[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COPING WITH COMPOUND CRISES:
EXTREME WEATHER, SOCIAL INJUSTICE,
AND A GLOBAL PANDEMIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-454 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas BRIAN BABIN, Texas
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois MIKE GARCIA, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas, Ranking
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas Member
PAUL TONKO, New York BRIAN BABIN, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BEN McADAMS, Utah GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
September 30, 2020
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Written Statement............................................ 15
Witnesses:
Dr. Roxane Cohen Silver, Professor of Psychological Science,
Medicine, and Public Health, University of California, Irvine
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Dr. Samantha Montano, Assistant Professor of Emergency
Management, Massachusetts Maritime Academy
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Discussion....................................................... 59
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Roxane Cohen Silver, Professor of Psychological Science,
Medicine, and Public Health, University of California, Irvine.. 72
Dr. Samantha Montano, Assistant Professor of Emergency
Management, Massachusetts Maritime Academy..................... 75
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 80
COPING WITH COMPOUND CRISES:
EXTREME WEATHER, SOCIAL INJUSTICE,
AND A GLOBAL PANDEMIC
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:35 a.m.,
via Webex, Hon. Mikie Sherrill [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. All right. The hearing will now come
to order.
Before I deliver my opening remarks, I want to announce a
couple reminders to the Members about the conduct of this
hearing. First, Members should keep their video feed on as long
as they are present in the hearing. Members are responsible for
their own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted
unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members have documents
they wish to submit for the record, please email them to the
Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to
the hearing.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time.
Good morning, and welcome to this Environment Subcommittee
hearing on ``Coping with Compound Crises: Extreme Weather,
Social Injustice, and a Global Pandemic.'' I would also like to
welcome our esteemed panel of witnesses and thank them for
their participation. I'm thrilled to have two women at the top
of their fields here with us today.
This hearing is very timely as this is National
Preparedness Month, which is recognized every September to
promote family and community disaster planning. This year's
theme is ``Disasters Don't Wait. Make Your Plan Today,'' which
is an especially important reminder as our country deals with
the COVID-19 pandemic and devastating extreme weather events.
2020 has been a challenging year in so many ways: a
record-breaking number of extreme weather events, a national
reckoning with systemic racism, and a global pandemic. From
January to July, there were 10 weather and climate disasters
costing over $1 billion each, and this number does not even
include any of the devastating wildfires that continue to burn
across the West Coast or the Midwest derecho that destroyed
homes and cornfields across Iowa and other States, nor the
extremely active Atlantic hurricane season that has wiped out
entire towns and brought ``unsurvivable'' storm surge across
the Gulf Coast region.
This season of climate and weather disasters compound the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and continued social and
environmental injustices. Many communities are grappling with
multiple risks at once: the dueling threat of wildfire or
hurricane evacuations during shelter-in-place orders, the
legacy of historic redlining while trying to rebuild post-
disaster, and farmers already reeling from the economic fallout
due to the pandemic losing their crop to severe storms.
In my home State of New Jersey, where low-income families
and small businesses have been particularly devastated, we are
all hoping we don't have another Hurricane Sandy during this
abnormally active Atlantic hurricane season.
As climate change continues to cause more frequent and
severe weather events, we must be ready to face multiple
hazards at once. Whether it is several storms in a row, the
everyday impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations,
or an extreme weather event during a future pandemic, it is
extremely important that we understand how these compound
events interact with each other in order to better prepare for,
communicate about, and respond to them.
There remains much uncertainty about the most effective
risk communication methods during a public health crisis or
extreme weather event, especially for vulnerable communities.
Understanding how people perceive risk and respond to warnings,
especially when faced with multiple threats, is essential to
informing emergency planning and response. But the Federal
Government lacks robust funding for emergency management
research. We will hear today about how improved coordination
and additional interdisciplinary research and risk assessments
are needed to bolster our emergency management capabilities.
When disaster occurs, being able to collect data,
particularly on social and behavioral responses, in a timely
manner is crucial to understanding immediate impacts to
communities. The National Science Foundation's Rapid (Rapid
Response Research) funding mechanism provides funding for
proposals with a severe urgency, including research on natural
disasters or similar unanticipated events. This serves as a
great model for other agencies to support research related to
environmental and public health crises that require a Rapid
funding mechanism.
As we enter an age where the impacts of disasters will
continue to be exacerbated by stressors such as climate change
and social injustice, it is imperative that Congress works to
improve our country's response to these disasters. Investing in
interdisciplinary and RAPID funding mechanisms for research
into these topics, especially as we expect to see more
compounding crises, will be vital to our success in mitigating
the impact of these disasters.
I look forward to today's discussion with our witnesses to
identify how this Committee can help address some of these
critical research gaps. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]
Good morning, and welcome to this Environment Subcommittee
hearing on Coping with Compound Crises: Extreme Weather, Social
Injustice, and a Global Pandemic. I would also like to welcome
our esteemed panel of witnesses and thank them for their
participation today.
This hearing is very timely as this is National
Preparedness Month, which is recognized every September to
promote family and community disaster planning. This year's
theme is ``Disasters Don't Wait. Make Your Plan Today'' which
is an especially important reminder as our country deals with
the COVID-19 pandemic and devastating extreme weather events.
2020 has been a record year in a myriad of ways: a record-
breaking number of extreme weather events, a national reckoning
with systemic racism, and a global pandemic. From January to
July, there were ten weather and climate disasters costing over
$1 billion dollars each--this number does not include any of
the devastating wildfires that continue to burn across the West
Coast, the Midwest derecho that destroyed homes and cornfields
across Iowa and other states, nor the extremely active Atlantic
hurricane season that has wiped out entire towns and brought
``unsurvivable'' storm surge across the Gulf Coast region.
This season of climate and weather disasters compound, or
layer onto, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and continued social
and environmental injustices. Many communities are grappling
with multiple risks at once: the dueling threat of wildfire or
hurricane evacuations during shelter-in-place orders; the
legacy of historic redlining while trying to rebuild post-
disaster; and farmers already reeling from the economic fallout
due to the pandemic losing their crop to severe storms. In my
home state of New Jersey, where low-income families and small
businesses have been particularly devastated, we are all hoping
we don't have another Hurricane Sandy during this abnormally
active Atlantic hurricane season.
