gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

i actually in north texas i responded to the area of support. mr. crawford: but you were down there? ms. gardner: yes, sir. mr. crawford: i guess i am asking you to speculate. i have the concern of fema flood mapping and the -- how urrent they are. i'm whether you can opine to say fema is the best agency to in fact engage in flood mapping? ms. gardner: i will give you my opinion based on my experience but, yes, that would be a lot of speculation. i have not personally looked at the flood maps for that impacted area so that's another piece i am not aware of. i will tell you that fema has played an active role and they

engage actively, other partners, such as the national weather service and other partners that deal with flooding on a regular basis. and because they're used to doing that, i don't see a reason to change that process because we've seen it and it's worked in our communities. we do not flood in the city of richardson because of mitigation efforts that we've taken in the past. i have to say i -- not to say we never will. we don't see the same flooding issues and we use those maps. mr. crawford: let me ask mr. paulison because you have been a former fema administrator, correct? mr. paulison: yes. mr. crawford: can you say whether every five years fema update flood maps? mr. paulison: i know when i was fema administrator we started doing flood mapping, we started in the eastern part of the united states. i know north carolina was one of the first states we started. i'm not sure how far they got, how far they've gotten so far. but i know that fema had

started that process, trying to do the entire country, to get accurate flood maps. mr. crawford: i appreciate y'all being here today. i think i have to submit my questions for the record for someone else in your agency to be able to answer. i appreciate your cooperation. thank you. mr. paulison: thank you. >> thank you, mr. crawford. the chair recognizes the gentleman from -- the chair recognizes mr. defazio for five minutes. mr. defazio: thank you, mr. chairman. just back to the line of question of the subcommittee ranking member. i asked similar questions at an earlier hearing. what we have is contradiction here. the two contractors here claim that fema review the contracts and actually signed off on excluding oversight. that's been denied by fema and again today and so actually the inspector general is going to try to get to the bottom of this how these rather fishy contracts were entered into and what role fema played but we can't resolve that today until

we have the i.g. report. so let's go to some issues we might be able to resolve. mr. byard, ranking member titus and i just recently sent the administrator a letter expressing concern about your personnel, your reservists for emergencies. u should have 10,987 reservests. ou had 6,749 on call and you industrial 3,383 deployed. that seems to leave us with something around 4,300 reservists. how are you going to deal with that issue this year? mr. byard: you know, sir, that's a very good question. we face ined personnel shortages in 2017. you know, if you go back, the agency faced personnel shortages in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010, you can go

back. we will face personnel shortages in 2019. how do you accomplish our mission without coming and saying we need more fema employees? several things we're doing in the recommendation that affect us. first of all, changing our national level docket rip and revising the national response framework. what that will do for us as a country, it puts more players at the table so that the resources and personnel we have we can better utilize those by including the private sector and what we do daily in our private -- excuse me -- in our deliberate planning, in our operational planning, by incorporating our critical infrastructure nose, cross sector planning with those so that if a problem hits we don't hit one bucket. we organize around the problem. now, we are making hiring in critical areas. we're hiring in logistics. also, the report identified, we d issues with the last

logistic. help in the last logistic. for example, in texas, very robust capabilities on that end from the state and local side of the things. we didn't have that same issue. the other thing we got to do, if you look to the left or right, our best emergency managers are not -- they don't wear a fema shirt. they are our state and local partners. we have the system, as you probably are aware of, the emergency management assistance compact, and from the state -- from state emergency management, i have done that. i have assisted states and i have brought in states. but when we talk about a national catastrophe and similar to what we saw in 2017, we need the ability to also rally those resources, those well-trained professionals and put those resources to use. so that will increase our staffing also. we're doing that through the national qualification system

and we feel we will have great buy-in from our state and local partners. i did that in 2012 when hurricane sandy hit. led to acted me and i help out efforts in new york city. not only does that benefit us at the federal level, you bring those lessons learned back to your state and local jurisdictions so you better the nation. so we have to look at in a perfect world i would love to have 20,000 reservists ready to go right now and every other federal agency that sit in front of you say they would love to have x amount of people. we have to look outside our traditional means. we talk about state and local government and we talk about mitigation but that's not working. so how do we things better? mr. defazio: wasn't there concern, particularly to puerto rico, if they provided state and mutual aid? mr. byard: maybe. how did fema get involved in that? we expedited category b under the public assistance that

would reimburse the commonwealth to do that type of payment. we expedited that. that was our priority at the time, obligation to the commonwealth. there were concerns. that's a question better asked to the commonwealth or to others. we -- to combat that, what we did in 2018, we hired 1,500 on the island. they're fema employees. they're going through the national qualification system now. we have over 4,600 staff on the ground. we have people embedded in every municipality. we've done a tremendous amount of effort from 2017 response-wise into 2018. we put that to the test as i elieve somebody mentioned with a tropical storm. we can turn that into a response organization within 24 hours. we ins creased commodities

