[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARING
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
_________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas, Chairman
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the
full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Donna Shahbaz, Kris Mallard, Laura Cylke,
Christopher Romig, and Dave Roth
Subcommitte Staff
__________
PART 3
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_____
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-201 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\}Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018
----------
Thursday, November 30, 2017
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WITNESS
WILLIAM B. LONG, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Carter. I call this hearing to order.
Today we are welcoming the administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Mr. Brock Long. We are here to
discuss response recovery to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria, as well as the wildfires that spread across California.
Administrator, thank you very much for being here and for
joining us.
The magnitude of disaster activities that we are
experiencing this year is basically unprecedented. I want to
thank you and the thousands of dedicated FEMA personnel who
have deployed and who continue to work tirelessly to help
communities and families get back on their feet in every
instance devastating events.
Congress has passed two emergency supplementals which have
provided an additional $26 billion to ensure FEMA's ability to
respond to immediate aftermath of disasters. Now is the time to
shift focus from response to recovery. And while some of these
efforts are already underway, there is still a very long road
ahead.
Today we look forward to hearing from you on how this third
supplemental request, $23.5 billion, will enable the
communities to start down the path, a long path, of long-term
recovery.
Mr. Long, before I get to you, I want to introduce Ms.
Roybal-Allard, my ranking member who is a good friend, for any
comments that she may have.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good
morning, Mr. Administrator, and welcome to your first
appearance before the subcommittee. I wish it were not
necessitated by the damaging hurricanes that prompted the
administration's third emergency supplemental funding request
in just the last few months. But we are nevertheless eager to
spend some time with you to get your perspective on FEMA's
response and recovery activities and the challenges that lie
ahead.
I know this has been a difficult time for your agency. You
were at FEMA for only a few months when Hurricane Harvey struck
the Gulf Coast, followed close behind by Irma and Marie. And I
would be remiss if I did not mention the wildfires that
devastated large swaths of California, my home State.
Mr. Administrator, we want to help support the efforts of
FEMA personnel, and we want to make sure that FEMA's programs
are working well to support recovery efforts, particularly in
Puerto Rico because of the level of devastation there and the
fiscal challenges it was already facing.
Again, we appreciate your joining us this morning, and I
look forward to a productive discussion.
Mr. Long. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. We are also joined by the full committee
ranking member, Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey, you are now recognized for any comments you
would like to make.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Chairman
Carter holding this hearing.
Administrator Long, thank you for being here and for all
your hard work assisting the States and U.S. territories that
have suffered recently from natural disasters. There have been
more than 50 major disaster declarations so far in 2017. Twenty
of them were for disasters that occurred since your
confirmation, including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
After Superstorm Sandy, it was very difficult to garner
support for the disaster assistance we needed. And I remember
that very, very clearly. There are similar concerns now about
the adequacy of funding proposed by the administration for this
supplemental, particularly with regard to Puerto Rico which has
faced significant fiscal challenges for some time.
It is my hope that today we can have a productive
discussion about how FEMA can best help those impacted by
Harvey, Irma, and Maria with a particular focus on how to
assist Puerto Rico with vital repairs and improvements to its
power system, water infrastructure, transportation system, and
other important infrastructure.
The traditional FEMA programs will only bring Puerto Rico
just so far, and it will be important for us to understand what
the limits are and what additional flexibilities might be
helpful. For recovery beyond the scope of FEMA programs, we
need to understand FEMA's role in determining unmet needs that
will inform assistance from other Federal agencies.
It simply is not acceptable to restore infrastructure and
public facilities to predisaster conditions, especially in
Puerto Rico which suffered unprecedented damages. We must use
assistance funding to mitigate the impacts of future disasters
or else we will find ourselves in this exact position in short
order when the next hurricane blows through forcing taxpayers
to pay more because investments were not made at an appropriate
time. Resiliency is the only sensible path forward.
So, Administrator Long, again, I really do want to thank
you for being here today, and I look forward to this
discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carter. Thank you Mrs. Lowey.
Mr. Culberson has requested an opening statement. Mr.
Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The people of Houston and Southeast Texas suffered more
than we have in any--many storms, in certainly my memory. We
had over 52 inches of rain, over 150,000 homes flood, 200,000
apartment units, a number of people are--tens of thousands of
people in my district are living on the second floor of their
homes with the first floor torn out, the sheetrock torn out,
because they don't have anywhere else to go.
All of us are immensely grateful to the work that FEMA has
done to help the people of Houston to Southeast Texas who
suffered from this catastrophic rain event, and to all the
volunteers who came from all over the country. One of the
silver linings of this storm were the people that just showed
up spontaneously from all over the country with food, supplies,
water. I am especially grateful to the Cajun Navy, the people
of Louisiana who just showed up with boats and food and
jambalaya to help pull people out of their houses. I didn't
even know there was such as a thing as the Cajun Navy.
We all found ourselves in Houston doing what needed to be
done to help our neighbors and friends, and it is one of the
many, many reasons I am so proud to represent that wonderful
community of people who all look first to each other, to our
family, to our neighbors, to our faith, and our State to help
each other.
But the Federal Government's role is essential. And, Mr.
Long, we appreciate the work that FEMA has done. We are
grateful for the help that you provided. But a lot more has to
be done. And without even directly addressing the Disaster
Relief Fund, I want to say at the outset that the Office of
Management and Budget's request is woefully inadequate, it is
embarrassing, it is deeply upsetting to the people of Texas to
see that the largest housing disaster in the history of the
United States of America, there is not one dime recommended for
housing relief in the OMB's request.
So we are very grateful to Speaker Ryan, to Chairman
Frelinghuysen for opening up this process to be sure that the
Appropriations Committee is the one that makes the decision on
what the people of our districts and the Nation need in
response to this hurricane. The Constitution vests that
authority in Congress and on this committee. We always have and
we will once again make the decision on what is necessary to
heal the people of Texas, the people of Florida, and the people
of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from these terrible
storms.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and
look forward to working with you and my colleagues to be sure
the people of the United States who suffered are made whole.
Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
Administrator Long, at this time, you are recognized to
make your statement. I would ask that you try to limit yourself
to 5 minutes today because we have got a lot of questions that
are going to coming your way.
Mr. Long. Absolutely.
Mr. Chairman, Madam Member, and members of the committee,
thank you. It is an honor to be here. Today marks the end of
the 2017 hurricane season, and it has been--the word
``unprecedented'' doesn't do it justice.
I want to start by thanking members of the committee but
also members of Congress for quickly considering the first two
supplementals and pushing them through. It is vital funding,
and we are in the middle of a third request which I will get to
here in a minute.
I have been in office about 5 months. For 97 days, we have
been actively responding around-the-clock. And not only to
Harvey, Irma, Maria, as well as the California wildfires. But
right now we are working 31 disasters across this country in 21
different jurisdictions. My staff is tapped out. They work
around-the-clock and bust their rear ends every day to help
those who are in need. And we are doing the best that we can do
in trying to move as quick as we can. This has been the longest
activation in FEMA's history. And I have to say, I am extremely
proud to work with the members of FEMA. And we have got a long
way to go in the spirit of improvement.
I am here in the spirit of improvement. I have many ideas
that I have not had a chance to catch my breath and come to you
with. Some of them I can do with a stroke of a pen through my
own authority; some of them are going to require changes to the
Stafford Act. But to put this into context, just those four
events, Harvey to the devastating California wildfires,
impacted 25 million people. In a 97-day time period, we put
almost 5 million people into the Individual Assistance Program.
To put that into context, in that short of a timeframe, that is
greater than Sandy, Katrina, Wilma, and Rita combined. And it
is a tenfold increase over what we did last year for the entire
fiscal year.
And while these statistics, I could go on where we put
80,000 people in hotels in just Texas for Harvey alone, I could
go on with those statistics. The Nation needs to stop, take a
deep breath, and figure out how we collectively become more
resilient. Not just FEMA, but it is the whole community.
Sir, as you mentioned how do we better utilize the whole
community from the Cajun Navy all the way to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency? And I didn't come up here to do
the status quo. I am ready to change the face of emergency
management and the way that we attack our resiliency in this
Nation, and it is going to require your help as well.
Since August 25, we have received roughly $42 billion when
you include not only the DRF funding but the NFIP debt
forgiveness as well as community disaster loan funding. And now
we are asking for $23.5 billion. This is a tremendous amount of
money.
Protecting the taxpayer dollars is of utmost importance as
well as saving lives. I get it. In this third supplemental, we
are asking for some special provisions that I need the Congress
to consider. We need outcome-based planning, recovery planning,
when we enter into these disasters. We are asking for Puerto
Rico to have an integrated recovery plan with clear outcomes so
that we are not just throwing money at recovery, we have an
outcome in mind going into this.
The next thing is is that I am also asking for additional
authorities, particularly around Puerto Rico. The Stafford Act
allows me to rebuild communities to a predisaster standard
which would not be prudent in this situation. We are facing
massive amounts of deferred maintenance in the infrastructure
and antiquated infrastructure. The average age of the power
plants is 44 years old. If you look at it globally what the
average age of a power plant is, it is typically 18 years old,
as I understand it.
So when FEMA comes into this situation, I will need
additional authorities to be able to put back Puerto Rico in a
resilient or prudent manner so that we are not here again
having this same committee hearing about not only Maria. But
the real question for me is, it is time to question what is
FEMA's role in disaster response and recovery? What can we
adequately handle as an agency versus what the real roles and
responsibility of the whole community should be from State to
local governments. And let's hit the reset button, and let's
carve out what--every level of government and the whole
community should be responsible for.
FEMA is never designed to be the first responder and the
only responder in a disaster. But in many cases, that is where
we find ourselves, and we have got to fix that problem. Doing
so fixes the whole community issues that we face and bring the
a level of resilience.
I have numerous ideas starting first with recovery is too
complex. It is too fragmented. Funding comes from too many
different Federal agencies down to the local and State level,
and it is too difficult to understand what you are entitled to,
how to use this funding in concert with one another. And it
leads to deobligations, confusion, and more frustration on your
part, the citizens' part, and the disaster survivors' part.
This is the time to fix those problems and streamline the
Federal Government's support down through a local governor to
the local level to achieve the governor and the local
government's goals and responsibilities, not my goals and roles
and responsibilities.
We have to increase predisaster mitigation. You have to get
hit to have access to billions of dollars or hundreds of
millions of dollars of mitigation funding. That is reverse. It
is backwards. It doesn't make sense. We need to move 404
section money out of the Stafford Act to the blue sky day up-
front place where people can plan out mitigation strategies
rather than having to get hit and then figure out how to do
mitigation. It is a regressive formula. It needs to be changed.
