SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Tuesday, March 3, 1998.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WITNESSES
JAMES L. WITT, DIRECTOR
GARY JOHNSON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
JOANN HOWARD, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION
MICHAEL ARMSTRONG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, MITIGATION DIRECTORATE
ERNEST ABBOTT, GENERAL COUNSEL
MICHELLE BURKETT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS
CARRYE BROWN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. FIRE ADMINISTRATION
LACY SUITER, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
KAY GOSS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PREPAREDNESS, TRAINING AND EDUCATION
Chairman's Opening Remarks
Mr. LEWIS. This morning we would like to welcome Mr. James Lee Witt, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a hearing on the budget request for Fiscal Year 1999.
Mr. Director, before we get to some of the specifics, I want to state for the record that these last couple of years have been the most interesting working with FEMA, to say the least. And we have disaster after disaster across the country, whether it be fire, tornado.
We do have an earthquake now and then in California. I've suggested in the past we used to have earthquakes to keep the population out, but that's getting to the point of being ridiculous. We know of recent floods and the tornadoes in Florida.
There was a time when, of all of the government agencies around, the Agency that you're the director of was one that many of were inclined to perhaps close down. I remember in my early career in the Congress, that was a proposal of mine personally, long before this responsibility. In the meantime, I think it should be said for the record that the Agency is an example, an illustration of what we ought to be doing about changing the direction of government.
Indeed, members across the aisle—this is not a partisan question—are very impressed by the fact that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is out there doing the job when America is faced with a challenge in one location or another.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While some are worried about a growing number of dollars when we have a series of crises, dollars that are laid out almost immediately, at the same time, most of us realize that America does come together when we face crises together.
The budget request for 1999 includes $844,031,000 for the regular appropriation. That's in contrast to $841,958,000 in the 1998 budget year. In addition, this request includes $2,258,485,000 in contingency emergency appropriations.
My colleague, Mr. Stokes, who is the ranking member on the Committee, is delayed this morning. He will very likely have an opening statement that we will move to when he does arrive. In the meantime, I'm not sure if any of his colleagues would like to add to these opening remarks or maybe we can go on to questions.
Mr. Director, we will place your entire statement in the record. If you'd like to summarize your statement, we'll move on to questions quickly. But before that, I'd like to welcome to the Committee for the first time I think in one of these hearings your wife, LeaEllen, whom we're pleased to have with it. LeaEllen, nice to see you.
Mr. Director.
Director's Opening Remarks
Mr. WITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I will keep my remarks brief so we can get into the questions.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'd like to introduce Gary Johnson, who is our Chief Financial Officer at FEMA, and, Mr. Chairman, we have some new faces here with us today: JoAnn Howard, our new Federal Insurance Administrator; Mike Armstrong, the former Regional Director in Region VIII, who is now the Associate Director for Mitigation and doing a great job; Ernie Abbott, our new General Counsel, on the end; and Michelle Burkett, whom you know; was our Regional Director in Chicago. She's moved to headquarters now, and is in charge of Policy and Regional Operations.
Mr. LEWIS. She moved from Chicago to Washington?
Mr. WITT. Yes, sir. She said it's not as cold.
Although Congressman Stokes is not here, I would like to say that he has been a wonderful person to work with, as are you and this Committee.
He was the Chairman when I first became Director of FEMA. I never will forget the first day that I came up and met with Mr. Stokes nor his comments to me as to what changes he would like to see at FEMA especially in support of diversity and equality. I just wanted to commend him and thank him for his support.
Mr. LEWIS. I thank you for that.
Mr. WITT. I know one day you held a briefing up here after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. Yes.
Mr. WITT. Congressman Stokes came by. I know he had 1,000 other things to do, but he made a point to come by to thank the FEMA employees for what they had done in Oklahoma City. We all remember that very well.
We have had one of the busiest years, for disaster response and recovery ever at FEMA. This year, during the recent visits to Florida and California with the President in the aftermath of tornadoes and flooding, we saw that the devastation in these two states is just incredible.
There's been a total of 41 confirmed deaths in Florida, and a total of 17 confirmed deaths in California from the mud slides and floods. Obviously, it's just devastating for those individuals.
During the Christmas holidays, Mr. Chairman, we had the typhoon in Guam. I'm very, very proud of our employees who responded to the typhoon in Guam during the Christmas holidays, had to be away from their families, and did a great job in response to the needs there. The typhoon broke a record in wind speed at 236 miles an hour during the typhoon. The devastation was really bad.
The employees at FEMA have worked hard and been dedicated. Congressman Gilman from New York made a statement at a hearing recently. He said that the reason he's very proud of FEMA and its employees is the fact that after the camera, the newsmen, and newswomen leave, the employees still show the same dedication, concern and compassion as they do when the cameras are there. He said, ''I want to thank you for that.'' I have seen that change at FEMA. It's wonderful to see how people respond to the needs of others across the country.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
El Niño. At Laguna Beach, the devastation there caused people to lose everything they had worked all their lives for. It was just incredible to see every day heroes, people saving other people and children, and the will of those people to rebuild and recover. It was just unbelievable. I saw one lady with a broken arm, who didn't even have it in a cast.
El Niño has caused damage across the country, all the way from California to the New England states in New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine.
I think one of the things that helped us in California to prepare for El Niño was the El Niño summit we held in October with Senator Boxer, the Vice President, and over 900 participants from communities across California. The preventative measures that those communities working with our Region IX put in place made a significant difference in the dollars and lives lost in California to date and continue to do so.
We have a request for $307.7 million for disaster relief funds, and $2.26 billion in emergency contingency funds, for a total of over $2.5 billion. That's our five-year average less Northridge plus support costs. This appropriation will ensure that we can continue to pay our overall requirements for more than 400 open disasters.
Let me address open disasters. We have put together closeout teams to close out old disasters. We have teams on the East Coast, in the middle of the United States, and on the West Coast. Since the beginning of the fiscal year, we have closed out 66 old disasters by these teams focusing only on closeout.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In this fiscal year we have put back into the Disaster Fund $177.9 million that was deobligated from these open disasters. We had disasters open as far back as Hugo, Hurricane Andrew, and Loma Prieta. One of them went back to 1979.
Some of them require very little work to close out. What happens is that after our people out in the regions respond to a disaster, they go back to their offices to catch up on day-to-day program work. Some of the closeout activities slip by the wayside. We're now focusing and closing these old disasters out so we can return the money back to the disaster fund.
I think you know, Mr. Chairman, since 1993, when I came to FEMA, I have made it a priority, to focus more on response, recovery, and preparing for future disasters. In our budget, we have a request for $50 million for pre-disaster mitigation spending. It is the future, and it does matter.
We're kicking off seven pilot projects using the $30 million that Congress gave us in this year's budget. The enthusiasm of these seven communities is just unbelievable. This is a Federal, State, Local, and private partnership. We're pulling industry into the partnership because they know that if they're affected by a disaster it will affect their bottom line. I can just give you example after example of the differences we hope to make.
We're here to answer your questions. We'll be happy to provide anything in writing that we can't answer and we're happy to work with you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DIFFICULT JOB FOR FEMA EMPLOYEES
Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Director.
In those remarks you mentioned the employees of FEMA who are out there doing the job. I must say to you that I will personally never forget the invitation that you extended to me. My wife accompanied me just following the disaster at Oklahoma City to go through and see the devastation in the surrounding community. There actually were bodies still in the building. The job those employees were doing, to say the least, is something that is difficult to erase from your memory.
Earlier in your remarks you had words of praise for the work of my colleague and the fellow whom I call my Chairman, Mr. Lou Stokes, who has just come in the door. I wonder, Louis, are there any opening comments? You're welcome.
Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Director Witt.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any formal opening statement, but I would like to take just a moment or two, if I may.
First I want to thank Director Witt for his very kind and generous words this morning. It's a pleasure to welcome you back before this subcommittee at all times. During the period of time that you have served as Director of this agency, I think all of us on this subcommittee have been extremely impressed by the kind of service you have rendered for this nation with the numerous disasters that have occurred during your tenure.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year Chairman Lewis and I and other members of the Subcommittee had a chance to visit the Virgin Islands to see your operation down there as a result of a disaster that had occurred there. And I can tell you I think all of us—I believe I speak for this whole Subcommittee—how impressed we were. We saw your people in the field and how they had responded to this disaster.
And for us, it was more than the academic type of exercise we undergo on this Committee. We actually saw how people respond to a disaster and the results of the kinds of problems that you would encounter in doing so. So I want to thank you for the opportunity to view that situation in its entirety.
I also want to say that those of us who have been on this subcommittee as many years as Mr. Lewis and I have been here knew that when you took over this agency, you took over a troubled agency. And the management techniques and strategies that you have brought to bear with this agency have now made it one of the best agencies in our government.
So I just want to commend you for the kind of service you have given this country. It's been a pleasure.
Mr. WITT. My pleasure.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes, I want you to know that——
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. The Director is not only pleased to hear your remarks, but his wife, LeaEllen, who is with us today is pleased to hear the remarks, too.
Mr. STOKES. I'm pleased to see you here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REQUEST FOR DISASTER EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY FUNDS
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Director, as part of the Disaster Relief budget request for Fiscal Year 1999, it's being proposed that the Congress provide an additional $2.3 billion, the use of which would be contingent upon certain conditions being met. Those conditions are essentially the conditions currently in place for requesting an emergency supplemental appropriations except that no further congressional action would be required.