five-fold. generators are still connected to critical infrastructure. we know we're going to lose power in the storm but we will be able to power emergency power to those critical facilities. mr. defazio: thank you. my time has expired. i was going to ask the corps regarding the removal of the very large generators that they delivered if i could, mr. chairman. i don't know if they've actually been removed or planning to remove them. i guess i would question why you would do that now with the beginning of the hurricane season since their grid still seems somewhat fragile. >> sir, there were three what we call megagenerators rented and brought to the territory. two in palasteco. they remain in operation today. mr. alexander: there are no plans for immediate demobilization. mr. defazio: of good. that may have been bad information we received. mr. alexander: and there is one that will be demobilized effective midnight tomorrow.

and that is a decision that was reached based upon assessment by prepa, the status of the grid in that area. it was concurred. that decision to demobilized was collaborated and concurred by a group that has a representative from the governor's office there who concurred with that. mr. defazio: ok. hoping prepa is better managed now than before. mr. barletta: the chair recognizes mr. mast for five minutes. mr. mast: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. alexander, for representing the corps of engineers for this hurricane preparedness. my area dreads hurricane season not just because of impending storms but because year after year as a result of the risk management that surrounds hurricane preparedness through the corps of engineers, waters discharged out of lake okeechobee, hundreds of billions of gallons with algae, bacteria, blue green algae, right now the water being released from lake okeechobee

into my community has 15 times greater the level of algae that leads to a number of health hazards, 15 times greater than what any human being should be exposed to. this is all in the aim of risk management for the dikes surrounding lake okeechobee. i want to talk to but the risk management of the water levels of lake okeechobee, the risk management of the dike, the potentially failing dike around lake okeechobee. what is the level of water in inches, feet that lake okeechobee should be at going into hurricane season so there is not a risk of dike failure? mr. alexander: mr. mast, thank you for the question. going into the beginning of the wet season we strive to maintain a lake level of approximately 12 1/2 feet. mr. mast: 12 1/2 feet is the maximum level you want going into hurricane season? mr. alexander: yes, sir. up to 15 1/2 feet beginning of

the dry season. mr. mast: is that for strictly the purpose of risk management or are you keeping that 12 to 15 1/2 feet on the lake for other purposes? mr. alexander: that's a combination of trying to meet other purposes and balance the needs associated with environmental, you know, water -- mr. mast: you gave me an answer to a question i didn't ask. i asked you, what is the level on the lake for that lake, that dike to be safe from dike failure? not for other concerns, not for drinking water, not for agriculture, irrigation, not for agreements with the tribes around the lake. what level do you know the lake at so there's no risk of dike failure with the herbert hoover dike? mr. alexander: we go into hurricane season attempting to reach a level no less than 12 1/2 feet. mr. mast: i know i sent you to these questions in advance so i would have the answers given to me on this. how much water do you keep on the lake for these other concerns that you talk about?

how many water in inches or feet that's kept on lake okeechobee for purpose of agreements with the tribes? mr. mast: i'll give you the bottom line upfront. lake okeechobee is not managed like a corps flood control reservoir. the herbert hoover dike essentially it's a levee system that encompasses and contains a prior free-flowing lake. the specific question on inches of water is not applicable in the management of lake okeechobee. mr. mast: lake okeechobee and the corps of engineers controls every inch of water that goes on lake okeechobee. the municipalities were requesting one billion cuba feet per second hoping to get an inch off because they needed for the ecology of their waterway. they were denied. the corps of engineers has a call every single week where they pay attention to exactly the amount of inches or quarter inches of level of change on lake okeechobee so absolutely

lake okeechobee is managed and regulated in that way. so let me ask you a different one. how much water is kept on lake okeechobee in the form of what's requested by consumptive use permits for agriculture? how many inches, how many feet of water are kept on lake okeechobee for that purpose? mr. alexander: where will, i would like toity -- well, i would like to state the corps of engineers keeps track of every inch of water in that reservoir. that being said, though, we don't have specific allocations for the specific purposes and those consumptive use agreements. again, it's a balance between this 12 1/2 and 15 1/2 feet. it's managed as a system along with some other, i guess laws that exist down there with respect to the consumptive use the lake okeechobee surface water input rules. so we have to balance the multiple purposes and potential uses. mr. mast: in balancing those purposes, sir, i had a

conversation just a couple weeks ago. they said the optimum level for the ecology is at minimum 11 feet. i said if the water level should not be below 11 feet, if irrigation or those that need water, agriculture, irrigation, or those that need drinking water or somebody else needed water for those concerns, if the lake was at 11 feet, would you still send the water to the irrigation canals for agriculture? the answer was at yes. if it's at 10 feet would you send the canals for irrigation? yes. nine feet, the answer was yes. if the lake was at eight feet, the dangerously low level was, yes, they would still get their water for those purposes. so is it right you keep the water at this higher level -- when you're still going to send the water to these other areas for their purposes, even if the water is down as low as eight feet on lake okeechobee?

