the history and the dynamics of places around the world. and the third is, and secretary baker, i'm a creature of the executive branch, so it's a statement against interests, hold the feet, hold the executive branch's feet to the fire. two different ways to do that, right? one is to press on the seams of foreign policy problems where there seems to be, you know, a crack or it doesn't really quite fit together, right in and the other is through where there's been a problem to actually to some investigative work and, again, come back with recommendations for how, for how it might be done better in the future. hold be the three -- those would be the three things that i would say for the committee. with respect to the rules-based order, i think the most important thing we can do is remind the american people that these things should be supported and continued. >> as a member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds state department and foreign aid, i'll just mention in closing that senator graham

has made a number of public comments. we held a hearing, many members, republican and democrat, were present on the question of fragile states. he is, i think, appropriately highlighting that the cost of restabilizing countries like libya, syria, iraq and continuing to hold together countries like nigeria and pakistan is going to be substantial. and we need to engage in a bipartisan and thoughtful way in advancing why it is in america's interests to prevent the collapse of even more larger and potentially dangerous states. i'm really grateful for your presence. >> thank you. senator cardin for a closing comment. >> thank you. i want to thank both of our witnesses for being here. i certainly agree with both of your statements about the united states must reassure our gulf state partners and israel of our commitment to their security. i do just make the observation, we all talk about being strong

in regards to iranian activities that are not directly related to the jcpoa, and i agree with that completely. i am concerned, though, that with iran continuing to say to the international community that the united states is not operating in good faith when we are, whether we're going to be able to take firm actions against iran for its non-nuclear activities and have the support of europe. because the connections currently being made in europe, to me, could lead to a concern as to whether we can maintain that unity and oppose jcpoa. >> that's an important issue that we need to confront going forward starting right now. it's really a matter of diplomacy, and we ought to, we ought to stay engaged on it starting right this minute. and talking, keep talking to those allies, keep them together because we're not going to do

anything uniwith laterally on that program. >> thank you both, appreciate it. >> and we thank you both for your careers, outstanding public service to our nation. your willingness when the time calls to come backing and help us as you have today, i think it's been a major contribution to us, i know that, and i think to our country. and we thank you for that. and if you could, there'll be questions that will come after this. we'll close those as of the close of business friday. if you could within a reasonable time, attempt to respond to those, we would appreciate it. but we cannot thank you enough for being here today and for your outstanding public careers. with that, the meeting's adjourned. >> thank you, chairman. thanks, tom. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

the fact that some moderate rebels are perceived to be embedded in there or vice versa, i think, continues to be an issue. and i think that, you know, look, we're in a very difficult place. i think the comments that were made today are true. i think at the time when turkey was willing to talk with us about a no-fly zone was a time to put that in place and in the northwest triangle of aleppo, dealing with it there. i think we'd be in a very different place today. let's face it, with russia having come in as they did, much of the way syria's going to end up now, unfortunately, is going to be driven by russian because they came in with force in a way that, you know, the u.s. would not do finish. >> would you suggest a u.s. leadership in forming a no-fly zone or safe zone in northern sur -- >> yeah, i think maybe if this cessation continues to have problems, i think we're beyond

in many ways, we missed our opportunities to really affect things in a more positive way. so, again, should the negotiations completely fall apart, i think that hooking at that, certain -- looking at that, certainly, looking at it again is certainly an avenue. i don't think there's really been, i'm not trying to be too pejorative here, but i don't think there's ever been a man b. and i think russia, iran and syria know that. and so again, i think outcome, unfortunately for u.s. interests, is going to be largely driven by russia. >> did you see secretary baker's remarks as a reputation of donald trump's foreign policies or in some ways validating what he's saying in terms of burden sharing? >> so i saw a lot of of affirmation, if you want to be honest.

i remarked after the speech was made that i saw a degree of realism coming into those statements. and i think that selective engagement was with, you know, was discussed today is not anchored in either idealism or necessarily realism fully, but sort of a combination of the two. that's what i heard in the speech. and i've said over and over to me much of what was said, reflects what i think bush 41, first bush, and jim baker today espouse. so i thought it was more of an affirmation, to be candid. >> so you think his policy is in some ways hearkening pack to an earlier era of republican foreign policy that sort of became behind the scenes after 9/11? so he's hearkening back to an older tradition?

>> i think it's -- i wouldn't even use the word "older," i would say more mature. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> what's that? >> you worried that the u.s. high profile -- [inaudible] exacerbate u.s./china strategic -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. >> are you worried that u.s. presence in south china sea may exacerbate -- >> i think if we don't do it often -- [inaudible] it's a big event that you report on and everyone else does. i think the problem is we're not doing it enough. i mean be, i think we ought to be within those 12 nautical miles weekly. we have 60% of our naval assets in that part of the world, and so unless it's routine, which it should become, then, yes, you have this notion that as was mentioned here today in the hearing that things quickly

could escalate and be problematic. but as long as it's understood that it's a routine thing for our u.s. navy to become within 12 naughtal miles, we're not agree -- nautical miles, we're not agreeing, i think we can -- i would encourage it -- >> mr. chairman, last question, please. if there's a chance that mr. trump's approach to foreign affairs might hurt national security, pulling back from nato, telling our allies we're going to be cutting back, how do we deal with that? >> well, i sense, i don't -- i think at this point that you're going to see, i think you're seeing that foreign policy evolve. and so i wouldn't, i wouldn't worry too much right now. as i've said to others, i'd chill. i think it's evolving to much of what you saw secretary baker say today, i really do. i will say that, you know, i met with a russian leader last

night, i met with a chinese leader yesterday. it is causing people to focus more fully, i think that's actually a good thing. at the same time, over the course, over the next, over the course of the next three month, my sense is that candidates on both sides of the aisle will be more fully laying out where they think u.s. foreign policy should be. again, i like the viewpoints that secretary baker laid out and, candidly, much of what tom donilon said today. they seemed to be in agreement on many things. but in particular i really think what i've heard from the campaign is something that really does embrace much of what secretary baker said today. and with that, i've got to go. thank you all. >> who was the russian leader? >> yeah, yeah, i probably shouldn't have said that, should i? [laughter]

/. [inaudible conversations] >> a house panel looks at the iran nuclear deal and how the obama administration communicated details of the agreement to congress. live coverage from the house oversight committee today starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later, officials from the tsa and homeland security department testify about possible security risks involved in resuming air travel to cuba. they're in front of a house subcommittee hearing on transportation security at 2 p.m. also on c-span3. >> this sunday night on q&a, "vanity fair" columnist and slate magazine founder michael kingsley talks about his new book, "old age: a beginner's divide on living with parkinson's decide." >> it's a brain decide, so after the a nonsensical question. what i really meant, obviously,

was thinking is it going to affect my thinking x. thinking is how i earn a living. so that became pretty important. and i asked this neurologist what's going to happen, and he says -- he was trying to tell me it wasn't such a big deal. he said you may lose your edge -- [laughter] as if that was just nothing. and i thought, gee, my edge is how i earn a living. it's why i have my friends. maybe why i have my wife. >> sunday night at 8 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> now a house panel looks at the cost of federal disaster response. we'll hear from fema and state and local emergency management officials testifying at this house transportation and infrastructure subcommittee hearing.