First, why is there a budget request for this contingency emergency appropriation, rather than using the supplemental appropriations process?
Mr. WITT. Mr. Chairman, based on historical information we have been able to track that is what we project we will need. The 5-year average, less the Northridge earthquake, which was the most costly disaster this country ever had, plus disaster support comes to over $2.5 billion.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This year we had some calm months in October, November, and December, but we're facing El Niño now, and hurricane season is coming up. But the historical 5-year average is from $2.3 to $2.5 billion each year.
CONTINGENCY FUND VS. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION
Mr. LEWIS. Well, to be more specific on that point, is it essentially a shift in policy without formal policy action? Has FEMA ever encountered significant delays in providing assistance as a result of congressional delay in providing supplemental appropriations?
Mr. WITT. Actually, Congress has been very supportive when we've needed supplementals to support disaster response and recovery costs.
Mr. LEWIS. So essentially what you're saying is that during your time as Director, we've had this experience of averages costing a lot more than just the standard appropriations and so why not just automatically put it up front?
Mr. WITT. We know probably at some point in the budget year, we would have to ask for a supplemental if annual obligations continue at the same rate we've experienced in the past.
CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR DISASTER SUPPLEMENTALS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. I know that some of us on the Committee, especially those of us from the West, have sensed a growing concern or reserve by some members where in their part of the country they haven't experienced disasters recently. We've had some questions raised suggesting: Well, if those people want to live on the coast, let them pay their own bill.
I've made the point that we come together as a country at times of disaster, but, nonetheless, there is that reserve. I gather this is a reflection of some of those expressed concerns.
Mr. WITT. I hear that sentiment as well at times, but I don't think I've ever seen Congress not support a disaster supplemental for any bipartisan reasons, when there is a need to meet the needs of individuals who have been affected. We're very appreciative of that. Everyone usually puts politics aside and supports efforts to help communities recover. That's good, because our goal is to be there when there is a need.
I think that when we see people building on the coast or see more disasters occurring in one State more than other States, we need to remember that at any given time, there could be a disaster in any community or in any state. Disasters affect everyone, not just the coast.
PREPAREDNESS FOR EL NIÑO
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Director, in your statement, you indicate that when scientists predicted El Niño, FEMA worked with the highest-risk states and communities to have people better prepared than ever before. Can you provide for us some concrete examples of how advanced warning has resulted in better preparation and give us some idea of what costs your agency has avoided as a result of such warnings?
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. The prediction and projection that data NOAA and the Weather Service provided us really helped a great deal, particularly in California, in the Gulf states, and in Florida. Because of their predictions and projections, we were able to convene a summit in Santa Monica to work with local communities.
Our Region IX office worked with the State (OES) Office of Emergency Services in California to put on training courses for communities to learn what they could do to be prepared.
The communities themselves went way beyond what they normally do. They cleaned out their river channels, cut dead trees away from power lines to keep them from falling on the power lines, bought and stockpiled sandbags to put around homes, and distributed those bags to homes that were in the floodplain.
The city manager of Oakland told me they started an initiative for people in the neighborhoods to ''adopt a storm drain.'' The city provided the volunteers with a raincoat and rake, and it was their responsibility to keep the storm drains open. The community did all kinds of creative things to make a difference.
Berkeley said that they saved over $7 million because of the prevention work that they did. Severe conditions were widespread in California. Santa Barbara had over seven inches of rain one night, but had very minimal flooding because of the preparedness measures they had taken.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
POTENTIAL FOR SPRING FLOODS IN CALIFORNIA
Mr. LEWIS. Along with those heavy rains that you've mentioned throughout California, particularly the coastal areas, there's been a heavy amount of snowfall in the mountains. Indeed, last week some were indicating that maybe you were right at the edge of a record time snowfall and snow pack.
What efforts are currently underway to avoid massive flooding in the springtime? Let's assume we get a warm rain in the latter part of April, early May. Doesn't that portend another kind of disaster? Tell us about that.
Mr. WITT. Mr. Chairman, I'm very concerned about this. I talked with the state OES in California. Right now they are two inches short of having a record snowfall in the mountains. If they experience a warmup very quickly from a warm rain in the mountains, then we have a serious potential for some major flooding.
I talked to General Fuhrman with the Corps of Engineers, and they're working with us to make sure that all the levies are in good shape. This past year they worked very, very hard in getting those levies fixed and repaired to be in the best shape possible because that will be a key.
They're also looking at the reservoirs to see what water they can release to keep the major flooding down. But with the problem of El Niño and all the rains coming in, it's difficult to release a lot of water because it could cause more flooding.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. The ground is soaked?
Mr. WITT. The land is saturated. That's one reason we're having so many mud slides.
CONDITIONS OF LEVIES IN ORANGE COUNTY
Mr. LEWIS. You mentioned levies. Aren't there some special problems in Orange County that——
Mr. WITT. In Orange County, the Corps of Engineers de-certified the levies because the levies were originally certified for 100-year flood protection. Because they decertified those levies, it caused us to give the community an AR flood zone rating that requires the residents to buy flood insurance at a lower rate until the levies can be repaired. Then the community can be taken out of that rating.
Usually the Corps repairs levies on a drainage district like the one that goes through Orange County within two years. But the Corps did not get the funding to repair those levies in two years. It's possible that the repairs will stretch out to 10 years, maybe 15.
All the mayors from Orange County met with me to discuss their concern that this will be stretched out that long, and that they are going to lose valuable revenue each year. One mayor said, ''In my community, I'm going to lose $132 million in revenue that people would normally spend because now they're going to have to buy flood insurance.''
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. Yes.
Mr. WITT. It's pretty tough. And Orange County did get some flooding this last time.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Director, I remember one of the vivid memories as a young boy standing at my back window in southern California dropping a ping-pong ball out the window. It dropped about 18 inches or 2 feet and hit the water and went out to the back fence.
People don't really believe that these disasters are going to occur until they're upon them. And it's very important that we get people to be prepared and to react as you have suggested.
Mr. Stokes.
NEED FOR DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL
Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Director, I realize that reliable estimates of the damage occurring in California, Florida, and elsewhere is still being developed, but based on what you know today, do you think FEMA will need supplemental disaster relief funding in 1998 to meet all of those requirements?
Mr. WITT. Congressman Stokes, I believe we will be okay in 1998. Gary will share some figures with you. Right now it looks as though if we do not have a real serious hurricane season with major damage, we'll be okay.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. Gary, would you, please?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sure, Mr. Stokes.
Right now the current status of the fund would indicate that we are likely to be able to meet our obligations for prior year disasters, as well as what we would expect to happen assuming Mother Nature cooperates with our forecasted requirements for fiscal year 1998.
The issue does, though, begin to surface as it relates to fiscal year 1999. Our estimates right now for California from the recent El Niño events, as well as for Florida are consistent with our estimation procedures for this current year.
Mr. STOKES. So at this point, you think it would be fairly reliable in terms of your estimates?
Mr. JOHNSON. For the current year.
DISASTER COSTS TO STATE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Mr. STOKES. Not counting the Northridge earthquake, FEMA's average annual disaster response-recovery costs have been about $2.4 billion during the past 5 years. Do you know what the comparable costs have been during the past five years for state and local governments?
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. Congressman, I do not have that figure from states. They did a survey. NEMA did a survey, and found their costs to be astronomical as well. Also, the economic loss for businesses in communities, which we're studying now, is unbelievable.
Not only is it FEMA's cost and states' and locals' costs, but a lot of other federal agencies spend quite a bit for response and recovery, including EDA, SBA, Corps of Engineers, and many others. So across the board it's very expensive.
DISASTER COSTS FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. STOKES. Do we have any estimate, Mr. Director, in terms of private insurance? How much of this has been borne by private insurance?
Mr. WITT. The private insurance industry has experienced some serious losses from the Florida tornadoes. I think the estimate that I got from them was somewhere close to $100 million just in Florida. So they are taking considerable losses.
FEMA'S EXPENSES FOR DISASTERS
Mr. STOKES. Considering these costs that you just made regarding state and local governments and the private sector in responding to catastrophes, do you think FEMA's expenses are too high, too low, or just where they should be?
Mr. WITT. We have been able to streamline the agency, and to start cutting disaster costs with a central processing system. We've been able to save close to $35 million a year, and also give better customer service in the areas of inspections, applications, and disbursing checks.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressman Stokes we also consolidated 65 warehouses across the United States. I asked Bruce Campbell, head of Operations Support, to inventory and consolidate them in to 3 warehouses, one on the East Coast, one in the middle of the United States, and one on the West Coast. We also recoup all the equipment from disaster field offices and refurbish and repackage it, to be used in another disaster. We've been able to save $13 million a year just by doing this.
So we're trying to cut disaster costs and streamline operations.
The frequency of disasters hasn't changed that much. It's the magnitude of the disasters, like the ones in the upper Midwest, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota.
I think back to a time when we never saw a town of 50,000 people just totally flooded. In 1993, we saw 9 states and 500 counties flooded. So it's the size of the disaster that we're seeing now.
Gary, do you have any comments?
Mr. JOHNSON. Just to add to Director Witt's comments and respond to your question, for the period of 1988 to 1992 for all disasters the average cost in 1999 dollars is just over a billion dollars compared to the average of the last 5 years, less Northridge, which is $2.4 billion.
