the end you are a giants fan? that is why you are so resentful. [laughter] let me begin by just acknowledging your outstanding leadership starting with someone who somehow can travel for 17 hours come off the plane perfectly coiffed. [laughter] not a wrinkle on her happy as a clam. come back 17 hours later after two and a half or three days of programs and go straight to a retreat of her caucus and never miss a beat.

i don't know what she drinks along with that -- but i want some of it. your outstanding leader nancy pelosi. [applause] [applause] >> joe also went on that trip and it looks perfectly coiffed. [laughter] but give joe a big round of applause also. [applause] i want to thanks danny for the gracious introduction.

how javier who helped obviously make this happen and is providing outstanding leadership all the time. jim clyburn one of my favorite people, just an extraordinary gentlemen and leader greatly loved him and debbie wasserman shultz, our chairwoman of the dnc, thank you so much. [applause] and then the guy who i had a chance to see before it came out just to let him know that he should not feel overly disappointed when his hair gets gray because in this job it will. the dccc chair. [applause] i used to be youthful and attractive like him. [laughter] we will see how long that lasts, brother.

he's going to have hair like steve israel. [laughter] you know i am not going to give a long speech because i just gave one and i want to spend most of the time on questions. let me summarize what i said last week. we have been through an extraordinarily challenging journey. the worst financial crisis in our lifetimes. we have seen an incredible courage and sacrifice but also the cost of two difficult wars. there has been ups and downs in every region of the country and people feeling as if the economy

is churning in ways that defy their control and yet despite all the challenges despite all the fears, despite all the difficulties over the last six years what we have seen is the american people fighting their way back and because of them, because of their resilience and their grit and their hard work and because you and i together made some really tough choices sometimes politically unpopular choices america has come back. we have seen 11 million jobs created. best job growth since the 90s best job growth in manufacturing since the 90s. the steepest drop in the unemployment rate in 30 years

deficit cut by two-thirds over 10 million people with health insurance that did not have it before. [applause] we have seen reading scores go up. high school graduation rates go up more young people attending college than ever before number one in oil production and number one in natural gas production doubled clean energy production, solar power up tenfold wind power up threefold carbon pollution down. there is no economic metric by which we are not better off from when i took office and that is because of the extraordinary dedication of the american people but also because of all of you have done a terrific job

and i'm proud of you for that. [applause] now what we also know is we have now got choices to make. going forward are we going to be an economy in which a few do spectacularly well or are we going to be an economy in which everybody who is willing to work hard is getting a fair shot at succeeding? [applause] are we going to be an economy that continues to invest in innovation and infrastructure all the ingredients that are necessary to power this economy through the 21st century or are we going to be neglectful of those very things that have made us an economic superpower? are we going to do what's necessary to make sure that everybody gets the tools they need to succeed?

the education, the childcare support to help when it comes to minimum wages and paid sick leave. it gives people a basic baseline of stability but also allows them to constantly adapt to an ever-changing world. that's a set of choices we now have to make. and because the economy has gotten better wages are beginning to take up, people are starting to feel better about the economy but i think what everybody here understands is that the ground that middle-class families lost over the last 30 years still has to be made up and the trends that have squeezed middle-class families and those striving to get into the middle class those trends have not been fully reversed.

and so as much as we should appreciate the progress that has been made shouldn't be a cause for complacency because we have got more work to do. we have got a lot more work to do. and did my state of the union i laid out a series of specific proposals that would allow us to continue to control our deficit but would also ensure that we were investing in the kind of quality education including free community college that is so necessary for people to move forward. specific proposals to make sure that we provided some relief to middle-class families and may form of the childcare credit and additional higher education credits so that somebody who is

working hard and doing their best can get a little bit of relief. we talked about how important it is for us to rebuild our infrastructure in this country and put people back to work all across the country. something everyone knows we need to do. we have very specific ways of paying for it by closing loopholes that send jobs overseas and reward companies for investing here in the united states of america. [applause] so i summarize all this is middle-class economics and what we now is middle-class economics works. that's been the history of this country. that's been a history in the last six years we have implemented the middle-class economics and the other side

told us this would raise the deficit and kill jobs and health care costs explode and none of that happened. that's pretty rare breed have two visions a vigorous debate and a new test who is right and the record shows that we were right and middle-class economics does work. [applause] [applause] the bottom line is this. we have to make sure it continues to work. we should protect the progress we are making you hear republicans are holding their 50th or 60th vote to repeal or undermine the affordable care act. i've lost count at this point

but here's something easy to remember. if that bill reached my desk i would happily veto it. [applause] if they try to unravel new rules we put in place to make street wall -- to make sure wall street recklessness doesn't hurt families again i would be happy to be delayed. if rather than try to solve the problem of broken immigration system they compound the problem i will veto it. [applause] my hope is they join us and one good piece of news is i've noticed even other policies haven't caught up their rhetoric is starting to sound pretty democratic. i heard chris van hollen was telling me about one republican senator who shall rename unnamed but generally disagree with me on much. he was suddenly shocked shocked at the top 1% is doing really

well and everyone else is getting squeezed. we need to do something about it and i welcome that. i consider imitation the highest form of flattery. come on board, let's help out that middle-class family. let's get something done. [applause] we have a former presidential candidate on the other side who suddenly is deeply concerned about poverty. that's great. let's go. come on let's do something about it. i'm glad at least the rhetoric has shifted. and let's make sure the policies match up with the rhetoric. let's make sure americans are able to upgrade their skills for higher wages. let's build the world's most competitive american economy and let's make sure we and this across-the-board sequester that doesn't differentiate between

smart government spending and government spending. let's take a scalpel and not a meat cleaver and let's make sure we are funding the things that we know help american families succeed. that's a smart thing to do. and i disagree with any republican who says leading funding for the department of homeland security lapse is not the end of the world. that's a quote from one of them. i tell you these are the guys who say they are concerned about our borders. these are the folks who say they are concerned about terrorism. who do you think helps monitor our borders? what do you mean it's not the end of the world? that's all you have been talking about and now suddenly because you want to make a political point you think that we can afford to have the department of homeland security not functioning because of political games in washington? we can pay for all the proposals i put forward and we can pay for

it by fixing the tax code that is riddled with loopholes for special interests and if republicans don't agree with my approach for paying for it then they should put forward their own proposals. i am happy to engage them on that. i'm eager to engage with them on that. i think it's entirely fair for them to say that's not the right way to fund higher education. that's not the right way to help families with childcare and we can have a good healthy debate. what we can suggest is the childcare is not important to american families were higher education costs are not relevant to folks currently in the middle-class are trying to work their way into the middle-class are hoping their children will be able to get to the middle-class. those things are important so put forward alternatives. the good news is i think there are some who want to work with us and maybe the fact that i have now run my last election