mr. alexander: sir, i have not been privy to any of those conversations that you have had. what i will say is that i know that our jacksonville district is engaged with the communities. is very engaged with you. i am not an expert on lake okeechobee and the releases but what i will offer is an engagement of you, colonel jason kirk, the district commander, and anybody else from his staff or here at headquarters who could walk you through in detail how we manage the lake and what the risks are at the various levels. mr. mast: thank you for your answers. thank you, mr. chair. i do request a second round of questioning. mr. barletta: thank you. the chair recognizes ms. plaskett for five minutes. ms. plaskett: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member for having this hearing. this is of course very important to me representing the virgin islands. after we have gone through the 2017 hurricane season are beginning the 2018 hurricane season and are still looking to ways in which not just to

recover but to begin the rebuilding. as some of you are probably unaware, for this entire school year, children in the virgin islands have operated on a four-hour shift system because so many of our public schools were compromised so that children had to share facilities and only participated in school curricular activities for four hours during the day. most of our dialysis and in-patient individuals are still off island because our hospitals had been compromised so much from the hurricane that they have been unable to be at home for those services. but i want to thank fema and the army corps, coast guard and so many other federal agencies that were there on the ground and are providing assistance. i know this action report really provides a blueprint on how to have improvements and make things better and i'm trusting that fema and the

other areas are really taking things to heart. the sign of maturity is recognizing when you have done things wrong and moving things moving forward. one of the things i wanted to ask these individuals about and particularly were some of the issues we still have. in april 20, we sent a letter to administrator brock long which i'd ask unanimous consent to submit into the record. this letter has been signed not only by myself but also this -- the chair of this committee, bill shuster and others, some of g support of the issues we have. without objection can that be submitted in the record? mr. barletta: yes, it may. ms. plaskett: one of the things we are concerned about, mr. byard, as well as mr. alexander, so you can assist in answering this question is with regard to debris removal.

the u.s. army corps is working under fema mission assignment to remove all of the vegetative, marine debris from the territory. this work will be completed in september. however, large stockpiles of debris remaining with hurricane season almost upon us again is very concerning. i know there has been some discussion about bidding this out answered suring where it can be kept. we were given an extension of the local share on this. but due to the army corps, a bid protest that was done to the army corps which they overcome debris will not be removed until the end of december. if no extension that long, the government of the virgin islands will be hit with a 10% local cost share. so my question is, mr. byard, will fema support 100% federal share extension since the delay is not in control of the government of the virgin

islands? mr. byard: man, that's a good question. as you know, debris has been a difficult task in the virgin islands. i was down i was down probably a month or so back and you're right. there's still a lot of work to do there. what we will do is definitely work with the governor. you know, once -- and if we received a request, i don't want to sound ignorant to that, it will be working itself up. if we don't receive a request i will look to that. i spoke to bill vogel today and also mike byrne who will be -- ms. plaskett: so you'll work with the governor and try to do that if it's necessary because it's outside our control? any cost share for us is really a great burden. mr. byard: yes, ma'am. ms. plaskett: the second question i have is with regard to the step program. you know, the step program is one which can be supportive of individuals. his is the program that allows

temporary repair of homes in the virgin islands. i know that there was some back and forth with regard to the step program because the limit initially for the step program was 20,000. however, the blue roof program we know ran an average of about 25,000 per roof. we understand that that has been increased, the step is now at 25,000. i know that governor of the virgin islands has a request in for 35,000 per home. are you willing to support that request at this time? mr. byard: what i do know is we authorized the use of the step program for any home in the territory with a blue roof. ms. plaskett: ok. would that include -- there's one thing that's really important to us. you did allow -- the step was used for rental properties in new york city after hurricane sandy. to date you have refused to allow that for low-income renters in the virgin islands. and some of those do in fact

have blue roofs on them. would you be willing to reconsider that? mr. byard: what i'd like is get back to you, representative. why i say that, we have the multilease repair program under the individual program. i want to see where that program is with multifamily facilities and also the steps. i'll have my staff definitely take that for action. if it's ok with you to get back with you because i want to make sure i give you a comprehensive answer on that county ms. plaskett: since you said you'll get back to me on the record i will hold you. mr. byard: please. ms. plaskett: it's been difficult to get fema, bill vogel has been really good about being on the ground and answering any questions we have. i've had difficulty getting individuals here at headquarters to come into my office and have conversations. i know we all have the same interests in mind and i'm not trying to be, you know, the bad guy all the time.