If we were to include all disasters from the period of 1993 to 1997, the average would be $3.8 billion. So if you take all disasters, it would be $1 billion for an average of the earlier 5-year period compared to the average of the later 5 year period of almost $4 billion.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATE DISASTER COSTS
Mr. STOKES. Let me ask you this, Mr. Director. According to the most recent report on state emergency management funding prepared by the National Emergency Management Association, total funding in Fiscal Year 1996 provided by the 44 states that responded to the survey exceeded $2 billion.
Per capita spending increased from less than $6.50 in 1994 to nearly $9 in 1996. According to the survey, state emergency management funding represents one percent of an average annual state budget.
Are you satisfied with this level or do you think the state should do more?
Mr. WITT. Congressman Stokes, I think we all can do more. We have done a lot in the mitigation area. If you look at the average that we have spent over 5 years, almost $2.5 billion, we are spending up to 15 percent instead of 10 percent of grant costs in mitigation after we have a disaster, per the 1993 Volkmer amendment.
This has been very successful. We've bought out over 20,000 pieces of property out of the floodplain across the United States, moving people and businesses out of harm's way where they'll never flood again. We're saving millions of dollars by doing that. We have documented that every dollar we spend on buyouts saves two dollars in future disaster costs.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My goal in pre-disaster mitigation is to know what states are high-risk states and what areas within those states are high-risk communities. We have been working to target those communities to eliminate the risks and to undertake preventative actions such as retrofitting homes and businesses.
If we can spend $2.5 billion in response and recovery, then we seriously need to look at spending more in prevention before the disaster ever happens.
When we have a disaster, we do mitigation after the response to prevent future disaster damage in that community or those buildings, schools, hospitals, and other areas. But why don't we do it before we have the disaster? Then we won't have to spend the money on response and recovery because we will be prepared for the risks that we face. We can achieve it through a public-private partnership with industry and state and local governments. We're testing this in our pilot projects now.
It should be very successful. The excitement out there is incredible. Seattle, Washington became a pilot community. The city manager brought all of the private industry people in around the table. FEMA put in a million dollars of seed money there. To add to that million dollars, the community raised six million dollars from private industry.
The community is going to retrofit over 2,000 schools and low-income and elderly homes against the earthquake risk. AmeriCorps volunteers are helping to do that while on their spring break.
We can do so much more on prevention that will keep us from spending so much in the future on disasters. This is the direction we need to take.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Director. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Hobson.
REDUCTION IN STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. HOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Witt, I want to welcome you back and join Chairman Lewis in the kind words he said about you. I've enjoyed working with you and the people in your agency. They're very professional. And I think my state has tried to perform along also with the good Director.
The partnership here I think is very good to continue. I have some concern about that state and local partnership. My director, Dale Shipley, and several other state emergency managers have expressed their concern about the funding level in the state and local account.
Many of the states, including Ohio, have prepared for the 50 percent matching requirement in SLA funding. What the states are not prepared for is the drastic reduction in the overall SLA number. The FEMA request eliminates the $16.6 million in SLA 100 and adds half that amount to SLA 50.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The FEMA proposal does not include last year's additional $3 million for SLA. I take a little personal rejection. I worked very hard to get that in there.
FEMA has focused solely on SLA 100 funding and made reductions there by moving the 50/50 match. But FEMA ignored the overall short fund in SLA since the states end up covering 70 percent of their emergency management programs to the federals, 30 percent in SLA.
The net impact of all of this, of FEMA's proposal, on the states is a reduction in federal spending of $11.4 million from last year and a requirement for state and local governments to match the $8.3 million placed in a 50 percent matching category.
Now, I know some of the people are upset about the 50 percent, but I'm not really fighting that because I don't think that's a bad idea. I've generally been a proponent of trying to get more bang for the buck, but I think this is just too much for all the states to absorb at one shot.
I'd like to work with your agency to find a way to get more money back to the states for the SLA Program because I think they do a good job with this.
Would you like to comment on the SLA?
Mr. WITT. Sure. Congressman, over the last four years, we have worked very hard without taking any cuts from the states. You all have been very generous in supporting the efforts to put more funding in the SLA funding for the states each year.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This was a very tough decision on all of us. Congressman, I come from state and local governments and I know where that money goes and how important it is.
For the last two years I've been meeting with the state directors at their national conferences, and I've told them that Congress indicated last year that we need to take state and local grant programs to 50/50 cost share. We have increased the 50/50 cost share programs from the 100 percent funded category which used to fund the old Civil Defense Programs, such as the population protection planning. We have moved, not only on the national level, but also the state and local levels, to all hazard planning.
I have told the states to make arrangements because we're going to have to go to a 50/50 cost share. A lot of the states, like Ohio where Dale Shipley works, did make arrangements with their state legislators to address the reduction. Some of the states did not. Those states that did not are really screaming at me, and I don't fully blame them. I would, too. But that was the intent of Congress, to go to a 50/50 cost share.
Mr. HOBSON. Fifty/fifty is not a problem. It's when the overall number also comes down with the 50/50.
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. HOBSON. And that's hard.
Mr. WITT. The overall number in Emergency Management Assistance (EMA) funding didn't come down, did it Gary?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. JOHNSON. The 50 percent money went up but the overall state and local assistance, as you've correctly characterized, Mr. Hobson, has dropped $11 million.
Mr. HOBSON. And that's a little hard for them to absorb, I think. But we can talk about that.
Mr. WITT. Okay. A lot of people don't understand that while 50/50 cost share money goes to the states, it also funds 50 percent of the salaries of the county emergency managers. The funding goes all the way down to the state, and to the local level. It's very important.
Mr. HOBSON. I've got two parochial things I want to talk about. Then I want to come back to something else.
Mr. LEWIS. You have somebody's time.
FLOOD REMAPPING VERSUS DEVELOPMENT
Mr. HOBSON. I know. That's why I'm rushing along.
And, again, I want to congratulate you people. There's some remapping going on out there. And it presents some difficulties in some places. I want to thank Mike Armstrong and Matt Miller and Doug Bellomo and Fran McCarthy for taking the time to meet with me about a local situation.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The thing that concerns me is when we do this remapping, it's got to be realistic. And they've got to take in the local certain types of situations without going to the huge modeling that you have to do in some of these situations. But communities, somebody's got a building and they've been planning expansion. And suddenly on comes a remapping.
And there's somebody in a flood area that they didn't realize they were in a flood area before. You look at it, and you say, ''Gee, is this a 100-year deal?'' I don't want to deal with 100 years that are coming back to haunt us in some places, and it's a problem.
You don't want to have these people building something where the likelihood is going to happen, but there's got to be some understanding that this is not an exact science as we look at some of these things.
I appreciate the attitude that the people came in with. I just hope the results are as good as the attitude was when we looked at these things.
Mr. WITT. Congressman, you're exactly right on the mapping. Mike Armstrong, his staff and I have been very, very concerned, as the Chairman has. We have done some pilot testing of different ways to do mapping more quickly for the local communities because it does hinder them in rebuilding or developing a community.
We're so far behind on mapping. We just don't have the money to do the mapping that needs to be done. Mike and his staff have put together an estimate of $823 million to do the needed remapping, but don't have $823 million in our flood program to do that mapping.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we're ever going to catch up, then we're going to have to do something to expedite this mapping. We're also working with the communities. If they can get engineers to do their remapping, then we will certify their own remapping, we do that as well.
POLICY ON UNSOLICITED CONTRACT PROPOSAL
Mr. HOBSON. That's what we're trying to do in this situation a little bit.
I've got one other question, parochial thing. And I've got to tell you I have had a very good relationship with your agency as far as credibility goes. But this is one that bothers me a little because I'm not sure that the proper contracting approach is there. I want to bring it to you, not just on this issue, but to make sure that it's being done right across the agency.
As you know, over the past years I've shared Chairman Lewis' interest in updating FEMA's emergency response equipment and vehicles. Knowing of FEMA's need in this area, a company in my district, MTL of Beaver Creek, began working with FEMA over two years ago and, in compliance with FEMA's instructions, submitted an unsolicited proposal to FEMA's Acquisition Support Division, first in December of '96 and then a revised proposal in May of '97.
I've got two problems with what happened with this particular proposal. One, I do not understand why it took eight months for FEMA to respond to MTL's proposal. And, two, when FEMA finally responded to MTL, the letter reads that FEMA's policy is to acquire such products by competitive methods.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't object to that, but you should know going in. Going in, they were told this was going to be a sole source-type situation. And then when another part of the agency gets a hold of it, it suddenly switches on some people two years later. And as a small business guy, I can tell you that that doesn't help when you're on small budgets to be able to do that.
Is it FEMA's policy not to procure such items through unsolicited proposals? And then, my response, if it wasn't, then why wasn't MTL told that in the beginning?
Mr. WITT. Congressman, I wish I could answer your question. I'll look into it and get back to you. We do try to compete everything as much as possible.
Mr. LEWIS. If you could respond to the record.
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. HOBSON. I know you do. And that's why I bring it up.
Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to ask you to answer these questions either——
Mr. WITT. Okay.
Mr. HOBSON [continuing]. But they're two that I ask everybody that comes in here.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. Could you submit those for the record?
REBUILDING AFTER FLOODING OR MUD SLIDES
Mr. HOBSON. I want you to talk at some point about your overall rent and then, more importantly, about the year 2000 and then problems and make sure you don't have any because we're asking everybody that.
And, lastly, what concerns me,—and I told the Chairman and you beforehand I was going to ask this, and you somewhat answered it going in—one of the things that concerns me, you know, I watched these pictures of these gorgeous homes along the coast and they're falling in.