We have to ensure that State and local governments have
their own ability to push out life-sustaining commodity
distribution for water and meals. It cannot be solely on the
shoulders of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to push
food and water out. Every State should have a capability. Large
cities should have their own capability. Our support should be
designed to backfill that community, not supplant it fully.
We have to make sure that we find low to no cost ways to
truly implement a true culture of preparedness within our
citizenry. We don't have it. And it is time to hit the reset
button on how we become more resilient, not only at the citizen
level, because citizens are the true first responder. They are
the true first responder in an active shooter event, and they
are when a tornado hits or when a flood occurs. We need to give
tangible skills from CPR to how to shut off water valves to how
to be properly insured, not only as a homeowner but as a
business owner.
We have to fix the NFIP business process. I run a program
that is structurally broken every day. It goes into debt every
time we have a major event, and I have to come ask for
supplementals. We continue to go into debt. Katrina forced it
into debt. Sandy forced it into debt. Harvey and Irma forced it
into debt. And we got to fix the structure of that framework,
and we have to ensure not only affordability but fix the
structure. I run a program that is not financially solvent.
I have about 100 more ideas I could share, and I look
forward to working you. But I am here in the spirit of
improvement. I look forward to having a fruitful discussion
today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Long follows:]
Statement of William B. Long
Good morning, Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Roybal-
Allard, and Members of the Committee. My name is Brock Long,
and I am the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
discuss FEMA's supplemental appropriations request before
Congress and this hurricane season's federalresponse and
recovery efforts.
I have been in office for just over 5 months, and I am
proud to be part of an agency that,works every day to help
communities reduce the risks associated with future disasters,
as well as to assist disaster survivors all across the country.
In this short time, our Nation has faced four catastrophic
disasters. Hurricane Harvey struck Texas with both strong wind
and record setting rainfall. Then, Hurricane Irma swept through
the Caribbean, striking the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico,
Georgia, and the entire state of Florida. Hurricane Maria
followed, striking a devastating blow to the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Puerto Rico. Weeks later, nearly two dozen large
wildfires burned more than 200,000 acres of state and private
land in northern California.
These historic disasters--each historic in its own right--
have compelled FEMA to push its limits. These events have also
required action by Congress, actions that entrust FEMA to
coordinate effective and efficient response and recovery
missions, to provide oversight of the taxpayers' investment in
these activities, and to maintain a highly regarded and well
trained cadre of employees. Today, I would like to share with
you not only the experiences of recent months, but also the
financial and legislative priorities that will drive a
successful recovery.
2017 Hurricane Season
FEMA works quietly, day in and day out, across the country
responding to many disasters that do not get national
attention. Prior to Hurricane Harvey making landfall on August
25, 2017, FEMA had 17 Joint Field Offices working 28
Presidentially-declared disasters. FEMA, our partner agencies
in the federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments, in addition to vital volunteer relief
organizations and the private sector, work in concert, with
unity of effort, to serve the needs of disaster survivors.
To say this hurricane season has been historic is an
understatement. We had four hurricanes make landfall this
season, three of which have been major hurricanes (Harvey,
Irma, and Maria).
Since Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas, the
President has made 16 Major Disaster declarations and 14
Emergency Declarations, while FEMA has authorized 25 Fire
Management Assistance Grant declarations. Hurricane Irma was
unique not only because it struck both the U.S. Virgin Islands
and Puerto Rico, but also because it struck the entire State of
Florida, including the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Hurricane
Maria, following in quick succession, then struck the U.S.
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, more than 1,000 nautical miles
from the mainland United States, devastating an area with
already fragile infrastructure and facing challenging economic
circumstances. In a span of 25 days, FEMA and our partners
deployed tens of thousands of personnel across 270,000 square
miles in three different FEMA Regions.
The impacts of these events are substantial. Roughly 25.8
million people were affected by these three storms - eight
percent of the entire U.S. population. As of November 13, 2017,
more than four and a half million survivors have registered for
FEMA assistance, more than those who registered after
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Sandy combined. FEMA's
Individual and Households Program (IHP) has thus far approved
more than $2 billion in disaster assistance to respond to the
three hurricanes, and I expect this number to continue to grow.
As of mid- November, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
policyholders filed approximately 120,000 claims, and the NFIP
has paid over $4 billion to them.
In just over 30 days, FEMA increased our call center
capacity to more than 10 times our State level. Call centers
receive registrations for FEMA's Individual Assistance program
from survivors, and they also serve as a helpline for those
survivors who have questions about their applications.
Additionally, FEMA more than quadrupled our cadre of
inspectors, who validate damages to an applicant's home and
property. We will continue to expand these capacities each day
for as long as the mission requires.
FEMA alone cannot deliver assistance to this vast number of
survivors. Unity of effort is required for disaster response
and recovery on any scale, but especially in response to this
historic season. When emergency managers call for unity of
effort, we mean that all levels of government, non-profit
organizations, private sector businesses, and survivors must
work together, each drawing upon their unique skills and
capabilities, to meet the needs of disaster survivors.
State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, along
with the residents in the affected areas, are the true first
responders. Non-profit organizations, like those that are
members of the National Voluntary Organizations Active in
Disasters (NVOADs), provide crucial services to sustain lives
while the rest of the response and recovery infrastructure can
be established by emergency managers for longer-term needs. The
private sector also plays a critical role in disasters, as
businesses work to restore critical services and donate their
time and resources in close coordination with emergency
management personnel to help communities rebound in the wake of
disasters. The whole community must be, and is, engaged,
involved, and coordinated.
For our part on the federal level, FEMA called upon not
only the vast majority of our own workforce, but also engaged
over 3,800 other federal employees to participate in the
``Surge Capacity Force'', both by tapping into the Department
of Homeland Security's existing program and expanding
participation in that program to all Federal agencies. This is
significant. FEMA employees come to FEMA knowing they will be
deployed into disaster areas, work in austere conditions, and
assist survivors. That is part of our job at FEMA. However,
when personnel from outside FEMA volunteer for the Surge
Capacity Force, they volunteer to leave their jobs and
families, receive just-in-time training, and work in an
environment that is completely unfamiliar and outside of their
normal job responsibilities.
I am incredibly grateful to my interagency colleagues from
across the Federal government for supporting this important
initiative, and for allowing their hardworking and dedicated
personnel to support disaster survivors who have been impacted
by these historic events. Over 22,300 members of the Federal
workforce were deployed to Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Puerto Rico. This includes 13,892 staff from
various offices of the Department of Defense, including the
military services. We could not do this without them.
This unprecedented hurricane season has truly tested us as
a Nation and tested many of our assumptions about what works in
disaster response and recovery. While each year the hurricane
season comes to an end on November 30, the lessons from the
response and recovery operations that we are performing this
year, under incredibly difficult circumstances, will transform
the field of emergency management forever.
The Disaster Relief Fund
Under current law, the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is the
source of the funding that enables FEMA to direct, coordinate,
manage, and fund response, recovery, and mitigation efforts
associated with major disasters and emergencies that receive a
Presidential declaration pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act).
Therefore, FEMA's ability to provide essential services and
financial assistance to overwhelmed state, local, tribal, and
territorial governments depends on having sufficient balances
in the DRF.
The DRF helped fund response needs related to hurricanes
Harvey, Irma, and Maria and will also help fund recovery
efforts for those events. As of November 13, 2017, FEMA
obligated approximately $13.7 billion to support response to
and recovery from these hurricanes. Adequate funding for the
DRF is essential to FEMA's ability to carry out its mission.
Because FEMA had only $2 billion on hand to fund major
disaster operations at the time Harvey struck, the Agency took
extraordinary measures to maintain the DRF's solvency during
the first two weeks of the incident response, including
temporarily suspending payments for long-term recovery projects
(a policy known as Immediate Needs Funding), and reprogramming
a net total of $750 million from the base category of the DRF
(which funds, among other things, emergency declarations) to
the Majors Disaster category.
To date, Congress has passed two supplemental
appropriations bills that enable FEMA to continue helping
communities respond to and recover from Harvey, Irma, and
Maria. I am concerned, however, that use of emergency
appropriations like those passed on September 8 and October 24
may become the new normal due to a decline in the amount of
funding available for natural disasters since Fiscal Year (FY)
2015 that is projected to continue.
Currently, Congress proactively funds the DRF through
annual appropriations in anticipation of future disaster
activity. This mechanism, known as the Disaster Relief
Allowable Adjustment, or more simply the Disaster Cap, was
successful in decreasing dependence on supplemental
appropriations since it was put into place with the passage of
the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA).
Funding available under the Disaster Cap is recalculated
each year based on a formula established by the BCA that in
part utilizes a ten year average. It is important to note that
the Nation went 11 years without a major hurricane making
landfall, which has affected the funding available to the DRF.
However, the Disaster Cap will continue to fall or remain flat
over the next few years due to the good fortune of relatively
low disaster spending between 2012 and 2016, and the fact that
the Disaster Cap does not take into account emergency funding
FEMA will receive in FY 2018.
This drop in the Disaster Cap could result in constraints
on future DRF appropriations and, consequently, insufficient
balances in the DRF to support mission operations. This dynamic
could lead to an increasing reliance on emergency supplemental
appropriations to support basic disaster missions as soon as
this fiscal year or FY 2019. We would like to work together
with Congress to provide a fix to the mechanism that funds the
DRF.
Third Request for Supplemental Appropriations Related to the
2017 Hurricane Season
On November 17, 2017, the President transmitted a $43.996
billion emergency supplemental appropriations request to
provide the resources necessary for the recovery efforts
related to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. This constitutes
the third request from the Administration as a result of the
devastating Atlantic hurricane season. This fall, Congress has
already provided$35.8 billion in funding and cancelled$16
billion in NFIP debt to meet urgent emergency response needs in
affected areas and longer-term recovery requirements. It sends
a very clear message: We are committed to the long-term
recovery of all impacted individuals as well as conducting this
recovery in a fiscally responsible and prudent manner.
While this is an FY 2018 supplemental request, it does not
represent either a schedule or a deadline for recovery efforts.
Providing the necessary funding and authorities requested by
the Administration will address ongoing recovery efforts in
Texas and Florida, as well as the medium-term response and
recovery missions in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
In terms of meeting FEMA's mission, the Administration's
package includes $23.5 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund.
This funding is critical to finance ongoing recovery and
stabilization operations, support survivors, and support
estimates for permanent public infrastructure work associated
with recovery from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma as well as
initial permanent public infrastructure work estimates for
Hurricane Maria. This supplemental request would also allow a
portion of the Disaster Relief Funds be made available for
Community Disaster loans to support the operating liquidity
needs of affected areas.
We ask the Congress to act quickly upon this request.