instead of just blocking what we are trying to do they may be interested in getting some stuff done. of course if they don't spend all their time attacking the next democrat coming down the pike but that's okay because ultimately what this is about the reason we are here the reason so many of you have made such extraordinary sacrifices and their families make sacrifices is because the story of the people that i mentioned people like rebecca who i talked about for minnesota. those people those people are us. there are moms and dads and aunts and uncles and our nephews and our cousins and our

neighbors and our co-workers and our friends and we remember some point in time where somebody gave us a little bit of a hand up and we remember that scholarship that allowed us to go to school when it wasn't clear her family might be able to afford it and we remember what it was like to try to find childcare when you have two folks working and trying to pay the mortgage at the same time. it's just like michelle and i had to do. we remember those things and the reason we do this is so that those folks have the same extraordinary opportunities in the same extraordinary country as we did and more importantly so that our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren have the same opportunities. [applause]

it is our obligation to make sure we are crystal clear about what we stand for and who we are fighting for and i will say we are disappointed with the outcome of the last election there are a lot of reasons for it and i'm happy to take on some of the blame but one thing i'm positive about is when we are shy about what we care about and when we are defensive about what we have accomplished. when we don't stand up straight and proud and say yes we believe everybody in this country should have health insurance and we are glad that we are making that happen, yes we believe that families should be torn apart and we are glad that we are fighting for immigration reform. yes, we believe the class economics and we don't apologize

for wanting to make sure that some wonderful young man or young woman out there can actually afford to go to college even if their parents didn't go. we need to stand up and go on offense and not be defensive about what we believe in. [applause] that is why we are democrats and i promise you i'm not going out the last two years sitting on the sidelines afraid i'm going to be out there making a case every single day and i hope you join me. thank you. [applause]

federal merchants to management agency manager craig fugate testified about recovering from national disasters and increase cost of recovery from weather events like hurricanes katrina and sandy. his recommendations for reducing the cost of future disasters include requiring insurance for large structures and improvements to building codes. this house transportation subcommittee hearing is two hours, 15 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. i would like to thank the chairman for the opportunity to serve as chairman of the subcommittee. ranking member welcome back pretty look forward to building on our bipartisan record of accomplishments from last congress. let me welcome the new and returning members of the

subcommittee to our first hearing. our last congress we save 2.2 billion dollars on gsa projects and passed the sandy recovery improvement act or these are major accomplishments and i thank everyone who was involved in them. this congress my two top priorities are going to be public buildings reform and disaster legislation. i think we can exceed the gsa savings from last congress and we have some important reforms to tackle and emergency management world. i hope we can have disaster legislation and the gsa reform bill ready for the committee to consider in the first half of this year. now the purpose of today's hearing is to launch a public policy debate about the growing human and financial costs of disasters and to review if we as a nation are responding in the

most appropriate and cost-effective way. the private sector and government are spending an ever-increasing amount of money on disasters. fema alone is obligated more than $178 billion since 1989 over 1300 presidentially disaster declarations. those numbers are going up and i don't believe we are fully, we fully understand why and what can be done to reduce those losses and protect our citizens. over the past eight years chairman shuster and this committee made critical emergency management reforms through the post-katrina emergency management reform act and the sandy recovery improvement act. these bills and the hard work of fema and our state and local partners have made tremendous improvements to our disaster response capabilities since hurricane katrina. now is the time to take a look at how the nation responds to

disasters and where we want to head in the future. there has not been a comprehensive assessment of disaster aid and trends in at least 20 years. in recent years specifically in reaction to hurricane katrina and sandy significant disaster aid has been provided outside the standard disaster relief programs. there are many questions we should try and answer. for example how much do we really spend on disasters? where's the money going and what are the key drivers of those cost increases? how have disaster programs evolved over time? are they still targeted at the greatest need and are they cost beneficial? one of the principles guiding federal assistance and how is it used to rebuild in the wake of a disaster?

we want to understand why federal disaster -- [audio difficulty] trying to move their possessions to an upper floor but the creek rose to play. the house was rocked from its foundation. water started gushing through their front windows as they call for help. they had to be saved by a helicopter did the women there told me that they can never live in that home again. i will never forget them preparing for the national disasters about more than the loss of possessions. if their friends and neighbors

lives that could be at stake if we did not plan in advance. as we were rebuilding i was amazed that much of the federal assistance was to be built in the same place in the same way leaving people want herbal to the next storm. we have to be compassionate and responsive to our citizens but we also have to have the duty to be good stewards of the taxpayers dollars. i'm committed to establishing a framework to tackle these issues and come up with solutions determined by facts rather than the emotion that inevitably follows a disaster. i don't have all the answers but will put together the right people to get them. the first step is this hearing where we are brought together some key people to launch this discussion. i'm also excited to announce that following this hearing on

february 26 we will host the first of several roundtables on this topic. the first roundtable will look at disaster losses from all levels of government and the private sector. i look forward to the ongoing conversation starting with hearing from our witnesses here today and i want to thank you all for being here. i ask unanimous consent that members of the full committee not of the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing and asked questions. without objection, so ordered. i now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee mr. carson for a brief opening statement. >> thank you chairman. good morning and welcome to the first subcommittee meeting of the 114 congress. please return as ranking member of the subcommittee and chairman barletta i look forward to continue the good work and relationship we share.

we were able to partner in several items in the last congress and on a very personal note i am deeply thankful the chairman is back ready for warfare. he's looking good and looking fit as always. also i would be remiss if i didn't mention a legend in true american icon in our midst and that's the honorable eleanor holmes norton. in some of the issues they consider this congress and interesting in examining the training program available to first responders ensuring timely and efficient emergency response whenever and wherever disaster strikes is critical. some of the emergency managers in the great hoosier state of indiana have reached out to me regarding the limited accessibility of famous training centers.

in order to ensure ready responders we must make certain that adequate programs are available and that sufficient access is available to those training programs. further after a disaster we sadly your stories about the elderly and disabled individuals having to fend for themselves because they were not adequately informed prior to the storm were they were unable to access resources after the storm. this was particularly the case after hurricane sandy. we must ensure that emergency preparedness and response systems are inclusive of vulnerable populations and those with language barriers. moreover they're written testimony discusses concerns about the level of support services that states should be required to provide. i understand their concern but it's 2015 and no one should be left behind especially her most formidable neighbors. it's very imperative we revisit some of the same issues in this congress to ensure that everyone has access to the same

information and resources and thank you mr. chairman did i look forward to working with you. >> thank you ranking member carson. we have two panels of witnesses today. on our first and panel we have administrator fugate the current administrator of fema who brings tremendous emergency management experience as well as successes in implementing key reforms and driving progress at fema. on our second panel we will be joined by mr. fran mccarthy and expert s/crs that will show us the trends and disaster assistance and how assistance has evolved over time. kohl. ..