As climate change continues to cause more frequent and
severe weather events, we must be ready to face multiple
hazards at once. Whether it is several storms in a row, the
everyday impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations,
or an extreme weather event during a future pandemic, it is
extremely important that we understand how these compound
events interact with each other in order to better prepare for,
communicate about, and respond to them.
There remains much uncertainty about the most effective
risk communication methods during a public health crisis or
extreme weather event, especially for vulnerable communities.
Understanding how people perceive risk and respond to warnings,
especially when faced with multiple threats, is essential to
informing emergency planning and response. The Federal
government lacks robust funding for emergency management
research. We will hear today about how improved coordination
and additional interdisciplinary research and risk assessments
are needed to bolster our emergency management capabilities.
When a disaster occurs, being able to collect data,
particularly on social and behavioral responses, in a timely
manner is crucial to understanding immediate impacts to
communities. The National Science Foundation's RAPID funding
mechanism provides funding for proposals with a severe urgency,
including research on natural disasters or similar
unanticipated events. This serves as a great model for other
agencies to support research related to environmental and
public health crises that require a rapid funding mechanism.
As we enter an age where the impacts of disasters will
continue to be exacerbated by stressors such as climate change
and social injustice, it is imperative that Congress works to
improve our country's response to these disasters. Investing in
interdisciplinary and rapid funding mechanisms for research
into these topics, especially as we expect to see more
compounding crises, will be vital to our success in mitigating
the impacts of these disasters. I look forward to today's
discussion with our witnesses to identify how this Committee
can help address some of these critical research gaps. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Sherrill. And I think somebody's microphone is
on, if you could make sure you're on mute when not speaking.
Thank you.
At this time I would like to enter into the record a
letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) expressing
support for this hearing and emphasizing the importance of
discussing the intersection of systemic racism, the climate
crisis, and the pandemic. UCS's recent research has found that
communities will increasingly face multiple crises at once as
climate change progresses and that bold action is needed to
limit these future impacts, especially for low-income
communities of color.
We are honored to have the Full Committee Ranking Member
Mr. Lucas with us today. The Chair now recognizes Ranking
Member Lucas for an opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you for holding today's hearing,
Chairwoman Sherrill.
Today is the last day of September, which means we're 3/4
of the way through 2020. Today's hearing will focus on a number
of factors which have combined to make this an especially
difficult year for our country. Some of these challenges are
new, and some have been ongoing. Unfortunately, extreme weather
events are not new, although there's been a higher number of
these events this year. We've seen an unusually active Atlantic
hurricane season with 23 named storms to date and still two
months to go. Communities along the Atlantic coast have been
battered by strong winds, heavy rain, and severe flooding.
One of the many images future generations might remember
of this year were by pictures of communities across the West
bathed in orange due to the prevalence of wildfire across many
Western States. More than 7.5 million acres have burned, which
is well above the rolling 10-year average of wildfire damage.
Entire communities in States like California and Oregon have
literally burned to the ground.
Better forecasting and public warning of extreme weather
events has long been a focus of this Committee, and I'm proud
to have introduced ``The Weather Act of 2017'', which directed
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to
address how we can better forecast the occurrences of extreme
weather events and how we can help the public be better
prepared in the occurrence of these events. We have made
strides in these efforts, but we still have a long way to go.
A global pandemic has made forecasting even more
challenging. We've heard from NOAA about the steps they've
taken in order to ensure the continuality of operations to help
warn Americans of impending extreme weather events.
Unfortunately, a pandemic does not stop hurricanes, tornadoes,
and flash floods. I think I speak for all of my colleagues here
when I say how much we appreciate our forecasters for
continuing this valuable work under challenging circumstances.
The Committee has heard from Federal agencies and research
universities about the impact of COVID-19 on our country's
research and development efforts. The message was clear: Our
success depends on science. We must continue to move forward on
scientific innovation and support our research enterprise.
I thank our witnesses for being here today. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses about what lessons we can learn
from this year and how we can utilize our Federal research and
development efforts to prepare for future events.
Thank you and I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you for holding today's hearing, Chairwoman
Sherrill.Today is the last day of September, which means we are
three quarters of the way through 2020. Today's hearing will
focus on a number of factors which have combined to make this
an especially difficult year for our country. Some of these
challenges are new, and some have been ongoing.
Unfortunately, extreme weather events are not new, although
there have been a higher number of these events this year. We
have seen an unusually active Atlantic hurricane season, with
23 named storms to date, and still two months to go.
Communities along the Gulf Coast have been battered by strong
winds, heavy rain, and severe flooding.
One of the many images future generations might remember of
this year were pictures of communities across the west bathed
in orange due to the prevalence of wildfire across many western
states. More than 7.5 million acres of land have burned which
is well above the rolling 10-year average of wildfire damage.
Entire communities in states like California and Oregon have
literally burned to the ground.
Better forecasting and public warning of extreme weather
events has long been a focus of this committee. I am proud to
have introduced the Weather Act of 2017, which directed NOAA to
address how we can better forecast the occurrence of extreme
weather events and how we can help the public be better
prepared in the occurrence of these events. We have made
strides in these efforts, but we still have a long way to go.
A global pandemic has made forecasting even more
challenging. We have heard from NOAA about the steps they have
taken in order to ensure the continuity of operations to help
warn Americans of pending extreme weather events.
Unfortunately, a pandemic does not stop hurricanes, tornadoes,
and flash floods. I think I speak for all my colleagues here
when I say how much we appreciate our forecasters for
continuing this valuable work under challenging circumstances.
The committee has heard from federal agencies and research
universities about the impacts of COVID-19 on our country's
research and development efforts.The message was clear: our
success depends on science. We must continue to move forward on
scientific innovation and support our research enterprise.
I thank our witnesses for being here today. I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses about what lessons we can learn
from this year, and how we can utilize our federal research and
development efforts to prepare for future events.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. We are also
honored to have the Full Committee Chairwoman, Ms. Johnson,
with us today. The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman for an
opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairwoman
Sherrill, for holding this important hearing today. And good
morning and thanks to all of our witnesses for being here
today.
We are in an unprecedented moment in our Nation. We have
previously discussed the intersection of COVID-19 pandemic and
extreme heat on environmental justice communities. These last
few months have laid bare how these communities are
disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to
decades of social injustice. These same communities are often
disproportionately impacted by extreme weather events that are
exacerbated by climate change.