I grew up in an area along the river in Cincinnati. I'd go to work in the morning, and I'd be okay. Then I come out. My car's got two wheels in the water because the water would come up and things would back up. So I'm familiar with this.
What seems to many of us to happen—and we need to work on this more—is maybe we shouldn't build back all those places. I don't know. You can put little red tags on some of them and say, ''We aren't going to do this again'' or do you have the authority or do the local communities have the authority so that we don't—we know we're going to have disasters and we know we want to respond to those and we want to help people, but we can't keep going back and, say, a million-dollar house and keep going back or a two million-dollar house, which I don't have many of them in my district.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
People in my district are going to say, ''Whoa. Wait a minute. What are you guys doing here?'' Do we continue to go back in and rebuild that house or what do we do to stop and mitigate this a little better?
Mr. WITT. We now have over 19,000 communities participating in the flood program. Under this program, if a home has been damaged over 50 percent from a flood, then that home has to either be elevated or relocated.
Mr. HOBSON. Elevate or relocate.
Mr. WITT. Elevate or relocate. As we bought out 20,000 pieces of property over the years, it has not only helped cut disaster costs, but it has also complemented our Flood Insurance Program due to the fact it's removed possible repetitive losses out of the way.
Now, as far as the million-dollar house sliding off the hill that you've been seeing on the television, we don't fund that house.
Mr. HOBSON. Well, I think that's important for the public to know.
Mr. WITT. We aren't going to fund that house.
Mr. HOBSON. We aren't going to fund that.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. I think the California Coastal Commission has done a really good job. If a home does slide off like the one on TV, or a home is damaged or destroyed on the coast, then they have a requirement to move the house back when rebuilding.
As far as mud slides are concerned, I often get the question, ''Are you going to let these people build back here?'' Of course, we discourage building in high-risk areas, and we encourage working with the state and the local community to do a buyout relocation program with mitigation, and Community Development Block Grant dollars and Economic Development Administration dollars to get those people out from harm's way before that land goes back to open land use management.
Mr. HOBSON. Good.
I just want to thank you for all the work you've done. And I want people to know that you just don't go into big communities and work. You'll go into small communities and work——
Mr. WITT. Yes, sir.
Mr. HOBSON [continuing]. With those small communities. I think that's very important work that you do, and I want to thank you and thank your wife for putting up with you being gone so much and doing all of this good work. It's nice to have an agency that you can count on. And I think that this country counts on you, and you have responded.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WITT. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. LEWIS. We turn to the very patient and very professional gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan.
BUILDING IN FLOOD PRONE AREAS
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Witt, I would like to join the Chairman and ranking member and my other colleagues in welcoming you to the hearing and complimenting you on the fine job you're doing.
I was here as a much younger member of the Committee when FEMA was having the kind of problems that have been described here. And you have done a marvelous job in turning that around and giving the agency credibility, largely from your fit professional efforts.
I also want to thank you specifically for your good efforts in West Virginia. It seems like you all are always in West Virginia. And we appreciate your help there.
I'd like to follow up on Mr. Hobson's last line of questioning. Just to understand, how do you treat these areas that are particularly prone by experience and just by analyzing the condition? How does the Flood Insurance Program and your attitude toward these areas? How can we do it differently?
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In West Virginia, we have lots, as you know, in the hollows up and down these streams, lots of construction in floodplains. And I guess in California, probably these homes were like the Ohio River when they were built. They weren't built on the edge. They were right at 100 feet back in West Virginia to get to these homes and drop them into the river.
How are they treated, these different situations: homes in California and floodplains in the Midwest? And how should they be treated in your opinion?
Mr. WITT. Well, Congressman, in most cases, we're even inheriting traditional building stock that was built before there were ever building codes or building standards. We're seeing that traditional building stock getting damaged in these flood risk areas and other areas.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. They're the at-risk?
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. The ones that——
Mr. WITT. We have tried to be very diligent in focusing in those high-risk areas to get people and businesses out of harm's way working with the state and local community.
Carl Bradford does a great job for West Virginia. He is really targeting some of these at-risk areas with mitigation dollars. We have tried to utilize and to maximize the Federal, state and local dollars to get the most benefit, CDBG, FEMA, EDA, and SBA are all working together to give the community and state the biggest bang for the buck, as we would say.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We don't treat jurisdictions any differently. If they're in a high-risk area we have enough money, and the state targets that area for buyout relocation, then we support that effort.
We have been able to accomplish a lot, but the problem we have is that we just don't have enough money to do what needs to be done.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTER VICTIMS
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, say you have a disaster and there are these traditional structures in disaster fund areas. Do you provide assistance to those homes or those structures? And what kind of assistance is it?
Mr. WITT. The normal process is that disaster victims will apply for assistance, either by calling a 1–(800) number or by obtaining an application. If the community has been wiped out, victims can apply for temporary housing for up to three months.
Applicants first go through the process to determine if they're eligible for a basic low-interest SBA loan. Then if they're turned down by SBA, they are automatically referred through a process for an individual and family grant, which we fund at 75 percent, but the state runs the program.
If their home is repairable, applicants can possibly get a maximum $5,000 as a minimal repair grant to make that home liveable in lieu of getting temporary housing, this saves money in the long run.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So the process is that a person goes through SBA first. If they're turned down for a loan to SBA, then they would fall back into the grant program.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Now you're moving toward mitigation. And that's what these pilot projects are all about, is it not?
Mr. WITT. Yes.
PILOT PROGRAMS IN PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION
Mr. MOLLOHAN. You have one pilot project in West Virginia. I heard you talk about the one in Washington, where you had a lot of private sector resources being thrown into it. In areas that perhaps you can't draw upon those private sector resources to the extent you described, how are these pilot programs working?
Mr. WITT. Very well. We're beginning to see many communities across the United States take the ''Project Impact,'' information book, go through it, and do some of the pre-disaster mitigation themselves.
That's what we're trying to do with our information: develop a program that anyone can put in place. We have a checklist of exactly what they would need to do and how to do it.
Evansville, Indiana, a community that has earthquake risk and flood risks, is not a pilot project community. I went to Evansville and had breakfast with their Chamber of Commerce and 200 business men and women. They have already raised $168,000 to hire a planner. They determined they were going to be a national model, whether designated as a Project Impact community or not.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other communities are joining. Governor Batt in Idaho has submitted legislation, I understand, to stop building in 100-year floodplains, and in high-risk areas. A mayor in Texas has put into place stiff penalties for building in flood-risk areas.
So our message is getting out. People are starting to look at this. Congressman, we're also looking at giving the states two years to adopt their new building codes. If they have a disaster now the only thing we can do is build to the pre-disaster building codes. If they change the codes, then we can rebuild to the new codes.
States are going to have to take some responsibility, too. They need to develop some good building codes and enforce those codes.
Mr. LEWIS. It needs to be said here that we must give priority to that mapping/remapping, however——
Mr. WITT. Absolutely.
Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. Because 100-year floodplains are defined at X time. And people in the desert, for example, wonder how you quite got there. But in the meantime, the point is very, very important.
Mr. WITT. Yes, it really is. It's a responsibility that individuals and, local and state and Federal governments have. If we all take that responsibility seriously, we will make a difference.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DIFFICULTY IN MEETING 50/50 MATCH
Mr. MOLLOHAN. In one area, you're planning to eliminate the 100 percent grants to state and local assistance and you're taking this money in the 50/50 match program. Following up a little bit again on Mr. Hobson's questions, are you finding that there are areas of the country that are having difficulty meeting this 50 percent match?
Mr. WITT. In meeting the 50 percent match, no. I think the difficulty in a couple of states stems from the two years I've been saying that Congress is telling us to go to 50/50 cost sharing.
Most of the states had their legislators take care of this in their appropriations. The problem in many states is that legislatures only meet every two years. A couple of states that did not go forward and ask their legislators to make the adjustment they are the ones that are in trouble.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. But fundamentally you're not getting any responses from any states that ''Look, we're just not able to meet this match'' or ''Our localities aren't able to meet this match''? You're not seeing that problem?
Mr. WITT. I've only had two states that came back and said, ''We're going to lose people because you're doing this.'' But they didn't get anything done through their legislators either.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
APPEALS ON HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROJECT
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Witt. May I join all of the Committee members in commending you and your fellow employees at FEMA for some great work around the nation addressing some unbelievable catastrophes. And certainly from those of us from the Northeast, we appreciate all the attention you've given in recent times.
Mr. WITT. Thank you.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Fortunately, I've been able to view on television more than I have seen you in action at any particular site. While New Jersey may have its problems periodically, I see you in a very public way reassuring people by your physical presence. And I commend you. I also hear good things from our governor's office in New Jersey about your work with various state officials as well.
I do have several questions, first being it's my understanding that your agency has proposed a rule change for applicants appealing a denial for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The rule change would reduce the number of appeals from three to one. According to your proposed rule, the appeals process to my mind would sort of almost begin and end with a Regional Director.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I certainly understand that this is broadly a result of efforts to streamline the regulatory process, reduce administrative costs, but most other federal agencies do have a multi-level grant appeals process in place, basically to ensure due process for the applicant and not to place extraordinary power in the hands of any Regional Director.