request that you limit your oral testimony to five minutes. administrator craig fugate you may proceed. >> thank you. and my written statements i talked about some of the things we have been working on since the sandy recovery improvement act passed. passed. i have to say, you helped us address many issues. i have to recognize the fact

that he gave us the authority to recognize the tribal government as an entity that can deal directly with the president something they had sought for a long time. you have you have also given us tools that we identified through pilots and lessons learned and in making sure that as we begin the process we are able to speed up identifying large projects, obligating monies, and allowing more discretion. that was an important tool that we began using as far back as some damage from hurricane irene and it has given us flexibility the states and local governments have asked for in building back to the future. the trends and disasters are not surprising to me. we have an aging infrastructure, a concentration of populations

and hind to have highly vulnerable areas. when they do occur the costs are substantial. particularly when you look at what happens when the number of public buildings that are under or uninsured are damaged or destroyed. i think things such as dealing with individual losses, dealing with debris cost, response cost will always be part of the formula but when you look at most recently the billion dollars and more in some projects we are having to pay to rebuild structures it is important to make sure that in the future we have built back the structures to where they are insurable and look at making sure that the insurance provisions are more strenuously applied and less opportunities to allow structures to come back for repeated assistance because they were uninsured. we firmly believe that we should do more diligent work with our state and local partners to ensure that when

we build back we don't just look at all data's use cost-benefit analysis and for the future and engage the private sector more strongly in insuring risk and in those areas where the private sector cannot ensure that risk ask hard questions. should we build back where we were the way that it was or do we need to change? if anything, we no that many areas are subject to repeated disasters. i personally went into arkansas to see damage from a tornado and saw a school fortunately not occupied nearly completed that was destroyed. i was informed by our staff at that the school was being rebuilt from a 2010 tornado. it was destroyed again. what troubled me was we did not have an opportunity or did not seek the opportunity to make sure it had say from senate and we have

committed to and have now established that in tornado prone areas where we are dealing with schools and other public structures that we will find a way to make sure that we find safe rooms to protect children during tornadoes. you have given us tools, many of which are still in the implementation phase some of them have not gone as fast as i would like. part like. part of it was the implementation and getting buy-in from partners, but i am seeing early success, and i think it we will be a good discussion to have with you and the community over our findings our challenges, and where success is taking place. i firmly believe the role of the federal government is to support, not supplant officials fema is a support agency and the cost of disasters is a shared responsibility but i do think it is appropriate that when disasters exceed the capabilities of state and local government we must be their to support them and

ensure a successful recovery. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you for your testimony. i will now begin the 1st round of questions limited to five minutes for each member. if there are additional questions following the 1st round we we will have additional rounds of questions as needed. we needed. we all know disaster costs are going up dramatically. what do you think of driving those costs and can we do anything about them? >> one way people have said to look at disaster cost is reduced eligibility or raised threshold but as i think you see, the smaller disasters are not what drives the majority of the big ticket items. it. it is larger events, and it comes back to in many cases aging infrastructure densely populated areas in vulnerable zones and those costs, i think historically with things that we looked

at but that risk has now moved more toward the federal federal taxpayer in the fema programs. over time it was the unintended consequences of these programs that we were seen as instead of being a support of last resort oftentimes the 1st resort for the coverage of insurable property that was not insured and losses. again,. again, it is really a decision that we have to look at how we best ensure communities are able to rebuild but at the same time don't support or continue growing risk. we have to understand there is a certain amount of risk out

there right now. we have modeled disasters. they are bigger than sandy. the exposure for just south florida for a repeat of the great miami hurricane within the hundreds of billions of dollars with the hundreds of billions of dollars with federal cost exceeding both sandy and katrina it is something that we need to look at, but more importantly we have to make sure that as we go in after a disaster we set the stage for the future, future, not to come back and repeated over and over again. >> we continue to see new disaster aid programs emerge ad hoc in reaction to disasters. they all seem to have different roles and requirements and do not seem well coordinated or focused on obtaining the best outcomes. is this something congress should take a look at so that we can streamline these programs and ensure that they are effective? >> mr. chairman, i would go back to the post- katrina emergency management reform act. he directed the building of a national recovery framework to take as various programs and look at them more holistically. i think congress needs to no what the total cost of disasters are.

they should not be hidden costs buried in appropriations, but i caution that the flexibility of programs and the fact that we deal so often times of pre-existing conditions that fema programs will deal with, that flexibility is often times rebuilding. when we deal with housing issues in a disaster it is generally affordable housing base that was heavily damaged or not insured. we are not the program that rebuilds permit housing. we deal with a temporary response. if we. if we are not able to partner with hud the risk you run into is a rebound effect. this is why you saw people and travel trailers for years after the disaster because we did not approach this in the beginning holistically. if we have this many houses we are going to have to start looking at affordable housing. we need to start the program's simultaneous. the flexibility and the ability to take these different programs are important tools that we should not discard

but it is important to have a total accounting of the real cost of disasters, not with the the stafford act under the disaster relief fund may be providing. >> what incentives do you think the federal government to provide to encourage better disaster preparation planning, budgeting, smarter rebuilding to reduce future losses and costs. >> well, the state will present to you i would look for more federal participation early. one of the things that i have i have heard from both the general accounting office and vig is we ought to be raising the threshold for disasters. it penalizes large population states because it brings them into intolerable levels of disaster assistance. at the same time smaller states would have little impact. many states have developed their own public assistance and individual assistance programs but only apply than them generally after they

have been denied for federal assistance. there is almost a disincentive for estate to manage smaller disasters for fear that if they do it may not make them eligible for fema disaster declaration under the presence authorities. but we have been looking at is our current model once you reach the threshold we cost share back. what if you did not raise the threshold the looked at how far back we go and give states more predictability about how much they are responsible for before we do, and and then's look at the impacts of state economy, budget reserves capacity of the state. some have been progressive. others, state legislatures have seen that they we will come in and go back to that 1st dollar. i think it again if we could build more capacity for the reoccurring routine disasters at the state and local level it would allow

us to focus on those large disasters. i don't think it necessarily brings the big dollar ticket items down but it does start growing and building more capacity for a lot of the reoccurring events that we find ourselves involved in. >> thank you. i will now recognize each member for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, chairman, administrator. international association of fire chiefs notes that fema does not fully reimburse fire departments with the firefighting efforts. is fema prohibited by statute from fully reimbursing fire department? >> i would need specific

information. extraordinary costs above and beyond what was budgeted. overtime costs under the emergency management system and it really comes back to what the mutual aid agreements are at a time. one of our challenges has been unless there is an obligation to pay just because you have a disaster declaration does not make it eligible. we try to look at the non- budgeted extraordinary costs, be very aggressive in identifying those costs. they they are right. we don't go back and do 100 percent. the state and locals determine how to do that. five management assistant grant costs. each state has an annualized budget.

