forth between
our vendor and our FEMA folks and our emergency managers. So
that would certainly be one way.
And the other way would simply to be continuing the support
of the programs that we have now.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Cannon, what would further--streamlining
can we do for the rebuilding process?
Mr. Cannon. I think these are some good steps that you have
already included. I think now--and I think Mr. Nimmich referred
to it--the problem is right now it is just at the beginning. So
they really haven't been tested and evaluated and implemented
from real use.
And so, right now, everything is projecting that it is
going to be better. But there is no doubt that when you are
trying to provide assistance to people, the process just slows
it down greatly. So we have to eliminate as much bureaucracy as
we can from the decisionmaking process and the implementation
process.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Ranking Member, a question?
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. I would like to thank all of you for your
testimony. Your comments have been helpful to today's
discussion. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Carson on
his first day. His experience in law enforcement will be a
great addition----
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barletta [continuing]. To this committee.
Mr. Carson. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta. I would ask unanimous consent that the record
of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain
open for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Barletta. Without objection, so ordered. I would like
to thank our witnesses again for their testimony today. If no
other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]