While we are working diligently across the globe to bring
this pandemic under control, we cannot forget that we're just
starting to address the impacts of climate change on our daily
lives. These impacts are undeniable, and the increasing
evidence of extreme weather events is a very visible example.
In 2020 alone we've seen unsurvivable storm surges due to
hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, the devastation of Iowa's corn
crop due to the Midwest derecho, and the largest wildfire in
California's history.
As communities across the country grapple with these
intersecting crises, it is clear that these crises are
impacting not only our citizens' physical well-being, but also
our mental health. The ongoing stress and trauma due to the
pandemic and for some communities outweighs the weather.
As the former Chief Psychiatric Nurse at the veterans'
hospital, I've seen firsthand how trauma can affect mental
health. The types of compounding crises we are currently seeing
will have both short-term and long-term effects on our
communities. It is important that we work to collect the data
and conduct the research that is necessary to understand the
impacts of this trauma.
I look forward to today's discussion with this panel of
expert witnesses to better understand what research is needed
for us to improve our preparation for, communications of, and
response to compounding disasters.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, for holding this important
hearing today.Good morning and thanks to all our witnesses for
being here. We are in an unprecedented moment in our nation. We
have previously discussed the intersection of the COVID-19
pandemic and extreme heat on environmental justice communities.
These last few months have laid bare how these communities
are disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to
decades of social injustice. These same communities are often
disproportionately impacted by extreme weather events that are
exacerbated by climate change.
While we are working diligently across the globe to bring
this pandemic under control, we cannot forget that we are just
starting to address the impacts of climate change on our daily
lives. These impacts are undeniable, and the increasing
incidence of extreme weather events is a very visible example.
In 2020 alone we have seen unsurvivable storm surges due to
hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, the devastation of Iowa's corn
crop due to the Midwest derecho, and the largest wildfire in
California's history.
As communities across the country grapple with these
intersecting crises, it is clear that these crises are
impacting not only our citizens' physical well-being, but also
their mental health.
The ongoing stress and trauma due to the pandemic, and for
some communities, evacuations due to extreme weather, can take
a severe toll on their mental health.
As the former Chief Psychiatric nurse at the Dallas
Veterans Affairs Hospital, I have seen first-hand how trauma
can affect mental health. The types of compounding crises we
are currently seeing will have both short-term and long-term
effects on our communities. It is important that we work to
collect the data and conduct the research that is necessary to
understand the impacts of this trauma.
I look forward to today's discussion with this panel of
expert witnesses to better understand what research is needed
for us to improve our preparation for, communication of, and
response to compounding disasters.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
And at this time I would like to introduce our witnesses.
Dr. Roxane Cohen Silver is a Professor of Psychological
Science, Medicine, and Public Health at the University of
California, Irvine. Her work focuses on traumatic life events
and deals with personal losses, as well as collective traumas.
The themes of her research are the effects of collective
traumas, community resilience, and the role news and social
media plays in transmitting the stress of disaster. Dr. Silver
has researched the mental health impacts of the September 11
terrorist attacks, the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings,
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Michael, and the Ebola public
health crisis. Most recently, she has completed a national
study of the effects of the coronavirus pandemic in the United
States.
Unfortunately, our second witness, Ms. Colette Pichon
Battle, who is the Founder and Executive Director of the Gulf
Coast Center for Law and Policy, is no longer able to testify
today.
Our final witness today is Dr. Samantha Montano. She is an
Assistant Professor of Emergency Management at Massachusetts
Maritime Academy and a self-described disasterologist. Her
research analyzes different aspects of emergency management
such as nonprofits, volunteerism, informal aid efforts in
disaster, and the intersections of disasters with climate
change, gender, and media. She began her career in disaster
management after working for nonprofits on recovery efforts
following Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil disaster.
Our witnesses will each have 5 minutes for oral testimony.
Your written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing. When you all have completed your spoken testimony, we
will begin with questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
question the panel. And we will start with Dr. Silver. Dr.
Silver?
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROXANE COHEN SILVER,
PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, MEDICINE,
AND PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE
Dr. Silver. Yes, good morning, Chairwoman Sherrill and
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to
speak with you today on coping with the trauma of 2020, a year
of grave stress, loss, and disruption for the United States.
I'm a Professor of Psychological Science, Public Health,
and Medicine at the University of California, Irvine. And for
over 3 decades I have studied the psychological impact of
community disasters such as firestorms, mass violence,
hurricanes, and infectious disease outbreaks. Almost all of my
research over these years has been funded by the National
Science Foundation.
The year 2020 has been marked by unprecedented compounding
traumas. As I will briefly discuss but have described in more
detail in a paper that will be published next week in the
journal Nature Human Behaviour, these catastrophes have
cascaded one to the next.
Next slide, please.
And individuals across the United States have concurrently
grappled with direct exposure to these events and watched them
unfold in real time in the media. Research I've conducted over
the past several decades strongly suggests that the mental
health consequences of direct and media-based exposure to these
compounding stressors may be profound.
This year has taxed our capacity to cope, with the most
vulnerable groups in our society at greatest risk. Policymakers
must act to ease the burden of trauma to protect the public's
mental as well as physical health.
Last week took us past a sad milestone. Over 200,000
people have now died of COVID-19 in the United States. The
severe restrictions implemented to limit the spread of
infection left thousands of businesses closed and millions of
Americans unemployed. These crises hit low socioeconomic status
and minority communities especially hard, highlighting economic
and racial inequalities in healthcare in our country.
With the pandemic and economic recession as a backdrop,
the absence of distraction and easy access to graphic videos of
the deaths of unarmed Black Americans led to protests and
ongoing social unrest. And over the past few months the United
States has faced extreme weather events, including devastating
hurricanes and disastrous wildfires that require evacuations
that have been made more complicated during a pandemic that
requires physical distancing.
Together, the combination of medical, economic, racial,
and climate-based catastrophes highlights the need for serious
attention to be paid by both public health officials and
policymakers of the implications of cumulative trauma exposure.
In March--next slide, please--my colleagues and I
published a commentary in which we used the research we have
conducted on collective traumas over the past 2 decades to
predict that widespread media exposure to a crisis like the
COVID pandemic could amplify the distress people felt in
response to this public health emergency. In fact, our past
research suggested that repeated media exposure to COVID-19
news could lead to increased anxiety.