if your office we will share with us the specific details we we will go back and research that. my position has always been if it is eligible it is eligible. the extraordinary costs should be reimbursable. specifically to what case and how much, we we will look at it and try to make sure that we are doing the right thing during that timeframe. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator craig fugate thank you for your presence and for your service to the people of florida over so many years. years. we remember you fondly and miss you at times.

the need to reform the national flood insurance program. i am a cosponsor of the flood insurance premium parity act which would extend the recent reforms to business properties and owner occupied 2nd homes. i feel it is critical these properties received the same relief already provided residential properties and single-family homes afforded to them under the act of 2012. can you share your thoughts on what best can be done to provide affordable flood insurance for my constituents? do you feel we should apply to commercial properties in 2nd homes the same formula for yearly rate increases? >> first of all you got a a great guy and brian kunz. the state is in good hands. you just opened up a good philosophical debate and can of worms on how far the flood insurance program

should go. here is here is my question. if the private insurance companies can't ensure it is it something the federal government should assume risk for? we are doing risk transference. anytime the private sector can't cover the risk and we take on that responsibility you, the taxpayers are backing it. it may be good policy the desire and intent of congress, which i would support, but i must always caution that in transferring risk back to the flood insurance program which is over 20 billion in debt we have to understand that it is not an accurately sound program we will not be able to pay back that any growing and exposure may be good policy, but it is one that we need to go forward and understand what the risk is. the challenge is understanding the infrastructure and how we protect but also how we

enforce the future and ensure we don't continue to grow risk which does not mean we cannot building coastal areas. it does mean we have to build differently. the question that i would narrow back down to is, we have got a lot of businesses, a lot of homes property that is exposed. insurance is not available or affordable. it would be a huge economic loss. if it makes sense to ensure that them we will implement it, but i also caution that we have to make sure we don't set up an unfair system that continues to grow risk by allowing people than to build and in areas without taking the steps which can be more costly but then transfer that risk back to us. it's a shared responsibility, an interesting debate. i think we have to be up front that their are many people both in congress and outside you do not want to grow the flood insurance

program and others to think that they do. movie interested in participating in that debate and think it is the sense of congress where you need the guidance congress on what you think this should be. >> it has changed a lot. do you feel that the state is adequately. do you feel we have done enough from your perspective to prepare and mitigate potential damages? >> i will leave it to brian. i want to.out one thing attempts to take and walked back. learning lessons of south florida. probably probably the one thing that is saving taxpayers more money and

making sure you still have commercially affordable insurance is the fact that florida did strengthen his building code and does enforce it. it was a courageous step step given that many people said it we will make homes unaffordable without without that building code they would have been uninsurable. as we continue to see citizens shrank better built homes for the environment they are in, and this is the lesson i think all states should pay attention to. that risk can come down to the.where it is insurable and the private sector can do a better job without it defaulting back to federal programs. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. glad to see you back in the chair.

the nation's capitol barely escaped sandy. we sandy. we were grateful. just like we escape the snowfall this time. we know from all the scientists that we are headed for major disasters. they tell us that there is no longer debate about whether there is, is quite a change but about how to manage climate change. so i am interested in issues and will be talking to the next panel about predisaster mitigation. they are building trying to do some predisaster mitigation. fema has been helpful and what we have been trying to do with the so-called 70th street levee.

without them levee the washington monument and indeed the entire monumental core would be exposed to horrific flooding rebuilding downtown washington. they have been taken. i certainly hope since the steps were taken and that levee was done before the final work present on climate change, i would be interested in your view as to whether or not you think that levee could forestall a seriously sandy lake storm but i am also because it has taken so long interested in the drawing of the flood maps. as i understand -- and this is what gives government about name the drawing of the flood maps -- i'm sorry, the work of the army corps

of engineers is done separately from fema or from other agencies. why can't that work be done concurrently so that they look to see that the levee is constructed properly and get on with the next death rather than in some sequential fashion which assures it we will be delayed. >> as far as that i will take that back to staff. part of what you gave us was at least things like the environmental historical reviews we now do

concurrently. we are taking some small steps to try to look at these projects and the president has given us good direction. and we are doing is capitol improvements we should not be spending years doing the studies. studies. we should do them together. we're not going to change the requirements. we are moving that direction, but not as fast as we should. as far as the protection for the future, none of these designs are hundred percent solution. what they are really designs are risk in the 1 percent or more. you just identified one of our challenges. we always we always looked at mitigating back 201 percent or less risk. unfortunately, we saw this in sandy. sandy. some of the mitigation work was done to that standard. so we are asking a different question. maybe 1% makes sense for a lot of things

but for critical infrastructure like hospitals, fire stations maybe we should build to a higher standard. we are currently working on the federal side to look at should we come up with a more stringent standard, not just building one standard, not just building 1 foot above are base flood elevation or perhaps even building higher not because we have dated to drive that the because of the uncertainty of future data and these investments of literally tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of our future making sure we're building to that future without uncertainty. >> i appreciate what your saying. monumental core is core is irreplaceable. i ask you to look into whether or not one could realize this whether you could look into the 7th seen to 517th st. levee and see if it could be eligible now to make sure that it meets the standard you have just indicated may be necessary. could i ask one more question in light of the recent tragedy that occurred here -- well well not a tragedy. we lost human life, and more than 80 people want to the hospital.

it was sadly reported at least initially it looks like coordination in terms of communication underground and above ground and even underground was lacking. thirteen years after september 11 and, of course fema is therefore natural as well as terrorist disasters. have you -- is fema considered this apparent failure what it could mean not in a real natural disaster but heaven forbid in a terrorist act, are you involved this disaster and helping in the various agencies city and federal involved to write this

situation so that we are sure particularly underground there is the kind of communication that could enable rescue to occur? >> yes, ma'am. i have personal equity in this. that is the subway i ride home on. i was not in town. when earlier than i normally do part, but i am on that train monday i am on that train monday through friday coming in and going out. i know that very spot in the tunnel. i can tell you, anytime a train stops in the tunnel now people start looking around where before it was just kind of like the normal pause. people are now looking around going, why are we stopped to make our national capitol region office works with those entities. we need to wait until we get more from the investigations to find out what did happen but we pledge our support both of the district and to metro

for any assistance that they require for us both from planning, training, and exercising to be better prepared. >> thank you. the national council region office is currently involved with this investigation and with this work. >> we are not involved in the investigation, but we are their to support all the parties if they request us, and i think will happen when we do get some of the details and look at some of the recommendations what to do better, we would be in a position to support both the district and metro if the requester assistance. >> thank you. >> the chair chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank. thank you very much for being here today. i appreciate your testimony. a lot of friends of yours. i noticed that you made reference to the study that was done by congressional budget office noting that every $1 investment in mitigation activities saves $3 $4 in savings.