Next Steps and Conclusion
At FEMA, we seek constant improvement to better support
America's disaster survivors, citizens, first responders, and
communities. Responding to and recovering from any disaster is
a whole community effort that relies on the strength of
federal, state, local, and tribal governments as well as non-
governmental entities and individuals, in addition to FEMA. The
unprecedented events of this past fall are no exception.
The response to the 2017 hurricane season continues to
provide me the opportunity to test the validity of many of the
ideas I had coming into this job. We look forward to
collaborating with Congress in the coming months to implement
lessons learned, as well as gather any additional feedback that
you may have. I look forward to your questions. Again, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. That was very spectacular. I love
that outside-the-box thinking.
Let me remind our panel here that we are going to be on the
clock, and we are going to try to stick to it. I will do a
little courtesy over but not a whole lot.
Well, that was a blitz, and I would love to hear the other
100 ideas you have got. And let's hope we can figure out a way
to do those things.
We have been--and that is--so you start off with kind of
the big picture, and that is right where we need to start. A
series of questions concerning the big picture. What is the
status of FEMA at this time and the impacted States' response
and recovery in this year's hurricanes? What do you anticipate
your biggest challenges will be in the coming months? And how
do you plan to address them? With more than 80 percent of
FEMA's workforce currently deployed to support ongoing disaster
response activities, are you concerned with FEMA's ability to
respond if another catastrophic event occurs?
Mr. Long. Great question.
In regard to Harvey and Irma, we are rolling forward in the
initial recovery and long-term recovery phases. The biggest
challenge that face us is housing. Obviously. Congressman, you
hit the nail on the head. There aren't enough manufactured home
and travel trailers and, in some cases, hotels to service. And
we are never going to be able to move fast enough to put people
back in their homes.
FEMA is not a housing expert, by the way. I often question
whether or not FEMA should be in charge of disaster recovery
housing. And that is another discussion that we should probably
have. But the bottom line is it is on my plate. I recognize it.
We work with it every day. Housing is tremendously different,
not just from Texas, but the California wildfires, which is one
of the most disturbing events I have ever been a part of in my
career, based on the urban nature of those wildland fires. The
housing mission is tremendously different there, because there
is nothing to rebuild. It has been burned completely down
versus where we have to go into Harvey, and we have to
understand what can be rebuilt versus where we need to bring in
manufactured homes or how we transition people out of hotels to
other options. Rent them if you got them, apartments that may
be available. This is the biggest issue that we face.
In Puerto Rico, obviously it is the power. It is an
antiquated power system that we are rapidly trying to figure
out day in and day out on how to get in there. The complexities
of it being an island and the logistical complexities adds to
it. Everything that we do in Puerto Rico is hard. That is not a
complaint. It is just a reality. It is hard. So power and
housing is also the problem in Puerto Rico. When you are trying
to fix homes in Puerto Rico, just simply putting a blue tarp on
a house is not easy, because there is not a structure to
connect it to. You have to first rebuild the structure before
you put the blue tarp on it. And in many cases, it is trying to
figure out who actually owns the home. Those are the issues
that are there.
The other thing that I recognize is we are having to
delicately deal with billions of dollars of taxpaying money.
One of the things that I have recognized that we have to
improve is oversight and grants management. Grants management
is the responsibility of the whole community, not just FEMA. We
have got to increase the grants management oversight at the
State, local, and subgrantee level, provide better and more
training to how this funding works. But it goes back to the
thing that we have to solve is the problem of fragmented
recovery from different types of money coming from HUD or FEMA
or Federal highway, wherever it comes from, with different
policies, different tags, different rules. And it just sets
everybody up for failure in the long run.
And we never train people how to utilize the funding that
comes down from the Federal Government in the best way
possible. Here is what you are entitled to. Here is what your
goals are. Let's grab the money you need. Let's put it to work
in concert with one another in an efficient and effective
manner. There is a lot that we have to talk about. Housing is
going to be the most difficult mission that I have.
Mr. Carter. Well, that was an excellent response. I am
about to run out of time. I will try--to respond to this year's
disaster activity. In my understanding, $23.5 billion requested
in the supplemental addresses all disaster requirements for
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, but only fiscal year 2018 costs for
Hurricane Maria.
Why does this request only include funding in 2018 for
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands? And do you plan to submit
another supplemental in addition to support these disasters?
Mr. Long. That is another excellent question, because we
are performing our due diligence. It is hard to project what
the true cost is going to be after fiscal year 2018.
As we transition to recovery and why we are asking Puerto
Rico to have an integrated outcome-based plan for their
recovery effort, it helps us to project what we need. We also,
as we get into recovery, based on what a governor may ask for,
the different programs that are made available, when they turn
those on, we look at trends, we look at the programs that are
on. And we deliberately go in and try to estimate out. I think
if we go beyond 2018, I don't think that the estimates I could
provide you would be remotely accurate based on the work, and
that is why we have decided to stay there.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator Long, the administration
has proposed giving you discretion to waive the predisaster
condition limitation on public assistant grants for Puerto Rico
and to fund the repair of or replacement of public facility
components that weren't damaged if replacing them is essential
to restoring the overall facility. Can you talk a little bit
more about why this authority is needed in the case of Puerto
Rico? Do you expect that it will help speed up recovery
efforts? And did you consider extending this authority to the
U.S. Virgin Islands as well? And if not, why not?
Mr. Long. In regard to Puerto Rico, I am concerned that I
don't have the authority to implement recovery in a manner that
is needed, because where FEMA gets in trouble is when we start
fixing issues that were not damaged as a result of the actual
disaster. So if you take the roadway system inside Puerto Rico,
there are plenty of deferred maintenance issues where the
roadway system was not maintained, there were damages that were
there before the storm. And in some cases, as a result of the
storm passing through, the damages are exponentially increased
because of a lack of maintenance. If I fix infrastructure that
has not been maintained, then OIG comes back and, rightfully
so, says, ``Hold on a minute. Is this truly the Federal
Government's responsibility, or should this be on the backs of
the local and the State governments?''
But in this case with Puerto Rico, we are running into so
many deferred maintenance issues in regards to the entire
infrastructure and antiquated systems that I don't think you
can put it back to a predisaster condition. Right now I am
working under the emergency authorities that I have to prevent
public health emergencies and future loss of life.
But once we get into the permanent work that is required to
actually rebuild to a higher code standard, for example, just
putting the CONUS standard for the power grid on to Puerto Rico
is greater than the pre-storm condition that we found the power
grid in to begin with.
And so this is why we are asking for those authorities. I
need protection when it comes to putting Puerto Rico back in a
more resilient manner so that we are not sitting here again
having this discussion.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. If you get that authority, how will you
decide when to use it? And do you anticipate that you will
broadly use it, or will you use it only in certain
circumstances or for certain kinds of projects?
Mr. Long. So right now we don't have a full understanding
as we are still in the response phase of Puerto Rico. What we
know as we get into what is called permanent work, or the
different categories, categories C through G, like fixing the
public infrastructure, we know that we are going to run into
it. We are already in the emergency work trying to get into
areas of the power grid where you are having to do debris
removal and brush removal because of overgrowth. And that is
deferred maintenance which delays the recovery time. We know we
are going to see it. We are anticipating it going into fiscal
year 2018 into the permanent work issues of recovery.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. And under this authority or other
existing authorities, will FEMA be able to fully fund the
Federal share of a more modern, efficient, and resilient type
of electrical generation and grid system for Puerto Rico, or
will Puerto Rico only be eligible to receive an amount
sufficient to construct a brand-new version of its current
system which would still be vulnerable to future hurricanes? In
other words, will FEMA funding reflect the higher cost of a new
system that would mitigate against future disaster costs?
Mr. Long. All of that is being taken into consideration. I
am going to have to respond to you in writing on all of the
issues that are there. Obviously the problem that we are facing
in Puerto Rico is the liquidity issue when it comes to the
reimbursement or to the cost-share issues that you are
referencing. The bottom line is is that liquidity is standing
in the way of doing things in a normal fashion, but I will have
to get back to you on the specifics of that question.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. What is your understanding about other
Federal resources that might be available to Puerto Rico to
cover any gap between what FEMA will provide and the added cost
of more resilient infrastructure?
Mr. Long. And this goes back to what I refer to as
fragmented recovery. Every day we have what are called recovery
meetings with our partners across the recovery perspective. And
other agencies are in the joint field office. We are having
those meetings daily when it comes to how our funding works
together and where our authorities begin and end. And so, for
example, we were in a very detailed conversation with Secretary
Carson at HUD yesterday about housing and how FEMA can handle
the housing for homes less than 50 percent damaged, but after
that, it is going to be more of a HUD mission. And so we are
looking at areas to hand that off.
I still believe that, as a Nation, as a result of going
through this, we can still do a much better job of streamlining
all of these programs in assigning authority that is clear.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Long. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. And after hearing from Mr. Brock, I just want to say
that I will sleep better tonight. I am so impressed.
Mr. Long. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. And it seems to me you are handling this just
right. And the only question I have before I get to my
questions, when you are talking about rebuilding to standards
and--whether it is homes or the electric grid or the highways
or the roads, I was there with the Speaker not too long ago, I
do hope, if we ever get this budget process going, we will be
able to give you a number that will provide for adequate
funding to do this, because I understand, as you are saying,
you have to combine your efforts with HUD and other agencies.
But knowing you are there will help me sleep better tonight. So
I thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr. Long. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. So first question: Congress authorized the
alternative procedures pilot program as part of the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act to test a more efficient approach to
awarding public assistance grants. So I would like to know from
you how has the alternative procedures program worked with
regard to Superstorm Sandy recovery efforts? Do you anticipate
that Puerto Rico will choose this approach? And if so, do you
anticipate any changes in how the program will work for Puerto
Rico?
Mr. Long. Ma'am, that is an excellent question. Thank you.
And what I believe you are referring to is Section 428 of the
Stafford Act. For large-scale events, it makes sense to go the
428 route. Now, a governor has to basically elect to go that
route. Governor Rossello has proactively done so for Puerto
Rico, and the reason that it is an advantage for us is--just
merely going back to the roadway system.
If there are thousands of problems within the roadway
system, which there are in Puerto Rico, instead of having to
generate thousands of project worksheets to fix those problems,
and those project worksheets can be reversioned for many years,
and there seems to be no end, the 428 program, as the governor
so proactively agreed to, forces us to be outcome-based, and we
can write one project worksheet for the entire roadway grid.
Now, where we have got to do a better job in helping the
city of New York or other communities is they obviously have
some concerns of when we do the cost estimate up front, at the
beginning of the 428 program, did we accurately estimate how
much it was going to cost. And that alone sometimes is
frightening for a community, and I understand it, to make sure
that they have hit the nail on the head. But as far as the
efficiency goes, the 428 program truly is, in my opinion, the
way that we need to go forward and continue to improve it.