And in no way am I implying that there's anything wrong with the Regional Director. Quite to the contrary. However, many communities around the nation, certainly the ones that I'm familiar with, invest a lot of time and money bolstering their defenses against natural disasters. As such, we need to ensure that every detail has been fairly addressed upon all levels by FEMA.
Could you share the rationale in proposing this rule change, giving me some idea of the number of appeals that would be affected, the time frame, as well as any budgetary implications?
Mr. WITT. The appeal process that we have had in place in FEMA for years is very cumbersome. There is a lot of red tape. It takes too long to go through the appeal process and to get a decision for that local government to be able to do what they're trying to do.
We did go out with comments on the rule after the state directors were here for a national conference in Washington, I met with all of them personally and privately one morning to get their feedback and comments. They agreed that instead of one, we would do two appeals, one to the Regional Director and then to Washington. They agreed that would speed up the process and give them a decision more quickly, which is what we're trying to do.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressman, we've been getting appeals in from states and local governments as low as $150 and $500. I have chastised the State Directors a little bit because it's their responsibility to say, ''This is a good appeal'' or ''This is not a good appeal.''
The States agreed to work more closely with us to bring in extra temporary hires just to work appeals. We had 370 appeals in one week. There's no reason for that. But I think you'll be proud of what we're doing.
We get most of our appeals from the Public Assistance Program. We are reengineering that program now to speed the recovery effort up with local governments we will basically give them the opportunity to review with us actual construction cost estimates when we write them up in order to cut the number of appeals down almost nothing.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. So due process is being recognized.
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You sort of revisited that issue. And I assume, Mr. Director, you've responded to correspondence where some of our members have written you——
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. From a number of states, including my own.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. Yes.
DECLARATION IN NEW JERSEY
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The second question is: Several counties along the New Jersey coast experienced some pretty incredible coastal storms and flooding earlier last month, which decimated a lot of the protective structures.
I believe our state's own emergency operations plan was adequate to meet the storm needs, but that was only true in four of the affected counties. I understand that last month our governor contacted you and the White House requesting an expedited disaster declaration for a couple of those counties. I just wondered where that request stands.
Are you familiar with that by chance?
Mr. WITT. Yes, sir. We have been working with the State of New Jersey's emergency management and received all the information. We should be finished with it very quickly.
BEACH REPLENISHMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Okay. Third question. I also serve on the Energy and Water Subcommittee. We in a bipartisan way support a number of beach replenishment programs.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In your opinion, do these beach replenishment programs, such as New Jersey is involved in—we spend a lot of money on it—help reduce the money being spent by your agency on noreaster damage or just general storm damage?
Mr. WITT. The engineered dunes that are in place do help to protect the health and safety of some of the coastal property. I can't say that the beach replenishment helps protect property. I think it's an economic problem.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Surely that's true, yes.
Mr. WITT. But the engineered dunes do help protect some property. I think the engineered dunes are similar to what levies are.
You have many agencies with responsibilities for different parts of this issue. As I testified at the Water Resource Committee not long ago, I think to streamline these programs and make them less cumbersome to local government we need to identify one agency, and let that agency have the authority and funding to take care of levies and engineered dunes. That should be the Corps of Engineers. They're the experts. If we do engineered dunes, we have to task the Corps of Engineers to do the dunes, as well as the local government.
I've talked to the Corps about this, and they're very receptive because now if a local government comes to us for emergency repairs and fixing a levy, then we have a part of it, the Corps has a part of it, and the Soil Conservation Service has a part of it. We need to tighten that up and give it to one agency with the authority and responsibility for all of these aspects.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CSEPP
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My last question. In last year's hearing, we discussed the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, which your agency was working in partnership with DOD, specifically the Army. There were some issues that needed to be worked out with FEMA and DOD at that time.
Can you give us an update on FEMA's work within that partnership to date?
Mr. WITT. Congressman, I'm happy to report to you that we have signed a new agreement with DOD. For two years, I have been telling DOD that if we didn't change this program, FEMA was going to pull out because I was very unhappy, our staff was very unhappy, state and local governments were very unhappy.
So under the new agreement, DOD literally gave us the responsibility and the money for off-post emergency preparedness, which is what we wanted.
It was not working the way it was. There were too many chains of command in the process. It was very tough on local governments. Now our regions and the state and local governments have the responsibility with less oversight. It's going very well now.
CREATION OF REP FUNDS
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, I commend you for it. And, lastly, since the Chairman doesn't appear to be cutting me off, on the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund, this says in 1999, FEMA requests an appropriation of $12 million to establish a foundation for a new fund for the program.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Just a few comments on that. Who did this before the creation of this entity? I'm sure it's one of these good objectives, but if you could just fill me in as to who did what before the creation of this fund and new responsibilities?
Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, what you see in the budget request is a different mechanism to finance the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program.
Previously and up through the current year, funds to support the REP Program, have been requested as part of our salaries and expenses and emergency management and planning assistance appropriations. I believe for fiscal year 1998, the amount is about $12.5 million.
FEMA bills the utilities for the full cost of the program.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You do that right now?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But this would formalize that?
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, there's definitely a subtle change. Currently when the revenues came back in, they are deposited in the Treasury as offsetting receipts. What we are proposing through the REP fund is, rather than having those revenues coming back from the utilities and being deposited in the Treasury, they will be deposited in the REP fund and be available to directly finance the program beginning on October 1st, 1999, the start of fiscal year 2000.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. Also by doing this, it allows the utilities to actually budget better for their programs. It should work out very well.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Utilities have invested quite a lot——
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. In these types of issues and haven't seen a great payout. I assume that they're supportive of what you're doing here.
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
The gentle lady from Florida, Mrs. Meek.
STATE AND LOCAL CONCERNS
Mrs. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Welcome, Director Witt. He's good to see you and your staff again having come from Florida, where we have had any number of disasters. And to see the efficiency with which your department handled them is commendable. It's commendable to see the problems that you have faced. And you have been able to surmount them. We thank you.
My questions, however, are very similar to the ones the other members have asked. There appears to be underlying questions regarding state and local governments and how you handle that kind of funding. Other members have called this to your attention. My state is no exception to that, not only on the local level but the state as well.
They're concerned about the amount of funds that they will receive now for their local emergency assistance programs. And they feel, as I can perceive it, that they were not given enough time to really phase out what they were doing.
This came down as a mandate that this had to happen. They didn't have time to address this in their state legislatures to make up for whatever shortcomings this mandate from national FEMA may have incurred.
They're saying that they didn't yet form a notification early enough and they weren't in the process. And I could go and on, Mr. Witt, with the number of things that they're concerned about.
I think some of it has some credibility to it in that it is a local problem. When there is an emergency in Dade County or in the State of Florida, the locals are very much concerned. Loss of life, devastation, all of this is very important.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two things seem to concern them most. One is flood insurance. What I'm hearing, Director Witt, is that your capacity to predict that the amount of needed flood insurance may be skewed toward the fact that the instrumentation—what you're using to measure potential damage—is inadequate. My information shows that in the flood insurance area, your instruments or whatever you're using are only accurate within five feet. And certainly in Florida, most of the coastal areas of Florida, it is hard to assess the flood vulnerability with that kind of instrumentation. They're saying that your measurement tools, even though they're costly, are only accurate within five feet. How valid is that; I'd like you to respond a little bit later.
Let's take the Deerfield Beach model, which you just sent off through pre-mitigation, you had thought about and worked on. How do you plan to assess those needs in the future? In the model community there, you would need more accurate kinds of measurement that would perhaps be gotten only from more sophisticated means of measurement. Do you plan to proceed with any of that kind of improved measurement so you would be ready?
I'm concerned because there are a lot of trailer parks, a lot of commercial property, a lot of mobile homes in Florida.
Mr. WITT. Right.
Mrs. MEEK. And I'm just wondering if you and your staff had thought about how you're going to plan for this in the future. Is it in your plans now? And if so, how do you plan to use the funds that you're asking for in your budget request at this time?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have lots of questions, Mr. Witt, but because you're such a fine Southern gentleman and I like you very much, I'm going to put the rest of my questions——
Mr. LEWIS. Be careful, Mr. Witt. [Laughter.]
Mrs. MEEK. It's true. He stood the test of time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. I'm going to put the rest of them in the record. But I'll go back and reiterate what my major concerns are: the accuracy of your assessment of flood insurance and the measurement which you use to try to depict that in that we're concerned in that 40 percent of the national flood insurance policies are bought in Florida. So it's a great concern to the states there.
And my second concern was the discontent among the emergency management people regarding the lack of transitional time they had from being able to prepare themselves for the reduction and not being able to seek other funds.
The third one had to do with how you're going to address some of these issues in your mitigation strategy. How are you going to address whether or not your pre-disaster mitigation is in some way not going to be to the detriment of these traditional approaches which you've used in the past? Those are the three questions, Mr. Witt.
ACCURACY OF FLOOD DATA
Mr. WITT. First, on the flood elevation and the mapping, we are required to be within one foot of elevation for the mapping.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, we're trying to look at the different ways that we can do mapping, either through satellite or imagery, in order to give state and local communities the very best information that we can. Also, we will work with a community if they have their own engineers and they're willing to do their own mapping. We will then review that.
And you're right, Congresswoman. It's very important. It is really critical to have the elevation within a foot because it would affect a lot of businesses and homes around that county or city if we are not.
MITIGATION IN FLORIDA
Regarding mitigation, you mentioned Deerfield Beach as a pilot project community. I can't tell you how proud I am of what the State of Florida has done. Joe Myers, Governor Chiles, and the legislators have supported the mitigation in Florida in a bipartisan way. They have supported buyout relocation and elevation of homes and businesses in Florida. They have put a lot of money into those programs.