i noticed last year there was zeroing out. just curious, you made reference in your testimony, i'm curious about i guess how fema has responded to the findings of the studies. >> well, the challenge for the predisaster mitigation fund has benefits that have diminished over time and was increasingly being directed as to where would we go. you asked us to cut our budget teacher. we had to make decisions where those custard place. we think mitigation is important, but we also need the capacity to respond. there's been a lot of talk about the predisaster mitigation and its role and the cost savings. i would also also be pragmatic in saying no savings are realized if the structure

you mitigating get it again. >> sure. i will give an example. you had everything up and get somewhere like $150 billion in total spending. based on calculations we did, i think we had spent about eight billion. on the front about 8 billion. on the front end we could have saved 80 to 90 billion. mrs. norton made an appropriate connection between the corps of engineers and fema. you and i have had this discussion in the past. numerous instances of carrying out mitigation projects. some of those projects have been in the development phase. fema has expended over $1 billion in response to recovery claims in the same project areas. exceeded a billion dollars in payouts.

can you talk a little bit about your coordination with the corps of engineers to ensure some of these measures the predisaster mitigation is off the table but personally i believe may be penny wise and pound foolish, can you talk about the coordination to ensure the resiliency of some of these communities and cost savings. >> yes. we work very closely with the corps of engineers both in the flood insurance mitigation response and recovery. i also have to.out you can authorize a lot of projects. if you don't fund they don't get built. if you go back and pull the budget and look at how many projects the core has been authorized for and look at been authorized for and look

at the funding, there is a significant mismatch. again, if we were able to foretell the future we would probably be better at strategizing where to make those investments. the investments. the potential risk and places that are not seeing a lot of disaster. yet the exposure is tremendous. tremendous. again we work with the core, but it comes back to you are making our choices. you choices. you have to make appropriations decisions. there is no doubt about it. again there are often times more projects identified and are having to make decisions across the states, territories of where to make those investments. >> in regard to the corps of engineers and of think that cutting funding is largely a response to the inability to perform. you may not share that opinion, but the idea of having some flexibility when these core projects are not funded yet that yielded high benefits of the taxpayers in terms of resilience and cost savings for disaster mitigation. yet we were not able to work that out. could you talk about that a little bit? there was a prohibition

regardless of whether there was funding are not. >> this kind of goes back to authorization language and appropriations language where we do have prohibitions against duplicating. but we don't, we try to. but we have tried to do with some success where project was not originally authorized by the core and we were able to funded but the call was able to fund it, we were able to get good outcomes but it comes back to when we have non- duplication of federal efforts it's something the committee is looked at. the question the question i have is we don't want to routinely supplant or get into augmenting. we don't want to sidestep the appropriations of

congress something the committee could look at and if we are not interpreting it correctly unwilling to go back and look at it. there are limitations on what we are able to do. i don't have a real issue but i i caution that some of the feedback i've gotten is a can of worms for the disaster relief fund if bypassing congress's intent by funding things the congress it chose not to. >> thank you. the you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> administrator,i recall as a county commissioner following either either before or just following the storm of significant magnitude speaking with my emergency services department and then describing the various obligations that they need to undertake to apply for

and ultimately process an application for disaster assistance grants the question is looking at the recent gal report the will was criticized for the significant costs incurred to administer disaster assistance grants. my question, what is fema doing to reduce its own administrative costs as well as the administrative burden placed on state and locals trying to get the assistance to where it is needed for recovery. >> first off, one tool we have used aggressively has been moving away from putting in a lot of staff in running temporary facilities smaller disaster and we can work it from the region. the other one is the tool you gave us which is allowing us to do these alternative projects and being able to use estimated cost and come to a a resolution on project cost

without doing actual cost. i would i would like to get rid of a lot of the oversight for and simplify the programs to where we are able to make those determinations and get funds to people appropriately. on the other hand, you hold us extremely accountable for any overpayments or ineligible costs which requires a bit of oversight. the committee struck an extremely important balance with the recovery improvement act by allowing us to move away from the actual costs. we have to audit and survey and review the costs to come to a resolution on the front end, make a determination, agree to that and make the payout. we are doing this with the understanding that we have accountability to make sure that we are only approving will was eligible

but at the same time significantly reducing our costs and overhead of managing that and getting more flexibility to local jurisdiction. this is a knew tool. the projects in new york let them but we have also seen particularly oklahoma was able to take advantage of these tools, and it vastly sped up their experience with debris and cost reimbursement. knowing what knowing what we have had in the past but we have had going forward have seen improvements. we have gotten feedback. there is a balance between too much burden and not being accountable to the taxpayer. >> i can appreciate that balance. following up on the sandy recovery act, the increase in small project thresholds i i think was one of the things you are alluding to. without suggesting that it should be increased or decreased could you share

your observations on if further efficiencies or accident recoveries to be realized if that threshold were modified, or are you comfortable with where that is? >> unless staff talked me out of where i wanted to go. i thought that number should have been higher. we were looking at the percentage of projects. i still think there is room to move it up. we have programs that administer much larger dollar figures. i am comfortable that through the ig oversight and our ability to focus in on what is eligible we can move it higher. i would like to encourage input from our colleagues but but i think it is something the committee should look at. we don't want to just raise that threshold, but there is lot we can do with that that

would simplify oversight not significantly grow risk and exposure for an eligible work and would drive down the cost and speed up recovery. with that number should be i would like to work with the committee. i think we can go higher. staff was able to pull the data. the majority of the projects fall under that. >> 95%. >> i still think still think there is room to move. perhaps my ideal world, we have small projects and we speed up all of the disasters. currently our threshold is a million dollars. i think again we give states the flexibility to choose how they want to do that. if we can maintain fiscal accountability i am i am not opposed to raising the minimum threshold for small projects. i defer to my state colleagues but as long as we

can be accountable it speeds up the process and does not change eligibility. substantially less overhead cost. >> i would like to work with you on that. it's something that we can do. i would like to recognize each member for an additional five minutes. i will start. we saw firsthand the tremendous progress on the two have already been made. particularly when compared to the significant delays experienced by charity hospital in new orleans can't you attribute the expediter recovery to the new authorities granted to fema and the sandy recovery improvement act? what other benefits are being experienced?