[inaudible conversations] >> the 114th hearing, i stated that my top emergency management priority was pursuing life-saving and cost-reducing disaster legislation. and launching a public policy debate about the costs of disasters. in terms of both the loss of property and human life. we followed that hearing with several round tables that help us understand what disasters cost this country. who pays those cost is the and whether the problem is getting better or worse. early last year ranking member carson and i introduced the fema disaster assistance rereform act to call for the first

comprehensive assessment of disaster costs and losses in over 20 years. we also wanted to reform several disaster assistance programs to make them more efficient and more effective. in february the house passed this fema legislation, and we hope the senate will take up h.r. 1471 and pass it soon. the purpose of today's hearing is to discuss what we have learned so far and gun exploring potential -- and begin exploring potential solutions; particularly, the principles that should be driving those solutions. while there are significant variations from year to year, we have found that disaster losses have grown considerably over the past three decades. as a result, the private sector and government are spending an ever increasing amount of money on disasters. fema alone has obligated more than $178 billion since 1989 for over 1,300 presidential disaster

declarations. in addition, the number of federal disasters is going up. take a look at this graph that shows the steady increase in the number of presidential disaster declarations since 1953. many have suggested, including the general accountability office, that the growth in the number of disaster deck la -- declarations may be causing the increase in federal disaster costs. but when we had the congressional research service look more closely at the data, they found the growth in declaration is driven by small disasters, and they represent a very small part of federal disaster spending. in fact, 75% of all declared disasters account9 for only 7% of costs. in other words, we could we eliminate three-quarters of all federally-declared disasters and

barely cut 7% of federal disaster spending. i would argue the amount saved by eliminating those disaster declarations certainly would not outweigh the benefit those declarations provide to helping our smaller, remote communities respond to and recover from disasters. in order to understand why disaster costs are going up, we need to look at the big disasters since that is where over 90% of the money goes. since we started looking into this issue, we have also found the role of the federal government in covering disaster losses has increased. as we can see here, federal disaster spending as a share of total disaster losses has grown from 23% during hurricane hugo in 1989 to 80% during hurricane sandy in 2012. in recent years, significant disaster aid has been provided

outsided of fema's disaster assistance programs. these charts show how disaster aid programs outside fema have grown. in fact, for hurricane sandy there was less fema assistance than from either the department of housing and urban development or the department of transportation. we found that these additional disaster aid programs don't have the same requirements and restrictions as the fema assistance. fema assistance is tied to actual disaster damage and is for individuals, governmental entities or certain nonprofits performing government-like functions. fema only spends money on eligible items for eligible applicants no matter how much money fema receives. fema mitigation funds must be used on cost beneficial projects to insure the federal investment is a wise one. fema makes every effort to get

money into the hands of applicants as fast as possible to enable rapid recovery from disaster impacts. in the most recent data provided by the sandy program management office from march 2016, it appears that these agencies have been slow in awarding and especially paying out funds. based on this data, only one-third of the cdbgdr funds have been dispersed, and only 13% of the fta funds have been paid out. now, this may be worth looking into in greater detail, and it certainly shows why a comprehensive look into disaster spending as well as cost and losses is needed. in an era of growing government debt, we need to insure federal spending is necessary and cost effective. right after i became a member of congress in 2011, my own district was hit hard by

hurricane irene and tropical storm lee. i remember in bloomsburg a family stayed in their home, but the creek rose too quickly. the house next to theirs was knocked from its foundation. water starting gushing through their front windows as they called for help. they had to be safed by a helicopter. the woman there told me she could never live in that home again. i will never forget that. preparing for natural disasters is about more than the loss of possessions, it's our friends and neighbors' lives that could be at stake if we do not plan in advance. as we were rebuilding, i was amazed that much of the federal assistance was to rebuild in the same place, in the same way leaving people vulnerable to the next storm. federal government has a responsibility to respond after a disaster, but we also have a duty to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar. i look forward to the

conversations we have today, the ideas we are going to hear about and taking the next steps to reduce the cost of disasters, and i thank you all for being here. i ask unanimous consent that members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing, offer testimony and is ask questions. -- and ask questions. and with that, i now call on ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. carson, for a brief opening statement. >> thank you, chairman. great words. good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's hearing. while we have several prominent witnesses today, i would especially like to welcome a fellow hoosier, mr. kevin mickey, from the great hoosier state. mr. mickey is director of the polis institute at indiana university, purdue university in indianapolis. he's also the new chair of the multihazard mitigation council at the national institute of building sciences. i look forward to my colleagues

learning about the work being done in the great these your state, particular -- hoosier state to address rising disaster costs and losses, plus the latest report from the multihazard mitigation council. mr. mickey's national leadership and local work are terrific examples of what indianapolis is doing in the field of emergency management. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ranking member, carson. we will have two panels of witnesses today. on our first panel, we have our fellow subcommittee member, representative cur bello who knows all too well the risks posed by natural disasters and the efforts that have proven successful in florida to incentivize mitigation measures and smart behaviors. congressman curbelo has been a leader in this area and a great advocate for his constituents in south florida. in our second panel, we'll be joined by the honorable joseph

nimmich who is working on building resilience in communities, ms. sallie clark, commissioner of el paso county, colorado, she is here as president of the national association of counties. mr. bryan koon, director of the florida division of emergency management and the president of the national emergency management association. he is here to talk with us about his experience as well as help us see things from a state perspective. . n ey chair of thece presidentt multihazard mitigation council of the national institute of building sciences. therewe had hoped that chief dad paulson, the foreman administrator of fema, would be

able to join us, but he had other commitments. i do have a written statement for the record from administrator paulson. i thank him and the bill's strong to coalition for their input, and i ask unanimous consent that this statement be included for the record. without objection, so ordered. for our witnesses here since your written testimony has been made a part of the record, a subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony to five minutes. congressman curbelo, you may proceed. >> chairman bar let da, ranking member carson, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. this is my first time testifying before congress, and i'm glad to do it here at the transportation subcommittee on economic development, especially to discuss the important topic of disaster mitigation. i'm honored to serve with all of you. i'd like to take the opportunity to share some thoughts on controlling the rising costs to the federal government when

responding to disasters. i'm a native of south florida, and my good friend, mr. sires, who is working with me on this issue is from new jersey. we both have a deep and personal understanding of the devastating impacts of natural disasters on families and communities and have seen firsthand what happens when homes, schools and businesses aren't built to withstand the forces of nature. my family and i lived through hurricane andrew back in 1992. fortunately, in my part of town the damage was not extreme. but just a few miles south where some of my family members lived, the devastation was horrifying. being a floridian, i know that we have pretty strong state building codes already on the books. but at the national level, it is time to fix the broken federal system that is riddled with red tape, waste, fraud and abuse. therethere is some great work ay

being done in the field of predisaster mitigation, and i'd like to thank chairman barletta for being a strong leader on the issue. over the last 30 years, we have seen a significant increase in federally-declared natural disasters. but instead of taking additional steps to focus more on preparing for these disasters with enhanced building codes to make communities safer, the federal government typically waits until after a disaster occurs to react. this is incredibly dangerous and costly, especially with the increase in extreme weather events. according to the weather channel, this hurricane season is supposed to be the most active since 2012, so this hearing and these issues are of utmost importance and very timely. for these reasons my friend, mr. sires, who knows firsthand in new jersey just how costly cleanup is after a disaster, have introduced legislation to

work towards promoting stronger building codes at the national level by introducing h.r. 5177, the national mitigation investment act of 2016. this legislation works to alleviate losses to resident and commercial property following a natural disaster through preventive measures. it would provide incentives for the adoption and achievement in enforcing state building codes. we do this by allowing the president to increase mitigation assistance following a natural disaster by 4% based off of the price of cleanup but only if the state is enforcing building codes. this incentive can encourage statements and localities to be proactive in future building and also save a lot of funds in the long run. the bill would also create a pilot program to award grants to state and local governments to encourage the adoption and enforcement of nationally-recognized building codes.

the goals of the grant program are to reduce disaster response and recovery costs by increasing resilience of buildings and reducing the amount of damage that occurs due to disaster and chronic flooding. grant awardees will be required to accomplish these goals with nonfederal matching funds, no less than 25%, and fema will be required to provide reports back to congress on the success of the program. mr. chairman, the residents of both florida and new jersey have had to rebuild communities after the devastating effects of catastrophic natural disasters. returning to a life of normalcy is tremendously difficult and take many years. fourth more, chronic -- further mother, chronic tidal flooding poses a significant threat, especially in my south florida district and the constituents that mr. sires represents as

well. this undoubtedly affects insurance rates, property values, clean water supplies and general public welfare. we believe that through preemptive meds of incentivizing -- methods of incentivizing state and local governments to adhere to stronger building codes, we will alleviate the burdens and bos obviously the federal government -- and costs of the federal government after the a natural disaster. i thank my friend, many sire, for working with me on legislation. look forward to hearing the next panel. this is a topic that requires perspectives from diverse geographic allocations and multiple industries, and i appreciate being able to discuss my bill today. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your testimony, congressman curbelo. i will now begin the first round of questions limited to five minutes for each member. if there are any additional questions following the first round, we'll have an additional round of questions as needed.