We have many communities in Florida that have already benefitted from Project Impact and continue to do so. Are you familiar with the high school in Deerfield Beach?
Mrs. MEEK. Yes.
Mr. WITT. That high school is that town's shelter. That high school had not been retrofitted for a hurricane, but the safety of that school for these children and as a shelter for the community was critical to the mayor and the community.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of their projects is to retrofit the high school against a hurricane. There are many other smaller projects that they're doing joined by Home Depot, Embassy Suites, and the Power and Light Company which are making an effort to cut dead back away from the power lines limbs. So this is a pretty good effort they're doing in Florida.
AmeriCorps will be joining us during their spring break in Florida as volunteers to help make the homes of elderly and low-income safer against a hurricane.
So its working really well. I just wish we had more money to do more mitigation projects to make communities safer. Hopefully we will in the future.
STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING
Your third question was regarding state and local funding?
Mrs. MEEK. Yes.
Mr. WITT. For two years, Congress has asked us to go to a 50/50 cost share. Last year in the report language they didn't ask us, they instructed us to go to a 50/50 cost share.
For two years, I have been telling the state directors that they needed to focus on this because I was concerned that we were going to have to go to a 50/50 cost share.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We wrote every governor a letter advising them that this was going to happen. We put the information out to the states to make sure they understood and, to make sure that they were going to start making arrangements. Many states did, a few of the states didn't, and this got them and all of us in a Catch-22.
MAPPING TECHNIQUES
Mrs. MEEK. So you do feel, Mr. Director, that your mapping techniques are adequate under the circumstances?
Mr. WITT. I think they could be better. They're adequate, but they could be much better. My goal is to be able to do it much faster, because building and communities are growing so much. We just don't have the money to do the remapping that they're asking us to do.
Earlier I made the statement that to get all the maps across the country updated, it would cost $823 million. We need to do this because it's causing us a serious problem.
Mrs. MEEK. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mrs. Meek.
Mr. Walsh.
Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Good morning, Mr. Witt. It's good to see you again. Welcome back. It's been said that the toughest job in America is being President of the United States. And the second toughest job I've heard is being Mayor of New York City. You've got to have at least the third toughest job in the country. And you do it very well.
Mr. WITT. Thank you.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
Mr. WALSH. And I think you hear that from both sides of the aisle, which is remarkable.
I'm going to use this hearing as an opportunity to make a point. And the point is that we later this year will be having a battle over transportation funds. ISTEA it's called. It's been said that states like mine, New York, don't send as much into the trust fund because we don't buy as much gasoline because we use mass transit. So some states make the case that since we don't send as much money in, that we shouldn't get the benefit of ISTEA.
And I'm asking or imploring or suggesting to my colleagues from Florida and California, who my constituents sends millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars to every year for hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, mud slides——
Mrs. MEEK. Why are you looking at me? [Laughter.]
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WALSH. There was a problem in Homestead Air Base in Dade County a few years ago I remember. We consider that our responsibility and our obligation. And I would just hope that that would have some sway with the legislators from those parts of the country to give us the consideration that we need because our infrastructure is older, far more in need of repair. And it's a fairness issue for us. So I just wanted to use this opportunity to make that point.
Mr. LEWIS. Please, Mr. Walsh——
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEWIS [continuing.] Realize that we understand your point. And we certainly will try to keep it as a part of our consideration.
Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much. I must have made my point. [Laughter.]
AGRICULTURAL LOSSES
I think that, again, you do a remarkable job in very difficult circumstances. And the few times that, fortunately, I've had to deal with FEMA, they've been very responsive.
We had an ice storm in New York State this year. And it also affected Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire. It was Canada's, I'm told, greatest natural disaster ever, which is pretty remarkable, tens of thousands of power poles down, farms.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are a lot of farms in the north country in New York State. Many people don't realize that, but it is very much still an agricultural state. And the ice came, and then power lines went down. And then the snow came on top of the ice. So the roads couldn't be plowed. So farmers couldn't get the product to market.
It was truly a disaster. And your folks were there on the spot quickly. And I wanted to thank you on behalf of my constituents to the north for that.
One of the things that happened was a lot of the dairy farmers not only had to dump milk, but they also lost cows. They couldn't milk the cows. They didn't have power. And farms are bigger than they used to be. So they couldn't milk them all by hand, although many were milked by hand. And so cows got sick, mastitis. They went dry.
I just say that because we're going to have to be a little bit creative, I think, in order to respond to that need that those farmers had the losses that they suffered. USDA, I know, is interested in trying to work with us on this.
Do you have any thoughts? Have you experienced that elsewhere in the country?
Mr. WITT. Yes, sir. I was in New York State with Governor Pataki at some of the dairy farms. FEMA provided some generators for the farmers so they could milk their cows. They would take one generator, rotate it among three farms, and milk the cows at different times. The farmers would have to milk their cows, then dump their milk because the power was out at the processing plants.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They had a tremendous loss. A lot of people don't realize the economic loss not only to the farmers but the entire state and all of the New England states.
So President Clinton asked us to look at a long-range recovery plan. Lacy Suiter, Associate Director for Response and Recovery, is here. We just finished the plan yesterday.
It clearly addresses all the New England states. We invited all the state directors of emergency management in from the New England states along with all the federal agencies, and just sat around the table and talked about the disaster, the effect of it, and what we may need to look at in the future to help longer-term recovery.
The Department of Agriculture was there, SBA, all of them. It very clearly identifies shortfalls in areas that we need to look at possibly through legislation or with other agencies for long-term recovery because disasters affect maple syrup farmers, orchards and dairy farmers. All of them. Right now there's no assistance except loans.
Mr. WALSH. Yes. That's right.
Mr. WITT. It's really tough.
Mr. WALSH. When you don't have a cash flow because of the loss that you suffered once the price of milk is depressed, you can't pay the loans back. It's a pretty vicious cycle.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. We have no programs to help the agriculture program.
Mr. WALSH. Well, the date of the——
Mr. LEWIS. I'm going to mention——
Mr. WALSH. Sure.
Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. Mr. Walsh, that there is some precedent for this, however, last year. But before that, as I understand it, through supplemental appropriations bills following disasters, we have given specific assistance through the agriculture provisions of those supplementals, some disaster relief.
Mr. WITT. That's true.
Mr. LEWIS. Specifically, in California, we have problems with dairy cows as well right now. I mean, hundreds, if not thousands, are being killed. But how you fund or help people in those circumstances, there is a pattern through the agriculture provisions of the supplemental that could help.
Mr. WALSH. The data that you have gathered I'm sure will help us to make our case with USDA. And they have suggested that they would be willing to work with us on this. And we will have to be creative.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. Look at our report. It's a very good report. It's to the point. OMB signed off on the report as well as the other agencies.
Mr. WALSH. Great.
Mr. LEWIS. I have just learned in the last couple of days that in Chino, California, some 6,000 cows——
Mr. WALSH. Yes.
Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. Have dropped dead from exhaustion. Cows or calves in births fall into the mud. I mean, it's really a huge, huge thing that I've never anticipated.
Mr. WITT. You know, we're seeing different patterns. The Association of Western Governors signed an agreement with FEMA, the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Corps of Engineers, all of us to look at not only the drought problems but also flood problems. It's getting very serious, particularly for farmers.
Mr. WALSH. This year with the El Niño weather cycle, watching the Weather Channel is a frightening experience. It's become horror TV. [Laughter.]
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER
And it does affect us all, and it's very unpredictable. I noted that you went out front early on watching for this and planning as best you could.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have just one other question in this round. And that is that regarding the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, this program, the need for this program, has never been greater. In my community, the need is significant. And it seems that the OMB request is rather low.
Could we do better, do you think?
Mr. WITT. The request is for $100 million. Two years ago we had $130 million in that program. I think the Food and Shelter Program is probably one of the more successful programs that we have in the federal government because less than three percent of that money is administrative money.
Mr. WALSH. That's remarkable.
Mr. WITT. The money goes out directly to the state and local communities, to shelters, to Meals on Wheels, all of those things that help people who really need help.
But the administration is asking for the same level as last year, $100 million.
Mr. WALSH. Well, we'll discuss that as we go down the road. It may need to be increased, especially given the conditions we're seeing all around the country.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. That's tough.
Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WITT. Thank you, sir.
TIME TO CLOSE OUT DISASTERS
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Director, the first time I met Lea Ellen was when you and I were together in southern California on a trip that involved, among other places, UCLA. We were looking at work that had been done, work that still needed to be completed in connection with the January 1994 Northridge earthquake. That visit, as you know, was this year.
The difficulty I'm pointing to is that, while disasters take place, there are some who are concerned about the fact that after we appropriate money, sometimes long periods of time go by before money actually gets to the spot or construction takes place.
FEMA established three closeout teams in Fiscal Year 1998 to resolve issues which had prevented the Agency from closing disaster declarations and programs. How many disaster declarations and programs are currently open?
Mr. WITT. There are over 400 open disasters that go back all the way to Loma Prieta and Hurricane Hugo, some of them need minor things to close them up and either deobligate or obligate money. We have closed 66 already since we put the teams in place this year.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We anticipate we'll be able to close 183 during the rest of the year.