Mrs. Lowey. So following up on that, what is the process
for how FEMA and Puerto Rico find agreement on the cost
estimates for the hurricane damage? I know you are in the
process of evaluating this. How long will that process take?
Because I am hoping that the current supplemental, which is
inadequate, can reflect some of your recommendation.
I don't want to put you on the spot, but I think it is
important that we have a good idea, an accurate idea.
Mr. Long. Sure. And you know what? This process never moves
as quickly as citizens want it to move, because we have to be
very careful with not only the inspections that are required,
the technical expertise. For example, I don't know much about
rebuilding a roadway system. I rely on U.S. DOT Puerto Rican
transportation authorities and other agencies about what needs
to work and what doesn't. So it is a comprehensive process that
can't be done in a vacuum that requires many, many members to
come in to tackle the situation and produce an accurate
estimate.
If you would like the details, I would be happy to provide
you several examples that we are already going through in
Puerto Rico to make sure that we try to nail this up front.
Mrs. Lowey. So following up, I would like to really better
understand how the alternative procedures approach can
potentially help Puerto Rico with its resiliency efforts. How
will Puerto Rico use other Federal agencies to supplement what
it receives through FEMA for improved infrastructure and
facilities that can better withstand extreme weather events?
Mr. Long. Right. So the 428 pilot program does allow for
some improvements to become more resilient, not just putting
back things to predisaster condition only to have them knocked
out again. We can provide you some details on that as well. But
it also is more incentive-based. If they come in underneath the
actual estimate, once the project is complete under the
estimate, there are incentives for them to do so when it comes
to retaining some of that funding.
Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Chairman, did I use up all my time already?
Mr. Carter. We will give you little bit more time, but you
are already past right now.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I will hold the rest of my questions.
Mr. Carter. All right.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carter. We will get Mr. Culberson here in a minute, and
it is really going to be hard to hold him to that.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Then maybe I will take back a couple
of minutes from you.
Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say, Administrator Brock, your testimony is truly
one of the most encouraging, and really it is marvelous to hear
your commitment to help the people of the United States but
also your very clear understanding of the genius of the United
States, that our greatest strength as a Nation is relying on
the good hearts and the good sense and those great core values
that every American holds in their hearts to look after each
other. Because you are right, the very best first responders
are Americans themselves looking after their families and their
neighbors and their friends and the local communities.
And I am just thrilled to hear what you said. Frankly, I
want to make sure I get a picture with you, and we are going to
put your testimony out on my Web site and get it out to all the
people Houston and Texas. I mean, it is just superb. You are
exactly right. And your willingness to be creative and
innovative.
I would encourage you to ask your staff to go through all
the statutes that you are responsible for, administering all
the programs that you are responsible for, and ask them where
do you have flexibility? Where has the Congress vested you with
discretion and authority to make decisions on your own? For
example, one thing that you have got authority to do, and you
have done repeatedly, which we appreciate, is extending the
deadlines because of the scale of the disaster in Texas. I know
you all--it is just unheard of, what we have faced. And you
have been very accommodating in extending those deadlines.
Another area you have got discretion in that I hope you
will exercise is in Houston, all of the major synagogues in
Houston flooded. Beth Yeshurun was completely destroyed. This
was immediately prior to the high holy days. And the number of
churches were flooded. But you have got the discretion to allow
FEMA disaster assistance funding to go to reimburse or help
defray the cost of rebuilding a religious institution.
I encourage you to go ahead and do so. That would help a
great deal, because Beth Yeshurun was completely destroyed and
is trying to raise the money to rebuild. Is that something you
would be interested in and able to do?
Mr. Long. Yes, that is a great question, because there is a
little bit of a misunderstanding about the houses of worship.
They are eligible for public assistance reimbursement if they
provide a critical service to the community. And so that is
what we are working through. We are under litigation right now,
so I have to be careful about what I put forward. But, yeah I
think that we have to relook at all 502(c)(3) compliant
nonprofit organizations that are active in disaster as well and
the eligibility requirements around that. And we are actively
doing that.
Mr. Culberson. You are under an injunction to prevent you
from doing so?
Mr. Long. No, not right now. I said we are in the middle of
litigation.
Mr. Culberson. Make them sue you, Judge, and shut them
down. They need your help.
Another concern, if you take a look at the FEMA buyout
program, for example. We have got neighborhoods in Houston
where, as a result of previous floods, from the tax day flood
to the Memorial Day flood, we had over the last couple of years
where there were homes that were bought out by FEMA. And under
FEMA rules, the land cannot be developed even if the--either
the local community or the individual are the ones to buy the
land, is willing to mitigate it. I hope you will look at that.
I think you have got discretion in that area so that you could
allow a local entity, for example, to go back in and buy these
lots that are in the middle of very nice neighborhoods. You
have all these great homes.
And then buying a vacant lot that is deeded to the county
that has got weeds to 3 to 4 feet high, why not let someone go
in there and develop that property and build it as long as they
mitigate it to protect against, for example, a minimum 100-year
flood or even higher. I think you have got the authority to do
that.
Mr. Long. Let me get back to you on that one, and I would
be happy to look into that as well.
Mr. Culberson. You also are only able to elevate a home if
you elevate an existing structure. Why not let the owner of the
property elevate a home, tear down the old one and build a
brand-new one? That would be a lot cheaper and a lot less money
to the taxpayers as well.
You have got a whole variety of, I think, flexibility in
your authority in things that you could do that would be a
tremendous help, that I would certainly--I know this committee
would like to help you with. You will find no better friend
when it comes to helping you be innovative and creative and
thinking outside the box than Judge John Carter, the chairman
of this subcommittee. He's been terrific in helping on this. We
deeply appreciate it in Houston. We really do.
And also on the premitigation money under section 404, that
money could also be used to help mitigate or protect an area
from future flooding, for example, correct?
Mr. Long. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson. And you are exactly right. Get the money out
front by pushing it out front to a community and ensuring that
it is available to help protect against the next flood to at
least a 100-year event would be a tremendous help in protecting
the Southeast Texas where 80 percent of the Nation's
petrochemical refining capacity is, 70 percent of the Nation's
aviation fuel moves through Port Neches, the Port of Houston,
are extremely important. So I look forward to working with you
on that.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the good work that you
have done in making sure this good man right here is able to
implement all those out-of-box thinking ideas that you learned,
I understand in the state of Alabama.
Mr. Long. Sure.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Long. Mr. Chairman, may I have a moment to comment, or
two, to comment on it?
Mr. Carter. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Long. So when you opened up, Congressman about your
statement, and we are talking about being innovative and what
my authorities are and what they aren't, one of the things that
we get beat up on in the media, we get beat up by Congress, and
we get beat up by elected officials all over is inspections,
like when it comes to housing. You are too slow. You don't have
enough inspectors.
The magnitude of the inspections that are needed from the
California wildfire to the Virgin Islands is unprecedented. We
have had over 6,000 inspectors that we have gotten our hands on
to be able to put out in the field. But after that, you start
to run out of resources. And so when you run into that problem,
it is twofold. And this is an example of fragmented recovery.
How do we reduce the need for a physical inspector to be in the
field without looking at technology, satellite imagery, flood
maps, and saying, ``You know what, the house is flooded.'' Do
we really need to send an inspector out there just to verify
it? And it takes more time.
The other thing with the inspection process is we have a
staff member at FEMA. Her name is Henrietta Alleman. She is a
native of Louisiana. And not only does she work for FEMA
around-the-clock. But her house was flooded. And when I was
asking for ideas, she said, ``Listen, you know what killed me
is the number of inspections the Federal Government requires
for me to get the assistance that I needed to fix my house.''
The flood program requires an inspection. HUD requires an
inspection. Individual assistance inspections. Private
insurance inspections. How do we get it down to one inspection
that covers the multitude of everything that may be needed in
the disaster recovery.
Now, the question for me, Congressman, is what is in my
authority to change that versus where I am going to have to
come back to say, please, Congress consider this.
Mr. Culberson. My brother, who is recovering from Stage 4
throat cancer, is living in his driveway in a trailer, and has
been with his entire house destroyed 6 to 7 feet of water for
12 days, as are all of his neighbors. So God bless you. Thank
you. You are exactly on target. And we are looking forward to
helping you.
Mr. Long. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Very good.
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I passed some legislation, but I don't think FEMA has
followed-up on this. Redundancy, elimination, enhanced
performance--all those grants on--I am very happy that you are
talking about some of the things that we need to address. I
would like to talk to you later about this legislation that is
on the books.
Let me go over a couple of questions that we confer with
Governor Abbott's office. As you know, there are some issues
that we have down there in Texas. And folks over here, there
is--I think there was four appropriators from Texas that we
have been working on this issues.
The first one, Mr. Long, how long is this disaster relief
funding--how can this disaster relief funding be used? Because
I know generally what we are talking about, but we want to make
sure that that information is connected with the State and the
locals.
Mr. Long. Yes. So when it comes to just in general--and we
can provide you details. But the two major programs are
individual assistance and public assistance. And that is what
we typically pay for. And when it comes to public assistance,
there is multiple categories. There is emergency work, and then
there is permanent work. So the emergency work, for example,
goes to offset the cost of response. The response, it also
offsets the cost of debris removal.
But then as you get into the permanent work of fixing
infrastructure, public facilities funding out of the DRF can go
to not only fund that, but then, on the individual assistance
side, it is other needs. It could be anything from dental needs
as a result of someone who has had problems from the flood,
from that standpoint, to rental assistance to direct critical
needs assistance, $500 to help you buy groceries all the way to
the housing mission that is there.
So it is a wide array, and that is just a very small sample
what----
Mr. Cuellar. And what do you think the goal of the disaster
relief funding should be? Because as you know, in Texas, when
we presented our thing to the White House, there seems to be a
disconnect from the way we look at the goal of disaster relief
funding.
Mr. Long. So, in my opinion--well, that is a tough question
too, in my opinion, saving lives in the response to kick-
starting the recovery. The other thing that the DRF----
Mr. Cuellar. And as you know--I am sorry to interrupt.
Texas will say, well, how do we prevent some of those issues in
the future? And that is where we are having a little
disagreement.
Mr. Long. Out of the DRF, the postdisaster funding that we
are talking about, Section 404, a certain percentage of funding
that we obligate becomes available for mitigation projects, not
only through 404 but then also section 406. There is
opportunities to mitigate infrastructure, public assistance
damaged infrastructure. So they can actually utilize funding.
Access becomes available to that funding after the disaster to
do mitigation.
Now, what I would propose is is that you leave the 406
mitigation funding there to fix the infrastructure that is
damaged. If it was damaged, let's rebuild it to a higher
standard with that funding. The 404 money needs to go up front,
because we require a local community or State community to
design a mitigation plan. OK? But they don't have access to the
funding they need to necessarily implement it.