While we predicted negative effects of the media to the
events of 2020 based on our earlier research, it was critical
to conduct research on the pandemic specifically. However, the
challenges of obtaining funding quickly in the aftermath of
collective traumas often lead to a lack of early studies of
large representative samples.
Fortunately, because the National Science Foundation (NSF)
offered many COVID-specific RAPID grants, which enabled
research funding for high-quality science, my colleagues and I
were able to conduct a methodologically rigorous study of a
national sample of 6,500 adults in the United States that began
March 18th. The first report from our study was published last
week in the journal Science Advances.
We started our project just as the pandemic unfolded
beginning when there were 190 reported COVID-19 deaths in the
United States to over 13,000 deaths less than 30 days later. We
found that as the weeks went on and the cases across the United
States grew, so did rates of acute stress and depressive
symptoms.
Will we survive the trauma of COVID-19 and the cascading
tragedies that have followed? As I wrote in an editorial in
Science in July, I believe that we will. This is not to
minimize the seriousness of the tragedy in any way. We do not
know how long the pandemic will last or how bad it will get.
But my decades of research on trauma make clear that people are
extremely resilient. Although the timing of the end of COVID-19
remains unknown, I believe that most people will get to the
other side of this pandemic recognizing strengths and coping
skills they did not realize they had. Rigorous research by
psychological scientists can offer understanding of human
behavior during crises to minimize future rates of infection
and death.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Silver follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much.
And next, we will hear from Dr. Montano.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SAMANTHA MONTANO,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, MASSACHUSETTS
MARITIME ACADEMY
Dr. Montano. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill and Members of
the Subcommittee, for the opportunity today to testify on
issues related to coping with compound crises.
As the Chairwoman stated, I currently serve as an
Assistant Professor of Emergency Management at Massachusetts
Maritime Academy. I have a doctorate in emergency management
from North Dakota State University and over a decade of
emergency management experience in the field in research and in
science communication.
For several years, there has been mounting evidence that
the various components of our emergency management system are
not keeping up with our needs across the country. In 2016, some
national disaster nonprofits began talking about volunteer and
funding fatigue. In 2017, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management
Agency) struggled to meet the needs across the country in the
wake of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and the California
wildfires. This year, when the pandemic began, every emergency
management agency at all levels of government activated
simultaneously for the first time in U.S. history. Given our
reliance on mutual aid between jurisdictions during times of
crisis, the pandemic revealed the interconnectedness of this
system and reinforced concerns about its capacity to meet the
Nation's growing needs.
Research suggests that 2016, 2017, and 2020 are not
outlier years. Rather, they represent just the beginning of
what is to come as the consequences of the climate crisis began
to manifest and collide with deferred infrastructure
maintenance, social inequality, and decades of development
decisions that have not accounted for hazard risk. Our system
was not designed to manage a pandemic of this scope and scale,
nor was it designed to manage the increasing number of disaster
impacts across the country. And it's certainly not ready to
meet the needs of the future.
Our current approach to emergency management is especially
insufficient for Black, indigenous, low-income, and other
marginalized communities. Decades of policy decisions have
funneled these groups into especially vulnerable areas. Not
only are these communities more likely to live in more
physically vulnerable places, but they are also less likely to
have the resources to be able to engage in pre-disaster
mitigation and preparedness activities that would minimize
their risk. When a hazard does occur, these communities
experience disproportionate impacts and are less likely to have
their needs met by existing recovery programs.
We need to urgently change our emergency management
approach to one that is proactive, not reactive, one that
centers environmental justice and quickly meets the actual
needs of people before, during, and after disasters.
Empirical research must drive these changes. Scholars in
many disciplines produce research that is fundamental to our
understanding of disasters and their effects, but there is a
particularly important role for the discipline of emergency
management, which studies how humans and their institutions
create, interact, and cope with hazards, vulnerabilities, and
associated events.
Historically, research has not been well-integrated into
emergency management policy and practice despite its undeniable
value to both. We need not only to ensure that future policy is
built on empirical research but also that there are sustain
funding mechanisms in place to support emergency management
research specifically.
Currently, emergency management research is underfunded,
which hinders our ability to inform emergency management
practice and policy. Disasters do not happen in isolation from
one another. We must address not only our Nation's readiness to
manage a Hurricane Harvey, Maria, or a pandemic, but also our
capacity to manage multiple threats at once because that is our
reality.
As I testify before you today, people are struggling
through disaster and its aftermath. Gulf Coast residents have
had to manage a barrage of hurricanes as West Coast residents
have had to manage constant wildfires. Parts of the Southeast
are rebuilding after spring tornadoes, while Midland County,
Michigan, recovers after dam failures, and communities in Iowa
pick up the pieces after a derecho. People in all parts of the
country are engaged in long-term recovery efforts, especially
Puerto Ricans, who, 3 years post-Maria, are still waiting for
all the assistance promised by the Federal Government.
In States, territories, and tribal lands all across the
country, people are fighting against the repercussions of
systemic racism and social injustice, all while a pandemic that
has killed over 200,000 Americans persists unabated. These
recent examples of trauma, loss of life, and destruction cannot
be separated from each other, and emergency management is on
the frontlines of addressing them all.
Thank you for your attention to these important issues. I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Montano follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much.
At this point we will begin our first round of questions.
The Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
So just to begin with, Americans, I know, are no strangers
to dealing with extreme weather events, but during the current
COVID-19 pandemic, it's really caused us to rethink our
traditional methods of responding to disasters. In my own
district we recently had a hurricane come through, and with the
power outages, there was a constituent who was in the street
crying really, and the mayor came up to her and said, you know,
what's happening? And she said her elderly parents were stuck
in their home without power. We were facing some 90-degree
temperature days, and she was afraid to bring them to her home
because she has teenaged children and she was afraid they would
give her 90-year-old parents coronavirus.
There's also my in-laws who are in California right now
facing the wildfires. I'm worried about their safety, and
normally, I'd bring them over to stay with us in New Jersey,
but like many families all over the country, you know, I don't
think they want to get on an airplane, and I don't blame them.
So these decisions aren't made lightly, and Americans are
increasingly forced to decide which crisis is the one they have
to respond to.
So Dr. Silver and Dr. Montano, for families and first
responders, how are we working to understand the new set of
challenges that come with responding to the compounding crises
of extreme weather during the pandemic?