>> it is absolutely an important tool. the other lesson we learned from the events of katrina's there are certain types of projects that are technically difficult and exceed the average capacity for people to manage. we engage early, identify where these projects will be we brought in experts but it was not until you pass the sandy recovery improvement act that we had a tool to allow us to come to resolution. if we had been using the old program that would have been more in search for the applicant on what they can it could not do. have been more overhead and they would not have had the ability to get what they were going to get and move forward. as it is we are obligated the majority of the funds. they are now engaged in

compare destruction. we still have have projects that have not resolved yet. better understanding of the complexities projects on the front end and you gave us a tool that we did not happen for two more engaged the applicants in getting a better resolution of the project involved, getting getting a figure agreed to and obligating dollars on the front end versus waiting for construction to start constantly coming back revisions and updates. >> the most alarming trends you have observed? >> i think it was alluded to by rep. carson. representative carson. we talk about fall populations as we have built our programs it is something that -- and i have some disagreement with my state colleagues but no one disagrees on the importance of getting this right. this is one of the things i

observed. we always tend to treat the hard to do. instead of looking at the communities as they are in building a program so that they don't say we need to have an annex for kids of the people with animals over the elderly they are part of the community. we need to plan for what is there. when you look at the vulnerable populations one of the growing challenges is increasing poverty and many in the middle class and have no safety net we saw this. i don't think people understand how big a role poverty and lack of safety net in the middle class for just one payment away from losing all makes them extremely vulnerable to disasters.

this is one of the things that we look at how we cannot forget their are many parts of the community that are extremely vulnerable. those numbers are growing and it has a lot to do with the economy distribution of wealth, and lack of resources. >> thank you. the chair will we will not recognize ranking member carson for five minutes. >> they provided conflicting information. the guidance be issued from fema and the doj. >> in the show have to give back.

let me tell you what the outcome should look like. as a local a local emergency manager our sensitive to the issue. it should be the expectation. if you show up with a family member on a ventilator it may not always be the best place. there may be other options but what you want is in a crisis people don't really have the luxury of picking and choosing whether you. we would like to get to where most people the majority of the population can choose their shelter based upon what is convenient for them not

what we have been willing or able to provide. we are not there and it is unfair to say that state and local government should be there immediately. we're not where we are because of lack of effort. they have to deal with existing buildings, many of which were not designed for people with disabilities. the level of care the type of equipment and durable goods so this is a goal that most of us agree to work toward. people should not be turned away from shelters because they aren't easy to accommodate, but we have to understand that is easier to say than do and there are challenges financially and the practicality of what can be done. and so we we will continue to work with our partners and with the disabled community who advocate for that right. i think that that is probably the thing

that drives me passionately. this is a civil right. >> absolutely. >> we have to do everything to ensure we are maintaining that while understanding that this is not easy. easy. if it was, no one would be saying we have questions. there are a lot of questions about a reasonable accommodation, to to what degree they should be prepared for, to a level they should implement the care. the hard question is always where we will the money come from. local governments still expect to provide the service many of which we will be declared by the federal government. >> lastly, sir i i have heard from some of my constituents about the long waits to attend fema training centers in alabama as well as i guess you could say

insufficient funding for emergency response training programs in general. your last statement was so phenomenal and deeply insightful could you provide the subcommittee with some description of each of the training programs and an overview quickly of the budget for the last five years? >> the center for domestic preparedness is a hard place to get into because there is high demand. it offers live agent training meeting at your hazmat team we will go in and experience what it is like to handle lethal nerve agents and biological agents it is priceless training. national fire academy is a capstone program. people come in and go for training there but also training that is delivered at the state and programs that are developed jointly

with the national fire academy. emergency management institute: located providing training for state and local emergency managers bringing together many of them outside of the normal work environment to share their experiences but also get the latest updates. it is both the capacity issue and staying current in these programs. again the center for domestic preparedness, funding for so many seats, maximize seats maximize that. we continue to look at how we can increase capacity but it is a finite resource with high demand command we try to accommodate those who have applied. but it is a premier facility with capabilities not found elsewhere with a very high demand. >> thank you. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. norton five minutes. >> thank you. i have just one question and would like to take advantage

of the long experience. i asked for his candid view. here i am not asking about funding. that is not something you control. i want to contrast the difference between the way congress behaves after the terrorist attack in the way it behaved after katrina and sandy. after the terrorist attack it scared the dickens out of the country, and i must say that it scared us so badly that after the fact we actually threw money at the estate did not give funds including states that al qaeda never heard of never would venture to care about. every state got some funds.

i was on homeland security at the time inside. again i am not asking you about funding. i recognize and appreciate that every disaster funding we have already found in the subcommittee in enormously from the savings from one smaller investor. as we as we look at katrina and sandy, i recall the in order to get funds for sandy even after new york and new jersey were laid low it took two votes to get funding for you to begin to do your work in sandy. now what i really want to no is as an agency which is

looked at disasters now terrorist and natural disasters for decades whether or not the agency needs a revision. i mean,, can you sit their in the face of katrina and sandy and not envision see hurricanes occurring where they are not supposed to occur, when you see climate that only changes but disasters in parts of the country that have never known them is the fema of today structured decades ago the fema that can handle the unknown that we now see the force? and here i am looking for how the agency, agency whether it needs to ask for

revisions in law or in its own structure rather than what you encountered after sandy and after sandy the figure was pointed right at you, it did not matter what -- whether we gave money for how you are structured. you just had to take it. and instead of just taking it, it seems to me that the agency with the expertise should come before this panel and tell us whether you are prepared for disaster, for earthquakes to occur in california of the kind it is never seen before before, shall we just sit here and think that it will never happen and just wait for it to come after us? is the fema of the 21st century prepared for what we no now from our own experience with katrina and saying, surely to come in parts of the country where

we never expected, and if so if you think it is prepared you should tell us. if not, tell us. if not, i should ask you then, is the agency looking at how it can make recommendations for what appears to be an entirely new era in both terrorist disasters and for that matter natural disasters. disasters. are you looking at the future? >> i learned a long time ago the person that says they are fully prepared and know exactly what will happen is a fool we will soon be -- >> when you don't no. >> we don't. i want to to make clear. you know that they have hurricanes in florida earthquakes in california. i bet you did not no that we were having earthquake here in the nation's capitol. i'm talking about what you don't know and what you we will be held responsible for notwithstanding the fact

that you don't know. is your agency structured so it can handle you don't know? >> that is where we are we're going. we changed the question. traditionally the fema was capable of responding to. that is a fool's errand. we went back and started looking at where the risk and population was, and not looking looking at what fema was capable of responding to that the worst-case, command we started asking questions that were not easy to answer because the question started generating response levels greater than the federal government forcing us to take a different look at how we find as you.out homeland security dollars, find the jurisdictions and are also a resource to the rest of the nation.