while we usually do not have questions for members of congress, mr. sires is an original can cosponsor of mr. curbelo's legislation and has a few questions. >> i really thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not going to ask mr. curbelo questions because we've been working on this for a while. but i do want to thank you. you and i have firsthand experience in how devastating some of these catastrophes are, how it impacts life, how it impacts community, how it impacts the economy. and i really want to thank you for taking strong lead on this. you and i, new jersey got hit hard, florida's been hit hard, and i just want you to know that i think this is the way to go, you know? investing in mitigation, especially on a national level where we can put some real, strong codes has always been on my mind for many years. so i just want to thank you for your hard work, and i look

forward to continue and and be proud to work with you on this legislation. thank you very much, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. are there any questions? is mr. costello? no? thankranking member carson? >> no, sir. >> if not, then we thank you very much for your testimony. your comments have been helpful to today's discussion. we will now call our second panel. i remind you of the subcommittee's request to limit your oral testimony to five minutes. and we'll give everyone a chance to be seated. [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you very much. deputy administrator nimmich, you may freed. >> good morning -- you may proceed. >> good morning. i'm joe nimmich, deputy administrator for the federal emergency management agency. thank you for this opportunity to testify about the efforts fema's undertaking to reduce the rising costs of disasters. with a continued trend towards urbanization, particularly in large cities located in high risk areas and the increasing severity of weather event, the nation faces the potential for ever-increasing costs in responding to and recovering from disasters. during a disaster response, fema's primary goal is to support the survivors through effective, efficient operations. though fema has procedures in place to control costs during a response, one of the most

effective ways to reduce disaster costs is to invest in community resilience before a disaster strikes. thereby reducing the physical and financial and particularly the human impacts of the event. preparedness and mitigation investments made before a disaster strike significantly lessen the financial impacts on state, communities and the nation. one of the most effective tools is establishing stringent building codes and standards that insure the property built to insurable levels. let me repeat that. building codes and standards that insure the property is built to insurable levels. you'll hear multiple times today that for every dollar invested in mitigation, a savings of $4 is achieved cue to the reduce -- due to the reduce canned impacts post-disaster. mitigation programs reduce costs by an estimated $3.4 billion annually. i have to move off my prepared comments to thank this committee

and the congress for taking actions such as the post-sandy legislation where we were able to move the recovery costs forward based on assessments but add the mitigation costs at that time so that the building back is better and reduces the future potential. fema has made significant strides in the last few years bringing the larger emergency management community together around a national preparedness system. this provides communities a common approach to managing the risks and providessed communities the information, tools and funding they need to make informed, data-driven decisions. this is just one step fema takes in promoting resilience. the national flood insurance program serves as the foundation for the national efforts to reduce loss of property from floods, the most costly and frequent disaster in the united states. the program identifies areas at risk for flooding and makes flood insurance available to participating communities.

within the nfip, the community rating system initiatives, communities who implement floodplain management practices offering lower nfip insurance premiums to participating communities. additionally, fema provides hazard mitigation assistance through programs such as predisaster mitigation, flood mitigation assistance, hazard mitigation grant programs. these provide funding to communities to implement hazard mitigation measures pre and post disasters. programs such as the nfip and the community rating system invest in community resilience before the disaster strikes. i strongly -- this year fema went a step further developing the disaster deductible concept which encourages states, tribal and territorial investment in resiliency mitigation programs. i strongly believe this program will be critical to any effort to reduce future disaster costs in a significant way. as you've indicated, congressman

barletta, congress, the gao and others have indicated that the federal costs of disasters continues to rise. the solution of moving the threshold higher merely distributes the costs differently but does not reduce the cost of potential disasters. with the disaster deductible concept, states would have to meet a predetermined financial commitment similar to meeting an insurance deductible as a condition of receiving federal funds to rebuild damaged facilities and infrastructure. additionally, fema would provide credits for those states, investments in resiliency measures such as adopting the building enhanced codes or funding preparedness and mitigation projects. using these credits, a state's dedeductible could be reduced, thereby insuring that communities have an incentive for investing in resilience. during a 60-day comment period, fema received 150 responses.

we're currently evaluating those to provide input from advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to develop a proposed rulemaking for later this year. while preparedness and mitigation efforts can help us to reduce the costs in many areas, we must continue to acknowledge that demographic patterns are not something we can easily or readily influence, but we can take steps to improve building codes, promote preparedness. fema strives to invest in our nation's resilience and support disaster survivors by being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. we continue to look for innovative ways to promote preparedness and mitigation planning and efficiently implement the recovery programs in order to reduce both the risk and cost to the american taxpayer. thank you for this opportunity today to testify, and i look forward to any questions the subcommittee may have. >> thank you for your testimony, deputy administrator nimmich. commissioner clark, you may proceed.

>> thank you, chairman barletta, ranking member carson and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify before you today on the cost of disasters. my name is sallie clark, and i'm a county commissioner from el paso county, colorado, and also serve as the president of national association of counties which represents all of america's 3,069 county governments. although all parts of government play a role in disasters, counties often serve as the first line of defense when a disaster strikes and are responsible to help our communities recover in the aftermath. whether it's our emergency managers or sheriffs or 911 call centers, county hospitals or public health departments or the fact that we own the majority of our nation's infrastructure like roads, bridges and airports, federal policy decisions regarding disasters have a major impact on counties. my county is no stranger to disasters, and the topic of this hearing is personal for me. over the past several years, el

paso county and our surrounding areas have been devastated by a series of wildfires and flash floods that have upended our residents' lives, strained our local economy and caused enough damage to prompt four presidential disaster declarations over a three-year period. our county, which long ago inspired katherine lee bates to the write the famous hymn, "america the beautiful," is now home to charred, barren hillsides, and the vegetation that once protected the area from stormwater runoff has disappeared, paving the day for dangerous flash floods. but we have been working diligently to help our community recover and become more resilient in the future. today i respectfully submit three principles for your consideration as you continue to discuss federal disaster spending. first, federal disaster spending should be viewed in the context of corresponding spending by state and local governments, and the capacity of each level to fund disaster recovery efforts.

thousands of disasters strike our nation each year, and the vast majority of long-term recovery costs are carried on the backs of state and local governments. according to the analysis of fema data, over the last ten years 92%over counties across the nation had at least one fema-declared disaster. and according to materials published by fema, the number of disasters successfully handled without request for federal assistance is estimated at 3,500-3,700 annually while only about 35 disasters per year received major declarations triggering federal assistance between 1953 and 2014. furthermore, it is important to consider the respective fiscal capacity of federal, state and local governments when assessing contributions to our nation's recovery from disasters. county governments in more than 40 states operate under restrictive revenue constraints

imposed by state policies including caps on property taxation that limit counties' ability to raise are additional funds in the face of rising disaster costs. local governments spend significantly on disasters and changes to federal disaster spending should not be assessed without consideration of this. second, decreases in federal disaster spending should not come at the expense of state and local governments. the ultimate result of shifting federal disaster costs to state and local governments will further depleat resources available for proactive disaster mitigation and resiliency work, resulting in even costlier disasters in the future. fema's disaster deductible proposal presents some serious challenges for local governments. for example, el paso county has pent many millions of dollars on mitigation projects in the last several years as we have worked to recover from the wildfires and flash floods that have ravaged our community, including loss of life. but under the disaster

deductible proposal if the state of colorado fails to invest in efforts, public assistance funds cob withheld from our -- could bewet held from our county -- withheld from our county. in this way we could be punished because of the inaction of an entity over which we have no control despite our best efforts at mitigation x. this is just one of the many issues with this proposal that thus far have not been sufficiently addressed. because of this, fema has not given local government confidence that a disaster deductible could be implemented without the risk that it would simply shift disaster costs from federal government to state and local governments. and finally, local disaster mitigation efforts bring down the overall cost of disasters and should be supported by the federal government. counties are uniquely positioned to implement mitigation efforts through our regulatory authorities and cop screening powers, collaboration with the federal government helps counties better utilize our authorities and resources to

mitigate the damage caused by disasters, increasing community resiliency and decrease the impact and cost of future disasters for all levels of government. fema's hazard mitigation grant program and the other federal programs enable counties to undertake large mitigation projects that have tremendous potential to drive down the costs of disasters for all levels of government. mr. chairman, ranking member carson and members of the subcommittee, thank you again for inviting a local perspective on this important conversation, and i would welcome any questions. >> thank you for your testimony, ms. clark. mr. koon, you may proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee. my name is bryon coon, and i -- bryan koon. i'm here on behalf of the national emergency management association which represents the state emergency management directors of the 50 states, territories and the district of columbia. as the frequency, intensity and variability of disasters increase, it is imperative to reduce risks wherever possible.