Dr. Montano. Thank you for that question. You know, what
you described is definitely an experience that I think many
families across the country right now are trying to manage. You
know, everything we do in emergency management requires people
to be in close proximity to one another, and that has meant
that every facet of emergency management has been affected by
the pandemic.
As you noted, response efforts have had to change as
communities are rethinking how to utilize, you know, virtual
emergency management operation centers, how to run shelters
without starting an outbreak, and certainly we see that
families are trying to make the best decisions they can with
the resources that they have to prioritize those risks.
There are a number of researchers across the country that
are working on studies looking at how these decisions are being
made and what it potentially means for the future. There is a
program called CONVERGE COVID-19 Working Groups that was
supported by NSF through the Hazard Center at University of
Colorado Boulder, and there are a number of publicly available
research agendas that researchers have that are kind of in the
process of seeking funding to help answer those questions.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And Dr. Silver, did you
have anything to add?
Dr. Silver. Just that while it's extremely important that
we use science to help us make decisions, as you can imagine,
we really have not been in this kind of situation before, and
therefore, we are really stuck with not having adequate science
to help guide us. As you correctly identified, these are
competing mitigation strategies, and one needs to leave the
area in which one might be threatened, but in doing so, then
one typically goes into a shelter that packs people in. So we
really have not been in this situation. We are not adequately
prepared. And our research now hopefully will help us when the
next set of compounding crises hits us. And most scientists do
say that we are in for this kind of a season of compounding
crises in the future. This is the first time for our country
right now, but I think that it's extremely important that we
have research that will help guide us in the future as we cope
and that we will be much better prepared in the future. At
least that's my hope.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you very much. And my
time is about to expire, so I will now recognize the Ranking
Member of the Full Committee Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And Dr. Montano, I
turn to you first.
Fundamentally, why do people still ignore evacuation
mandates? In Oklahoma we have the National Weather Service
Storm Prediction Center which is conducting research to try to
increase the tornado prediction times, but even if we were to
increase the warning to 45 minutes to an hour timeframe, what
reasons do people have for ignoring it and staying in their
vulnerable homes?
Dr. Montano. Thank you for that question. We have a fair
amount of research on this actually across a number of
disciplines that can contribute to our understanding of how
people are making protective action decisions in the midst of a
response.
Generally, we've pulled here from three disciplinary
previews, and so we have psychologists that are contributing an
understanding of how people are perceiving risk. We have
communication researchers that are looking at the actual ways
that people are receiving alerts through a phone or an outdoor
siren, and then we have sociologists who are helping to
describe the human behavioral aspects of this.
One thing that we do in emergency management is pull from
across all of those different disciplines to understand how the
findings of their research can help create a cohesive model for
understanding those warning decisions. And what we see when we
do that is that, you know, there are issues with people
actually receiving warnings in terms of actually getting that
alert on their phone or actually understanding how to interpret
the message that has been given. We see that there may be
educational issues, so they might not understand the risk and
may not understand the actual actions that need to be taken.
And then kind of a third category is whether or not they
actually have the resources to take action. So if you tell
someone to evacuate for a hurricane but they don't have their
own transportation or are unaware of public transportation
opportunities, then they may not take that action. So we really
need to be looking across those different disciplines and
finding ways to make sure all of that is incorporated into our
approach.
Mr. Lucas. And the research you have access to, is this a
problem, an issue that's in society as a whole or a part is
becoming more complicated or less complicated? You know,
there's a tendency out there right now to be distrustful of the
government, of the internet, of everybody and everything, but a
lot of these efforts represent their own best interest. We're
really all together trying to help people. Do you see a change
in the patterns of response by people?
Dr. Montano. Certainly, trust is a major factor here as
well. I'm not aware off the top of my head of recent research
from this year that has addressed that change. I think that it
is something that several researchers are looking into, though.
I'm not sure that those findings are available yet.
Mr. Lucas. Continue with you, Doctor, you mentioned a
common recommendation to restore FEMA to an independent
Cabinet-level agency, and I of course understand your area of
expertise is emergency management, but what role does weather
prediction--and you can tell coming from the east side of the
Rockies and the southern plains, I'm very sensitive about
weather, too--what role does weather prediction have in our
responses to emergencies? And do you believe an independent
Cabinet-level NOAA would enable a more proactive rather than a
reactive approach as we've been talking about here today?
Dr. Montano. Potentially. My focus is really on FEMA more
than NOAA, so an independent Cabinet-level FEMA is definitely
something that has been suggested by disaster and emergency
management experts for a number of years. And certainly to the
extent that NOAA is impacted by politics, we want to work
against that as certainly the research, you know, brings up
that issue of trust and people actually listening to those
warnings.
Mr. Lucas. One last question, and then I'll yield back the
balance of my time. Along the theme of what we're talking about
now, we have a variety of challenges in the country and not
just new challenges. I represent a part of the world that was
the abyss of the Great Depression, the dustbowl of the 1930's,
which represented policy mistakes that went all the way back to
the Homestead Act of 1862, a well-intended and it worked well
in the Midwest, but different soil, different climate,
different circumstances in my part of the world made for a
challenge.
I guess my question to you is thinking about the issues,
expand for a moment on the kind of research that's needed to
ensure effective and efficient approaches. Is it sociology, is
it environmental, just expand for a moment because we are the
research Committee of the U.S. House.
Chairwoman Sherrill. And if you could keep your response
brief, the gentleman is out of time. Thank you.
Dr. Montano. Yes, definitely. Well, we need all
disciplines to be involved in doing this research.
Historically, there has been a greater emphasis on the physical
sciences, Earth sciences. We've more recently seen more of an
emphasis on social sciences, and that does need to continue.
And then as I would reiterate is that emergency management
research specifically does need to have that investment.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And I now recognize the
Chairwoman of the Full Committee for 5 minutes.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. I will start with
Dr. Silver.
What should our research and data collection priorities be
if we are to understand and address the impacts of the trauma
that I spoke about in my opening statement? And who should take
the lead on that data collection and research?
Dr. Silver. Thank you very much for that question. As I
mentioned, the National Science Foundation enables a mechanism
unique to the Federal agencies to allow researchers to propose
very quickly projects that are then funded through the RAPID
mechanism. And across my career I have been fortunate to
receive between 8 and 10 of those grants that enables me to
start studying people at the very beginning of the crisis. And
I would very much encourage any future research to be what we
call longitudinal, that is, start in the immediate aftermath of
a disaster and follow people over time.
