[House Hearing, 115 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] ARE WE READY? RECOVERING FROM 2017 DISASTERS AND PREPARING FOR THE 2018 HURRICANE SEASON ======================================================================= (115-49) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 18, 2018 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house- transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/ ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 38-032 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 transportation COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Vice Chair Columbia FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California JOHN J. FASO, New York STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia BRIAN J. MAST, Florida JASON LEWIS, Minnesota MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ------ Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania, Chairman ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas DINA TITUS, Nevada BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., MIKE BOST, Illinois Georgia JOHN J. FASO, New York ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia, Columbia Vice Chair ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey BRIAN J. MAST, Florida STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) Officio) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv WITNESSES Jeffrey Byard, Associate Administrator, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Testimony.................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 36 Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania........................ 43 Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 51 Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford of Arkansas............... 73 Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett of the Virgin Islands............ 76 Hon. Garret Graves of Louisiana.......................... 82 Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez of New York...................... 88 Charles R. Alexander, Jr., Director of Contingency Operations and Homeland Security, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Testimony.................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 91 Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania........................ 97 Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 98 Hon. Brian J. Mast of Florida............................ 102 Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez of New York...................... 104 Patrick Sheehan, Director, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association: Testimony.................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 105 Mistie Gardner, CEM, Emergency Management Coordinator, city of Richardson, Texas, on behalf of the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers: Testimony.................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 115 Hon. Robert David Paulison, Former Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition: Testimony.................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 121 Questions for the record for Mr. Paulison from Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett of the Virgin Islands............................. 128 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD ``Rollover of Disaster Management Costs: Increasing Capability and Responsibility in Managing Disaster Declarations,'' submitted by Patrick Sheehan, Director, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association......................................... 114 Letter of April 20, 2018, from Kenneth E. Mapp, Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, to Hon. William ``Brock'' Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, submitted by Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands.......... 129 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Letter of July 18, 2018, from the North American Concrete Alliance, to Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure et al., submitted by Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania....................................... 135 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ARE WE READY? RECOVERING FROM 2017 DISASTERS AND PREPARING FOR THE 2018 HURRICANE SEASON ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2018 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lou Barletta (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Barletta. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Before we begin, I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so ordered. From hurricanes to floods and wildfires, no region of our country was immune from the impacts of last year's disasters. Last year we saw 10 hurricanes in the Atlanta region alone, including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, which devastated parts of Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We also had one of the worst wildfire seasons on record with over 66,000 wildfires that burned nearly 10 million acres of land. Disasters caused an estimated $370 billion in damages in 2017. The purpose of today's hearing is to determine where we are in recovering from these devastating disasters, including challenges to recovery and suggestions on how we can overcome those challenges. We also want to understand State, local, and Federal efforts to prepare for and respond to the 2018 hurricane season, which began on June 1st. Additionally, we will discuss reforms that are needed to incentivize and encourage mitigation and the reduction of disaster costs and losses across the country. The 2017 disaster season not only devastated many communities, but also highlighted challenges in how we respond to and recover from disasters. We have a ways to go in rebuilding, especially in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. And it is critical, we do what we can to help communities rebuild smarter and better. In November, this committee came together to craft bipartisan legislation, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, which would allow communities to rebuild in a way that would minimize future disaster costs and save lives. This legislation includes reforms that will change FEMA's [Federal Emergency Management Agency's] disaster recovery programs to make them more effective and efficient, and encourage and facilitate mitigation projects that reduce disaster risks and increase resiliency against disasters. This legislation has now overwhelmingly passed the House twice, including in H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act, which has yet to be taken up by the Senate. There are communities impacted by the 2017 disasters, and preparing for future disasters, that would benefit today from the reforms in DRRA [Disaster Recovery Reform Act]. Some reforms were signed into law as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. Those reforms allow FEMA to create incentives for State and local governments to implement mitigation. But we need the other critical reforms, including, key wildfire mitigation provisions and additional resources to State and local governments for cost-effective mitigation projects. Various studies by Federal agencies, academia, and the private sector have shown that for every $1 of Federal investment in mitigation, there is a $4 to $8 return in avoided disaster damages. Mitigation projects, particularly predisaster, are a wise investment of Federal dollars, and the only way we, as a Nation, will be able to change the direction of rising disaster costs and losses. It makes no sense for us to continue to rebuild the same way, disaster after disaster. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on where we are in the recovery from the 2017 disaster season, where we are in preparing for the 2018 hurricane season, and the recommendations for changes that need to be made to make our communities stronger and better able to recover from disasters of any kind. Thank you all for being here. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this important hearing on recovery efforts from 2017 and looking forward to the 2018 season. We already have fires burning in the West, and it is going to be another bad fire year, and we don't know what will happen with hurricanes. On Friday, we finally got FEMA's ``After-Action Report'' on 2017. They admitted in that report what everyone knew, the Agency's response was inadequate, to put it mildly, and in the case of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, outrageously inadequate. They admit that they did not pre-position enough commodities, such as food, water, generators, before Irma and Maria struck the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. They acknowledged they experienced delays in delivering supplies to territories, despite the fact that in 2014 they led a national level exercise indicating that delays could be a problem during a disaster and should be addressed. That is 3 years before these disasters. President Trump, living in a different reality, ignored the obvious failures in the response efforts occurring on the ground. He called it fake news. And then he went to Puerto Rico and bragged about what a great job they had done and threw paper towels at people. He put lives at risk and people died after his visit, who should have been receiving assistance. That his boorish behavior went beyond to attacking a mayor of San Juan who was representing her people who were suffering horribly. And then the FEMA Administrator, to his discredit, Brock Long, did the same thing, although later he admitted that that was inappropriate. Trump never did admit that. FEMA acknowledged its failures, but it was also, as it was acknowledging its failures, it had other people on staff busy eradicating any trace of any consideration of climate change in its strategic planning. Now, that is going to work out real well, isn't it? So we got to pay attention to things that are important. Then FEMA found, you know, that it also needs to collaborate more with State, Tribal, Territorial, local governments, but President Trump proposed cutting five preparedness grants in his budget by $471 million, or 29 percent, and proposed reducing funding for education, training, and exercises by $129 million, or 47 percent. What is going on here? Are we going to take this seriously or not? And throughout the ``After-Action Report,'' FEMA discussed the need to make the Nation more resilient to disasters, however, the administration again rescinded an existing Executive order, because Obama did it, establishing a Federal flood risk management standard, i.e., we are not going to build any federally funded facility in a flood-prone area. Or if we do build in those areas, special construction techniques would be used to protect the structure, the contents, and the personnel. Now, that has been eliminated. We are not going to consider those sorts of thing because we don't believe in climate change, and I guess we don't even believe in natural disasters or 100-year floods anymore. And then FEMA also mentioned the importance of predisaster mitigation, while the President proposed cutting funding for predisaster mitigation by 61 percent, down from an inadequate $100 million to an absolutely pathetic $39 million, which could probably be spent in any one potentially targeted city in terms of hurricanes, very well, and mitigate a lot of loss. So while FEMA's ``After-Action Report'' identifies specific improvements needed, including the need for more preparedness, mitigation, resilient rebuilding, the President in his budget says, no, none of that, we don't want that. So we, here in Congress, have a responsibility to move forward, and as the chairman mentioned, we have in a bipartisan way. We are moving forward in ways that deal with disasters and potential disasters more thoughtfully. We took up a bill in the House this week, I was a cosponsor of, to say that we are not going to rebuild someone's house 20 times or 30 times. It is, you know, a very small percentage of the buildings out there cost 4 percent of--cost 25 percent--is it 4 percent or 2 percent? Never mind. Anyway, a very small percentage. I had the numbers before me, then cost about one- quarter of FEMA's budget. And FEMA, of course, our flood insurance program is bankrupt. So we passed a bill to get a study to see if entering into agreements with people, in structures that have been repeatedly destroyed, to agree to pay them full market value the next time it is destroyed, and reducing their flood insurance risk program will save money. I think it is a no-brainer, it will. I mean, some people have been rebuilt multiple, multiple times. So we need to do better. We need to act smarter. We need to do actually all these things that have been enumerated, and Congress is the only hope that we have on delivering on that reality. Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Right now I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Titus, for an opening statement. Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for keeping you and the committee and our witnesses waiting. I won't make a habit of that, I assure you. I also thank you for holding this important hearing. As you have heard, the hurricane season began on June 1 and already we have had two hurricanes form in the Atlantic Ocean. Hurricane Beryl was downgraded to a tropical storm by the time it hit the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, where they were pummeled with strong winds and rain. And even though at that point it was no longer considered a hurricane, Tropical Storm Beryl caused over 40,000 homes and businesses to lose power temporarily in Puerto Rico, which highlights the fragile state of recovery. Also, in the midst of hurricane season, we see that numerous homes in both Puerto Rico and in the Virgin Islands still have blue plastic tarps as roofs, due to damage that was caused by last year's hurricane. Now, the intended lifespan of these tarps is 30 days, so you can imagine the condition they are in. The territories aren't the only ones in the midst of recovery from the 2017 disasters, and much work remains to be done to solve those problems as well as prepare for 2018. So in addition to the ongoing recovery issues and preparedness, right in the middle of all this, FEMA has released its 2017 hurricane season ``After-Action Report.'' In it, they noted several failures, as you have heard mentioned in their preparedness efforts for 2017, including inadequate staffing, lack of sufficient commodities in place, and logistical failures. At least they recognize what some of the problems are. In this ``After-Action Report,'' FEMA noted it had exhausted its predisaster contracts for commodities, such as food, water, and generators, which should have been in place to give FEMA a head start on its disaster response efforts. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act requires that FEMA have contracts in place for recurring disaster response requirements before the disaster strikes. Yet, over the years, FEMA has failed to procure new contracts or renew existing contracts for such commodities in advance of the disaster, therefore, contributing to the state of unreadiness. Last fall, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, PREPA, entered into two separate contracts, one with Whitefish Energy Holdings and the other with Cobra Acquisitions. Both contracts contained terms that limited proper Federal oversight. Although FEMA denies these claims, both contractors indicated that FEMA approved the contract terms. Now, I understand that the Office of Inspector General is investigating these contracts to determine the accuracy of the allegations. But I want to be clear, FEMA should never approve contracts that purport to limit any oversight over disaster funds. Now, by oversight, let's be clear what oversight means, it doesn't mean exercise undue influence. For example, just last May, PREPA entered into a new $900 million contract with Cobra Acquisitions to complete restoration of the electrical transmission system. Now, we have heard since then a potential interjection by FEMA into that contracting process. While FEMA needs to be diligent in ensuring that the grantees comply with Federal laws when they are competing for a contract, and that the terms are consistent with Federal requirements, that does not mean that FEMA should improperly interfere in the local contracting process, including the selection of the winning bidders. FEMA's ``After-Action Report'' also notes shortages of staff that hindered the response to disasters. FEMA needs to address this and the other problems listed in the report in a comprehensive manner, and I look forward to hearing about your plans. Finally, FEMA acknowledges the need to invest in mitigation and better prepare for future disasters. Yet, in its 2018 to 2022 strategic plan, you remove all references to climate change. As long as FEMA engages in this type of contradictory behavior, the Nation and FEMA will fall behind in its preparedness effort. So as we talk about natural disasters, I think we have to be realistic. Finally, I would just mention that pets are something that are missing from our report and from our plans, and I would like to see some discussion of the Pet Emergency Transparency and Accountability in Disasters Act that we have introduced, because if you take care of pets that often makes it easier to take care of the people who are engaged. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to the discussion. Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ms. Titus. Today, we are joined by Mr. Jeffrey Byard, Associate Administrator, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. Ray Alexander, Director of Contingency Operations and Homeland Security, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Patrick Sheehan, director, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, testifying on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association, which represents State emergency managers. Mistie Gardner, emergency management coordinator, city of Richardson, Texas, testifying on behalf of local emergency managers, and the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers. And the Honorable Dave Paulison, who served as FEMA Administrator from 2005 until January 2009, testifying on behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition. I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. For our witnesses, since your written testimony has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. And, Mr. Byard, you may proceed. TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY BYARD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; CHARLES R. ALEXANDER, JR., DIRECTOR OF CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; PATRICK SHEEHAN, DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; MISTIE GARDNER, CEM, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR, CITY OF RICHARDSON, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS; AND HON. ROBERT DAVID PAULISON, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDSTRONG COALITION Mr. Byard. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee, good morning. My name is Jeff Byard, I am the Associate Administrator for the Office of Response and Recovery for FEMA. On behalf of the Secretary Nelson and Administrator Long, thank you for the opportunity to discuss lessons learned from the 2017 historic hurricane season and our ongoing progress made under, one, FEMA strategic plan; and two, our preparations for the current 2018 hurricane season. As mentioned, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria devastated a Nation at a time when FEMA was already supporting dozens of open federally declared disasters across our country. During the response to the three catastrophic hurricanes, FEMA also responded to historic wildfires in California. An estimated 47 million Americans were affected by last year's hurricanes and wildfires. That is approximately 15 percent of the entire U.S. population. Following the 2017 hurricanes, we have reviewed preparations for the immediate response and initial recovery operations with a goal of identifying lessons learned, which collectively benefit future emergency management operations at all levels, both local, State, Federal, nonprofit, and the private sector. Last week we released our 2017 hurricane season ``After- Action Report.'' The report examines the Agency's performance during the record-breaking season and captures transformative insights that will help FEMA, the emergency management community, and the Nation chart a path into the future. The report identified key findings across five focus areas, and offered targeted recommendations for us to improve, as well as broader lessons for partners throughout the emergency management community. You know, we took a hard look at ourselves, we pointed our finger at ourselves, and we released that report. You know, we hear terms like failure, we hear terms like admission. We look at that as leadership. That not only helps our Agency, it helps Director Sheehan, Director Gardner, and many others. In the minute we stop looking at ourselves and taking that hard look because of what we may fear others may say, we have lost the ball, we have lost the leadership. Aligned with key focus areas in the ``After-Action Report,'' FEMA's strategic plan builds on the existing best practices, identifies new initiatives geared towards achieving three overarching goals. The three main goals to our strategic plan are to build a cultural preparedness, ready the Nation for catastrophic disasters, and reduce the complexity of FEMA. These three goals are overarching and they are all hazards. They are not applied to a specific hazard, they are not applied to a specific cause. They are how we react and how we stabilize our country in the event that something bad may happen. As part of the initiative to ready the Nation for catastrophic disasters, we are emphasizing the stabilization of critical lifelines and coordination across critical infrastructure sectors. This is a new terminology in emergency management as we have always focused on State and locals, and we continue to focus on State and locals. We have to broaden our horizons. We have to bring people more under our tent. Lifelines provide indispensable services that enable the continuous operation of critical business and Government functions, and if not properly restored, they risk health and safety, and they also can risk national economic security. Solutions to stabilize lifelines, as we found out in 2017, do not fit in a single construct, like our existing emergency support functions. So we must provide cross-sector coordination to effectively stabilize critical lifelines. For example, the critical lifeline of food, water, and sheltering crosses many agencies, community partners, and emergency support functions. But we must address holistically in order to support the community, focusing on lifelines and related impacts will allow decisionmakers at all levels to move rapidly, and will allow better utilization of limited resources toward restoration of critical infrastructure. As we look at 2017, we are taking immediate steps in 2018. For example, we have updated our plans, annexes, and procedures. We made logistical improvements, specifically in the Commonwealth and our island States and territories. We have increased from thousands of bottles of water to millions. Thousands of MREs to millions. Where we had one warehouse in the Commonwealth, we now have five. We have redefined our tactical and long-haul disaster communications. We have had coordinated exercises and training with many multiple partners to include the Commonwealth and the territory. And we are modernizing our housing inspection. I would like to take a moment to highlight one of our initiatives. What we clearly learned is we have to increase our stocks hourly, our OCONUS [outside the continental United States] locations. That gives us better time to coordinate with the private sector when we have limited shipping, limited air, and limited receiving capabilities. What we know now is we can coordinate better with the private sector when we have that. So establishing larger footprints in the Caribbean will allow us days and not hours to establish that and better serve our citizens. I am pleased to be here today to represent the dedicated men and women of FEMA. I am pleased to be with the partners on this panel. And I am happy to take any questions the committee may have. Thank you. Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Byard, for your testimony. Mr. Alexander, please proceed. Mr. Alexander. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Titus, distinguished members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am honored to testify before you today and discuss the authorities and responsibilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during disaster response and recovery operations, lessons learned from the 2017 storm season, and actions taken to ensure readiness for 2018. The Corps conducts its emergency response and recovery activities under two basic authorities, the Stafford Act and Public Law 84-99. Under the Stafford Act and the National Response Framework, the Corps works under the direction of FEMA, serving as the lead Federal coordinating agency for Emergency Support Function 3, Public Works and Engineering. For recovery missions, the Corps serves as the lead coordinating agency for the Infrastructure Systems Recovery Support Function under the National Disaster Recovery Framework. Public Law 84-99 provides a separate source of authority for the Corps to prepare for and respond to floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Under these authorities, the Corps maintains more than 50 specially trained response teams supported by emergency and pre-awarded contracts to perform the wide range of public works and engineering-related missions. The 2017 hurricane season was historic, and we continue to identify lessons learned in an effort to sustain and improve our performance. The extraordinary impacts of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, resulted in this unprecedented response. For Harvey, FEMA issued the Corps 23 mission assignments, totaling over $140 million. At its peak, nearly 1,000 Corps employees deployed, and 40 employees remain engaged today, supporting 11 active recovery mission assignments. In response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria, FEMA issued 49 mission assignments, totaling over $3.3 billion for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We deployed thousands of personnel, and today 369 Corps employees remain engaged executing recovery operations. Additionally, we received 43 mission assignments in Florida and Georgia, totaling approximately $45 million. Detailed in my written testimony, mission assignments encompassed a range of activities including removal of debris, installation of generators to provide temporary emergency power, and the construction of temporary ``blue roofs,'' which enable impacted residents to move out of emergency shelters and back into their home. In response to Irma and Maria, the Corps was tasked to assist in the repair of segments of the Puerto Rican power grid. The collaboration of responders, which includes the Corps and Federal agency partners, the utility industry, and the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, have now restored over 99.9 percent of the nearly 1\1/2\ million customers who had power before the storms. Including these three major hurricanes, the Corps responded in total to 32 events in 2017. Among these disasters was the October 2017 wildfires across northern California. FEMA issued seven mission assignments, totaling $1.2 billion for debris management and technical assistance. Additional wildfires in late December of 2017 in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties precipitated into deadly mudslides in Santa Barbara County after significant rainfall in January of this year. In response, FEMA issued two additional mission assignments totaling $110 million for the removal of mudslide debris from 11 basins and natural channels. Other events the Corps assisted during 2017, including the central U.S. blizzard, the Bighorn River ice jam, and numerous flooding and other severe weather events. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 appropriated over $17 billion for the Corps to repair and rehabilitate projects across the Nation damaged by natural disasters, to construct flood and storm damage reduction projects, and to complete flood and coastal storm damage reduction studies. We recently identified specific projects that will receive these funds and are working as quickly as possible to complete this work. Combining the lessons learned and best practices from 2017, we have taken immediate actions to prepare for 2018. We completed several hurricane exercises, along with Federal, State, local, and territory partners, the gulf, and east coast, as well as for Puerto Rico, and this week, in the U.S. Virgin Islands. We participated in FEMA's 2018 intergovernmental and private-sector national level exercise, and we too have updated our hurricane plans, annexes, and our standard operating procedures. Based on lessons learned, we have worked with FEMA to update and refine 34 prescripted mission assignments which include new cells for logistic support, command and control integration, and planning. We are developing an acquisition center of excellence to create a robust and agile contracting capability to support large complex missions that involve debris, temporary power, and roofing, as nonstandard contingency support requirements emerge. In addition to our involvement in these and future response and recovery missions, the Corps remains fully committed and capable of executing our other civil works activities across the Nation. This concludes my testimony. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you. Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Alexander. And, Mr. Sheehan, you may proceed. Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing. In my statement for the record, I explain in detail the hard work of my agency and our partners in Tennessee during the 2016 response to wildfires, and the drought that extended across the State ultimately destroying thousands of acres, more than 2,600 buildings, injuring more than 134, and resulting in 14 deaths. But these fires were merely a precursor to a year in which the Nation saw tremendous damage and losses from drought, wildfires, and of course the incredible destruction caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. This made 2017 the costliest disaster year in our history. Emergency managers constantly review our actions and work toward making continuous improvements, building learning organizations, and diffusing knowledge is incredibly important to our profession, and to the emergency management enterprise. In the 2017 disaster season and preparations being made for 2018, we must remember that all the various policies, processes, and programs of emergency management are interwoven with each other, and extend far beyond what we see happening at FEMA or in the headlines every day. Much of what happens to prepare the Nation happens every day in the States, counties, and cities of our Nation. For example, beyond any of the federally declared disasters in 2017, State emergency managers handled an additional 22,552 events. Local governments managed another 12,557 events. FEMA is not a first responder during disasters or otherwise. So with without a thriving State and local emergency management system, many of these 35,109 events likely would not have received the type of response that they needed. A culture of preparedness and timely response capabilities are vitally important to States and local communities. We create this thriving emergency management system by fostering a culture of preparedness to address threats and risks; building capacity and capabilities; and creating the basis by which States are empowered to assist one another. Beyond specific preparedness programs that may strengthen people or policies, mitigation strengthens our infrastructure. This committee, this subcommittee, has taken bold steps toward fostering a culture of preparedness. The National Public Infrastructure Predisaster Hazard Mitigation program, included in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, will fundamentally change how we prioritize and manage mitigation in this Nation. The ability to utilize 6 percent of the total disaster costs in a year to put toward mitigation projects will fundamentally shift the preparedness paradigm and drive down future disaster costs. Studies continue to show the value of investment in mitigation and the alleviation of potential suffering is apparent. NEMA [National Emergency Management Association] is also pleased to support the DRRA provision, increasing the overall amount available for management costs. The increase from 3 percent to 12 percent will allow States and local governments to assume more responsibility in this emerging environment of collaborative disaster management. Any increase, however, must be tied to the flexibility to roll over these costs from one disaster to the next. NEMA and IAEM [International Association of Emergency Managers] developed a proposal explaining this concept, which has been submitted to FEMA, and was submitted for the record with my testimony. One of the other ways in which emergency managers build capacity is through programs such as the EMPG [Emergency Management Performance Grant], which is truly a Federal, State, and local partnership. For every Federal dollar invested in the EMPG, at least that much is matched by State and local governments. NEMA and IAEM come together every year to voluntarily submit a report to Congress on EMPG's return on investment. This report demonstrates the hard work that goes into supporting these 35,109 events I mentioned earlier. Yet despite the continued growth of disaster activity across the Nation, EMPG funding has remained stagnant since 2012, and that is why NEMA and IAEM call on Congress to approve a 5-percent inflationary increase for the program in the 2018 omnibus. While we were not successful in 2018, we repeat that request again for the 2019 omnibus and trust Congress will find a way to prioritize this program. The effects of programs like EMPG and efforts to increase management costs can be multiplied several times over when States are empowered to assist one other. The best way we do this is through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact or EMAC. From August 2017 to July of this year, a total of 19,196 personnel deployed through EMAC. Capacity built throughout the system is capacity able to be shared across the country, and the National Guard is a vital part of that capability as well. The emergency managers and our partners continue to work on improving the speed and availability of this system. As we examine the 2017 disaster year and look ahead to the rest of 2018, remember that even when FEMA is not actively responding to a disaster, State and local emergency managers are still recovering from the last event, and conducting the planning, building the capacity, and setting the stage for the next storm to approach, all while working diligently to implement and manage sometimes complicated Federal programs. Chairman Barletta and Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished Members, thank you for your continued support and keeping attention on needed capabilities and policy discussions that need to be had. Your leadership and persistent support are appreciated, and I am happy to take any of your questions. Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Gardner, you may proceed. Ms. Gardner. Good morning, Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on lessons learned from the historic 2017 hurricane season. My name is Mistie Gardner, I am the emergency management coordinator for the city of Richardson, Texas. I have worked in public safety for 23 years, and 10 of which I have been a Certified Emergency Manager. I appear before you today as a representative of the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers, an advocacy organization for the profession dedicated to protecting America's local communities from all hazards and threats. Local governments serve as our Nation's first line of defense. When disasters strike and immediately following a disaster, emergency managers play a role in coordinating local response and recovery efforts, working to mitigate further damage from the disaster. But the most consequential work local emergency managers do actually happens before the disaster. Emergency managers wake up thinking about, planning for, and mitigating for all types of emergencies because we don't have the benefit of knowing what may occur next. A public health emergency, a hurricane, tornado, active shooter, the list goes on. And, unfortunately, most of those things happen with little to no warning. Every day, emergency managers are hard at work behind the scenes at all levels of Government, coordinating with partners from all sectors of the Nation, helping our communities become better prepared. Mr. Chairman, with the 2018 hurricane season already upon us and numerous disasters have already struck our Nation this year, I want to take a moment to look back at lessons learned from last year's unprecedented disaster impacts. By sharing these observations, I hope to contribute to the discussions Congress and FEMA are having about reforming our Nation's disaster recovery systems. Ultimately, it is the hope of IAEM that Congress will pass the Disaster Recovery Reform Act. As a demonstration of your commitment to supporting predisaster mitigation, and helping to develop a culture of preparedness in which we are all more resilient to the impacts of disaster. From August through October of 2017, I worked on three deployments in response to Hurricane Harvey. First, I served as the emergency operations center manager for the city of Dallas in an effort to shelter more than 5,000 Texas citizens. From there I was called to work in the State Operations Center to help coordinate public works resources statewide. Finally, I was deployed as part of a recovery assistance team, supporting seven heavily impacted coastal jurisdictions. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of practice, emergency managers continually evaluate what works well, while actively seeking opportunities to improve future response and recovery efforts. Our success hinges on having the courage to make the changes associated with these lessons learned. In my written testimony, submitted to the subcommittee, I outlined some of the lessons learned during Hurricane Harvey experiences. I would like to highlight a few of those key points for your consideration. First, information sharing challenges were an issue yet again. Simply, emergency managers cannot adequately communicate with the public and coordinate an effective recovery if we do not have access to key information, that the nonprofits and the Federal partners, that we invite in to assist, have. The right to know must specifically include emergency managers through Federal policy. Second, the lack of available personnel resources sufficiently trained in recovery and mitigation processes challenged impacted jurisdictions greatly. Thirdly, we lack adequate shelter capacity to meet the needs. Revising the Stafford Act to allow utilization of spaces which are not considered congregate shelters would have a tremendous impact. But allowing locals to partner and utilize predisaster mitigation funds to build shelters closer to the their communities, even though the cost-benefit analysis may not meet the current threshold, that builds resiliency. The cost-benefit analysis alone does not adequately represent the world's environmental and role social impacts play. As the funding with the most potential to make exponential strides toward resiliency, we must allow for inclusion of multiple factors when determining project eligibility. Lastly, I urge Congress to show its commitment to disaster readiness and resiliency by authorizing more predisaster mitigation funding. To compare, in 2017, predisaster mitigation for the entire Nation was $90 million, but for Harvey alone, the State of Texas has been allocated $1 billion. Doesn't it make more sense to invest in predisaster mitigation efforts, working to avoid such massive post-disaster expenses? On behalf of IAEM and all local government emergency management professionals across the country, I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to share my Hurricane Harvey experiences. I hope my testimony fosters further discussion as we strive to improve the way we as a Nation frame disaster resiliency. Use the opportunities in 2017, those lessons learned. Help us build a generation of Americans who anticipate needs and resolve to take action before disaster, empowering themselves to be more resilient to disasters in the future. Thank you, Chairman Barletta. I look forward to any questions the members of the subcommittee have for me. Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Gardner. Administrator Paulison, you may proceed. Mr. Paulison. Chairman Barletta, Ranking Member Titus, and members of this subcommittee. I want to thank you for holding this important hearing today. As communities around the Nation continue to recover in the wake of last year's devastating catastrophes, I remain grateful for the leadership demonstrated by this committee, the chairman, and the ranking member, and for the opportunity to share my expertise with the committee on the behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition. The BuildStrong Coalition is a group of firefighters, emergency responders, insurers, engineers, architects, contractors, and manufacturers, as well as consumer organizations, code specialists, and many others, committing to build a more resilient America. During my 40 years' experience dealing with natural disasters at the Federal, State, and local levels, I have gained a deep appreciation for the tremendous service of our Nation's first responders and emergency management officials. In my career, which began in 1971 as a rescue firefighter, I served as Administrator of FEMA from 2005 to 2009, Administrator to the U.S. Fire Administration from 2001 to 2005, Director of Preparedness for FEMA from 2003 to 2004, and fire chief of Miami-Dade Fire and Rescue Department from 1992 to 2001. Maybe it looks like I can't hold a job, huh? Responding to many major hurricanes, including Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Katrina in 2005, has provided me with a unique understanding of how we can better position FEMA to respond when disaster strikes. As we all know, last year was a particularly devastating one for disasters with 17 storms during the Atlantic hurricane season responsible for over $200 billion in damages, and a death toll in the thousands, according to most estimates. These are astounding and horrifying numbers. And our focus should remain on helping those who lost so much. Having sat in his chair, I know well the challenge Administrator Long and his entire team face. While we are helping those in need, it is beyond time to give serious consideration to why we continue to leave lives, homes, communities vulnerable. The evidence is simply overwhelming. Better land use, modern construction standards, and increased mitigation can dramatically reduce the devastation brought by these disasters. We must incentivize and reward communities who invest in resiliency and stronger building codes. As lives are on the line, we must provide incentives for States to promote fire sprinklers, and insist that fire code officials get the nonflammable and seismic standards right the first time and make sure they are enforced. The cost share provision included in the Bipartisan Budget Act, signed by President Trump just earlier this year as part of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, passed by this very committee, represents a major step for creating these incentives. And the work of this subcommittee, including you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the work of other leaders, such as Chairman Shuster and Denham, deserve a tremendous amount of credit. Thank you for that. With another busier than expected hurricane season ahead, it is more urgent than ever that Congress send the entire Disaster Recovery Reform Act to the President's desk. One provision would dramatically boost the size of the Nation's predisaster mitigation account, arming communities all over the Nation with new tools to mitigate against the risk of wind damage, flooding, and wildfires. Also, before us is FEMA's task in implementing the cost share adjustment provision, if passed into law. Let me make it clear that I applaud FEMA for embracing this challenging task, and I would like to offer four specific recommendations that I believe, based on my experience, will help ensure the incentive is implemented in a way that will protect homes, lives from future storms. First, the cost share incentive should be established as a FEMA pilot program to ensure maximum flexibility and speed of enactment. Second, a minimum standard should be established such that in order to be eligible for any enhanced Federal cost share, a State must have a statewide building code within an enforcement mechanism--a strong enforcement mechanism. Third, the State must have a working mitigation plan that identifies top vulnerabilities and the steps the State must take to reduce those vulnerabilities. In order to receive any funding above 75 percent minimum amount, States must implement action identified in this plan. Finally, it would be critical to push for incentives offered to the House under State mitigation plans and building codes that can achieve significant impact. This would mean the adoption of the most recent recommended code and maintaining a model code no older than 6 years, and implementing changes to State and local building codes that address key vulnerabilities. As the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season gets underway, the time is now to put predisaster mitigation at the forefront and protect our Nation and communities from the next storm. There is a critical piece of unfinished business from the disaster legislation passed by this committee in the House of Representatives this year. A key provision puts 6 percent of all annual disaster spending on the budget for predisaster mitigation. This provision is critical and must be passed by this Congress. Without preventative mitigation spending, people are left vulnerable and losing their lives, property being destroyed, and it simply doesn't have to be this way. So I want to thank you again for holding this important hearing, and I look forward to hearing your questions. Mr. Barletta. Thank you for your testimony, Administrator Paulison. And I will now begin the first round of questions, limited to 5 minutes for each Member. If there are additional questions following the first round, we will have additional rounds of questions as needed. And, first, I was glad to hear Ranking Member Titus mention the importance of the needs of pets during a disaster, a topic of great importance to me. We included a very important provision in the DRRA that authorizes FEMA to set up a veterinarian pilot program that will help communities get the help they need in setting up shelters that include facilities for pets. So thank you for bringing that up. And I will begin. Twice this Congress--the House has overwhelmingly passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, which includes key provisions that will help speed disaster recovery and mitigate disaster risks. The legislative changes in authorities in DRRA will save lives, property and taxpayer dollars. And the Senate has yet to act on this important legislation. To all witnesses here, how important do you think it is that Congress enact the provisions contained in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act? Mr. Byard, you may start. Mr. Byard. Yes, sir. We appreciate the committee's commitment to improving our Nation's resilience and response to disasters. You know, the DRRA will incentivize that investment in predisaster mitigation very, you know, similar to what Administrator Paulison just laid out. Building a Nation of resilience--building a culture of resilience is one of the Administrator's top strategic goals. Thank you. Mr. Alexander. The Corps of Engineers certainly supports any effort to increase the resilience of the Nation's infrastructure and to promote life, health, safety measures. We also support, you know, investments and mitigation upfront. We are working on the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group with our Federal agency partners on the development of a National Mitigation Investment Strategy. If you take a look at the dollar amounts associated with the supplementals of storms since Hurricane Katrina, if you took a fraction of that amount and invested it in mitigation, perhaps we would be able to mitigate the damages that we see today in our response and recovery operations. Thank you. Mr. Sheehan. The National Emergency Management Association supports this legislation and remains active in helping work towards its passage. The key provisions that are most important for us are the National Public Infrastructure Predisaster Hazard Mitigation, the provision to take 6 percent of the disaster funding and makes it available for predisaster mitigation, is I think a game changer in terms of our Nation's resilience. We also support the increase in management costs. This provision gives the ability to change that current level of funding from 3.34 percent to 12 percent, split 7 percent to the State and 5 percent to local governments. If that happens, if we are ever able to implement that, Administrator Long's vision for FEMA, for the emergency management enterprise, and the Nation in creating a more collaborative disaster management process will be realized. That allows us to fund that capability and build a more collaborative emergency management system. The National Emergency Management Association opposes the duplication of benefits provision there. We think that the ability to waive some of these things could lead to other agencies trying to reach into the disaster relief fund and that that could create potential problems in funding streams for funding the Nation's disaster readiness. Ms. Gardner. Building on Mr. Sheehan's discussion there, the International Association of Emergency Managers also supports. And we urge everyone to remember that this policy--it is written policy, but it saves lives. And if it is not saving a life, it is impacting quality of life. And for those that are less willing to look at passing such legislation, remember, it may be your family that is dealing with this legislation and policy in the future, and make sure that you can live with whatever that comes up to be. Incentives for States and locals are imperative, it helps us to continue to drive mitigation as a culture in our own communities so that we can teach that culture to citizens that live in our communities. But consider the possibilities of additionally adding the benefit and incentives to the local citizen, the private-sector partners we have, the nonprofits, and the other nongovernmental agencies within those jurisdictions. How can those incentives also be directly applied so that the culture can be continued to be built. Mr. Paulison. As you are sitting here listening and you see that almost every agency that responds to disasters recognizes very clearly, very clearly that predisaster mitigation works, it does save lives, it saves property. We saw very--after Hurricane Andrew, we made significant changes in our building code. You saw Hurricane Irma go through the Keys. The houses that were built to the new code were still there, they are doing fine. Some of them didn't even lose their roof tiles. It went across the top of my house in south Florida, and no damage at all. If you look at last year's disaster spending, over $200 billion spent on disasters. Taking 6 percent of that and applying to predisaster mitigation, can you imagine the impact this will have across this entire country as far as building resiliency in our system. So back to you, I know you are over your 5 minutes. But, look, Mr. Barletta, the question that you asked, will it have an impact? Of course it would, and a very, very positive impact. And I think it is extremely important that we push this very hard to get it not only through here but also through the Senate. Thank you for the question. Mr. Barletta. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Titus for 5 minutes. Mr. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A big part of the recovery after a disaster is contracting with the private sector to get assistance with some of the efforts. So I would like to ask you, Mr. Byard, about some disaster contracting with FEMA. In October of 2017, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority awarded a small company with just two full time employees, located in Montana, the Whitefish Energy Holdings Company, a $300 million contract to restore electricity on the island in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. According to the Washington Post, before the White House--I mean, before Whitefish--you can see where I might get the two confused--Whitefish received the $300 million contract. The only thing that they had done was a small effort in Arizona to repair a 4.8-mile transmission line for a $1.3 million deal. Now, they have eventually canceled their contract with Whitefish, but so far they received a payment of over $30 million to work in Puerto Rico. And Whitefish claims that Puerto Rico owes them an additional $100 million. I would like to ask you what role FEMA played in the awarding of that contract? Did they request any guidance from you before making the award? Are you planning to reimburse them for their expenses related to the contract? I wonder if you are cooperating with the probe, I understand that the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, is conducting. And can you provide to the subcommittee kind of a detailed justification or the project worksheet for what was actually done to merit this kind of payment of taxpayer dollars? Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am. So we have to look at the context of where we were. So we have a devastating disaster, and I believe it was in October of 2017, when PREPA, who is the legal, responsible entity, to restore power for the Commonwealth. Just as most of our co-ops, cooperatives around our Nation, just as our private electric providers are around our Nation, PREPA was the entity that was tasked and has the responsibility to provide power to the citizens of the Commonwealth. As with many storms prior to that and many different disasters prior to that, standard practice within the industry is mutual aid crews will come in to assist. That did not occur at that time. So PREPA elected to do a contract. FEMA does not get involved in the contracts between legal applicants, necessarily, and who they contract with. We have Federal procurement rules and regulations that are required to be followed in order to get reimbursement for contracts at large. The Public Assistance Program does give the ability for FEMA to reimburse eligible applicants for eligible work. So any reimbursement done under the Whitefish contract or any other contract has gone through eligibility requirements as set forth in the Stafford Act for reimbursement. So--and you had a list of questions, but I am just going to give an overview of how that works. So at the time, you know, we had to make some very quick and crisis action planning decisions on the ground, some of which we have not been faced with in any disaster. For example, the actual generation and distribution power of the Commonwealth was devastated. And in most terms and in most cases we turn to the Corps of Engineers, which is a vital partner to what we do for emergency power restoration, and that is generally done through generators. At this time we knew that we had to have more than that. So we asked the Corps to step up---- Ms. Titus. I am not interested in the Corps. I want to get back to the Whitefish arrangement. Mr. Byard. Ma'am, as far as the Whitefish, that is a PREPA question. What we would do is reimburse eligible applicants across the Nation for eligible work done. Ms. Titus. And do you not think that FEMA should have in place some greater checks on the contracts that are issued before you just pay out this kind of money to a company that you--even I, and I am not an expert in this area, would have some reservations about contracting with--for such a major job, and over time it has shown that they weren't up to the job. Mr. Byard. Right. So---- Mr. Titus. You don't think that is your responsibility? Mr. Byard. No, ma'am, I don't. I think the responsibility is always best if it is locally executed, State-managed, and federally supported. So, you know, as you heard the esteemed colleagues on the panel, all disasters begin and end locally. So, you know, what are we asking FEMA to do? Do we support the locals in one hand, and then, you know, manage, oversee, and dictate how they contract in the other? Ms. Titus. I'm not asking you to dictate---- Mr. Byard. Now we have many checks and balances in place-- -- Ms. Titus [continuing]. I am asking you to provide some oversight for all this amount of money---- Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Titus [continuing]. For all this amount of money of $30 million of taxpayers. Mr. Byard. Right. And I believe the total bill was over $300 million. So I feel very certain we have very strict oversight on what the taxpayers' dollars are going to. We want to build back better. So, you know, there are oversight measures in place with Whitefish and any other contract. Ms. Titus. Is that part of your after-disaster report to have greater oversight on these kind of contracts and you don't think it should be? Mr. Byard. No, ma'am, I never said I didn't think it should be. I said we have current oversight and current policies and procedures in place to ensure that Federal dollars are spent wisely and that they are spent for the allocations set forth in the Stafford Act as--we also have contract teams that will go out and assist local governments. They have done that in Texas and Florida and others. So I believe we have adequate oversight in place. Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barletta. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes. Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Byard, are you aware what percentage of homes flooded by Hurricane Harvey had flood insurance policies? Mr. Byard. Sir, I don't know the percentage. I can definitely get that back to the committee. I would hate to guess or estimate. Mr. Crawford. All right. Well, I am looking at a Washington Post report on an analysis of FEMA data that shows only 17 percent of homeowners in the eight most affected counties had flood insurance. Does that sound accurate to you? Mr. Byard. You know, sir, I don't want to, you know, judge the accuracy of the Washington Post, but what I will say is, you know, insurance is the first and best line of defense. Mr. Crawford. OK. Mr. Byard. So if 17 percent is what they had, I would say that would be low in that area. Mr. Crawford. OK. Let me ask you this: Are you aware that FEMA is legally required to assess the accuracy and need to update a flood map covering an area every 5 years? Mr. Byard. What I can do is get you information on the National Flood Insurance Program. It is not under my purview. Mr. Crawford. It is not? Mr. Byard. No, sir. I am under response recovery. I handle Stafford Act programs. But I can definitely get you information and would be happy to provide any and everything on the National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Crawford. Well---- Mr. Byard. I don't want to overspeak. I would hate to do that to you in the fine committee. Mr. Crawford. Well, that said, probably the line of questioning that I have is probably better directed for somebody else in your Agency. So you don't have any issues with flood control, or flood mapping, per se? Mr. Byard. No, sir, it is not under--again, it is not under my responsibility, as laid out by the Administrator. Mr. Crawford. OK. Mr. Byard. But, again, we will be happy to work with you. I don't want to come across like I am dodging the question. I just---- Mr. Crawford. Sure. I understand. Do you have any knowledge of that 5-year requirement, though? Is that, in fact, accurate, that you have to update every 5 years? Mr. Byard. You know, and I hate to look to my left, but our State and locals may have a better understanding of the mapping requirements. And, again, I don't want to put them on the spot, but---- Mr. Crawford. Well, let me ask Ms. Gardner, because I think you were in the area affected, correct? Ms. Gardner. I was not. Mr. Crawford. You were not? Ms. Gardner. No. I actually am in north Texas. Mr. Crawford. Oh, you are not. OK. Ms. Gardner. I responded to the area to support. Mr. Crawford. OK. But you were down there and so you kind of--OK. Ms. Gardner. Yes, sir. Mr. Crawford. I guess I am asking you to speculate here, but I have got some concerns about the accuracy of the FEMA flood mapping, and how current they are. I am just wondering if you could opine on whether or not you think FEMA is the best agency to, in fact, engage in flood mapping. Ms. Gardner. I will give you my opinion, based on my experience. But yes, that would be a lot of speculation. I have not personally looked at the flood maps for that impacted area, so that is another piece that I am not aware of. I will tell you that FEMA has played an active role, and they engage actively other partners, such as the National Weather Service and other partners that deal with flooding on a regular basis. And because they are used to doing that, I don't see a reason to change that process, because we have seen it, and it has worked in our communities. We do not flood in the city of Richardson, because of mitigation efforts that we have taken in the past. Not to say we never will, but we do not see the same flooding issues and we have used those maps. Mr. Crawford. Let me ask Mr. Paulison, because you have been a former FEMA Administrator, correct? Mr. Paulison. Yes, sir. Mr. Crawford. So would you be able to speak to whether or not statutorily every 5 years that is required by FEMA to update flood maps? Mr. Paulison. Yeah. I can't speak about the 5-year. I know that when I was the FEMA Administrator, we had started doing LIDAR [light detection and ranging] flood mapping. We started in the eastern part of the United States, and I know North Carolina was one of the first States we started. I am not sure how far they got, how far they have gotten so far, but I know that FEMA had started that process of trying to do the entire country to get more accurate flood maps. Mr. Crawford. OK. Well, I appreciate you all being here today. And I think I am probably going to have to submit my questions for the record for someone else in your Agency to be able to answer, but I appreciate your cooperation. Thank you. Mr. Byard. Yes, sir. Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Crawford. The Chair recognizes Mr. DeFazio for 5 minutes. Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just back to the line of questioning by the subcommittee ranking member. I had asked similar questions at an earlier hearing. And what we have is a contradiction here. The two contractors claim that FEMA reviewed the contracts, and actually signed off on excluding oversight. That has been denied by FEMA, and again today. And so, actually, the inspector general is going to try and get to the bottom of this, how these rather fishy contracts were entered into and what role FEMA played. But we can't resolve that today until we have the IG report. So let's go to some issues we might be able to resolve. Mr. Byard, Ranking Member Titus and I just recently sent the Administrator a letter expressing concern about your personnel, your reservists for emergencies. Your own standards say that you should have 10,928 reservists. You had 6,749 on call last year, and you still have 2,383 deployed. So that seems to leave us with something around 4,300 reservists. How are you going to deal with that issue this year? Mr. Byard. You know, sir, that is a very good question. And as we outlined in our after action, we faced, you know, personnel shortages in 2017. You know, if you go back, the Agency faced personnel shortages in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010. You can go back. And we are going to face personnel shortages in 2019. So how do we do that? How do we accomplish our mission without coming and saying, we need more FEMA employees? Several things that we are doing in the recommendation that affect us. First of all, is changing our national-level doctrine and revising the National Response Framework. What that would do for us as a country, it puts more players at the table so that the resources and the personnel we have, we can better utilize those, by including the private sector in what we do daily, in our deliberate planning, in our operational planning, by incorporating our critical infrastructure nodes, our 16 critical infrastructure nodes, and then cross-sector planning with those so that, you know, if a problem hits, we don't hit one bucket. We task organize around the problem. Now, we are hiring in critical areas. We are hiring in logistics. Also, as the report identified, we had issues with the last-mile logistics, specifically in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. So we will have teams that can get on the ground anywhere, not just in the Commonwealth, and help in the last- mile logistics. For example, in Texas, very robust capabilities on that end from the State and local side of the thing, so we didn't have that same issue. The other thing we have got to do is as you look to the left or right, our best emergency managers, they don't wear a FEMA shirt. They are our State and local partners. We have the system, as you probably are aware of, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, and from the State, I am from State emergency management, I have done that, I have assisted States and I have brought in States. But when we talk about a national catastrophe and similar to what we saw in 2017, we need the ability to also rally those resources, those well-trained professionals, and put those resources to use. So that will increase our staffing also. And we are doing that through what we call the National Qualification System. And we feel like we are going to have great buy-in from our State and local partners. I personally did that in 2012 when Hurricane Sandy hit. FEMA contacted me, and I led a team of eight from the State of Alabama under FEMA's direction to help out the efforts in New York City. Not only does that benefit us at the Federal level, you bring those lessons learned back to your State and local jurisdictions so you better the Nation. So we have to look at--you know, in a perfect world, I would love to have 20,000 reservists ready to go right now. And every other Federal agency that is probably sitting in front of you would say they would love to have, you know, X amount of people. But the reality of it is we have to look outside our traditional means. You know, we talk about State and local governments, and we talk about mitigation, but that is not working. So how do we do things better? We have got to---- Mr. DeFazio. Wasn't there concern, and particularly in the case of Puerto Rico, about reimbursement to the State and locals if they provided mutual aid? Mr. Byard. You know, there may have been. Again, but how does FEMA get involved in that? Let me tell you how we did get involved in that. We expedited what we call category B under the public assistance that would reimburse the Commonwealth to do that type of payment. We expedited that. That was our priority, at the time, obligation to the Commonwealth. So there were concerns, but, again, that is a question better asked to the Commonwealth or to others. To combat that, though, what we have done in 2018, we have hired over 1,500 local hires on the island. And they are FEMA employees. They are going through the National Qualification System now. We have had very robust exercises. We have over 4,600 staff on the ground. We have people embedded with every municipality. We have done a tremendous amount of effort from 2017, response-wise, into 2018; and we put that to the test, as I believe somebody mentioned, with Tropical Storm Beryl, where we could take that recovery operation and quickly turn that machine into a response organization in about 14 hours. We have increased a number of commodities fivefold in water and MREs. Generators are currently still connected to critical infrastructure. We know we are going to lose power in the storm, but we will be able to power emergency power to those critical facilities. Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, thank you. My time has expired. I was going to ask the Corps regarding the removal of the very large generators that they delivered, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if they have actually been removed or just planning to remove them. I guess I would question why you would do that now with the beginning of the hurricane season, since their grid still seems somewhat fragile. Mr. Alexander. Sir, there were three what we call mega- generators rented and brought to the territory, two in Palo Seco, to help stabilize the grid there. They remain in operation today. There are no plans for immediate demobilization. Mr. DeFazio. OK, good. That may have been bad information we received. Mr. Alexander. But there is one, sir, in the community of Yabucoa that will be demobilized effective midnight tomorrow. And that is a decision that was reached, based upon assessment by PREPA of the status of the grid in that area, and it was concurred. That decision to demobilize was collaborated and concurred by the Unified Coordination Group, which has a representative from the Governor's office there who concurred with that. Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, hopefully PREPA is better managed now than it was before. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mast for 5 minutes. Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Alexander, for representing the Corps of Engineers at this hearing on hurricane preparedness. My community dreads hurricane season, not just because of impending storms, but because year after year, as a result of the risk management that surrounds hurricane preparedness, through the Corps of Engineers water is discharged out of Lake Okeechobee, hundreds of billions of gallons of water, often laden with microcystin algae, cyanobacteria, blue-green algae. Right now, the water being released from Lake Okeechobee into my community has 15 times greater the level of microcystin algae, which leads to a number of human health hazards, 15 times greater than what any human being should be exposed to. This is all in the aim of risk management for the dike surrounding Lake Okeechobee. So I want to ask you some pointed questions on the risk management of the water levels of Lake Okeechobee, the risk management of the dike, the potentially failing dike around Lake Okeechobee. What is the level of water in inches, feet, that Lake Okeechobee should be at going into hurricane season so that there is not a risk of dike failure? Mr. Alexander. Mr. Mast, thank you for the question. Going into the beginning of wet season, we strive to maintain a lake level approximately 12\1/2\ feet. Mr. Mast. Twelve and a half feet is the maximum level that you want going into hurricane season? Mr. Alexander. Yes, sir. And then up to 15\1/2\ feet beginning of the dry season. Mr. Mast. And is that for strictly the purpose of risk management, or are you keeping that 12 to 15\1/2\ feet on the lake for other purposes? Mr. Alexander. That is a combination of trying to meet other purposes and balance the needs associated with environmental, you know, water---- Mr. Mast. Then you gave me an answer to a question I didn't ask. I asked you what is the level on the lake for that lake, that dike to be safe from dike failure? Not for other concerns, not for drinking water, not for agricultural irrigation, not for agreements with the Tribes around the lake. What level do you need the lake at so there is no risk of dike failure with the Herbert Hoover Dike? Mr. Alexander. As I said, we go into hurricane season attempting to reach a level no less than 12\1/2\ feet. Mr. Mast. Now, getting into those other concerns--I know I sent you these questions in advance so that I would have the answers given to me on this--how much water do you keep on the lake for these other concerns that you talked about? How much water in inches or feet is kept on Lake Okeechobee for the purpose of agreements with the Tribes? Mr. Alexander. I will give you the bottom line upfront. Lake Okeechobee is not managed like a Corps flood control reservoir. The Herbert Hoover Dike, essentially, it is a levee system that encompasses and contains a prior free-flowing lake. The specific question on inches of water is not applicable in the management of Lake Okeechobee. Mr. Mast. Sir, Lake Okeechobee and the Corps of Engineers absolutely keep track of every inch of water that goes on Lake Okeechobee. Earlier in the season, the Caloosahatchee municipalities were requesting 1,000 cubic feet per second for several months, hoping to get about an inch of water off Lake Okeechobee, because they needed that for the ecology of their waterway. They were denied. The Corps of Engineers has a call every single week where they pay attention to exactly the amount of inches or quarter inches of level of change on Lake Okeechobee. So absolutely, Lake Okeechobee is managed and regulated in that way. So let me ask you a different one. How much water is kept on Lake Okeechobee, in the form of what is requested by consumptive use permits for agriculture? How many inches, how many feet of water are kept on Lake Okeechobee for that purpose? Mr. Alexander. Well, I would like to state that the Corps of Engineers does keep track of probably every inch of water in that reservoir. That being said, though, we don't have specific allocations for those specific purposes in the consumptive use agreements. Again, it is a balance between this 12\1/2\ and 15\1/2\ feet. And it is managed as a system along with some other, I guess, laws that exist down there with respect to the consumptive use, the Lake Okeechobee Surface Area water input rules. So we have to balance the multiple purposes and potential uses---- Mr. Mast. So in balancing those purposes, sir, I had a conversation just a couple weeks back with the South Florida Water Management District. I asked them about the ecology of the lake. They said the optimum level of the lake for its ecology is, at minimum, 11 feet. And I asked them, OK, if the water level on the lake should not be below 11 feet, if irrigation, or those that need water, agricultural irrigation or those that need drinking water or somebody else needed water for those concerns, if the lake was at 11 feet, would you still send the water to the irrigation canals for agriculture? The answer was yes. If it was at 10 feet, would you still send the water to the canals for agricultural irrigation? The answer was yes. If it was at 9 feet? The answer is yes. If the lake was at 8 feet, a dangerously low level, the answer was yes, they would still get their water for those purposes. So is it right that you keep the water at this higher level when my community is destroyed because this water is at that higher level when you are still going to send the water to these other areas for their purposes, even if the water is down as low as 8 feet on Lake Okeechobee? Mr. Alexander. Sir, I have not been privy to any of those conversations that you have had. What I will say is I know that our Jacksonville District is engaged with the community, is very engaged with you. I am not an expert on Lake Okeechobee and the releases. But what I will offer is an engagement of you, Colonel Jason Kirk, the district commander, and anybody from his staff or here at headquarters who could walk you through in detail how we manage the lake and then what the risks are at the various levels. Mr. Mast. Thank you for the answers to your question. Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I do request a second round of questioning. Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Plaskett for 5 minutes. Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank the ranking member for having this hearing. This is, of course, very important to me, representing the Virgin Islands, after we have gone through the 2017 hurricane season, are beginning the 2018 hurricane season, and are still looking to ways in which not just to recover, but to begin the rebuilding. As some of you are probably unaware, for this entire school year, children in the Virgin Islands have operated on a 4-hour shift system, because so many of our public schools were compromised. So the children had to share facilities and only participated in school curricular activities for 4 hours during the day. Most of our dialysis and inpatient individuals are still off island, because our hospitals have been compromised so much from the hurricane that they have been unable to be at home for those services. But I want to thank FEMA and the Army Corps, Coast Guard, and so many other Federal agencies that were there on the ground and are providing assistance. I know that this action report really provides a blueprint on how to have improvements and make things better, and I am trusting that FEMA and the other agencies are really taking those things to heart. You know, the sign of maturity is recognizing when you have done things wrong and learning from them and just moving forward. But one of the things I wanted to ask these individuals about, in particular, were some of the issues that we still have. On April 20th, the Governor of the Virgin Islands, Kenneth Mapp, sent a letter to Administrator Brock Long, which I'd ask unanimous consent to submit into the record, requesting support of some of the issues that we have. Without objection, can that be admitted into the record? Mr. Barletta. Yes, it may. [The letter is on pages 129-134.] Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. One of the things we are concerned about that I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Byard, as well as Mr. Alexander, if you can assist in answering this question, is with regard to debris removal. The U.S. Army Corps is working under FEMA mission assignment to remove all of the vegetative C&D and marine debris from the territory. This work will be completed in September. However, large stockpiles of debris remaining, with hurricane season almost upon us again, is very concerning. I know that there has been some discussion about bidding this out and ensuring where it can be kept. We were given an extension of the local share on this, but due to the Army Corps, a bid protest that was done to the Army Corps, which they believe will be overcome, debris will not be removed until the end of December. If no extension that long, the Government of the Virgin Islands will be hit with a 10 percent local cost share. So my question is, Mr. Byard, will FEMA support 100 percent Federal share extension, since the delay is not in the control of the Government of the Virgin Islands? Mr. Byard. Ma'am, that is a good question. As you know, debris has been, you know, a difficult task in the Virgin Islands. I was down probably a month or so back. And you are right, there is still a lot of work to do there. What we will do is definitely work with the Governor and, you know, once--and if we have received a request, I don't want to sound ignorant to that, it will be working itself out. If we have not received a request, I will be definitely looking on that. I spoke to Bill Vogel yesterday, the FCO, Federal Coordinating Officer. Ms. Plaskett. Right. Mr. Byard. And I spoke to also Mike Byrne, who will be going over to work---- Ms. Plaskett. So you will work with the Governor and try and do that if it is necessary, because this is outside of our control and, of course, you know, any cost share for us is really a great burden. Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plaskett. The second question I have is with regard to the STEP [Sheltering and Temporary Essential Power] program. You know, the STEP program is one which can be supportive of individuals. This is the program that allows temporary repair of homes in the Virgin Islands. I know that there was some back-and-forth with regard to the STEP program, because the limit initially for the STEP program was $20,000. However, the Blue Roof program we know ran an average about $25,000 per roof. We understand that that has been increased. The STEP is now at $25,000. I know that the Governor of the Virgin Islands has a request in for $35,000 per home. Are you willing to support that request at this time? Mr. Byard. Well, what I do know is that we have authorized the use of the STEP program for any home in the territory with a ``blue roof.'' Ms. Plaskett. OK. And would that include--there is one thing that is really important to us. You did allow--the STEP was used for rental properties in New York City after Hurricane Sandy. Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plaskett. But to date, you have refused to allow that for low-income renters in the Virgin Islands. And some of those do, in fact, have ``blue roofs'' on them. Will you be willing to reconsider that? Mr. Byard. What I would like to do is get back to you, Representative. And the reason I say that is we have the Multi- Family Lease and Repair program under the Individual Assistance Program. I would like to see where that program is when it deals with multifamily facilities, and also the STEP. So I will have my staff definitely take that for action, and if it is OK with you to get back with you, because I want to make sure I give you a comprehensive answer on that. Ms. Plaskett. Well, I have run out of time, but since you have said you are going to get back with me on the record, I am going to hold you to come into my office. Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plaskett. It has been difficult to get FEMA. Bill Vogel has been really good about being there on the ground and answering any questions that we have, but I have had a little difficulty in getting individuals from here at headquarters to come into my office and have conversations. I know we all have the same interest in mind. And I am not trying to be, you know, the bad guy all the time. I really do want to see how we can work together and make this better, particularly as we are preparing people in the Virgin Islands for this new hurricane season. And also, I know my time is out, but, Mr. Alexander, I want to thank the Army Corps of Engineers for really extending themselves and committing to having biweekly meetings with me, giving me an update of what they are doing. That has been really helpful, and I am very happy for the cooperation and the relationship that our office has with them. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. I apologize for being late. I hope we are going not to rehash ground or go over ground that has already been tread. But in FEMA's ``After-Action Report''--this is a question for Mr. Byard--of the 2017 hurricane season released last week, the delivery of food and commodities to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands was recognized as a major challenge, due to staffing shortages and logistical failures. Could you explain what happened with regards to commodities in 2017, and what adjustments you have made in 2018, particularly to address the potential needs of the territories should there be another hurricane? Mr. Byard. Yes, sir, I will be happy to. So your first question was, you know, the 2017 issue. So, you know--and, again, as we pointed out in the report, all of our national planning, all the deliberate planning we do is built around, you know, a three-legged stool, if you will. You have local, you have State, and you have Federal Government support, specifically when you talk about logistical movements of commodities. What we quickly found in the Commonwealth is two of those legs were not there. And I don't mean that to be disparaging. What I mean is, you know, we had a lot of impacted first responders were survivors on the Commonwealth. So we had the ability to get the commodities to, and there were commodities always on the island. We accomplished that. It was taking it from the port, for example, and getting it out to the more difficult terrain municipalities. We did incident action/crisis action planning on the ground. You always do that to assess the needs, task, organize and move out. That was accomplished. So what are we doing in 2018? As I mentioned earlier, you know, one of our targeted hiring initiatives is in our logistics. Everything we do is about logistics. And so we are hiring more teams or more individuals that will staff teams called incident support teams that we can send downrange to further expand our footprint for the last-mile logistics. Now currently, in the Caribbean, we have about 4,600 staff, FEMA staff that are doing the recovery mission. They are dual-trained to do response. So we have staff in each municipality; we have communications satellites communication in each municipality; we have backup generators already installed in critical facilities to include communication towers; we have also done logistical exercises, where we had one warehouse going into 2017, we have five on the island now. Where we had thousands of commodities and maybe in water and MREs, we have millions now. We have also done exercises with the municipalities where we actually moved commodities from the distribution centers out into the more rural or difficult terrain municipalities. We did that to exercise the movement, but we didn't take the commodities back. They are safe, secured, and stored. So we are well-positioned from that standpoint in 2018 than we were in 2017. Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that. Administrator Paulison, you have extensive experience as a firefighter and a former U.S. Fire Aministrator. What do you think is the most important thing we can do as a Nation to curb devastating wildfires like the ones we have experienced in 2017? Mr. Paulison. Thank you for that question. I think it goes along with the mitigation that we talked about earlier about setting aside moneys to--because mitigating from wildfires is not any different than mitigating from any other type of disaster. It is looking what are the issues, what are the risks, and then having enough funding to deal with those risks. So I think that we need to--I encourage this committee to look very clearly at that 6 percent of predisaster mitigation. States like your State of California, all the Western States out there are having a very, very difficult time. I mean, we have lost so many homes. We have had fatalities out there. We have had infrastructure destroyed. We have had water systems destroyed, because of wildfires out there and not having the right types of materials in place to withstand those types of disasters. So a State having enough money with predisaster mitigation to deal with those types of things, I think, will go a long way toward resolving a lot of the issue you just talked about, protecting our homes and our businesses from these wildfires. Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. And I yield the balance of my time. Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton for 5 minutes. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, this is a very timely hearing and I will tell you why in a moment. This is a question I suppose best addressed to Mr. Byard, but also Mr. Alexander, because the question I am asking implicates very deeply the Federal presence. With the climate change throughout the country, we are seeing increasing flooding, that has been alluded to already in this hearing. There was sufficient concern about flooding here in the Nation's Capital that we have a levee on the mall, that I think, Mr. Alexander, the Corps of Engineers was involved with as well, to protect the Federal presence. Yet in real time, yesterday we had a disastrous flood in this region. And nobody who lives here or was here, unless you were in the Capitol and didn't have to go out, could have missed what happened. And it seems to me it raises questions in real time about flood preparedness, even in the area of the Nation's Capital. A portion of the George Washington Parkway was closed in both directions, and to show you just how close or how implicated the Capitol is, water poured into at least one Metro stop, and that happened to have been Capitol South, the one closest to the Capitol of the United States. Everybody, it seems to me, ought to wonder is anybody protected in the United States if that close to the Capitol itself we could have had such a flood. So my question really goes to a real test. In the District of Columbia, we are very proud. We have built on both waterfronts, the southeast waterfront and the southwest waterfront. Many, many areas, of course, build on their waterfronts. So this question implicates New York and many other areas of the United States, because the waterfront is a very ripe area for revenue. By the way, if you go to the southwest waterfront, we call it the Wharf, we finished phase 1, but we are still--and it looks like the whole thing is finished, but phase 2 is yet to come. We are building on the southeast waterfront called Capitol River. And, again, that is ongoing. There will be another 10 years of building. So I have to ask you, is it safe to build on waterfronts? What does FEMA require? What does the Corps of Engineers require? What have they required of those who are building on the waterfront, to make sure that those areas are not flooded with a huge waste to the jurisdictions involved, not to mention to the private sector? Can anybody just build on the waterfront? What do you have to do to build on a waterfront in the United States today? I mean, I am not--the waterfront, I have no information that the waterfront was implicated, but I would be a fool to sit here and say that everything is fine unless you tell me that there are either regulations or safeguards that have been required, or are required, for all who build on the waterfront. And I would like to hear from both of you, since the Federal presence is involved. Mr. Byard. Mr. Byard. Yes, ma'am. You know, a majority of our population, as you well know, lives on a waterfront. You know, when I was with the State of Alabama, the Governor asked me at the time, you know, how do we help hurricane evacuations? And I jokingly said, you know, ban air conditioning 50 miles from the coast and people will stop coming. Obviously, the economic impacts are very, very good. Ms. Norton. You have to build on a waterfront. Mr. Byard. Exactly. So from a FEMA perspective, I would first look at initiatives that were passed by the committee, you know, the incentive to build stronger and, excuse me, the bipartisan---- Ms. Norton. So you are telling me that when building occurs on the waterfront--I don't know what you mean by incentives-- those who build understand either that they are required or there are economic incentives to do so? Mr. Byard. So what I am saying, and let me rephrase that, part of the authorities that were granted in the Bipartisan Budget Act that was passed was the incentive to build at a more resilient rate. FEMA has no authority necessarily over what is built. That is a local and State issue. I would also, you know, as we have a working group, just look at---- Ms. Norton. Of course, you have mitigation authority. Mr. Byard. We have mitigation authority, again, working with an eligible applicant. There is not mitigation authority that we can direct or tell, you know, a local business how to build. You know, we would work with the district in that case to see what are the local codes of the district. I don't know that. You know, FEMA is not in the position to know that. But, you know, I would--and I will let the Corps talk about---- Ms. Norton. Mr. Alexander. Mr. Alexander. Yes, ma'am. I will be quick. You know, as Mr. Byard just said, I mean, the Corps has no authority and oversight on the District or any State or territory. Ms. Norton. I can't hear you, sir. Mr. Alexander. As Mr. Byard just said, the Corps also has no authority under which it can direct the District or any State or locality on what they can build or what they cannot build. But the Corps does urge local governments to, you know, enforce their zoning, and certainly enforce building to established codes. And if you are going to build, you know, on the waterfront, whether it is riverine or coastal, you know, ensure you are out of the flood plain. You may have to do that by a standoff or through elevation. It is the major reason that we do shore protection projects along the Nation's beaches. It is not primarily for recreation; it is for the protection of infrastructure and the economy. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barletta. Thank you. We will now begin a second round of questions. I would like to remind all Members, today is the annual hot dog lunch in Rayburn, so we will hold everyone strictly to 5 minutes. In February, as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Congress enacted a provision that will allow FEMA to incentivize mitigation through the increase of the Federal cost share of disaster assistance. Mr. Byard, what is the status of FEMA's implementation of these provisions? Mr. Byard. Yes, sir. We have got a working group that is currently convened. It is looking at how do we best implement. And as you heard Administrator Paulison, you know, say earlier, you know, we need to look at a pilot program, so it will allow us flexibility on how we do that. We want to take full advantage of the authority that Congress, you know, granted us in that provision. It fits the Administrator's strategic plan. So, you know, definitely we are looking at that. But we want to do it right to start with so that we have the intent of the provision as laid out by the act. Mr. Barletta. Thank you. Administrator Paulison, what principles do you think should be driving FEMA's development of these mitigation incentives? Mr. Paulison. Thank you. I think the most important thing is it is not a giveaway program, that the States have to do certain things to qualify for that extra money; have a statewide building plan in place; have a rock-solid mitigation plan; have done an assessment of the risk and put those mitigation dollars towards alleviating those risks. I think we need to make sure that we are not wasting these taxpayer dollars, but we are actually giving the dollars to States who have done things to reduce cost. You know, we had $200 billion last year. If we have put strong mitigation in place for 2018, perhaps next year it won't be $200 billion with the same amount of storm. So, you know, our conversation with FEMA is, you know, they are doing a great job putting this thing, getting this thing going, but let's make sure that the States do what is necessary to mitigate the disaster cost. Otherwise, we are just wasting our money. Mr. Barletta. Mr. Sheehan and Ms. Gardner, what do you think are the greatest challenges facing State and local governments related to a cost share adjustment program designed to incentivize mitigation? Mr. Sheehan. Predictability of funding streams, I think, is a kind of complicating factor for us. So as we look to incentivize mitigation programs or projects, we need to be able to plan. Mitigation measures take a long time to put into place. And I think anything--I know one of Administrator Long's priorities is to simplify or take the complexity out of FEMA. Anything that we can do to reduce the complexity and build predictability into funding streams will help us to be better mitigators. Ms. Gardner. And to build on that, we definitely share that same concept. The actions that Mr. Paulison and Mr. Sheehan discussed are all challenges that we face; but from the State and local perspective, the more you do in policy to add incentives, it just helps us to reiterate the importance of those mitigation steps, and it gives us the leverage we need to do those mitigation steps, even though they are lengthy and even though they are costly, because there are other things to spend that money on. And the more incentives that are there at all levels and, as I mentioned earlier, directly to private- sector partners and citizens would also be a benefit. The more incentives that are there just gives us more leverage to back up those mitigation projects, and hopefully do more in the future. Mr. Barletta. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Titus for 5 minutes. Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to go back to some questions I was asking earlier. As you noted in your kind of generalized answer, I had some specific questions. I want to ask you one more for the record. Can you, very specifically, provide to the subcommittee a detailed justification or the project worksheets under which PREPA is requesting reimbursement for power restoration in Puerto Rico? Can you give us that information? Mr. Byard. So I just want to make sure. You are asking for the project worksheets that FEMA is working with PREPA on for the remaining category B work for that? Ms. Titus. For all of it, for the prior and the remaining. You can give us the---- Mr. Byard. The remaining, you know, as we close on the emergency work, you know, the permanent restoration work, which is two different categories of work, as you well know, I am sure, is done under a different authority, under the Stafford Act, but under section 428. So the estimates are not there. We are not there for the--you know, there is no forward project worksheet, if you will, for the remaining work, you know. Ms. Titus. Can you give us an accounting for what they did that you are paying them back for? Very simple, commonsense terms, things people understand, can you give us that? Will you give us that? Mr. Byard. Of course. Yes. Ms. Titus. When will we be getting it? Mr. Byard. I will check with our counsel to make sure, but we have nothing to hide. We are transparent. Ms. Titus. It should be public record, I would think. Mr. Byard. It should be, yes, ma'am. Ms. Titus. OK, great. Thank you. We will look forward to getting it. Then I would like to go back to Mr. Alexander to continue a question that was asked by Mr. DeFazio. I guess we have contradictory information, but in a letter that we got from FEMA that was dated last night, it says that the two mega- generators at the Palo Seco Power Plant will be demobilized on August 18. Is that not accurate? Mr. Alexander. Ma'am, we are working with FEMA to extend the mission assignment for several months, I believe through, potentially, mid-October. It is the Yabucoa Power Plant that will be demobilized tomorrow evening. Ms. Titus. And that was to go offline July 18, but you are trying to extend the other two. You didn't make that very clear in your answer to Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Alexander. I apologize if I didn't. There are three mega-generators we brought in, two at Palo Seco, gas turbine engines. The intent now is they currently are to--that mission assignment ends, I believe it is 18 August. Right now on the island, the Federal Coordinating Officer is working with the Corps and Puerto Rico on potentially extending that mission assignment for several more months into the fall. Ms. Titus. OK. But if that doesn't work out, then the deadline is August 18, right? Mr. Alexander. That would not be our decision, ma'am. The current mission assignment ends 18 August for Palo Seco. The Yabucoa generator will be demobilized tomorrow evening at midnight. Ms. Titus. OK. I just wanted to be sure that was clear, because it sounded like you weren't going to demobilize the other two, that there wasn't any question about it. Also, I would now like to go back to the point we were making about animals. We know that people are much more likely to leave a disaster area if they can take their pets, or they know what is going to happen to them. But we saw in the last disaster, I think it is Harvey, pet shelters--Ms. Gardner, I am sure you are well aware of this--all over Texas were taking in rescued animals. They used FEMA resources to do that, yet there is little or no reporting on how those funds were used. That is why Mrs. Comstock and I introduced a bipartisan bill called the PET AID [Pet Emergency Transparency and Accountability in Disasters] Act, just to do minimum reporting back to FEMA about how resources are used, how pets are reunited, how they are cared for. It just seems common sense. I would ask the local and the State emergency management folks what they think about that bill, if they have any suggestions for it, if they can help us work to get that passed, wouldn't it make their job easier and also be more accountability? Ms. Gardner or Mr. Sheehan? Ms. Gardner. At the local level, it would help with the accountability and would also help, again, just like the other, with leveraging and helping us to reiterate the need, because apathy is the biggest challenge that we have with all citizens. It takes about seven warning messages to get a person to actually take an action to protect themselves. And animals just accentuate that problem, because they are not going to leave their animals behind. So the more we can do on the front end to explain what is going to happen, what that process is going to look like and that their animals will be taken care of, the more willing they are going to be to actually evacuate when they are asked to and do those things proactively instead of waiting until they are already impacted. Mr. Sheehan. Ma'am, we do know that people are less likely to evacuate or there are additional complications if people aren't able to take their pets with them. It does present a logistical challenge when people bring pets. You know, our idea of pets usually is dogs, cats, and perhaps birds, but other people, our countrymen sometimes have other ideas on what are pets and those things require special attention. But I do think we have a lack of data around this, and that reporting would be helpful for us in helping to manage it. So if we are going to continue to manage it--we need to so that people can evacuate--then we need the data. Ms. Titus. That would be great. Thank you. Mr. Barletta. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mast for 5 minutes. Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Alexander, let's get back to risk management of Lake Okeechobee during hurricane season. The Corps of Engineers recently said when they were announcing the releases of water to the Treasure Coast of Florida from Lake Okeechobee, that in their risk calculation was the threat of life to 36,000 people south of Lake Okeechobee. That is something that goes into that risk assessment matrix. Knowing the situation there, 1 inch of water, 6 inches of water, 1 foot of water, that can be the difference of failure or not failure on the 730-square-mile Lake Okeechobee during a storm. So, again, I point out the Corps of Engineers absolutely manages and pays attention to every inch of water that flows into Lake Okeechobee, sits on Lake Okeechobee, evaporates off of Lake Okeechobee, or is discharged out of Lake Okeechobee into some other body of water that it probably has no business being in. The Corps of Engineers pays attention to it. Now, I want to ask again, you do not have the numbers for how much water is maintained on Lake Okeechobee for the purpose of drinking water? Mr. Alexander. Sir, I do not believe I ever said that the Corps doesn't manage it and knows exactly how much water is in the lake itself. That being said, again, Lake Okeechobee is not managed like our flood control multipurpose reservoir. We work on a balance, again, between 12\1/2\ and 15\1/2\ feet. And that balance is to meet multiple purposes, environmental, water supply, water control, flood, navigation. But at the end of the day, you know, we have to place a premium on risk. Mr. Mast. At the end of the day, it is risk. And if you are keeping more water on the lake than what should be on there, then that puts at risk, according to the Corps of Engineers, 36,000 people south of Lake Okeechobee. So I am formally requesting from the Corps of Engineers that you do tell me exactly how much water you keep, in terms of inches or feet, on Lake Okeechobee, or in terms of gallons, for the purpose of agricultural irrigation, for the purpose of drinking water in the communities, for the purpose of the agreements with the Tribes. What are the amounts, through those consumptive use permits, that is kept on the lake? Because the Corps of Engineers needs to manage how much water is on the lake, through your own admittance, for all of those purposes, in addition to risk management, in addition to a number of other things. How much water for each of those? I am making a formal request to the Corps of Engineers to get those answers to me. I want to move to one other question here before my time is expired. I recently sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers asking, in the name of hurricane preparation and risk management, this water that is being released into my community out of Lake Okeechobee, the Corps does have discretion based upon pollution concerns that could be in the water, and I asked a specific question: What level of pollution or toxins of water in Lake Okeechobee would be considered too great of a level where the Corps of Engineers would say, we cannot discharge water to these epicenters of human population, the Treasure Coast of Florida or the west coast of Florida? What level of toxin in the water would be considered too great? And the answer was entirely avoided. So I want to ask you, if there was cyanide in the water, would the Corps of Engineers cease discharging water to these epicenters of human population? Mr. Alexander. Sir, I am not avoiding a question. I don't have the answer. You know, again, I am offering an engagement, whether it is here in DC or down in your district with the district leadership, with experts here at headquarters, Army Corps, and to discuss these matters. I am not an expert in Lake Okeechobee. I did receive your questions in advance, and if I had specifics as to how many inches for this or that, I would have provided it today. Mr. Mast. If there were lead in the water, would the Corps of Engineers cease discharging water to these epicenters of human population? Mr. Alexander. Sir, I cannot answer that. I don't know what the tolerable levels are. Mr. Mast. If there were arsenic in the water, would the Corps of Engineers cease discharging water to my community, an epicenter of human population that is not naturally connected to Lake Okeechobee? The Corps of Engineers is discharging the water as a result of risk management, hurricane preparedness; that if they are discharging water right now, clearly enough water was not discharged earlier in the season. Mr. Alexander. Again, sir, I don't have the specific answers. I have to believe, though, that, you know, there are other regulating agencies who do pay attention to what those toxic levels are, and I am confident that they work hand in hand with the Corps as we look at those releases. But, again, I would offer a detailed laydown with you to discuss these matters, and it probably needs to involve officials beyond the Corps itself. Mr. Mast. Thank you for the second round of questioning, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Barletta. Thank you. And thank you all for your testimony. Your comments have been helpful to today's discussion. If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. I would like to thank our witnesses, again, for their testimony today. If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]