this will insure that our scarce personnel and financial resources are focused on life safety and those aspects of the built environment where the risk cannot be reduced. meaningful cost reduction should impact all levels of government and not simply shift the cost between stakeholders. the government practice of spending more money on recovery than risk reduction must be changed. mitigation reduces response costs and speeds recovery, integrating mitigation meaningfully into recovery can be the catalyst for a community-wide focus on preparedness in the future. mitigation and resilience activities by state, local and tribal governments should be recognized and incentivized by the federal government. in the long term, cost savings will be realized at all levels. much of the legal authority and responsibility for risk reduction decisions and activities reside at local level such as adoption and enforcement of building codes, zoning and land use decisions. local and tribal governments are

critical partners in creating and sustaining disaster-resilient communities and must be engaged in this conversation. all stakeholders must utilize the best available science and predictive analysis tools to illustrate data-driven results on investment calculations. this can only be done when data is made available to all stakeholders and when calculations are not done which a vacuum. we must leverage data to support our risk reduction priorities. at the urging of congress, fema has undertaken various efforts. reengineering of the public assistance program is an excellent example of fema working to improve and maximize existing programs. while it is still too early to determine the effectiveness of the change, we are pleased with the effort and urginged that similar reforms be considered in other programs. investment into the emergency management assistance compact leverages federal grant dollars that have already been informed in state and -- invested in state and local emergency management programs. we must p encourage greater

investments to reduce the need for federal assistance, federal administrative cost, property damage and, most importantly, save lives. in january fema proposed a concept to create a state deductible for federally-declared disasters. while there was no consensus opinion among the state, many expressed these common beliefs about any new proposal: the concept should drive real reduction in costs at all levels and not merely a shift in costs, an appropriate amount of time must be given to insure successful implementation including internal education for fema and training and guidance for states. states must also be given adequate time to insure budgeting requirements are understood and acted upon by state legislatures. the proposal should utilize the opportunity to decrease administrative burden and associated costs. and the deductible cannot result in delayed assistance to those in need. regardless of what happens with the disaster deducting bl or any other current initiative, i'd like to wrap up with a few thoughts. the federal government should

continue to offer incentive programs and how states to pursue innovate i ways to strengthen their communities. we recommend continued evaluation to better understand the things that prevent or deter communities from fully leveraging these opportunities. nema also recommends that a study to determine the true costs of disasters be conducted that captures not only those direct financial costs borne by fema, but also those costs paid by other federal agencies, state, local and tribal governments and the private sector. position fema as a partner in developing a more resilient nation. fema's focus must transcend response, and the agency must make advancements in all phases of the disaster cycle. mitigation and long-term recovery are societal investments, not a cost. many of the functions that fema fulfills during a disaster could be done in a more cost effective manner by using personnel deploys through emac. invest in the infrastructure necessary to achieve this goal. in addition to improving currently-existing federal

programs, fema and others should recognize outstanding efforts done by state and local entities and encourage their adoption nationwide. while many stakeholders approach the issue of increasing disasters costs differently, we all have a common goal. as government officials, private sector business leaders and community members, we all have a role to play in reducing the costs and impacts of disasters. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and stand ready to answer any questions the committee may have. >> thank you for your testimony, mr. koon. mr. nelson, you may proceed. >> good morning. chairman barletta, ranking member carson and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing today to examine solutions to controlling the increased costs of natural disasters. my name is eric nelson, and i'm senior vice president of catastrophe risk management at travelers insurance. i am testifying today on behalf of the build strong coalition, a group of businesses, consumer organizations dedicated to reducing human economic losses from natural disasters.

it's one of the largest property casualty companies in the u.s., travelers provides a unique private sector expertise that can add value to the federal government's mission and its own risk and losses from natural disasters. i'd first like to thank chairman barletta and the members of the subcommittee for their continued leadership in conducting a series of round tables on topic beginning in january of last year. i begin today by outlining three major takeaways from that emerging from those round tables. and before i do that, the main question we want to ask ourselves is what actionable steps can congress take to mitigate risks, lessen the impact to families and communities across america and reduce federal losses from natural disasters. the first takeaway from the round table is that by almost every measure, federal disaster spending is increasing on an unsustainable path. dr. irwin -- [inaudible] showed that exploding federal cost share of natural disasters

over the last 60 years increased from roughly 6% in 1955 to 77% in 2015. the second takeaway from the second round table is that states, communities and individuals have little incentive to undertake loss prevention measures before a disaster occurs. we're going to hear in a minute the multihazard mitigation council conducted a study how every dollar spent saves the nation approximately $4 in post-disaster relief costs. a new study by wharton indicated that a dollar increase in the individual assistant grant program reduces disaster insurance demand by $6. these findings represent compelling evidence that the federal government is inadvertently fostering shortsighted behavior throw throughout state and local governments and with individual homeowners. the the third point is that eliminating disincentives and replacing them with the appropriate incentives for

mitigation can benefit all parties involved. the federal government would benefit by lowering its cost share for disaster assistance. states would benefit by alleviating the budget constraint caused by disasters and easing their dependency on federal aid. families would benefit by reducing personal disaster costs and protecting loved ones. communities and local economies would benefit by enabling citizens and businesses to recover more quickly after an event. while the benefits are clear, the question remains what specific actions can congress take. the national mitigation investment strategy is based on the latest science and engineering research from world class research institutions off as ibhs. research institutions conduct research on building performance standards and simulated disaster conditions in controlled environments. research from these institutions demonstrates that statewide adoption and enforcement of building codes can reduce

long-term risks. studies conducted in the wake of disasters also support this finding. another fact, according to ibhs at least 25 percent of all businesses that close down for 24 hours or more during a disaster never rope. that's stagger -- never reopen. that's staggering. and think about the businesses and the jobs. another stat we looked at was lsu hurricane center estimated that stronger building codes would have reduced wind damage in hurricane katrina by 80% or $8 billion. so thank you for your leadership of congressman curbelo and congressman sires. i am pleased to report that the core principles from this report have been turned into the legislation and introduced in h.r. 5177, the national mitigation investment act. this act provides a powerful incentive for states to adopt anden force statewide building codes and authorizes a first of its kind competitive grant program to improve building code

enforcement. further, a provision authorized by the chairman in h.r. r. 1471 authorizing congress to look at the first comprehensive assessment of federal disaster spending by congress in over 20 years. congressional leaders, policy experts and gao all agree strong building codes enhance pre-disaster mitigation settings provide loss of life and cost-saving benefits. i you can you to rein in -- urge you to reign in federal government's essex loading costs -- exploding costs. i applaud you for your efforts and thank you for taking up this effort. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for your testimony, mr. nelson. mr. mickey, please proceed. >> chairman barletta, ranking member carson and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on approaches for reducing the costs of natural disasters. my name is kevin mickey, director of professional

development and geospatial education at the polis center at indiana university, purdue university/indianapolis which has the mission of linking academic and community expertise to create strong and resilient communities. i am here today as the chairman of the multihazard mitigation council at the national institute of building sciences, introducing a new and unique approach we have proposed. the united states congress established the national institute of building sciences in 1974 to serve as an authoritative source for both public and private sectors to improve the built environment. to achieve its mission, the institute has established 18 councils that engage building industry experts in examining and developing tools, technologies and practices to meet identified needs. the institute and its multihazard mitigation council, or mmc, and council on finance, insurance and real estate, have been particularly focused on opportunities to advance resilience and encourage the most cost effective approaches

to reducing the impacts of natural as well as manmade disasters. as you are aware, there have been numerous efforts at developing increased building codes and standards, mitigation programs, scientific studies of best practices and definitions of resilient, and -- resilience. this is not to say that these efforts have not beenfective. this has already been pointed out. a 2005 mmc study thoughs shah implementation -- showed that strategies do save $4 for every dollar spent.