What's even better, however--and this is research that I
have been trying to conduct for many years--is to identify
communities that are at risk of a disaster before it happens,
develop research teams, interdisciplinary research teams that
could be activated. We know that certain communities are going
to be at risk for floods every year. We know that certain
communities are going to be at risk for firestorms every year,
and similarly for hurricanes. And what we can do is identify
communities, enlist people to be in a research project before
the disaster hits. We can understand what kind of decisions
they are making prior to the disaster, what media they are
listening to, whether or not they're trusting the communicator,
and then once the disaster hits, we can follow people over
time. And that is the best kind of research that we can do on
these crises.
One other very, very important message is that we must
conduct methodologically rigorous research that is using the
best samples, using what the scientists--the scientists to help
us identify the best samples so that we can make
recommendations based on truly representative samples of people
across the country that can help us in the future.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Any other
witnesses want to add to that?
OK. Environmental and health research within the Federal
Government is typically siloed with NIH usually conducting
health research and science agencies such as NSF, DOE
(Department of Energy), NOAA, and EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) conducting environmental and social science research.
When it comes to diseases, climate change, and extreme weather,
there is much overlap between public and environmental health,
especially in the social science domain. Thus,
interdisciplinary research and funding mechanisms are needed.
So I'd like each of the witnesses to comment. In your
work, are there sufficient funding mechanisms for research in
this interdisciplinary space and how Federal agencies breakdown
disciplinary silos to obtain a stronger understanding of social
and institutional dynamics following extreme weather events?
Dr. Silver. I'd like to take that question first if you
don't mind, and I'm going to use the example of the September
11 terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, because there were very
few mechanisms to get funding shortly after the September 11
attacks, my colleagues and I remarkably were the only team that
obtained funding from the National Science Foundation within
days of the 9/11 attacks and were able to follow several
thousand people for several years, many years in which we could
look at the impact of the 9/11 attacks on both physical and
mental health.
The challenge has been getting the funding out quickly,
and at this point, almost none--in fact, perhaps only one
piece--research project that I've conducted in over 40 years
has been funded by the NIH (National Institutes of Health)
because there has not been a mechanism to get the funding out
to me quick enough to be able to do my research.
The National Science Foundation in contrast has
specifically developed a mechanism. It used to be called
something different than it is now, which is now called RAPID
and which was implemented very quickly. Their mechanism was
implemented very quickly after COVID. Over 900 proposals were
funded via the RAPID mechanism through the National Science
Foundation. But the NIH did not have that flexibility, that
ability to speedily get funding out to researchers, and this is
a very, very serious problem.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time is
expired. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I now recognize Representative Babin for 5 minutes.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam
Chair. I want to thank you and as well as our witnesses today.
I have the great honor of representing southeast Texas,
which unfortunately has been the center of devastating floods
that seem to come annually now. Three years ago, Hurricane
Harvey dumped the single largest amount of rainfall in the
recorded history of our country in my district. Since then, we
have had several hurricanes and tropical storms that leave much
of southeast Texas under water. This sort of reoccurring
devastation not only upends the lives of thousands but has
enormous implications on our Federal budget. These disasters
every year leave the taxpayers responsible for the colossal
bills that are needed for our recovery. Investing money in
mitigation efforts is an incredibly wise investment and will
save billions of dollars every year in damages.
So my question to Dr. Silver and Dr. Montano, since
Hurricane Harvey, there has been an effort to promote
resilience to help communities be better prepared for future
extreme weather events. So I want to ask both of you, to what
degree should the Federal Government be involved, and how much
responsibility should the States have in these projects? And
what is needed to rebuild even faster than what we're seeing?
Thank you.
Dr. Montano. Thank you. I will take that question first. I
have experience doing research in southeast Texas, so I'm well
familiar with the particular challenges of those communities.
What we're seeing in multiple places around the country but
specifically southeast Texas is that the next disaster is
happening before people can get through recovery, and some
folks are really stuck in this cycle of recovery where they
can't rebuild before the next disaster comes.
When we look at our approach to recovery in the United
States, [inaudible] limited intervention model. The government
is intentionally limited in their involvement. And folks are
reliant on their own resources, on insurance, and also the
nonprofit sector.
As I mentioned in my opening testimony, there are signs
from the nonprofit sector that they are feeling overwhelmed and
are unable to meet all of the needs across the country. We--and
we see that people don't have----
Chairwoman Sherrill. [inaudible]. I'm sorry. Just one
moment. We're getting just a little bit of feedback, so if
you're not speaking, can you mute your mic? Thanks.
Dr. Montano. So we are seeing that folks don't necessarily
have their own resources to be able to go through the recovery
process, which is suggesting that there is perhaps a larger
role for government here. And when we look at those recovery
programs through FEMA, through HUD (Department of Housing and
Urban Development), that operate at that--for the purpose of
rebuilding individual homes, we see that people very often tend
to navigate those programs. They can be very complex. They take
a long time. There are issues with the speed of dealing with
insurance companies in the National Flood Insurance Program.
So I would say overarchingly to create a more efficient
recovery process, we need to be doing more to streamline those
individual and household recovery programs, but also we need to
make sure that when people are going through recovery, they are
integrating mitigation efforts into that. There needs to be,
you know, a speedier process for buyout programs, a speedier
grant process for lifting homes up, and of course, ideally, we
would be doing those mitigation efforts before the disaster
ever even happens. But to the extent that we can incorporate
that into recovery, certainly research supports that that is
the best approach.
Dr. Silver. I'd just like to take 1 minute to talk about
the important role of trust, which has been raised previously.
Most individuals trust their local governments or their local
policymakers, and I think that that--people are looking to make
decisions about whether or not they're going to [inaudible]
emergency management teams.
So I think it's very important whatever might happen at
the Federal level, we need to make sure that local emergency
management personnel are getting the best recommendations, are
getting the best information, they're receiving it quickly. And
I know that, for example, during the pandemic, this is a big
challenge of getting the correct information out to the local
governments so that they can then deliver that content to their
residents because, ultimately, it's about trust. And if people
don't trust the communications and they don't trust the
communicator, it doesn't matter really what science tells us.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you all both very much. And
with that I will yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Mr. Babin yields back. And now I
recognize Representative Bonamici for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chair Sherrill and
Ranking Member Marshall, and thank you to our witnesses.