we saw this in sandy where many responders outside the area where wolves respond because the capabilities built with those homeland security dollars. we are following what you are pointing out. we cannot prepare for what we expect what are prepared to handle. we have to prepare for what could happen. this is driving strategic planning, how we are looking at how we structure, not structure, not what we can respond to but what could happen. and that is, again, driving a lot of our decisions. we we don't think the resources necessarily the 1st answer but it does require resources and sustained funding a budget as you well know, know operating under continuing resolutions is not how you pay for catastrophic disasters and in my term i have been under more continuing resolutions than i have and budgets. i would love to have staff if you are available to sit down and talk, we are trying to look at the future looking at what could happen, looking at how you build that response.

i think we have moved past the barriers of only planning for what we know or are prepared to respond to and asking much harder question. the president said this in an early meet. we can't protect everything, so we need to no what we can live without them we. if we can't live without as a nation, that is where we need to focus. we start looking at disasters versus the modeling and data we're looking at how we build. we come back to taking local state mutual aid, the federal government, private sector command a lot of the public to respond to that scale disaster. >> i would just ask from at

an appropriate time it we will be interesting to have a briefing as to how they are looking at the unknown that we now no to expect but don't no what it is and can bring calamity does as congress will be asked to do but does not have the funds to do and never expected it would happen. i think that would certainly educated me and help the subcommittee and the full community. >> mr. chairman, we have some examples we have been doing. some of the work we have done the subduction zone off the coast of the northwest us the earthquake risk which is a very large risk command i think that we can show where we are going and tell you what we think is the path to get us there and then that will give you an opportunity to look at additional tools that you could give us.

the stafford act was often times a constraint. in the past year we have responded to haiti which is traditionally the role of usaid. we were asked to support usaid command we did. we were asked to support unaccompanied children in detention facilities so we supported that. we were asked to support the ebola response. many of these things may not be in the papers but our capabilities command you give us tools. the stafford the stafford act is limited to often times only those natural hazards with limited flexibility. i think the delegate brings up an important. what is the role of the disaster relief fund and the consequence world and if it is not in rebuilding in the emergency response cost and the ability to use the emergency declaration to

mobilize and bring resources to bear is it worthwhile looking at such things, what is the role in a pandemic? it is not specifically excluded but it is not mentioned. sieber, we don't don't look to have a role in the prevention or even the response to the technical aspect. state and locals will be dealing with consequences, many many of which we will fall somewhere patterns. we saw this in deepwater horizon. the coast guard, the lead agency had many of the tools to do with the response but much of the coordination had to be built. fema is now looking to grow our role but a better understanding of the intent of congress, as you pointed out in the homeland security act principal adviser to the pres. and congress but also capabilities we built for a lot of disasters not

limiting the ability to other lead federal agencies to support them for governors when they fall outside traditional known disasters. >> the chair would recognize mr. graves for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we followed up on the congressman's line of questioning for one one of which is the national flood insurance program we lost the 1900 square miles. what that does is make the governments that much closer to our coastal communities thereby increasing vulnerabilities. the changes that were enacted the actuarial rates increased 20, 30, 40 times what they were previously. this increase in vulnerability, whether real or not is not the fault of

these people. it is largely based on studies the result of federal action tried to the tributary project dating back to 1928. when you out on top of that some of the restrictions that were put in place an ad on top of the some of the challenges that i noted earlier with regard to the corps of engineers projects that were noted to have a positive cost to benefit ratio you stuck in project development processes for decades literally we are missing opportunities to save taxpayer dollars by being proactive rather than reactive, which is always more expensive as the two studies we noted before show there are opportunities or to make communities more resilient and to save taxpayer dollars, and i understand that not all of those are within the purview of your agency, but i want to urge -- and begin going back to the comments -- better communication, their are opportunities year projects year where these

communities can be made more resilient to where hurricanes and other disasters. i wanted to perhaps correct the record on the comment you made or provide a little bit more context and the national flood insurance program. ..

not equal and that larger states do have more resources. the primary source of increased disaster cost? more declarations result in more cost and it is important to understand the greatest amount of disaster spending attributable to large disasters. we reviewed data from 1989 until 2014 of declarations and obligations. if we eliminate half of the disasters of those years we would save approximately 3 percent in disasters. not only to the top half of disasters account for 97 percent of the spending the top quarter of disaster costs account for 93 percent how can how can we begin to control cost? there are a number of options to reduce federal disaster spending that might have an effect on shifting a greater share not only to states and communities but

also families and individuals. some individuals. some of these ideas may be worthy of consideration but it remains to be seen if this can disrupt the state's ability to respond. continue to emphasize mitigation taking steps prior to a disaster a disaster to lessen the impact, save lives and protect resources. mr. chairman, your statement last spring was at. at. at a time when a bipartisan consensus seemed to be developed on the efficacy of mitigation the last budget zero about funding for disaster mitigation program at fema. later in the year the administration announced a nationwide resilience competition with nearly a billion dollars that remained from the appropriations for sandy. the disaster mitigation act of 2,000 was premised on the

idea of doing things before disasters and it looks now so that all mitigation. the new resilience program is based at heard but is directed toward states that have experienced disasters. it is not clear how he links to other mitigation programs and does not appear to have the same cost-benefit requirements. .. >>

>> with long-term savings to protect our citizens. thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today and i am happy to answer any questions. >> i apologize for the sound system. that was painful for us as all. [laughter] now you may proceed in hopefully your microphone will work properly. >> unfortunately we will have to pass the at. we will see if we can get this to work. >> the leadership of this committee showing how these

missions are clear. id must me for the taxpayers i believe we can save additional lives to do much better job to protect property a private senior member answer does the fate of administrators 2005 through 2009 i began my career as a firefighter breakings and the chief of the miami fire department. to see how we as a nation prepare for disasters. in the is those policy errors to have insufficient investment before the disaster had. not enough resources are allocated three disaster per our believe the new congress has a golden opportunity to advance bipartisan natural

disaster strategy to protect people and property as a taxpayer dollars. with the senate and house of representatives working together across party lines now is a time to address the failed status quo and then pass massive appropriations bills. and director of u.k. has done a wonderful job since his to its ranks of the the but i assure that even a director teeeighteen agrees there's more to be done to shift more money into prevention programs under the realities of exploding cost as a motivator. mr. chairman, any attempt to change the status quo must begin with an understanding of the nature of the problem. this i believe they can play a major role. let me describe the nature of the problem that we face. are brought to slides. according to feed the it is