Now, it is not FEMA's responsibility to create resiliency.
I ultimately believe that resiliency lies in the hands of local
elected officials through building codes and proper land use
planning. FEMA's assistance just supplements this capability.
But if we move the 404 money to the front end, it does a couple
of things. It reduces the complexity of recovery and the
problems in increasing how long recovery takes, but it allows
communities to properly plan and execute their mitigation plans
up front before disasters strike.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, I would ask you to continue working with
our governor's office on this issue, because I think--my two
other colleagues here from Texas, we have been having different
discussions as there is a little difference of opinion from the
State of Texas and up here, which is, basically I guess the
last question tied in----
I think you answered already--is this disaster relief
designed or intended to support long-term recovery to make
communities whole, which is--do you just fix that issue or can
you use some of those resources for preventing some of those
issues in the future, because otherwise we will be back again.
Mr. Long. Well, here again, I will never make a community
whole. And I don't believe that FEMA has the authority to make
a community whole nor is it really my responsibility to make
them whole. And here is the thing. Let's just say you have had
a tornado go through a small Texas community that wipes out a
majority of its infrastructure. FEMA is not trained nor should
we be responsible in how to tell that community how to generate
sales tax revenue after you have lost a large portion of your
infrastructure. We are not good at that. We are good at debris
removal, saving lives, coordinating response to do those
missions. When it comes to long-term economic viability after
going through a disaster, I am not so sure that that is FEMA's
goal or mission. That might need to be the expertise of other
portions of that whole community that I am talking about.
Mr. Cuellar. I would ask you, on behalf of the folks here,
to continue talking to our governor's office, because some of
us are put in this type situation. I am not going to go in a
second line of questions, so I am just going to ask this last
one. Texas has $10 billion in a rainy day fund, which I am very
familiar, because we were in the State legislature when we
created that. It rained in Texas.
Mr. Long. Sure.
Mr. Cuellar. So I think Texas should use--and I have said
this publicly--I assume we all have--whenever you have
conversations, make sure that we talk to Texas to make sure
they do their fair share also. It just can't come in just from
the Federal Government, because people have a tendency of
attacking the Federal Government. But when they need cash the
Federal Government is their best friend. So I just want to make
sure that everybody has skin in the game. So I would ask you,
when you have conversations with the governor's office, you go
over that.
Mr. Long. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, may I take a minute to
respond to that?
Mr. Carter. You may.
Mr. Long. Let me be clear about the State of Texas.
Regardless of the issues that may take place inside Texas from
disagreements on your view or the governor's view, or whatever,
Texas----
Mr. Cuellar. Oh, we are pretty much on the same view.
Mr. Long. No. But what I am saying is is that Texas is a
model, and here is why, because they are owning their disaster
recovery. They are owning the recovery housing mission, and
they are asking FEMA to support. We have got to get all 50
States to start owning the recovery process. I don't know how
to fix your State better than you do. OK? And my role should be
one of a counselor of saying, here is what you are entitled to
and here is what you are going to need to achieve those goals.
When it comes to a rainy day fund, I think that Congress
should take a look at what States don't have them, period. So
that when a Federal disaster declaration is not coming forward,
then what is the obligation of a State to step up and serve
their own citizens? And are these rainy day funds actually
designed to handle individual assistance and public assistance
at a smaller scale until Federal disaster assistance could be
turned on at some point?
So it is one thing to have a rainy day fund. It is another
way of understanding how it is set up. And I think if we make a
whole community improvement, then all these States need to have
rainy day funds that are designed similar to the assistance
that we put forward. But I am just one opinion.
Mr. Cuellar. Well, we appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carter. Doctor Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Long, for coming before the committee. And I too share
enthusiasm over the direction it seems FEMA has taken under
your guidance. I will be brief, I think.
It looks like the lesson from Puerto Rico is that--we kind
of pulled the bandage off. What we kind of discovered is that
the infrastructure has been neglected probably far longer and
to a far greater extent than we even managed when we passed the
PROMESA Act. And I guess we have to come to the policy decision
of exactly how much are we going to ask the rest of the country
to pay for neglected infrastructure that I think is far greater
than anything we see in the 50 States. But that is an issue
that we will grapple with as part of the request.
But the two issues I have are how wisely and efficiently we
spend money on emergencies. The New York Times wrote a story
about by linemen who are fixing the grid there are getting paid
$63 an hour, but the contractor who hires them getting
reimbursed $319 from a contract that, ultimately, we are going
to pay for. I assume; is that right? Was that a contract that
ultimately FEMA was going to kind of pay for?
Mr. Long. The power grid rebuild is being handled by the
Army Corps of Engineers. They have two prime contractors that
are managing the rebuild, as I understand it. And those prime
contractors are bringing subconsultants underneath them. So it
will be ultimately a good question for them.
Mr. Harris. OK. So I guess it is part of the entire $44
billion package, but not your part.
Let me ask a very specific question that interestingly
enough they couldn't answer at a agricultural subcommittee
hearing on this disaster aid yesterday.
When you pay for building projects to repair
infrastructure, Davis-Bacon applies? Davis-Bacon rules?
Mr. Long. I am assuming so. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Harris. Do you think you could be more efficient with
our taxpayer dollars if we carve out emergency spending and
say, You know what. We can actually get far more infrastructure
rebuild, and we can get far more disaster mitigation in the
future if we actually didn't have to adhere to Davis-Bacon
rules?
Mr. Long. I don't know the answer to that question. I would
be happy to come back with an opinion. I would be happy to work
with OMB and the administration on that as well.
Mr. Harris. Do you know how many States don't, in fact,
have prevailing wage?
Mr. Long. I do not.
Mr. Harris. So we are asking--oh, I know there are many
States. I know there are many States that don't. So we are
asking citizens from around the country to pay for disaster
mitigation, infrastructure rebuilding. Don't get me wrong. We
need to do these projects. But if a project is done in their
State by a private entity, they don't have to pay this premium,
that Davis-Bacon makes these contractors--or makes these
contracts cost through Davis-Bacon. But we are going to ask
them to pay for repairs in other--for instance, in a State like
Texas, if a private entity does--repairs their building, they
are not subject to Davis-Bacon. But if FEMA comes in and pays
for it--so if I get your answer right, if FEMA comes in to
rebuild that same building, that same infrastructure, they have
to ascribe to Davis-Bacon rules; is that correct?
Mr. Long. As I understand it, yes. But I can get back to
you.
Mr. Harris. I would appreciate that very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Carter. I am sorry. Mr. Price, you are looking at me,
but I am not paying attention.
Mr. Price. All right. Thank you.
Welcome, Mr. Administrator. I am proud to note that you are
born and reared in North Carolina and have done very well,
including this latest assignment. And we congratulate you on
your appointment and on the way you are handling a very, very
full plate. Most notably, three hurricanes and disastrous
wildfires in your early months of service.
Let me ask you about the White House's approach to this,
the disaster supplemental request, which included the following
sentence: The administration believes it is prudent to offset
new spending. In order to offset increases to the new emergency
spending we are requesting, the Congress should also consider
designating offsets for the base appropriations as an
emergency.
Director Mulvaney then provided a supposedly helpful venue
of inventory of options for cuts that totaled $59 billion, a
menu of money of poison pills, you might say. Things like Pell
grants, animal and plant health inspection, highway
construction. Quite a list. Supposedly helpful as we try to
meet this urgent request. Ironically, this request came one day
after House Republicans, with the backing of the President,
passed a package where the tax cuts exceeded the offsets by
$1.5 trillion, which clearly would balloon our national debt.
So I am not going to ask you to comment on OMB's approach to
this. But I do want to confirm with you that every dollar of
the $23.5 billion in Federal funding for the Disaster Relief
Fund does qualify under the law as emergency spending and thus
requires no offset. I am not asking what the administration has
proposed. I am simply asking the simple question does this
request qualify as emergency spending?
Mr. Long. To my knowledge, I would say yes.
Mr. Price. The answer is yes. All right.
Let me move on to how we might approach the housing needs,
which you have stressed, others have stressed. We do have a
vehicle for housing support which has been utilized in other
situations, and that would be the Disaster Housing Assistance
Program, which FEMA and HUD enter into these agreements. They
enter into after disasters. They did after Hurricane Katrina.
We have seen a number of these agreements. As I understand it,
there has not been such an agreement entered into, though, with
respect to the current disasters.
What could you tell us about that? Would a DHAP program be
helpful in this situation? Is it appropriate in this situation?
Have you discussed the possibility of such an approach with
Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the effected
jurisdictions.
Mr. Long. Sure. Absolutely.
So, here again, each one of the housing missions is
incredibly unique. A one-size-fits-all solution is not going to
work. What works for Texas is not going to work for California.
It is not going to work for Puerto Rico. We are in daily
conversations with HUD.
For example, in Puerto Rico, and we are having discussions
about where FEMA housing assistance begins and ends versus
where HUD picks up. And so that discussion was occurring
ongoing as of yesterday as well, and will continue. And I will
be meeting with HUD as I go back to Puerto Rico on Sunday and
Monday of next week.
When it comes to housing, I think there is a lot of room
for improvement when it comes to who is totally responsible for
disaster housing and how we implement this down. Now, I will
say this.
You want to talk about cost the estimates are all over the
place, but we have run some analysis where just to bring one
manufactured home into a community costs the taxpayer $202,000,
cradle to grave. Think about it. I have to buy it. I have to
haul it. I have to install it. I have to make sure that it is
secure. I have to watch over it for 18 months, sometimes maybe
more. Then I have to dispose of it. So how do we get more--how
do we do things better.
Manufactured housing is always going to have to be an
option on the table, because in some areas, particularly rural
areas, there are no other options, such as a multitude of
hotels. But what we did in Texas, which I would ask you guys to
take a look at, was something truly innovative.
Instead of bringing in a manufactured home, if your house
was less than 50 percent damaged but yet you sustained more
than $17,000 worth of damage, then we are trying to change the
world by allowing--granting the money down through the general
land office to the local governments and Council of Governments
to do $60,000 worth of permanent construction to the household.
$60,000 worth to the household to get people back in their
homes. It is not going to move--it moves at a swift glacial
pace if you have lost your house.
But to the taxpaying public, we have got to find better
solutions for housing across the board. Bringing in travel
trailers, whether it is FEMA assistance or DHAP programs, we
got a lot of work--you know, a lot of work. It is not a fun
program to put forward. It is truly necessary, but there is a
lot of money that can be saved and a lot more efficiencies that
could be put in place.
Mr. Price. Well, I appreciate your perspective on that. The
DHAP program in particular has been utilized, however. It has
utilized commonly. And it is not being utilized at this moment,
so you understand where I am coming from as to whether this is
a vehicle or a tool that, perhaps, we should consider in this
instance.