I don't know if Mr. Lucas is still in the hearing, but I
do recall having many conversations about the value of social
science research when we worked together on the weather
Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. It's so critical.
So I represent a district in Oregon. My home State has
seen wildfires at unprecedented rates this year. Nearly a
million acres have already burned in the past month as a result
of historic winds and dry fuel conditions. For comparison, on
average, approximately 500,000 acres burn each year during an
entire fire season over the last 10 years. And, unfortunately,
we've had air quality that has surpassed hazardous levels. That
further endangers the health and livelihoods of those already
at risk from respiratory issues from coronavirus. It was also
incredibly stressful. A lot of people were relieving their
stress during the pandemic with a walk through the neighborhood
or the park, and they could not go out.
Many Oregonians have been placed under evacuation orders,
hundreds have lost homes. We're very grateful to the State and
Federal agencies that have made lifesaving measures a priority,
but the road to recovery is going to be long, and it's going to
be challenging. Many experts are predicting significant
flooding and landslides this winter as precipitation increases,
the soil conditions remain unstable.
The compounding crises were not unexpected. In fact, in
April I joined with my colleague on this Committee Congressman
Jerry McNerney from California in calling on FEMA to develop
disaster preparation and recovery plans that reflect the
challenges of the ongoing pandemic during natural disasters.
And I've also joined my colleagues in calling on the White
House Coronavirus Task Force to take proactive steps to protect
firefighters from contracting COVID-19.
So I wanted to ask, Dr. Montano, in your testimony you
noted that disasters do not happen in isolation from one
another, and we're certainly seeing that now. Which emergency
management research gaps are the most important to address to
improve preparedness for these compounding crises within the
next decade?
Dr. Montano. Well, there are a lot of research gaps in
emergency management. You know, when we talk about the research
that needs to be done, there is some really basic research that
we have not had the opportunity yet to do. As a discipline,
emergency management is relatively young. There are relatively
few emergency management researchers across the country, and so
we have significant gaps.
In terms of prioritizing those gaps, certainly looking at
what we can do to more effectively prepare. Historically, we've
had a relatively narrow idea of what preparedness is. We're
focused on individual go-bags, individual plans, but really
when we think about disasters, they require this community
response, which suggests that there's much more that we could
be doing in terms of community preparedness, so really studying
what the most effective and most efficient changes that we can
make to our approach to preparedness is something that is
critical for us in emergency management research.
Ms. Bonamici. And I don't want to cut you off but I want
to get another question in, and I am going to ask to follow up
on the record with some specific recommendations about that,
the research gaps.
So we know that disasters often exacerbate inequities for
our frontline and vulnerable communities, especially low-income
communities and communities of color. We have seen that with
the pandemic. So I recently joined my colleagues on the Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis in releasing a climate action
plan that supports community-led, voluntary just and planned
transitions from the riskiest flood- and wildfire-prone areas.
Our plan will help provide communities with information on
future climate risk, technical assistance to communities to
help them plan ahead, and also funding to help those who are
ready to move to safer ground.
So, Dr. Montano, what steps can Congress take now to
support proactive rather than reactive emergency management?
And how can those efforts best support our environmental
justice communities?
Dr. Montano. You know, one issue that we have across the
country is that many communities only have a part-time
emergency manager who kind of doubles as the fire chief. Some
communities even have a volunteer emergency manager. So we
really need to invest in the emergency management system at
that local and State level. And I think that there is
potentially a place for Federal funding to help fulfill those
positions, which would really grow that capacity at that local
level, which would also provide much more of an opportunity for
those marginalized groups to be involved in those planning
efforts.
Ms. Bonamici. And that would be a very good investment. I
think about Seaside, Oregon, and the district I represent. It
took them years to get the resources to move their schools
where their young children are learning out of the tsunami
inundation zone, again, a good investment to make sure these
communities can plan.
And I see my time is expired. I yield back. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Representative Bonamici.
Next, I recognize Representative Casten for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
speakers.
Dr. Montano, I want to start with a--sort of a selfishly
personal question if you'll allow me. I'm new to this line of
work. I spent 16 years as a CEO (chief executive officer). And
one of the--sort of the things that they beat into you whether
in, you know, in business school or then when you get PR
(public relations) consultants, as the leader of an
organization in a crisis, No. 1, you have to be enormously
transparent about what you know and what you don't know; No. 2,
that as you develop plans to deal with the crisis to be very
clear about how you develop that plan because as information is
always changing and people are nervous, it's important for them
to understand your thought process as much as what the
information is so that when new information comes in and the
plan changes, they don't get nervous. And then last, just to
massively overcommunicate because otherwise the rumor mill
takes over.
My sort of selfish question is, given your expertise,
would you amend that plan for those of us in public service, or
is that still basically the right way for us to be dealing with
these sorts of crises as we speak to our constituents and
beyond?
Dr. Montano. Yes, absolutely. The research certainly
suggests what you explained, that, you know, trust, clear
communication, excessive transparency is a good approach in the
midst of a response to a disaster. Sometimes we see politicians
hesitate to be forthright with what is happening during a
crisis because they are concerned with creating some kind of
panic among the public. In fact, we have research dating back
almost 7 decades that supports that people don't panic during
disasters, that actually that information is useful for them
and leads to them being able to be an active participant in
that response and make those really effective decisions for
themselves and their families. So certainly, yes, transparency
with communication is the right approach.
Mr. Casten. So my second question and--is that the--it
strikes me that politicians are generally good at doing that
for crises that are right on top of us. When the hurricane is
bearing down on the coast and you've got to tell people to put
up sandbags or get out of the way, we do a good job.
It strikes me that we have done a completely horrible job
of dealing with that with COVID. That's a slow-moving crisis,
which is only--which I guess is--only looks good relative to
climate change that's somewhat slower moving. And too many
folks in our line of work are just outwardly lying. Should we
adopt a different approach for slower-moving crises?
Dr. Montano. I'm not familiar with any research that would
suggest any kind of different approach. I think, again, being
honest with the public about what the risks are is the best
approach. Again, it's about empowering the public to be active
participants in that response. And when you tell people that
everything is fine and they look out the window and see that
the sky is not the normal color, you know, there is going to be
extended trust issues that extend past just that disaster.