jumping to a yearly average haul of 23 under break-in and 65 under obama it is non-partisan as the average declaration has risen under bush clinton and george to be a bush. the second slide is a representation of the average overall insurance losses over the last three decades. despite the overall cost is dramatic of the last two decades increasing from an average of 33 billion per year to doubling as $65 million in the next decade. the federal government insures the overwhelming majority of the losses. since $2,011,137,000,000,000 has been spent nearly $400 in sad the the federal government only invested $1 of dollars spent on

recovery. it has shown a pound of cure. it is the most

cost-effective mitigation told we have. to urge the enactment of this safe building code to provided additional 4% of post disaster grants that adopt and enforce stronger building codes. those that result from the elimination of post disaster spending should be reinvested like safe building codes to facilitate communities across the country. i applaud you for that congressional roundtable to begin the dialogue how to quantify disaster cost and how to use information to study and find solutions. it is my recommendation that the new congress pass legislation for to explore why the declaration is set the all-time high in what is the increase of spending?

some things that could include our population decreases or the mistakes of federal policy. what changes could help reduce disaster costs. and did to solve this problem specific attention should be given to the roles of deity and the man and had so that we can have cauterize it but don't -- congress authorize a blue ribbon panel with a strategy to save lies ultimately in taxpayer dollars. thanks for limey to testify today and i am looking forward to your questions. >> thank you for your brief testimony. now you may proceed. >> thank you chairman and ranking member and members of the subcommittee. the statement further record

goes into specific details on issues have to lessen the impact but for now i will cover currently the efforts of ongoing concerns with the system of measuring cost. as you have heard said nature of declared disasters have occurred of course, a provides only a glimpse of the true disaster response. the majority of the events handle that the state and local level of fiscal year 2013 there were to defy the gubernatorial elections and 18,000 requiring state assets. in addition local and tribal governments responded to 31,000 additional events that your. without a strong emergency management system nearly a of the 50,000 state would require federal support. that comes in the form of

public assistance which amounts to half of all total funds allocated. order to ensure the most effective use and its response to numerous audits last year to be a initiated the internal audit of this program and the agency will share the desired goal of a redesign program that meets the needs of all stakeholders. the redesign program that streamlines efforts will assist in reducing and appropriately allocating those of the illustrated costs identified by gao last month it shows the to to increase of fema cost as a percentage of average 13% while 2% was for grants. this is an area of great frustration and ease further examination and. we hope the improved process will reduce the opportunity for future audits by

simplifying to standard efforts across the country for the current rate of the obligation causes significant economic hardship to those who have extended those funds long ago and requires time that is better spent for future disasters. and then to explore the alternative uses to incentivize for additional mitigation across the country these would reduce the disaster costs in the long-term. and fema will continue the discussion to utilize the combined efforts of legislative in recovery committees to explore alternatives to make recommendations. the subcommittee in congress as a whole has gone to great lengths to approve disaster response process such as the improvement act that

supported programs to provide opportunities to drive down the cost of these disasters. looking at the administrative issues today as well. only through effective response and recovery camera look to build more resilience communities to reduce the overall cost of disaster, stays in federal government to save four lives or property from damage for our live forward to our continued partnership in welcome any questions. >> thanks for your testimony. you may proceed. >> okay.

good morning. as assistant fire chief of emergency operations from said diego department identifying on behalf of the international association of fire chiefs. thank you for the opportunity to address fema role to help communities address wild land fire is. in 2013 had thousands of

structures destroyed in tens of millions in damage. the agency's for the department of interior forest service which are responsible for fires on federal land. however fema plays an important role to help prepare responder recover from wildland -- broadband fires. under the assistance period fema provided assistance of 75 percent matching funds to offset the cost for a public gore private land that threatens destruction. fema also has a hazard mitigation grant program.

in in advance of one in'' advanced role but today we help states and local communities address the problem does not replace the suppression from the forest service but we would like to recommend policy changes to have a more beneficial role against wild plant -- wildfires. in then to evaluate the application. >> wow the wild land fire is burning rapidly last made this idiocy diego submitted an application six hours into the uncontrolled fire that met the criteria. the application was rejected due to being submitted when the fire was slowed and then it fema had been see less of

a disaster two hours earlier when academically approved. but to compromise that time lisa middle of the application when the threat is continuing to excess. to do otherwise me unfairly burdened state and local taxpayers. number to congress show all-out funding to mitigate the risk. and then to leave those committees a foldable to flash flooding. it would allow states to receive post mitigation assistance in never three fema to fully reimburse fire departments and day are on mutual aid missions unfortunately this is not the case with there's an

incident is still lunker available and that department illegally reimburse 16 hours of the 24 hour days after the first 48 hours. laid make not from future situations they should stabilize suppression and then to succeed better budget. is this has simply did accounts to reduce hazardous fuels and prevent wildfires. to redress the of fire problems from the fire management strategy is supportive of the legislation proposed by representative simpson

without suppressing the largest 1 percent of the wildland fires to the disaster relief fund. to allow all the forest service to also fund other programs that prevent future fires. i asked the opportunity to use fema to have sponsored recovery. the threat continues to grow more severe. fema plays an important role to help prepare and recover from that threat. we'll look forward to working with the committee to address these issues and a look for to answering any questions you may have. >> now i will begin the first round of questions. five minutes for each member if there is any additional questions we will have additional rounds as needed. we will pass the microphone down.

>> you have analyzed the history of our nation's disaster assistance authorities and the creation of fema. can you explain the basic principles that our fundamental to the assistance programs and the nation's approach to disaster recovery? >> fundamentally it begins with a partnership between the federal government and state government. it is written the stafford act is written in a way that is extremely flexible. mr. teeeighteen was talking about the way it works toward does not work with at act you could drive a truck through then i heard it referred to as a straitjacket. perhaps those people are

right but it is a matter of interpretation that. >>host: most of the states as their partners and in that way works effectively to have state agencies that have grown in sophistication and ability throughout the years and are able to work well with fema to make it work. :think that is important to note that states is locals can work together with the repair buildings of infrastructure, water services but what is difficult is we say what a great job fema is to ring or that piece is working that is to create expectations for individuals. it doesn't come close to where there were before a disaster. the total amount that could be spent currently by any

family is $32,400. that cannot replace a homeowner's policy or a flood owner's policy and i don't think anyone is rex irresponsible but there is the image created don't worry, fema and dollars are coming we will be taken care of. there is some truth in that with the state and local governments but certainly nothing replaces solid insurance and a culture of preparedness. . .