Mr. Long. Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Price. So if you will get back to me.
Mr. Long. We will get back to you, sir.
Mr. Price. I appreciate that.
Mr. Culberson [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Price. And I
appreciate you mentioning that, Director Long, because that is
important, to give people that flexibility to push the money
out there. We have got tens of thousands of Houstonians living
on the second floor of their home with all the sheetrock torn
out.
I want to make sure they are eligible for funding. They
have been displaced. They just don't have anywhere else to go.
And, by the way, my brother bought that trailer. He put it in
the driveway. He always wanted one, but--he wanted an RV--but
not this way.
Mr. Long. Right.
Mr. Culberson. Dan, thank you. Mr. Newhouse, thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Acting Chairman Culberson,
Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Roybal-Allard, thanks for
having this hearing.
Welcome, Mr. Administrator. I appreciate your being with us
today reporting on Puerto Rico. I want to join my colleagues in
expressing the--I certainly love to hear some of the things
that you said. You didn't come to preserve the status quo, and
you would like to work on change. And your words about
resiliency are very good.
In the spirit of improvement, we like to hear those kinds
of things, and we look forward to working with you on all of
that. So I am glad to hear that there is progress being made in
Puerto Rico. I have been on a couple hearings learning about
some of what is happening. Lots of work yet to do, but we are
making some good progress.
I wanted to focus--as you continue your work there, I want
to make sure that we are focusing on rural areas just as much
as urban areas. And I will use some of my own experience as an
example. I am from the State of Washington, and you may or may
not know, but you will in the next few years, I am sure,
unfortunately, we have had historic wildfires in our State as
well as the rest of the West. We have received major disaster
declarations, certainly. In my State, over the last a couple of
years, we burned accumulatively, I think, over 2 million acres.
Something like 400 homes have been consumed. FEMA denied any
individual assistance for these disasters.
And so what we have found in States like mine where we have
large population centers in large rural areas, that, for some
reason, the current formula as it comes to determining disaster
aid leaves us out.
And so the words concentration come up in conversations
with officials from FEMA. And so I guess my question relates to
looking at how these determinations are made, any formula
changes that FEMA may be considering, how we can work with you
to consider some of these changes to make them more workable,
more clearly define those formulas, so then, at least in my
opinion, that urban and rural are treated equitably.
Mr. Long. Sure. Congressman, you raise a very sensitive
issue that I am very familiar with. Having been the State
director of Alabama's emergency management agency, the nature
of many of those counties is very rural. And whether it is a
wildfire or a tornado, in some cases, the most rural
communities can truly sustain a lot of damage that doesn't
necessarily meet the public assistant numeric indicators, and
there are tremendous amounts of individual assistance needs
that are there, but because the rural nature versus the State
numeric indicators that are there, they are, in some cases,
somewhat penalized.
Now, we have to find a balance, and I would be happy to
work with you. The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act reset the
thresholds or the considerations for individual assistance. Is
it perfect? That is up for debate and discussion.
But I do have a question. When it comes to the whole
community and the responsibilities of all levels of government,
if Federal disaster assistance is not coming, what is the
State's rainy day fund designed to do to help those rural
communities as well? Because we see this--a majority of the
disasters and emergencies that occur nationwide, FEMA is not
involved in. I mean, there are hundreds of disasters that FEMA
doesn't come to assist us in. And what I am afraid of is, is
does that increase what is on my plate from the standpoint of
trying to work a much smaller level of disaster approval when
it comes to individual assistance or public assistance. And it
puts us in a tough spot.
Look, I didn't get into emergency management not to help
people. I have the spirit to want to help people. That is why I
am where I am. But at some point, we have to figure out what
the true capability of each State and local government should
be to work with their own citizens.
Mr. Newhouse. I would not disagree with that. In fact, I
would agree that it should be a concerted effort to work
together, all agencies.
Mr. Long. Sure.
Mr. Newhouse. Local, State, and Federal. And but it seems
to me we are not quite to the place where we need to be on all
of those levels.
Mr. Long. Sure, sure.
Mr. Newhouse. But I appreciate that and understand the
sensitivity or the wisdom it is going to take to find that
balance.
Mr. Long. Sure.
Mr. Newhouse. And I look forward to working with you on
that.
Mr. Long. And I look forward to working with you, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. Good.
Mr. Long. Absolutely.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Administrator Long, this is your day.
You have received compliments from both sides of the aisle, and
I think they are well deserved. I think, unfortunately,
sometimes in the government, whether Federal, State and local,
we have too many political appointments who don't have
expertise or have the ability to manage. And looking at your
resume, other than the fact you didn't come from Maryland--you
came from North Carolina, and you worked in Alabama--that is
OK. I like my southerners. But I appreciate your
straightforward, your ability to look at problems and to solve
them. And I think that is an important issue.
I was a former county executive, Baltimore County, close to
800,000 people, a lot of waterfront in that area. And during my
tenure, we had a lot of issues in waterfront properties. And I
agree with you on the issue that local government has to change
their zoning laws and their ability to rebuild so that they can
be protected. And I think that happened in Florida after some
of the storms, that they withstood a lot of these storms
because you can't rebuild and have it come over and over. So I
really think that is important, and I agree with you focusing
on that issue. It is extremely important.
What I want to get into--because a lot of times, they are
not protected. I know the chairman likes them a lot. But I want
to get into the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard--this is probably
going to be more of a statement, but I do want to ask you a
question.
The Coast Guard for their tremendous hurricane response,
they rescued more than 11,500 Americans in the last 3 months.
Per the Commandant, the branch is facing a $914 million
shortfall to attend to a backlog of ship and aircraft
maintenance and repairs for hangars and other facilities
damaged by storms. With that being said, the request in front
of us turns its back on the Coasties, only offering $500
million, less than the admiral's request.
The Coast Guard is always doing more with less. I didn't
realize that until I came to Congress, that they were the
stepchild, probably of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. And
the good news, I think they are in Homeland Security, where
they need to be, and now they are getting acknowledged for what
they do. They consistently get the job done and a lot of times
taken for granted, and for this reason, we rarely increase
their funding.
It is something that the better they do, and they do it
with less, and then what is their reward? They keep getting
less, less, less. Sooner or later, that is going to backfire.
Now, the President has requested that this cut be done. I
know that you don't have authority there, but I understand that
it comes through you, it comes through, probably OMB, to you,
and then you delegate that or you pay that out. And if we
don't, if we don't take care of the Coast Guard, they are not
going to be able to produce like they have. What can you do, if
anything, recommendation, to make sure that they get the
request, close to the request that they asked for?
The other thing, and the elephant in the room every time,
is sequestration. And it is up to Republicans and Democrats in
a bipartisan way to do away with this terrible law that makes
us weaker militarily, domestically, in whatever we do. And I
want to raise that just as an issue. You don't have to answer
that, but I do want to get on how we can do more and what your
recommendation would be--I realize you don't have the
authority; you are more of a pass-through that gives it to the
Coast Guard--to deal with issue because you need them and we
need them.
Mr. Long. Yeah. So, by and large, we always mission-assign
for large events the U.S. Coast Guard to be able to do the
life-saving mission. And they provide tremendous capabilities.
I have the deepest respect for the members of the Coast Guard.
And in regard to your specific question about--I am Coast
Guard advocate. Based on what I have seen I would be happy to
go back to the Department of Homeland Security and the
administration to address the issues or understand them, but I
don't want to speak for the Commandant and the Coast Guard
directly here, if that is OK.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, but isn't it my understanding, it
comes----
Mr. Long. We mission-assign them, and through the Disaster
Relief Fund, we can provide reimbursement for the usage of
their equipment and the disaster costs. As far as fixing
equipment, I don't believe we have the authority to do that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK. I yield back.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
I believe it is back to me. And we have had a series of
really good questions on both sides, and I am very appreciative
of the questions.
My colleague Ken Calvert, a current cardinal and a friend
of all of us on this committee, wanted me to ask this question:
California requests an increase to the 75/25 cost share for
debris removal related to the fires in Santa Rosa. The State
requested the waiver on October 8. It has not received a
response.
Could you tell us what the status of this request is, and
do you foresee any issue with this request from being approved?
Mr. Long. I will have to come back to you on the exact
status of where it is in the queue. It is probably under
consideration right now. So I would be happy to come back and
work with you, sir, on that.
Mr. Carter. You know that they do have the ability to have
a waiver of up to 90 percent.
Mr. Long. I do, yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. I would like to speak to you more generally
about the process for determining the Federal cost share for
FEMA public assistance. I understand this is largely formula-
driven but that FEMA also makes assessments on a disaster-by-
disaster basis to determine when it is appropriate and
necessary to increase the Federal cost share of a disaster.
How does FEMA work with the affected areas to ensure that
cost share are determined fairly and accurately, and what other
factors does FEMA consider outside of the per capita cost of
the disaster?
Mr. Long. Mr. Chairman, this is another area where Congress
needs to look at the whole concept of the numeric indicators
that we use in general.
So typically what we look at is, it is a formula of, I
think it is at $1.43 per person based on the State population,
which determines whether or not we believe Federal disaster
assistance should be made available or public assistance should
be made available to a State after a disaster, OK, on uninsured
losses, right.
For 10 years, that numeric indicator did not change
according to inflation. And, honestly, if it had, that numeric
indicator today would be $2.27 per person, which would shock
the system and be a tremendous amount of money that State and
local governments would be responsible for.
I often question whether or not the numeric indicator
actually measures a State and local's capability to handle
disasters in its entirety, but that is just the way business
has been done since 1986. It is time to take a look at that
entire formula and how we determine assistance.
Now, when it comes from being 75/25 to 90/10 or even up to
100 percent, PKEMRA laid out a formula, a numeric indicator,
PKEMRA laid out a formula that we typically follow to go to 90/
10 percent cost share. And so that is what we are following
currently.
Mr. Carter. I want to shift gears to something you and I
talked about on the phone.
Mr. Long. OK.
Mr. Carter. The State of Texas is taking the lead in the
housing mission for survivors of Hurricane Harvey, which as I
understand, is the first time a State has assumed this role.
While I am confident that Texas is well equipped to handle such
a task, implementing a new process while responding to a
disaster of this magnitude inevitably comes with problems.
Can you tell me about how this process has been working?
Have you seen any efficiencies with the State in the lead role?
How is FEMA making sure the needs of disaster survivors are
addressed and that no request slips through the cracks under
this new process?
Mr. Long. First of all, Governor Abbott made a very bold
and courageous decision to lead it. And not only lead it but to
be innovative in the way that we tried to address the housing
issues.