Mr. Casten. Well, so I guess my last question--and I I
don't know if this is best for you or Dr. Silver--but you've
confirmed my own preconceived biases, which is helpful. But if
we're not doing a good job of communicating, if we're telling
people that you can ignore climate change because it's not real
until it's a hurricane bearing down on your house, if we're
telling people that COVID is going to magically go away until
your loved ones in nursing homes are dying and you can't visit
them, what kind of stresses does that--in other words, what are
the consequences of us failing to follow these strategies and
how people behave?
And, you know, Dr. Silver, your research on how that
stresses people out, what does that do to people when we--
instead of empowering them to lead, we pile that stress on top
of them?
Dr. Silver. Well, one of the things that we're seeing now
with COVID-19 in particular is conflicting information. It's--
we are hearing and individuals are hearing one message from
perhaps one set of leaders, another message from another set of
leaders. There's a lot of controversy being communicated via
some public health individuals that may be politically driven.
This becomes a real challenge. And we found in our research
that we just published last week in Science Advances that when
people hear a lot of conflicting information, that does
exacerbate stress. That does increase the likelihood that
people are going to exhibit depressive symptoms. So it's not
just hearing message A. It's hearing message A and message
negative A. These are the big challenges for us because it's
very difficult to know who to believe because we see,
unfortunately, people are choosing different sources, and that
leads [inaudible] and the challenges that we--that are
exacerbated right now.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I'm out of time and I yield back,
but here's hoping we can all take some of your wisdom and take
it forward as we lead our own constituencies. Thank you. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Representative Casten.
I now recognize Representative Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Madam Chair, thank you very much. This has been
really fascinating to listen to. And if you forgive me, I just
want to emphasize the link between income and wealth inequality
and the vulnerability to extreme weather events, which I think
you point out again. I just think the worst Virginia disaster
in our lives was Hurricane Camille in 1969. We lost 153 people
in a couple of hours. It was mountain slides and flash floods,
21 members of the Huffman family. And it was all relatively
poor or low-income people living in very fragile homes that
were washed away.
Every time I see a tornado on the TV, the people killed
seem to be the ones in mobile home parks. When floods kill
people, they tend to be living in flood zones down along the
river. Even earthquakes, it's the lower home values. You know,
we had--was it 2009 we had Haiti that killed all those people
as their homes just collapsed? A few years later we had a six-
point-something Richter scale in Virginia that didn't injure a
single person because of the difference in construction.
So it's our commitment to economic growth for everyone,
overcoming the systemic racism that's shown up in 10 and 12
time multiples for the net worth between an average White
family and a Black family or a White family and a Latinx
family, that economic justice and environmental justice are
basically the same thing.
Dr. Silver, in your study on the Ebola pandemic in 2014
you talk--you noted that people who consumed more media about
the crisis were more afraid of contracting Ebola even though
the risk is relatively low. How do we interpret that in the
context of COVID-19 when we want people to know that social
distancing, mask wearing, don't go inside a restaurant, all
these things are so important in balancing that with the fear
of contracting the virus?
Dr. Silver. So you raise an extremely important point,
which is that the media is a double-edged sword. It helps us
communicate the protective actions that people can take. It's a
very important way to get information out. But at the same time
we know that many media outlets want to keep viewers--keep
people watching, and the stories that they are telling are all
bad news all the time. So what we're talking about in terms of
media exposure is media about bad--you know, bad news, sad
stories, graphic images, which we haven't seen, fortunately,
with COVID.
But we did find in our paper that just came out that in
fact the more media people were watching in--or engaged with
either in traditional media or social media in the days after
COVID began really hitting the news waves in the United States,
the more media people were watching, the more stress they were
reporting, the more depressive symptoms they were reporting. So
if we were only delivering content that was providing
information about health protective behaviors, that would be
one thing. But, as you know, the media is filled with all sorts
of other conflicting messages and controversies, and so it's
not as simple as just saying we understand that the media can
be good. It's a double-edged sword.
Mr. Beyer. Dr. Montano, let me pile on with that, too,
because, as Dr. Silver had mentioned, we've had tripling of
people diagnosed with depression, anxiety, a frightening
statistic that a quarter of young people 18 to 29 have had
suicide ideation since the beginning of this. How do we better
communicate the need to get out of dodge before the volcano
blows or before the hurricane hits or to take protective
actions and not push people into these depressive states?
Dr. Montano. You know, one thing that I think is really
important here is making sure people have the needed resources
to actually protect themselves. When we look at some of the
research post-disaster, we see increases of domestic violence,
we see increased stress, we see an increase in suicide rates.
And much of that seems to be tied to the actual stress of the
post-recovery community and not having access to resources, not
having access to jobs.
So the things that we do in emergency management ahead of
time in preparedness to ready our communities to better
withstand these disasters I think could have a benefit on
that--on those mental health repercussions in the aftermath.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And at this time I'd like
to open it up for any Members who would like another
opportunity to ask questions. Does anyone have any further
questions?
Mr. Beyer. I love the idea----
Chairwoman Sherrill. [inaudible] I'd like to recognize
Representative Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, Dr.
Montano, it was your notion that we need to make FEMA an
independent agency and give it Cabinet-level status. Can you
expand on that a little?
Dr. Montano. Certainly. So prior to 9/11 FEMA was a
Cabinet-level independent agency. This afforded them a number
of useful things, namely a direct line to the President when a
disaster did happen, and a greater stature among the other
Federal agencies that are of course very important to much of
what we do in emergency management.
Post 9/11, as DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was
proposed and created, FEMA was incorporated under the
Department. At the time there were former heads of FEMA, James
Lee Witt, and other disaster researchers who warned that doing
so could inhibit FEMA from meeting the needs across the
country.
Since that time, though, however, FEMA has stayed put, and
there have been times where there were potential concerns about
how well the Administrator of FEMA was able to connect with the
President and the White House and just the overarching role and
responsibility of FEMA within this huge department.
So moving forward, as we think about changes post-COVID to
our emergency management approach, to our public health
approach, I do think that perhaps it might be wise to
reconsider this idea of FEMA being an independent Cabinet-level
agency again.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And do we have any further
questions?
Well, before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to
thank our witnesses for testifying before the Committee today.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for any additional questions
the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Roxane Cohen Silver
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Samantha Montano
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Mikie Sherrill
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]