that capture opportunities available to investment in mortgages equity realist a comic insurance, finance, taxes and, credits, regulation and enhance building codes and application. the focus on leveraging private public sector opportunities to induce corrective action is called and sent to the station. and standardization approach calls for input, can insist them a leadership inaction from a broad spectrum of stakeholders representing financial regulatory and economic path that sees the need to be developed and coordinated to make an sensitization part of the nations economic fabric. participants should include those who offer incentives such as insurance and finance related companies, lenders, foundations as well as government agencies

and important decision-makers that most definitely need to include homeowners, businesses and utilities. gently published in developed a white paper of predisaster events on public-private in sensitization which provides existing programs for distant hazards of private and public sectors take holders can evaluate and modify for incentives. the specific seven standardization need to be tailored where optimal resilience measures beyond current law and to account for hazard, risk in the locality, business size and resilience that achieves. once i've cannot fit all. incentivizing means to achieve his before disasters occur focuses on monetizing that it's for incorporating mystical litigation and ordinary course of business. participating stakeholders made sufficient confidence to achieve resilience will justify underwriting and loan in your programs. the private or will not undertake present investments

just because it isn't bulk but because of economically prudent. my written testimony describes opportunities for congressional action. my hair for a few specific recommendations here. every federal dollar with community development and infrastructure must include a requirement that the latest building codes be met or exceeded. second, congress and federal agency should examine all programs, particularly grantmaking programs to identify opportunities to support with william and finally federal investment program should learn best in and mitigation. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. please consider the national institute of building sciences and its resources as you look to address challenges related to the environment. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony, mr. mickey. the first round of questions limited to five minutes for each member. if there is additional questions we will have additional rounds

of questions as needed. deputy administrator, why are they disasters causing so much money now and what's not yours you think are driving this change and i would also like to hear mr. putin and mr. nelson thoughts on that. >> congressman barletta, the biggest challenge is the continued movement of populations into high urban areas that happen to have been developed from his or her perspective and very dangerous areas among rivers or along coastlines for major storms and on earthquake faults. the reality of people moving to the cities is one that we will face for the foreseeable future and that only increases potential cost. additionally the value property has gone up substantially over time and therefore the recovery costs will continue to go well. at the cost to build a mile of

road 30 years ago is very different than what it takes to build a mile of roads today. the only solution isn't backed building for those features dates we look at in terms of coal verse that can maintain the flow of water, bridges that are better maintained, all of the infrastructure as well as public domain built to standard that allow for the potential of future disasters to be minimized. >> mr. nelson. >> just to add to that, clearly the average home side is increased by 1000 square feet. according the common more and more americans living to areas that have higher risk. adding on top of that, we see our statistics if you are rowing in an area with poor building codes versus building codes, we see it where we shouldn't be seen claims. we see clams up when we.

there is a better way forward and we see a first date like florida that have had very good adoption of codes. rubin that is have shown to add that to the conversation. thank you, mr. chairman. i concur with mr. nimmich and mr. nelson. i believe over time there has been a better understanding, better utilization after those types of disasters. we are recognizing all of the ways we can use those data in local dollars to help the community recover. there's an additional additional cost on administrative oversight of programs on the program requirement to affect recovery and subsequent mitigation. those programs can stretch into the decade for some of our larger disasters into the administrative cost also had to does high cost. >> administrator at nimmich, we see new disaster programs emerge

ad hoc in reaction to disasters. they have different roles than requirement and do not seem well coordinated or focused on obtaining the best outcomes. though fema programs contain strict requirements on eligibility, use and cost effectiveness? are you aware of other disaster programs including such requirements? is this something congress can take a look at the weekend can teenagers remind these programs and ensure that they are dead? >> congressman barletta, you are absolutely correct that we have very stringent codes than requirement to qualify for federal dollars. as mr. koon pointed out, they often take a great deal of oversight to ensure they are effectively and correctly implemented. i can speak through the standard legislation that there was a requirement to capture all of the different agencies including hud and federal transit

authority to ensure we have a more complete understanding of where the different investments in recovery were going. that is not consistent across all the different disasters that exist. i will say this year for the first time the pass a federal flood risk management standards that require every agency for every federal dollar invested in recovery to meet a standard for the first time. that includes the department of defense as well as all the other agencies so there are activities going on to try to ensure that we all build to a high standard, that the capture of those costs is not something we currently do. >> i will recognize ranking member person for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. mr. mickey, in terms of community by of community by income of various reports have been released about the rising cost of disaster.

and if it can and the need to take steps to mitigate poor disasters. congress has also acted to incentivize mitigation. so for example, we authorize >> to provide additional hazard mitigation program funding to the states with enhanced plans, yet only 12 states have adopted these. so even with incentives, it is difficult to get states to take action. how do we get the idea to the public and yours and what is needed to get ideas implemented? >> i'm happy to say we've taken some from that direction. this past january, past january, the astute held a symposium in washington d.c. the institute brought together experts in the industry identified in my testimony for the purpose of discussing exactly what was presented in more port it to show their own ideas for how to incentivize resilient than they respect the fact there is. the next step is to develop a

stakeholder leadership council that consists of the leaders of the stakeholder groups to include insurance, loan organizations, bond rating organizations, businesses, utilities, homeowners and local state federal government. the goal of the council is going to work in formulating mechanisms for an sensitization. the idea that we have this by getting the buy-in of stakeholders directly because they will be the ones coming up with incentives strategies that others will then follow and they will be incentivize to help load and enhance the economy that does not currently exist for insurance, originated loans and bonds and generating activity. ultimately, the goal is to produce a set of products that consumers want. let me give you a couple examples you'll find in our study. state farm insurance offered a premium discount for installation of impact resistant roofs. the result was the products

(-left-paren 10 to 1998 to more than 1000 in the year 2003 in that program has not expanded out into 26 additional states. according to state farm homeowners, the irr product, the impact resistant roof product is something that they now want. just earlier this week in washington, the mayor of the city of fayetteville, alabama, tim campbell is attending the forum and made a statement that his community is now considered one of the most desirable places to live, specifically because the homes are recognized to be more resilient in the community is one of the places where the program is found. the institute is planning to serve the role of identifying these solutions. we recognize there's plenty of best practices out there. what we want to do is bring together stakeholders to identify the best practices and

see them replicated across the industry. we recognize costs are high but look for ways to reduce them and we believe this is a creative approach. ultimately, we believe that to be such as implementing building codes need to be started to be viewed as a carrier, not as a stake and if the incentives are appropriate, we think that can happen. >> thank you. mr. koon, you mentioned famous new customer service, centric focus for the public assistance program is a positive step forward. are there other action with respect to public assistance programs in order to reduce disaster cost and even losses? >> thank you, ranking member person. i believe continued implementation of procedures highlighted in their recovery improvement act in ways that will help us expedite funding to the locals could result in cost

savings and improved recovery as we move forward. we are eager to work with fema on the reengineering process to make sure there is customer centric as possible so that we can help get those communities back up on their feet as quickly as possible at a minimal cost to the federal government. with regard to the question you asked mr. mickey earlier with regard to incentives, we have done a very good job providing incentives for programs. you mention the enhance mitigation program come incentives offered through the national flood insurance program assurances offered for debris removal. none of those i believe how fully met what they intended to do. continual reevaluation of those incentive programs to determine why they are not being taken at this level we anticipate will be necessary and go back and improve processes by which we implement programs that help them meet the maximum they were

designed to affect. >> thank you. administrator nimmich, earlier this week, the white house held a hearing on doping codes, including the fact sheet issued by the white house, it stated that fema is developing a more detailed plan to be put forth for additional public discussion in the notice of proposed rule making. has been a finisher. all the common than arrived at determining that it will definitely go forward with rulemaking or disaster did not bowl concepts? if so, when can congressman stakeholders expect to propose rules to be issued? >> representative carson, thank you for the question. the deductible process has been one where we've reached out heavily to the user group and as ms. clarke indicated, we received 150 very detailed responses to the advance notice

to rulemaking and we went through the advance notice of the rulemaking process in order to get that type of feedback indicated where there are concerns that this might just be the ability to transfer costs from the federal government to state and local communities. the intent here is exactly what we've been talking about to incentivize and make more consistent the ability for communities to invest in mitigation and preparedness capabilities. we are now going through the 150 comments to be able to come up with an actual proposed rule double have detailed senate that will then go out for the proposed rulemaking process to get specific comments back on those rules. we anticipate that we'll be out sometime this calendar year, sir. >> thank you. i don't know where we are in time, mr. chairman, but i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member person. thank you, mr. chairman.