Mr. JOHNSON. We've established a goal, Mr. Chairman, for the close out teams to reduce remaining costs for prior year disaster declarations prior to the end of this fiscal year by $1.3 billion and to close 183 disasters. Our first quarter activity has shown some definitive progress. Now that the teams are operational, we hope to realize these particular goals.
Mr. LEWIS. Well, there is that on-going concern about the length of time people place claims, et cetera. And you know, it's one thing to be out of home, to say the least, personally out of pocket, but to have a promise and then have that promise not delivered in time creates an environment that's——
Mr. WITT. You're absolutely right. The two areas that we have most difficulty in is the Hazard Mitigation Program which seems to take forever to get projects approved and obligated. We've tried to do the best we can to streamline that program. We've asked the States to develop a Hazard Mitigation Plan which prioritizes their goals in their State in order to help us expedite mitigation grants.
Working with the State Emergency Managers, and the National Committee, we are trying to streamline that program. We even are looking to HUD and other agencies as to the Environmental Impact Statement reviews that they do. HUD leaves it to the community and the State to do the environmental assessment and the study. They're the ones that have to comply with the EPA and those other requirements.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At FEMA, the community and State do the environmental study, but then it has to be reviewed by FEMA. That may be a way we can streamline.
The other thing Mike Armstrong and I are working on now is to give the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to the State with very little oversight, except for auditing by the IG. My goal is to do the mitigation as they rebuild the project. We're also establishing a time frame, a two-year frame. If they do not have those grants obligated in two years, then they're going to lose it.
Mr. LEWIS. You and I discussed mitigation, a lot of us will discuss it more before the hearing is over today, but I'm really talking about the length of time it takes to close out disasters. We've talked a lot today, and you and I in recent weeks about current problems of flooding in California, the tornadoes in Florida, et cetera. Let's assume that we set aside the most recent disasters. Before that, as you suggested, clear back to Hugo, the disaster is still open.
How long would it take, if we didn't consider these most recent disasters, how long would it take to close out all those disasters on the books including that 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Mr. WITT. We're setting a goal to try to close everything out within two years which is critical. What we're doing through the re-engineering of the public assistance program I think will mean that when we close a disaster field office, we will pretty much close that whole disaster. That's my goal, because we just cannot continue as we're doing. First of all, it costs too much money administratively for state and local governments as well. It delays the rebuilding of that community. We're going to change it where we can speed it up, while maintaining accountability. It's going to reflect what we're articulating under GPRA. It may put an extra burden on the IG's office because of audits they're going to have to do, but he's up to it. I know he is.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ISSUES PREVENTING DISASTER CLOSE OUTS
Mr. LEWIS. I get this question continually from Members whose constituencies are expressing concern. I know of your concern, but could you give the Committee a better understanding of what are some of the primary issues that prevent closing out these disasters? Why the time has extended well beyond two years, etcetera?
Mr. WITT. Well, it's probably about a 50–50 split between the States and FEMA. We're trying to expedite and streamline our processes. The States are also working on it. In California, as an example, they have a lot of mitigation money that they still need to get out to local governments to do projects, but if you look at what's happening, California, and their own employees at the state level are pretty much taxed from all the disasters and everything they need to do. States have got to take more responsibility in expediting projects as well.
We have to make sure that any part of it we review is expedited. The biggest problem we've had and the most complaints we've had from local governments haven't been as much related to mitigation as it has been the public assistance program. That's where we really get a lot of complaints, and it's simply for the fact that when we obligate the money to the State based on the damage survey that we have written and approved, it's then the State's responsibility to pull the money down out of Smartlink and give it to the local government. A lot of times there's a delay there. So now, when we notify the State that the money is available for them to drawdown, we notify the local government as well that the money for their project is available and the State has it, and they're to put it down to you. So we're changing that a little bit.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. Let me follow through on that just a little bit more. I mentioned Northridge 1994. This is 1998, well over three years at any rate. And yet I remember a major story in Southern California where some earthquakes and bridges collapsed and major arteries that were transportation arteries for the south land. A sizeable bonus was given to a contractor who came in and reestablished that bridge, one of the major bridges in record time. That would indicate that the facility may be available for the States to move quickly. Clarify the bottlenecks a little better.
Mr. WITT. Well, the Department of Transportation working with CALTRAN in California was able to do a lot of creative things there that under our legislation and regulations we can't do.
Mr. LEWIS. Such as?
Mr. WITT. Expediting the contracts as they did and offering very creative bonuses. We can't do that. That was very beneficial, because without those bridges, transportation was just at a standstill.
If we re-engineer the public assistance program, then we will be able to expedite the process. We will not have the situation we had in Northridge and in the floods out there. I think most of you are pretty aware that we do damage survey reports or DSRs to write up the pieces of a project that have been damaged and are eligible for funding. We've retrained our inspectors in this and we're going to do a pilot this summer to see what we need to change, but this will expedite this program. I get so many calls from Members asking why hasn't their county or city received the money yet. You and I have talked about this many times.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. Yes.
Mr. WITT. So you know we feel the need to do this, for you and for our customers.
I think it's going to be a great improvement. When we write that DSR it will be based on actual construction costs and estimates. Also if a local government can document the amount of damages under Category A and B, debris removal and protective measures that they've taken, we will advance them 50 percent of the total amount that they're going to receive up front to help them expedite their response to that disaster.
Mr. LEWIS. You know, I can't help but be concerned about the television picture of rather expensive homes on the sides of cliffs, and beautiful locations in the mountains, etcetera, but oftentimes the picture doesn't include that very poor family where everything they had has been wiped out by a mudslide or an earthquake or whatever. While I very much commend you for these actions taken in regarding the close out teams and setting goals of closing out disasters in a two year time limit, nonetheless, there is a problem there that's on-going and I would hope that you would continue to have this be the highest priority.
Mr. WITT. It is. Disaster close outs and the streamlining of the public assistance program are two of my top priorities. It's got to change.
I've told the regional offices and the States that all of us have put up with this long enough. It's time to make a change here. We have to do this differently and we all have to be accountable for it. Local government is going to have some responsibility here too. We all will. We can do this. When I was County Judge in Yell County Arkansas I had the responsibility—I was the Chief Administrative Officer.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. That's not what you did before this job.
Mr. WITT. I was part of the emergency management team. I was County Judge, a County Administrator for ten years. We had a flood from the El Niño in 1982 or 1983 that washed out 33 bridges in my county and 1,100 miles of road. It was a federally declared disaster, and I know how well this worked and how fast it was, when FEMA and the State came into my county, looked at the damages, and wrote up the DSRs. I sent road inspectors out with the State people and FEMA. When they came back in from writing up all those DSRs for our county, I sat down in my office and I either approved or disapproved or agreed or disagreed with them. We worked that disagreement out in my office and you know what? It was funded. There were no appeals. There wasn't anything. That's what I want to see. If we can do this, then we can solve our problem of closing out and rebuilding, quickly.
Mr. LEWIS. The Committee has that same priority. Mr. Frelinghuysen?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No questions.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.
Mr. WALSH. I don't at this time.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes has just arrived. You may want me to go forward.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. Go ahead.
URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. LEWIS. Last year, Mr. Director, the surveys and the investigation staff completed a report which focused on a need for urban search and rescue teams, their mission and their funding sources. While urban search and rescue teams had generally operated well in different circumstances, the Committee's investigation highlighted several problems which may require both administrative as well as legislative remedies.
The report states that neither a needs assessment nor an objective study has ever established how many teams should exist. Yet, recently two new teams were established.
Is it true that there has not been a needs assessment and if so, why were two new teams recently established?
Mr. WITT. We had 25 teams located across the United States. The only area that did not have teams was the middle part of the United States. However; we have one of the largest threats in the country, the New Madrid earthquake fault in the middle of the United States which covers Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Indiana, Missouri, and Illinois. There's a total of 14 States that could be affected by the New Madrid. That was the only area that we were not comfortable with not having a USAR team.
Lacy, I don't know about the needs assessment. Can you comment?
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SUITER. Yes sir. We have a process underway right now to determine what the total number of teams should be, the make up, and where they should be located. We expect that report by July 1st.
Mr. WITT. I knew we were working on that, but I didn't know when it was due.
Mr. LEWIS. The USAR program is based on the principle of support being provided by federal, state and local entities, yet FEMA has not defined the cost to maintain the program. And States provide little, if any, financial support. What is the funding responsibility of the federal, state and local government?
Mr. WITT. Most of our funding for search and rescue teams is spent up front, as a team is brought on. We've created a funding line item so Congress would know funding levels for the search and rescue teams.
Mr. JOHNSON. The amount for 1998 and 1999, Mr. Chairman, is the same. It's $4,021,000.
Mr. WITT. Most of the search and rescue teams are supported by FEMA and their local governments. In California, we have eight teams, I believe, in Orange County and other counties supported by their communities. They're very proud of the teams and very supportive. We used 15 teams in in Oklahoma City at that response. These teams are very proud, and the community is very proud to help support them. We have a responsibility too, since we call them out for very serious situations. In Florida, a team was down there searching for victims in the tornadoes. In Hurricane Fran, they were searching for victims on the coast. They're very good and we can be very proud of them.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Director, FEMA has used disaster relief funds to equip teams when they are deployed rather than properly seeking appropriations to purchase necessary equipment prior to deployment. This can lead to hasty procurement of equipment at sometimes very high prices. Why has FEMA not requested appropriations to purchase equipment in advance of such needs?