For example, hundreds of thousands of homes have been
impacted. There aren't enough trailers and, in some cases
hotels, to be able to service this one disaster, much less Irma
and everything else. So what is being done right now is that
FEMA is basically traditionally running the housing mission, as
we normally would, on behalf of the State, but we are in the
transition point of making sure that the General Land Office
has its feet underneath them to be able to administer the grant
dollars down, to run all aspects of the housing program.
I am not going to allow the State of Texas to fail. Will it
move quickly? Housing never does because of the sheer
complexities that we often run into when it comes to the
different types of damages that people have seen, whether they,
their house is totally destroyed or can be repaired or what it
requires. But we are working every day. I was in Texas 2 weeks
ago, right before the Thanksgiving holiday making sure we met
with George P. Bush, as well as Governor Abbott, on a
transition and making sure that this becomes a successful
program and that, because they were willing to bite off this,
that we are going to be with them every step of the way. We are
not going to hand this off and then back out. I am not going to
allow my staff to do that. So we will be with them through the
completion of this housing mission.
Mr. Carter. Well, I have a lot of confidence in the land
office, and I think they will do you a really good job, and I
am glad you all are partnering up on this. I think any time you
try a new concept, I think it is thinking outside the box,
which government should do more of and doesn't do very well. So
I congratulate you on doing that.
The next question is one that I know that Farenthold has
been talking to Ms. Granger about, so I am asking this on
behalf of them.
I have heard of delays and other issues in some of the
smaller communities, the communities with fewer resources along
the coastline. What is FEMA doing to ensure these communities
get the assistance they need to successfully access Federal
funding available to them? And this is really the lower coast
down towards Corpus Christi, Rockport, Port Aransas, all that
devastated area.
Mr. Long. So I am not sure of the exact issues that he is
referring to, but I do know that my staff is on the ground, and
I do know that the manufactured housing units that have been
requested, you know, they are mobilizing to the coast, and many
of them are in place.
Do we have a long way to go? Of course, we do. But there is
movement down there. Here again, we are trying to move as fast
as we can based on the material and the personnel that we have,
and I would be happy to check back in and directly contact the
Congressman as a result of this hearing. I will be happy to
hear him out.
Mr. Carter. OK. I will tell him that. Thank you. Ms.
Roybal-Allard.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I want to go back to one of my original
questions, and that had to do with the proposal to give you
discretion to waive the predisaster condition limitation on
public assistance grants. You answered the part with regards to
Puerto Rico, but I also would like to know if you considered
extending that authority to the U.S. Virgin Islands, and if
not, why not?
Mr. Long. I will have to get back to you on that one as
well. The deferred maintenance issues and just the antiquated
infrastructure of Puerto Rico is vastly different than even in
the Virgin Islands, but I will definitely go back and take a
look. I don't know the answer to that question right now.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. Thank you.
I understand that General Buchanan and a large part of the
military presence have left the island. And prior to this,
General Buchanan was charged with coordination with Federal
agencies and the Puerto Rican government. Now, my understanding
is that FEMA has that role.
I have three parts to my question. Has this transition gone
smoothly, and is coordination, how is it going generally? And,
also, will FEMA be in charge of coordinating the long-term
recovery effort, and if so, does FEMA have the resources in
terms of staffing to manage a project of this size while
maintaining the operational ability to respond to new
disasters?
Mr. Long. Sure. So the incident command structure in Puerto
Rico has always been we have had a Federal coordinating
officer, a FEMA Federal coordinating officer, who is the lead
authority in charge. Technically, a Federal coordinating
officer is an arm of the President of the United States. That
person is Mike Byrne.
General Buchanan technically would report to the Federal
coordinating officer since inception of him being in Puerto
Rico. And so, obviously, as we transition out of response to
more recovery, we start to demobilize some of the staff but
also increase staffing with the expertise to run into the long-
term recovery. Releasing General Buchanan is not something that
we do haphazardly. It was a very methodical decision to
demobilize him, but it should have been a seamless transition.
And as I am aware, it was--or is.
In regards to the long-term disaster recovery, what we try
to follow is what is called the National Disaster Recovery
Framework. And so what it does, it points out six different
recovery support functions. It could be economic viability to
housing. And so the goal of that is, is to--and we have already
been working with our Federal Government agency partners to
make sure that if they are the primary agency in charge of a
specific recovery support function, that they are sending staff
to Puerto Rico that have the authority to make decisions there
on the ground rather than here in Washington, DC, because I
believe that all incident command decisions should be made
closest to the event rather than all the way back up here. And
that is the framework that we are following, and that is how we
are staffing the long-term recovery going forward.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. The supplemental request from the
administration includes request language that would require
Puerto Rico to submit a recovery plan to the President and to
Congress. Now, this plan would be developed in consultation
with FEMA, the Department of Treasury, and other Federal
agencies identified in the National Disaster Recovery
Framework. It is important that Puerto Rico has ownership of
the plan, but they are going to need technical assistance. So
in what ways will FEMA and the other Federal partners help
support the creation of such a plan, and can you explain how
this process will work and the importance of the National
Disaster Recovery Framework.
Mr. Long. Right. So here, again, we will use the framework,
and if I remember the language correctly in the supplemental,
it doesn't just say a Puerto Rico recovery plan; it is a plan
that is infused with FEMA and our additional stakeholders, as I
recall.
So we recognize that this is the first time that Puerto
Rico has run through a long-term recovery like this. And so we
do not ever want to set up Governor Rossello for failure to
say, ``Write your plan, execute it,'' and we back out. We will
be there for many years to come executing this disaster
recovery framework. And the Governor knows that. I will be
seeing him next week. I talked to him earlier this week, but I
will be seeing him next week to make sure that I put boots on
the ground on a regular basis to say where are we versus where
we need to be, and what do you need?
But you are right in your statement. The thing that is
right is the Governor is willing to step up and start owning
the long-term recovery. And I think he is beginning to look at
this as an opportunity to rebuild Puerto Rico in a more
resilient fashion.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson?
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Long, I just can't thank you enough for your
innovative thinking and your willingness to trust the good
hearts and the good instincts of individual Americans, and, as
you said, to put the command decisions for response to these
disasters as close as possible to the disaster itself at the
hands of State and local officials, and, more importantly, your
willingness to put it in the hands of individual Americans
because I can tell you there is some great opportunity there.
The Federal Disaster Mitigation Program, for example,
today, is designed to obviously mitigate future risk of
flooding and minimize the cost to the Federal Government. But
to an individual homeowner, for example, and, again, one of the
bedrocks of the American system is private property rights,
because we know nobody is going to take better care of that
property than the individual property owner. And I would
encourage you--I would really like to work this through with
you in more detail.
Let be bounce this off of you. I have met with a lot of
constituents who have come up with a lot of really good ideas
to improve the Federal program. And CDBG, Mr. Chairman, the HUD
program, Lucille and David, comes at the tail end. That housing
money comes way at the tail end of the process. And we are
focusing, the money is upfront, and if we would, as you have
said, push the money out early and get it in the hands of the
individual homeowner right away, as quickly as possible, to
mitigate the damage, to repair the damage to their own home,
and to mitigate the flood risk for the future, I think the
Federal Government would save a vast amount of money.
Because, for example, today, if a homeowner qualifies for
FEMA disaster assistance, the only option available to them is
essentially either to raze an existing structure or just
participate in a buyout, and then the Federal Government owns
the land. That is actually, in this case, I discovered, David,
the deed is in the hands of the county, Harris County, which
makes no sense because then you have literally got--I have got
neighborhoods with beautiful homes all in a row, and then there
is an empty vacant lot with weeds about 5 feet high, and the
county owns the property. The homeowners association has to go
in there and mow it. It is taken off of the tax rolls. So it is
just a burden to everybody.
So what if you simply--we change the way this FEMA program
works so that if Dr. Price's home flooded, that you would be
able to apply, David, for assistance, and the money would go
directly to you upfront, and you would have the option to
either mitigate the property--because right now, you either
have to sell it to the Federal Government or raze an existing
structure. But why not limit the amount of money the Federal
Government could give you, and you get the money upfront, you
hire a contractor, decide to either tear down your existing
home or build a new structure, but it has to be razed or
mitigated so that you are ready for the next flood? Your
property stays on the tax rolls. You are going to build a home
that suits you and your family and suits the neighborhood. You
are going to save the Federal taxpayers a ton of money, and it
is not going to be taken off of the tax rolls of local
government.
Again, simply by trusting Dr. Price's good heart and his
good instinct to take care of his own property in his own
neighborhood, you see that would, I think, if we created a
program like that--doesn't that fit with precisely what you are
recommending, that we get the money out front?
Mr. Long. I am all for innovation, and I think what we
would be happy to do is work with you to discuss the pros and
cons of the ideas that you are putting forward. And I am all
for bettering any situation and doing more mitigation because I
do believe that mitigation is the key to future resiliency. But
we have also got to tackle some systemic problems and myths
that we have in this country.
Insurance is the first line of defense. And I don't just
say that to say it, but those who are insured recover quicker
than those that don't when they are hit, right. In California,
what was interesting is it is not just a flood insurance
problem of having insurance or not, but it is allowing a
homeowner to let their insurance lapse. And in some cases, what
we saw is that the insurance lapsed: The house was paid off;
the insurance lapsed. And you have got a huge portion of the
homes that are impacted in California that are uninsured now.
And that becomes, that becomes my problem to fix through
individual assistance, and I can never make them whole.
We have got to go back, in this culture of preparedness
concept that I am pushing, and teach people about insurance,
not only of their dwelling, mitigation tactics, but it is not
just mitigation tactics at the home. It is mitigation tactics
that are low-to-no-cost tactics for schools, for businesses and
homes, and then offering that money upfront. I am all up for
offering money upfront.
Mr. Culberson. Right. Low to no cost.
Mr. Long. It doesn't make sense not to have on--low-to-no-
cost options that do the greatest good down the road.
Mr. Culberson. You are exactly right. And do it upfront.
Mr. Long. Right.
Mr. Culberson. Low to no cost. And I want to particularly
thank one of my constituents, Charles Goforth, who is the
president of the Meyerland Homeowners Association, who spent a
lot of time working on this. Meyerland is an area that is
flooded repeatedly over the years. It is sort of a bowl in
Houston. But they are devoted to the neighborhood. They are
devoted to keeping a thriving, vibrant neighborhood. It is
where a lot of the largest synagogues in the State of Texas are
located. If you are Orthodox, for example, if you are Orthodox,
you have got to live within walking distance of your synagogue
because you can't drive a car on Saturday.
So these folks, I am telling you, there is no better--I
want to thank Charles for these ideas because he is exactly
right. If you qualify today for mitigation money from the Feds,
there are only two options: buy out or raze the existing
structure.
So let us change the system. I want to work with you, and
you, Mr. Chairman, and this subcommittee, to find a way to get
the money out front.
Mr. Long. Sure.