administrator nimmich, who is in charge of the federal government of our national average in terms of community resilience? which agency? >> so as you would expect, congressman, fema through the national preparedness program provides the guidance for the federal government to be able to assist state and locals in developing the preparedness programs and fema working with the states through their threat estimating program as well as their preparedness report captures that information as well as for the federal government. each agency themselves are responsible for support to the preparedness plan. >> got it. administrator nimmich, to acknowledge the statistics mr. nelson referenced in regards to studies indicating proactive investments and hazard mitigation generate cost savings? >> yes, sir. that is what the deductible

process is. >> do you see any of the work of the u.s. army corps of engineers has been efforts to reduce hazard to address mitigation strategies? >> we work closely with the army corps of engineers. >> if you don't mind, yes or no. >> sir, i'm not comfortable answering yes or no kids we work closely with the army corps of engineers and i do believe an awful lot of effort started reducing impacts of potential future disasters in north dakota. they were closely with the city of fargo. >> thank you. i'll go ahead and answer these so i don't burn through all the time. the u.s. army corps of engineers spends money addressing flood damage reduction budget. the administration has budgeted a billion dollars competition through hud. you have a climate resiliency

fund the department of interior will establish on the last budget request i think of $2 billion. >> has a hazard mitigation grant program in the pre-disaster mitigation program. doesn't make sense to have five different programs out there all attempting to address various aspects? it is properly poured dated and prioritized? i'm from south louisiana and we've had her than her fair share of disasters whether it be hurricane katrina, record high water on the mississippi river and again this year in january for the first time ever. we had hurricane gustav hurricane ike in 2012. we've had more than our share of disasters. watching over and over again as they come in and pick up the pieces after a disaster together with millions and millions of dollars spent by state government, the corps of engineers in some cases, i can

think st. john harris, that project has been in the study phase of the u.s. army corps of engineers now for over 40 years -- over 40 years. mr. ranking member, my point is low, everyone wants us to reduce disaster spending. everyone does. the solution is mr. clark noted, mr. koon noted is making the principal proactive investment in making our communities more resilient. in recent years, we have had fema with the 500 year flood management regulations. we've had bigger waters and revision in 2014. the revisions in 2014. we have proposals now to increase the cost share associated with disaster response on our counties, parishes and state government.

mr. chairman, my point is making proactive investments is the solution to reduce our overall disaster expense. we estimated we spent somewhere around eight or $9 billion simply finishing authorized projects in south louisiana that were supposed to be built at the u.s. army corps of engineers, we could have saved an estimated 90% and you can justify numbers from 120 to $150 billion we were spent in 2005 hurricanes. we could've saved. not to mention we think we could've saved over 90% of the 1200 lives that were lost in louisiana. all of these efforts by fema are being done in a vacuum. we need to be better coordinating our efforts to be as a maker community more resilient and stop others coming in after the fact it's been an accident should live or dollars.

all we are seeing rather than following the data, followed the recommendations and outcomes of these studies and experiences with catastrophic disasters instead were further making desperate investments that are really contributing for heating recommendations of these reports. i'm very concerned about this trend we see in nicely, mr. chairman, i just want to say in south louisiana, much of our vulnerability is attributable to the actions of the federal government. we have lost 1900 square miles of our coast, the majority because of how the corps of engineers manages the water resources in the nation. that's why we've become more vulnerable. louisiana is about her. our buffer is disappearing and that is why you see these costs. i want to urge the committee as we move forward on legislation, we need to make sure we don't get too myopic in this view and

that we are looking comprehensively at all these efforts underway that quite frankly should be under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. sears. thank you, mr. chairman. it out, we learn from all of these disasters, mr. nimmich. we pick up better code than everything else. why do you think some of these states are so reluctant to do this mitigation codes in the enforcement? why do you think that is? >> sir, the decision on doping codes is almost always local and those decisions based on other economic factors, desires for certain development. but i do think that we have a federal government need to continue to ensure that when we

invest in is invested to codes. currently, fema has suffered comment with stakeholder groups, changes to our public assistance program that would require whether a state has every community has coder does community has coder does and how code. if they don't, if they want us to build that infrastructure, it will have to be built back to a national or international code. so we are taking it very seriously to save a community doesn't feel the codes are of value, we do. but we invest federal dollars, we will go back to a code. >> you know, one of the things that bothers me about new jersey is three years later we still have people that have not gone back to their home. there's plenty to go around. i think in terms of these disasters coming in not only have to mitigate, but i think there's got to be some sort of post-disaster where you're ready to come in with some of these guys better fraudulent and

everything else and that would take years before you can come up with the people who are perpetrating abroad. to me you have to be ready right after the disaster. >> yes, sir. i can proudly say that we have moved rapidly since katrina to ensure that we have programs that have as much protection as possible. i will tell you that if we have to err on the side of supporting a valid requirement and a fraudulent requirement, we are likely to support that require me. it takes time to go back and relook and as you know, you are seeing the first cases of prosecution where people have taken money or does there need to recover and primary homes claiming that their secondary home with a primary home and taking those dollars of it from the people who need it. it does take time and we have to

realize that during that immediate post-disaster, we want to make sure those people that need the money get it and there will be people that take advantage of it, but we don't give up. and may take too long, but we don't start. we continue to recoup them is from people that fraudulently or accidentally apply for resources that they didn't deserve. we are down below the national standard on financial institutions and recovery money down below 1%. we do a pretty good job of ensuring that the money goes to those people who deserve it and need it. >> i used to be one of these guys that require certain things did i come around a lot to providing in tears because of the federal government is going to get the money, i think mitigation code should be part of it. i look at these disasters in the

midwest. i see these tornadoes. i'm not trying to single out, but much more than anybody else. i see where schools are even damaged. they give the state money to build the school. you should require a stronger code. i understand the schools were built before. going forward, i think that is something we should look into. some of the schools surveyed shelters in some of these communities. i see the damages and some of the schools and homes. i am coming to the idea, mr. chairman, to provide to deal with some of the disasters. thank you. >> thank you. i will begin a second round of questions. commissioner clark, i understand your district had major

wildfires that destroyed a tremendous number of homes and property. can you explain the challenges you have had tried to mitigate the risk of post-fire flooding and do you have any recommendations for congress to improve our mitigation programs? thank you, mr. chairman. yes. we have obviously and i don't know what fair share is, but we've had more of our fair share of disasters in colorado. what i would like to talk about specifically are the days and i think we can do from our relation standpoint as a local community resiliency. i think that what tends to happen and it happened that the local level, state level and particularly the federal level as in silos built up between agencies. the fire that happened in waldo canyon was almost more than 95% on federal forest land.