Mr. WITT. When I found out they were purchasing equipment in this manner, I decided we needed to have a line item in our budget for USAR to let Congress know what we're spending on this program.
Mr. LEWIS. Last question on this subject area. FEMA does not appear to have clear statutory authority for USAR teams and has not promulgated regulations to manage the teams.
While there are memoranda of agreement of the 21 participating teams, the agreements are deficient in such areas as liability coverage, workers compensation, ownership of equipment and so forth. What efforts are under way to clarify in statute or regulation the authority to the teams and the status of their members.
Mr. WITT. I think that part will be done after the assessment.
Mr. SUITER. That's correct.
Mr. LEWIS. I'm sorry, why don't you identify yourself?
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SUITER. I'm Lacy Suiter. The whole assessment process, identifying all the issues we just discussed?
Mr. WITT. I have talked to the teams about who has the liability for the teams when they're activated by us, is it the local government or is it us. It is a problem.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.
U.S. FIRE ADMINISTRATION 5-YEAR OBJECTIVES
Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, according to your annual performance plan, FEMA is to achieve a goal, one is to protect lives, prevent loss of property from all hazards and within this goal one of the five year operational objectives is to reduce by 5 percent the rate of loss of life and property, and fire-related hazards.
First, let me ask you if it is true, as testified to Congress last month by officials of the General Accounting Office, the United States has historically had one of the highest fire loss rates and deaths and dollar losses of the industrialized world.
Is that true?
Mrs. BROWN. Yes. I'm Carrye Brown. May I answer that?
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. Yes, Ms. Brown.
Mrs. BROWN. It is true.
Mr. STOKES. And why do you think this is the case?
Mrs. BROWN. One of the reasons is Americans tend to disregard fire safety. They just take it for granted. Also, a lot of fires also do occur in the homes and most of them don't have fire detectors or smoke detectors where those deaths occur.
Mr. STOKES. Would you say there's a lack of knowledge regarding fire danger that's prevalent throughout the United States?
Mrs. BROWN. Yes. I think Americans have to be reminded. The Fire Service community is doing an outstanding job of putting out fliers and informing Americans, but they have to be reminded about a problem that is taken for granted. Most of the time I think the crimes are the issues, but we don't think of fires.
Mr. STOKES. Let me ask you this, you are the Director and may want to respond, but your annual performance plan states the first performance goal is to identify the national fire program, analyze, publish and disseminate related data and information. And this tends to indicate that we don't even know what the problem is yet. Can this be right?
Mrs. BROWN. May I reply?
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mrs. BROWN. We do have an idea of the problem because we have had a National Fire Data Center for several years, but we want to do a better job of it. Infomation is provided on a voluntary basis, through the State Fire Marshall's office. It's collected by fire fighters around the country so we do have a sense of the fire problem. That was one of the issues identified way back in 1972 in a report called ''America Burning.'' It said that there needed to be something like a U.S. Fire Administration to help get accurate data and with that accurate data you can then help the nation help fire departments, and help fire marshals around the country to better identify the problem, and we can work on those issues that are national in scope. That's what we do.
In fact, I'm very proud to tell you that our National Fire Data Center is going to be a PC-based system. We're also putting a lot of research results up on the Internet so it will be easier to access this information. So we're definitely in the process of doing that. We have a sense of the problem as a result of that.
Mr. STOKES. Now in order to reduce it by 5 percent, what are we going to have to do to make this 5 percent reduction?
Mrs. BROWN. There are several things that we have to do, but I think one of the harder things that our Agency understands is that we have to work in support of the fire service community. We have to talk with them and work with them, with accurate data on how they see our role as well as their role in reducing fire losses. We do that through stakeholders' meetings. We do that through working with the various fire organizations around the country. So we work hand in hand in developing solutions that are basically local based.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. Thank you.
CHURCH ARSON PREVENTION
Mr. WITT. Also, the President asked us to work with the churches in an arson prevention program. That program was very successful and the U.S. Fire Administration, the fire service and the churches and all worked with us to make that possible.
Also, the National Council of Churches came back to meet with me. They said that because our efforts had worked out so well, they want to work with us now in doing a prevention training program in every church across the country, for their congregations. This will be one tool that the Fire Administration and all of us will be able to use not only on fire, but to address other hazards as well.
REDUCING ANNUAL FLOOD LOSSES
Mr. STOKES. Director, let me ask you this. Another operational objective under Goal 1 is through the National Flood Insurance Program to reduce annual disaster flood losses by $1 billion.
Can you share with us what are your specific tactics in order to achieve this goal?
Mr. WITT. By utilizing what we are doing now with the mitigation program, disaster programs and buyout relocations of property we should meet that goal.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Joann Howard, FIA Administrator, her staff and I have been trying to target the repetitive losses that we have in the program, and to see what more we can do in that area. The wise decision that Congress made to allow us to use $20 million identified in the 1994 Flood Reform Act towards targeting repetitive loss areas in each State will make a big difference as well. This is the first year we've been able to put the money out. So I think we can achieve it. It's very ambitious, don't you agree, Joann?
Ms. HOWARD. I believe so. We're certainly working in that direction.
COMPREHENSIVE PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN
Mr. STOKES. Director, let me ask you this, the 1998 Appropriations Act for FEMA provided $30 million for predisaster mitigation activities, but we fenced all but $5 million of that amount until receipt of a long-term comprehensive national predisaster mitigation plan.
The Conference Report on the 1998 Act directed that the plan be developed, peer reviewed and submitted to Congress by March 31st of this year. That's a date that some of us felt was not terribly realistic for preparation of such a comprehensive effort.
Tell us what is the status of this National Predisaster Mitigation Plan and tell us when you hope to be able to transmit it to the Congress and what group or groups have or will peer review the document?
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WITT. The committee working on it believes it can meet the goal of March 31st. We'll do our very best. We have members on this committee that are from the insurance industry and every area that would be a peer review.
Mr. LEWIS. Identify yourself for the record.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. I am Michael Armstrong. We have representatives from the C–PAND group; representatives from the insurance industry; people from the academic community; know, national consultants; and state consultants. It's pretty broad based.
Mr. STOKES. And what are we doing with the unrestricted $5 million?
Mr. WITT. The $5 million has allowed us to kick off five of the pilot communities. We have two more pilot communities to kick off, one in West Virginia and one in Maryland. We're working with the States' local governments to identify and prioritize the most high risk communities in each State. It's going well. The States have submitted their proposals already for the next round of communities.
Mr. STOKES. Which of the communities were selected?
Mr. WITT. Which communities? Deerfield Beach in Florida; Wilmington, North Carolina; Pascagoula, Mississippi which was devastated by Hurricane Camille; Oakland, California; and Seattle, Washington. There is one project involving two counties in West Virginia and one project in Maryland that we're going to be kicking off soon.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. Can you give us the reasons for their selection, those particular communities?
Mr. WITT. Two reasons. One was the risk factor. The other was the interest of private industry, the city, and state government in making this happen and making it work. In Seattle, Washington, to give you an example, we used $1 million seed money there. They have raised another $6 million from private industry to retrofit 2,000 homes of low income and elderly in areas that probably never would have been retrofitted. In addition, Americorps, working on summer and spring breaks, is going in to remove all heavy objects from top shelves and put them down on the bottom shelves, and make sure that book cases are secured to walls. The interest and the support from private industry for this project are unbelievable. It's just incredible.
G.E.'s joined us, as have Home Depot, Lowe's Building Supplies, and Embassy Suites. Merrill-Lynch wanted to come to New York to meet with two other investment firms. I met with Jamie Gorelick at Fannie Mae—where they're looking at working with us and with mortgage lenders to do a signature program for communities, so that they will be able to borrow the money to retrofit homes and business against the threat. Washington Mutual has joined us to make low interest loans available to homes and businesses that need to either elevate, retrofit against an earthquake, or protect against wild fires.
Mr. STOKES. You've done pretty well, I'd say.
Mr. WITT. The reason we want to do this, and the reason we need to do this rather than continue to spend money after disasters are to eliminate a lot of this risk. We can eliminate a lot of the damage if we do this proactively.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You know, for five years I've seen people lose everything they own in a blink of an eye. I've seen community after community lose businesses that can never reopened. I've seen citizens lose jobs because those small businesses never reopened. That's why business is interested in this.
Mr. STOKES. Let me just ask you this and I'll be ready to yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Is there—you've enumerated quite a bit of nonfederal contribution here.
Mr. WITT. Yes.
Mr. STOKES. Is there any way for us to place a dollar value on that nonfederal contribution?
Mr. WITT. One of the reasons we're doing the pilot communities, is to be able to give a good assessment of how successful the pilot projects are and how much the local, and state governments and private industry, put into the projects.
I think Congress will be absolutely amazed at the dollar ratio that has been contributed from the local level and the private industry compared to what we're putting in. It's going to do so much. I'll give you an example. The City of Berkeley passed five bond issues that raised over $260 million to retrofit 17 schools and to put an alternate water system in because they know if they have an earthquake on the Hayward fault, it will break their main water system. With this substitute water system they will have water for their critical facilities, hospitals and shelters and to help them deal with wild fires. This is growing, and the interest is there because I can tell you, Congressman, these communities and individuals are tired of these repeated disasters too, and they're tired of fighting the devastation I think you'll see this will be one of the most successful programs with the least amount of money put into it that the federal government ever had.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STOKES. It's very encouraging testimony, Mr. Chairman.
SAFETY OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Mr. LEWIS. It is. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. Mr