Mr. Culberson. And in the hands of the homeowner, who is
going to do the best job, the quickest, the fastest and the
most effective, saving money for everybody in the process and
getting that homeowner made whole in a way that suits them and
their family much, much more quickly.
I think we are on the right path. And I thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me turn to a troubling aspect of most disasters that we
have had in recent years. And that is reports of individuals
being increasingly vulnerable to sexual assaults during the
chaos of the disaster and directly afterwards. And part of the
problem seems to be overcrowded and understaffed shelters that
put people at greater risk of domestic violence and sexual
assault. It was reported that one third of the sexual assaults
that occurred during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita took place at
emergency shelters.
So I am wondering what account FEMA might have taken of
this. It would be practical, for example, for FEMA shelters to
have safety plans and processes in place to respond to sexual
assaults, for individual shelters to have educational
information available detailing emergency domestic violence and
sexual assault services in the area. So I have a couple of
questions.
One is, are you aware of whether this pattern has continued
during this most recent, this most recent spate of disasters?
Has there been the same kind of problem reported, sexual
assaults occurring in this immediate post-disaster period? Does
FEMA track such assaults? Is there anything being done to
prevent this behavior from taking place in shelters?
Mr. Long. Sure.
Mr. Price. And then, secondly, what about the preexisting
domestic violence shelters that are damaged? As of October 1,
we have reports that 23 domestic violence shelters have been
significantly damaged; 19 have been moderately damaged. Of
course, they need to be either repaired or rebuilt. After
Hurricane Sandy, in 2012, Congress provided $2 million
specifically to repair domestic violence shelters postdisaster.
So I am wondering if you have any plans to help domestic
violence shelters in particular and might we expect a specific
proposal along these lines?
Mr. Long. Sure. Congressman, so, first of all, anything we
can do to provide a safe shelter environment from the whole
community is in all of our best interests. Obviously I
definitely would like to be a part of being able to do that.
But I think it is important to point out that shelter
operations, FEMA does not run shelter operations. We basically
pay for these. A lot of the shelter mission is run at the local
level in conjunction with the American Red Cross, and we would
be happy to reach out to Gail McGovern at the Red Cross to
understand what the trends are. I can't answer for the most
recent events. I have not been made aware of disturbing trends
of this taking place in shelters, but I would be obviously
happy to look into it to see what changes we can effectively
make on that.
And I want to make sure that I understand: You are
referencing in the second part of your question, domestic
violence shelter; is that what I understand?
Mr. Price. Yes.
Mr. Long. OK. If they are a registered 501(c)(3) compliant
nonprofit organization that does that and they sustain damage
and they provide those critical facilities, they should be
eligible under public assistance. If they are not, then that
might be where the discrepancy is, if they are not registered,
but we would be happy to look into that as well.
Mr. Price. Well, let's check on both things if you will.
Mr. Long. Sure.
Mr. Price. On the last one first. There was a specific
appropriation after Sandy. That is what caught my eye.
Mr. Long. OK.
Mr. Price. So I am not sure why that was deemed necessary,
but it certainly was helpful.
Mr. Long. OK.
Mr. Price. And it may or may not be indicated in our
present situation.
And then, as regards the reporting, we do have earlier
reporting on Katrina and Rita, and the level of assaults that
followed those disasters. And so somebody somewhere should be
monitoring this, and I understand you have shared
responsibility. But there, too, I would appreciate your getting
back to the committee as to what kind of monitoring you or
anybody else is doing and what the indications are as to the
level of this problem with these current disasters.
Mr. Long. OK. We would be happy to get back to you on that.
And I can tell you with the oversight of the grant funding,
regardless of what mission it serves particularly I am taking a
very proactive stance in making sure that we are monitoring tax
paying dollars very carefully.
For example, we have mobilized procurement disaster
assistance teams to be embedded with grant recipients. I have
also deployed the Office of Inspector General underneath the
Homeland Security to be in the field with us to help us uncover
any issues or mistakes we may be making upfront. We also
provide quarterly reports and we have public assistance
managers embedded with people who receive our funds.
So I am trying to put a multilayered approach down to make
sure that we are expending funding according to rules and
regulations and policies as much as I can. But I am always open
to improvement. And here again, I believe that any of the money
management that comes down from the Federal Government is the
responsibility of not only FEMA but the whole community. And we
have a lot of training to do and to also set the expectations
at the State and local level or the subgrantee recipients,
whether it is a nonprofit or a government entity.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price.
We are not going to do another round, but I think Ms.
Roybal-Allard has another question, and I am going to yield to
her right now.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. One quick question with regard to
California. On October 10, the President issued a major
disaster declaration for areas of northern California that were
ravaged by the wildfires, and this came on the heels of several
fire management assistance declarations for California in the
preceding days. The supplemental request does not specifically
address Western wildfires. So my question, is there sufficient
funding in the Disaster Relief Fund to provide all the eligible
aid to individuals and communities, and what is FEMA assuming
for the overall cost of the fires in terms of the Disaster
Relief Fund?
Mr. Long. Sure. Excellent question. So, with California, as
I said earlier, one of the most disturbing events I have ever
seen and the sensitivities around that and the deaths that were
there. It is something that we have to look into.
In regard to the cost and our appropriations and the ask if
you look at some of the numbers, if I look through for Harvey--
or excuse me, for Maria, we have obligated about $7.2 billion.
For Harvey, we have obligated about $4.6 billion to this point.
For the California wildfires, it is $1.1 billion. It is
something that we are taking into account for the normal
disaster relief fund appropriation through the BCA and the
formula that is set up.
If we can't get through, if we need additional funding, we
obviously would come back for a supplemental after the fiscal
year 2018 year or before, if needed. But right now, we think we
can absorb the cost based on the trends that we are seeing of
California in the appropriation, the normal appropriation route
of the DRF.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just want to say that I am
equally encouraged and excited about your testimony and your
response to the questions that this committee has had and
really look forward to working with you and the committee to
make FEMA more efficient and more effective in terms of our
response to these disasters. So thank you for being here.
Mr. Long. Thank you, madam.
Mr. Carter. I am going to have one more kind of off-the-
wall question I want to ask you or discuss with you. When this
all happened and it was all over the newspapers that there was
no power in Puerto Rico, I happen to be having a meeting in my
office with people from the power business on a totally
different matter.
Mr. Long. OK.
Mr. Carter. And so I asked him, I said: Hey, why don't you
guys be good citizens like in Houston, pack up your gear and go
over and fix that, at least to where they get some power.
And their response to me, which I think you have been
saying indirectly, is it is the most antiquated system maybe in
existence, definitely in North America.
Mr. Long. The United States, yeah.
Mr. Carter. And we don't even have parts to fix a lot of
what they have got there. And the real world is, if we went
over there to do it, we would have to rewire the whole island.
Mr. Long. So I am sure that there are plenty of media
interviews of me before Maria hit saying: Prepare for the power
to be off for many months.
And we knew that before Maria hit. The Governor of Puerto
Rico knew it. And it is unfortunate. It doesn't alleviate this
pain and suffering. We are moving as fast as we can, but the
problem that we have is, is that because it is an island, you
can only shove so much food and water in. You are trying to fix
emergency power issues with hospitals to sustain an entire
hospital system that nearly collapsed. And you have to focus on
the priorities of life safety before you can start to rebuild a
grid. You can only shove so much into an island at initial
stages. And you have to remember, too, that the entire air
traffic control system was wiped out.
So, right after the storm is over, you are having to
carefully bring aircraft in on a manual basis. There is 30
minutes between flights to get them in because you don't want
to wreck C-5 Galaxies and exacerbate the problem.
The other thing is that we quickly mission-assigned the
Army Corps of Engineers. We recognized the problem. They are on
the island doing the emergency power. Let us go ahead and
mission-assign them. I worked with the Governor very
proactively to say, ``Let's go ahead and take the initial power
grid rebuild in mind, go ahead and start doing what we can to
get that back up,'' because we knew it was going to be a long
time.
When it comes to traditional emergency management mutual
aid, like what would work in Florida or what would work in
Texas, first of all--and I don't mean to sound sarcastic--you
can't drive trucks and mutual aid assistance in to Puerto Rico
like we do in Florida or Texas. And in many cases, the private
sector handles the entire re-grid, rebuild of Texas and
Florida, not FEMA. This is a unique situation where the Army
Corps is the primary builder of the re-grid because they had to
be, and it was the only option that we really had.
The other thing is, is that in some cases, in all fairness,
when you do EMAC requests, a traditional mutual aid assistance
request is a contract between Governors, not between FEMA and a
Governor. It is between Governors. And so, with the liquidity
issues, people are reluctant to go to Puerto Rico until there
is 100 percent reimbursement to make sure that they would get
paid for their services and reimbursed for their time and
materials. That is also the other issue that we were facing
because of the financial situation that we found Puerto Rico
in.
This is not a traditional disaster response. If anybody in
the room wants to rebuild Puerto Rico to a standard to where we
don't walk through this again, it is me.
Mr. Carter. And I understand that. And this a government-
owned system, government monopoly-type system, and it is very
clear they haven't kept up on the maintenance of the system.
But they described it to me as if you are dealing with a tube
radio.
Mr. Long. You are exactly right. As I understand from the
Army Corps testimony, that the average age of that power system
is 44 years old. FEMA can't control that. I don't know who can,
but it is a problem I am facing with working with the Governor
to fix.
Mr. Carter. And one of my questions, if we were able to
figure out a way for the Corps to build a more modern, up-to-
date system, which is going to be extremely expensive, I am
sure, one of the issues you would have to say, if they have had
a hard time maintaining a 44-year old system, is there going to
be money available, or is that going to be the state's problem
to train up the technicians to keep the new system we give them
up to date because you can't fix it because you don't know how?
There is a lot of difference in a 44-year-old system than a
system today.
Mr. Long. Sure, so it is my understanding--and this is a
great question for the Army Corps of Engineers. I do not want
to speak on their behalf, but it is my understanding just by
rebuilding the power grid to the CONUS, continental United
States, building your electrical grid standards, you are
already making tremendous improvements.
Mr. Carter. Yes, I assumed that.
Mr. Long. And we are going to learn a lot as a result of
going through this, through this process. It is not an ideal
situation. There is nothing easy about Puerto Rico from FEMA's
perspective.
Mr. Carter. We all have compassion for those American
citizens in Puerto Rico.
Mr. Long. We do. I do too. I do as well.
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you so much. This has been very
enlightening and pleasing to know that we have got folks that
are being creative in Federal Government. And we like your
creativity. We look forward to working with you. This committee
is going to be pledging to get their job done, and we will get
it done.
Mr. Long. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. The subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Clerk's note: The Department did not respond with answers
to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record. Any
material received after printing will be on file in the
committee office.]