that pre-mitigation needs to happen from the federal level because that is forest service and the forest service is down spending 50% of its budget for it beyond responding to wildfires versus pre-medicating ahead of time. we have no control over that on the local level. but we do have control over is working with communities, community wildfire protection plans and providing the vent is that some have said here, which is important, but for individuals to mitigate ahead of time to provide communities. i was an crystal park, which is a one-way end, one way of community on the mountainside and they have taken steps to do that. some of those programs that help them by fire equipment to be prepared locally to take that ability to look ability to the cap from a personal standpoint, to be able to provide that mitigation will be helpful. we tend to be really, when they

look at an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of gear, doing that pre-mitigation ahead of time. i also think it's important to note when there is a disaster and i have a small business when the fire have been i lost thousands of dollars of reservations and then we have this rolling disaster that keeps happening to try and make sure that those that may not be an interface areas where the drainage all comes down into the small community to be able to look at the fact that mitigation immediately following the fire will provide the resilient we to slow down the debris and the large flash floods that happen as a result. it is hard to understand if you're not from colorado, if you're not from a western state that has those drainages that range rated to it. understanding there is an impact on our business and how devastating that can be, one

third of small businesses go out of business after a major incident. i think that is really important. looking at the flexibility and the requirements, even though we definitely want accountability, sometimes the requirement preclude you from asking for the money you may otherwise need. >> we talked a lot about how the federal government pays out towards disasters. the other major pairs and disasters or insurance companies. mr. nelson, can you discuss how insurance losses generally compared to the federalist and is provided in the wake of a disaster? >> in the wake of a disaster, it is the role of the insurance company to make them whole again. we are paying for the building. we are paying for the contents for the content. if you're a small business, we give you business income coverage. we have also provided additional living expenses. significant dollars compared to

individual grants are small grants to consumers. they are not going to make you whole again. they are not going to be enough to rebuild your home in general. it is important insurance industry plays a major role in natural disasters and our trends because of weather volatility you can see those a lot. this is an important concept because what to insurance companies do? we spread the risk over people and over time and as the risk changes come at a price changes. it is important that we bent the cost curve for the federal government and then the cost curve for consumers. >> i believe everyone of you mentioned me mitigation evidence shows for every 1 dollar invested, for dollars is saved that most federal mitigation funding is provided for the hazard mitigation grant program after a disaster exploration.

i asked this of everyone on the panel. we can give a brief answer. how can we more proactively address the mitigation and shipped to the investment before the catastrophe? >> congressmen come up or let it come in the first thing i need to do is again thank the committee and the congress for the legislation that allows mitigation run in the post-mitigation money to be identified earlier in the process and then be applied as part of the recovery process. clearly as we look at all the different mitigation programs we have re-disaster in 2015 congress gave us the authority to do post-mitigation or hazardous mitigation for fire grants to be able to restore those burned areas in a much more robust way. i would ask that we consider reauthorizing that ability to use the fire fire mitigation grant that they hazard mitigation grant developer. but the reality for us comes

back to how do you incentivize every level from the individual, insurance programs to the local to the county to the state and the federal government to invest in that. we believe that adaptable offers that opportunity. we continue to work with a call thursday to find that the reason the level of a deductible should be and how did those building codes in the investment as ms. clark has indicated that the counties and communities do reduce that adaptable in order to be able to support those communities that have invested in their own well-being. i do believe that it is mitigation that ultimately reduces the cost of a disaster in waiting to find find proactively fancy ball indicated to incentivize that approach. thank you, mr. chairman. as it relates to the hazard mitigation grant program, and it is a very important component of what communities need to be provided for. there are some issues i think in

the programs that need more flexibility. however, to utilize those funds best at the local level, we see sometimes that there is not an understanding of unique situations and i will give an example. in 2012 at the waldo cannon fire we just closed on three houses two weeks ago for several homes that were in the floodway as a result of a fire that happened on federal forest land. they have never had flooding ever before and it's thick enough really that length of time to get back completed. as it relates to additionally the hazard mitigation grant program, we had our office of emergency management appreciate being able to utilize those dollars, but sometimes the accountability where you may see as accountability, the paperwork is so extreme for such a small amount of money that it makes a really unusable for us to even apply for the grant.

we do take it very seriously, but i think sometimes those programs need to be looked at and how can those dollars actually get to the folks to provide some additional assistance for those individuals who want to take personal responsibility for trying to reduce mitigation -- to reduce the disaster eventual disaster declaration by looking at being give on their own personal property. black forest fighter was entirely on private property. that was the second fire. we have two different buyers and we have seen different problems in each of those. >> mr. koon. thank you, mr. chairman. as a director of the florida division of emergency management, i have the luxury of a fairly fast and adequate funding. every time there's programs and incentives, we need to make sure we take full advantage of the

program. a good member states to not share the luxury and counties across the country do not have the same luxury. every time a new program is put into place, we have to determine how we can help meet the needs of that program because they were saying current staffing a current staffing a budget and not the potential for the payoff down the road. a few things would assist in this effort. as mr. gregg suggested, consider clarify, consider collocating and streamlining existing programs today rather than create additional new programs which would enhance the administrative burden on already overworked officials at the state and local level are. better data analysis of the true cost of disasters and how they impact our bubbles will help us calculate the true return on investment for participation and help us make those decisions. finally, moving the mitigation cycle in programs forward so it is not something we start inking about on day one of the recovery. it is sent and done ahead of the

disaster so defending comes along we are ready on day one with actionable mitigation plans to help implement those programs and rebuilt exactly as they were before. >> mr. nelson. >> i want to start off would have to get the word out about mitigation. there is a perception that mitigation costs so much money to consumers. travelers are a proud supporter of habitat for humanity. we went out and bought a dozen fortified homes across america and i personally participated in building one in connecticut. the average cost is 2% to 5%. we have to make sure consumers understand this. that is first. second, clearly you've got a difficult decision. bening is so difficult in congress today. everyone understands that. we have to consider spending more pre-disaster mitigation fund. again, proven techniques with other studies and evaluate back

and evaluate streamlining some of these programs. thank you. >> mr. mcgee. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] -- promoting to the institute to

take those positive actions. >> thank you, ranking member cars and. thank you, mr. chairman. ms. clark, disaster assistance refund the act of 2015 the community calls for a very comprehensive study on trends and disaster costs and losses. as you mentioned, local government areas a large portion yet data is very scarce. what are you doing to collect the data to be considered as a part of the comprehensive study and ensure that current disaster costs are not just being shifted to local communities? >> i'm assuming that is for me. i wanted to say that i think that brings up -- i will start. i think the local government

really is here from the government in here to help. we need to know how we can best be -- provided the data and information for those of us who have done this before we had four declared disasters. we got a lot of information and i think it would be helpful to sit down with those communities that have been through the processes in all the different silos and to be able to have feedback for a month on how to change banks that policies that may not be working in the best interest first of all of our community and secondly of our local government. >> ranking member carson, the question you ask is a question that many folks ask as they responded to the proposed deductible costs, which is how to recapture all those costs? what is the methodology did you remove a treatise on the road

overnight or is there a certain threshold of which you start measuring dollars. we are still having conversations to figure out what cost do we need to capture. i do agree it's important we do so because that helps feed the calculation that we need to do in that situation. the flipside that i have a fairly large agency. the plush old for florida is also fairly high. we can have a 10 or 20 or $25 million disaster the state of florida that will not be publishable for federal declaration. they stayed and local levels recover from the situations. we should develop methodologies >> yes, sir. thank you. you mention in your testimony that the insurance institute for business and home safety

simulated disaster assistance and a controlled environment, you mentioned that. what types of adjustments to building codes has answered to find to be most affect event keeping a structure standing after a disaster and how much would these changes cost to renew construction? >> we have come up with a program called four to five. the bronze program concentrates on the roof coverings. we have looked at keeping this seems in the roof deck, maybe about $500 to a thousand dollars and not prevent water intrusion in case you lose your shingles. that is the first step. the second step that is proven techniques is bolstering other openings, either covering openings are putting reinforcements in place. the gold standard is looking not how it is anchored at your foundation through the walls into the roof. these are techniques that we are happy to say since they've have

embraced. alabama has now embraced the fortified standards within their codes in coastal counties as they've also put in a program for mitigation grants. we are seeing a lot of success in this program. we even see billers voluntarily building these homes. >> thank you. lastly, mr. mickey cometh and provides viable services necessary to understanding disaster, thread and risk. how does the center help us understand services known to others and can you expand on another successful collaborative projects with state and local entities? i [inaudible] >> thank you for the opportunity to talk about the summer quite honestly this statement very proud of in indiana. we've got 27 years of

successfully linking academic expertise. our goals are to build capacities in the agencies. the citizens in the state of indiana and so forth. we have done a lot of work in emergency management. the reason they been successful is not because the resources in our center but the atmosphere that exists in the state of indiana. case in point within indiana we have had the privilege of working with the department of homeland security to complete education plan in close collaboration with the counties and cities and towns in the state of indiana. the approach we take is highly collaborative good unlike many situations we hear about way plan is created and set aside on the shelf if you lead, which is fortunately does often happened, the plan becomes a living document that the community is engaged in people are brought to be apart of. that's a critical component of making mitigation a success.

part of the reason we are also successful in something i'm exceedingly proud of is in the state of indiana, we understand the importance of information. i'm sure many are viewer where a has become a very significant part of the portfolio of resources in the state of indiana that we is. the technology that allows communities to estimate the impact of hazards, specifically floods, earthquakes and hurricanes and they are able to that in a profound and accessible way by integrating local resources. i am happy to say that we have 100% of the counties that even though they have disagreements to be sure, they managed to find a way to agree to share information. anyone anywhere, anytime can go to the map and download every single part on the state of indiana, wrote information and of course hazard information. the information combined with other resources makes it possible for citizens to be much

better protect did and much better able to respond to disasters than others might be. we have taken that success story. i'm proud to say to other states as well. we are pretty much the only capacity. we were in georgia, west virginia and many other areas and we worked in over 36 states including everyone represented by members of the committee and over 100 cities. building capacity means building tools, work loads, very important education not just in how to hazard analysis, but also what that means in terms of the long-term resiliency. we believe firmly in connecting fabric of the community to the solution. hunger, homelessness, issues are that are just as important understanding how the community vote will not be displayed to disasters understanding where they will fall down or stay upright. we look at all of those things

and try to bring together in a synergistic way to allow people to take advantage that knowledge. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the bigger waters swelled to incorporate simulations of climate change into some of the estimated the developing regard. could you suggest how fema is doing that and how you are dressing a certain reason regard to climate bottles? >> for bigger 12 we've been required to do the best science possible to determine the flood risk map and we continue to work with the scientific community in local communities to be able to identify what those potentials might be in the future in terms of climate adaptation particularly with the rising tide and flood zones. >> the question is how do you

plan to address the uncertain decent regard to the models of future sea rise and potential along those lines. >> i will answer that for the record. >> thank you. another question. the technical mapping advisory committee that was established, they indicate in a recent report that they believe it was about a 40% uncertainty associated with the flood models that were used. if you take that degree of uncertainty, which is extraordinary and put on top of it trying to estimate future changes in sea rise, future changes for the storm intensity and frequent the comment it seems like we are getting to a range of uncertainty that is no longer helpful to even use those types of models and predictive information. could you comment on that?

>> i don't think you can go to the extent of not using a modular predictive capability when you try to determine whether mitigation and preventive action need to be taken. while there is a certain degree of uncertainty, we continue to use the best available information based on a wide range of scientific data available. is there uncertainty? there's always uncertainty, but we have to start somewhere to create a basis on which the risk exists in the community. we just experienced floods in northern louisiana that no one would have expected based on the science that was there. there's a great deal of uncertainty when you deal with any weather event. we need to continue to find the best science at the time we create the risk map. as often as possible, come back and reevaluate the science. >> i certainly concur that we need to be using the best

information we can with regard to making decisions. the concern is asking other significant consequences of determining flood maps and ms i.t. premiums and with the 500 year flood risk management, there could be significant and severe financial implications. my point of having such severe implications yet having predictive models, that is not necessarily very comfortable combination of issues. i want to urge us to move forward that you keep that in mind. you need to keep in mind the reliability of the permission and models that take into account the consideration of financial implications on counties, parishes and others moving forward. director koon, i know a number of people who know you and you have a great reputation. thank you are being here. i appreciate your testimony. the house representatives asked h.r. 29 to one, which was

legislation and mr. nelson i will ask you a question as well. that bill, what it does is it allows for private flood insurers -- private flood insurance to serve effectively as a surrogate for the ms ip. sounds like a good idea. in many instances can be more efficient than government can. face value sounds like a good idea. however, being from your area and the area i was born, i'm very concerned we will see private insurers come in and start cheering at the policy with the lowest risk the abundance of happening in the reforms in 2014 is you are left with the policies that have higher risk. bigger waters swelled in the revisions from 2014 requires that was given to an sap following the 2015 and be paid and require a reserve fund be established and actuarial rates

be charged under flood insurance. my point is that the private sector insurance companies are going to have those financial burdens. and if ip will have a smaller pool of ratepayers. they will still be subjected to establishing a reserve fund, paid off this debt of $17 billion. are those concerns -- should i not be concerned about this? is there something we should be concerned about and be more comprehensive than just doing h.r. 2901? >> thank you for the question, congressman. the debt is closer to $23 billion. they would like to get to $17 million. my opinion is there needs to be more comprehensive reform of the national flood insurance program.

i would urge the committee next year was up for reauthorization to work with the committee on that. there's lots of components of the national flood insurance program that drug relates to the conversation we are having here today with regards to mitigation activities that can take this across the country. one of the things i express quite frequently in the state of florida and did just that yesterday before the conference as a result of some of the actions in 2012, we have seen a significant reduction of policies and specifically in the state of florida has lost over 10% of the flood insurance policies for more than 2 million but insurance follows is. those citizens, the next time you have a disaster, they are not going to recover like they would have had they had but insurance an additional cost imposed upon the federal government because they may be possible for assistance from fema. they may be eligible for the state comment veteran.

the cost will be borne by the individual's and were backed by government. a comprehensive analysis and reform i believe is completely appropriate at this point. >> the last legislative cycle on flood insurance and other private insurers offering but insurance policies in this day. it's very nascent at this point there's 2,003,000 private flood in turin agencies that it is a start. i do share concerns about the cherry-picking aspects. i will defer to mr. nelson on that. we have had a similar situation in the state of florida with the citizens insurance come to they have depopulated a large segment to the private market that was financially feasible. i believe comprehensive reform of the program is absolutely appropriate at this point.

>> thank you. first, let me say i would echo your can turn that you are raising. i think those are profound issues that we have to evaluate. >> mr. chairman for the record, i want to note that you called me profound. >> i do think if you just step back for a minute, when a backup. travelers to flood insurance on a commercial basis. for commercial insurance we do not write homeowners flood insurance and with no plan to enter the market. we do not have a formalized position i will express my own point. when you look at it, and put that a lot of their rate plans. i think they need to modernize the rate plan. they should not be allowed to compete with fema on price. remember, we have to buy reinsurance. we have to meet our obligations. that means we have to have

shareholders money. we should not be able to compete with fema. you step back in the plan needs to be modernized. i looked at it. it's not at all consistent with how the private sector looks at insurance, sells insurance and has a rate. let's start with that. let's modernize the program and then let's evaluate how we can privatize to think about the cherry-picking. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. graves made a good point earlier that congress needs to look across the federal government including flood control projects when we try to bend the cost curve of disasters. the disaster in the fema authorization will should help them make such recommendations to congress. i also want to thank administrator if you paid for the disaster deductible proposal. i don't know if it is the right solution, but we need a bigger

debate and innovative ideas if we are to drive down monsters and not just shift costs between payers. i want to thank you all for your testimony, your comments today have been helpful in our discussion. if there were no further questions, i would ask unanimous good and that the hearing be called open until such time as their witnesses have provided answers. 20 cautions may be submitted in writing and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing. that actions toward her die with her to think or witnesses for their testimony today. if no other members have any need to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> madam secretary, we probably get 72 of our vote to the united states. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

>> the senate is about to gavel and for work on the 2017 transportation has in the military via spending bills which they have combined into one measure. it includes three amendments related to send three research funding and they will be taking a vote on this later today. at 12:30, members will break for weekly party members returning at 2:15. live now to the floor of the senate. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.