i really do want to see how we can work together and make this better, particularly as we're preparing people in the virgin islands for this new hurricane season. mr. byard: i will -- ms. plaskett: i know my time is out but, mr. alexander, i want to thank the army corps of engineers for really extending themselves and committing to aving biweekly meetings with me. that's been really hopeful. i'm happy for the cooperation and relationship our office has with them. thank you. i yield back. mr. bar let thank you, ms. plaskett. mr. gallagher. mr. gallagher: thank you. i hope we won't rehash what's been thread. in fema's action report -- this for mr. byard. the 2018 hurricane season, the deliver of food and commodities to puerto rico and the virgin islands was requested as a major challenge to the staffing shortages and logistical failures. can you explain what happened

with regard to commodities in 2017? and what adjustments you have made in 2018, particularly to address the potential needs of the territories should thereby another hurricane? mr. byard: yes, sir. be happy to -- so your first question was, you know, the 2017 issues. so -- and, again, as we pointed out in the report, all of our national planning, all of the deliberate planning we do is built around, you know, a three-legged stool if you will. you have lokearblings state, government support, particularly when you talk about logistical movement of commodities. what we particularly found in the commonwealth, two of those legs were not there. i don't need that to be disparaging. we had a lot of impacted first responders were survivors on the commonwealth. so we got -- we had the ability to get the commodities to and there were commodities always on the island. we accomplished that.

it was taking it from the port, for example, and getting it out o the more difficult terrain municipalities. we did crisis action planning on the ground. you always do that to assess the needs, task, organize, move out. that was accomplished. what are we doing in 2018? as i mentioned earlier, you know, one of our targeted hiring initiatives is in our logistics. everything we do is about logistics. so we are hiring more teams or more individuals that will staff teams called incident support teams that we can send to further expand our footprint for the last mile of logistics. first, in the caribbean, we have about 4,600 staff. fema staff that are doing the recovery mission. they're duo trained to do response. so we have staff in each municipality. we have satellite communication in each municipality. we have backup generators already installed in critical facilities to include communication towers.

we've also done logistical exercises where we had one warehouse going into 2017. we have five on the island now where we had thousands of commodities and maybe in water, we have millions now. we've also done exercises with the municipalities where we actually moved commodities from the distribution centers out into the more rural or difficult terrain municipalities. we did that to exercise the movement but didn't take the commodities back. they're safe, secured and stored. so we are well positioned from that standpoint in 2018 than we were in 2017. mr. gallagher: thank you. i appreciate that. administrator paulison, you have expertise as a firefighter and as an administrator. at can he we do to kush -- curb devastating wildfires? mr. paulison: it goes along with the mitigation we talked about earlier, about setting

aside money. mitigating from wildfires is not different from mitigating from any other type of disaster. what are the issues? what are the risk? and then having enough funding to deal with those risks. so i think that we need to -- i encourage this committee to look at the 6% of predisaster mitigation. states like your state, california, all those western states out there are having a very, very difficult time. i mean, we lost so many homes. we had fatalities out there. we had infrastructure destroyed. we had water systems destroyed because of wildfires out there. not having the right types of materials in place to withstand those type of disasters. so having a state having enough money with predisaster mitigation to deal with those types of things i think will go a long way toward resolving the issues we talked about, protecting our homes and businesses from these

wildfires. mr. gallagher: thank you. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. barletta: thank you. the chair recognizes ms. norton for five minutes. ms. norton: thank you very much, mr. chairman. this is a very timely hearing and i'll tell you why in a moment. this is a question i suppose best addressed by mr. byard and also mr. alexander. the question i'm asking implicates very deeply the federal presence with climate change throughout the country. we're seeing increasing flooding. that's been alluded to already in this hearing. there was sufficient concern about flooding here in the nation's capital that we have a levy on the -- levee on the mall that i that i, mr. alexander, the corps of engineers was involved with as well to protect the federal presence. yet, in real time, yesterday we had a disastrous flood in this

region. anybody who was here, unless you were in the capitol and didn't have to go out, could have missed what happens -- happened and it seems to me raised questions about flood preparedness, even in the area of the nation's capital. a portion of the george washington parkway was closed in both directions. and to show you just how close or how complicated the capitol is, water point of order into at least one metro stop and that happened to have been capital south. the one closest to the capitol of the united states. is anybody protected in the united states if they're close the capitol we could have such a flood. so my question really goes to a real test. we in the district of columbia, we're very proud. we have built on both water

fronts. the southeast waterfront and the southwest waterfront. many, many areas, of course, built on the waterfront so this question implicates new york and many other areas of the united states because the waterfront is a very ripe area for revenue. by the way, if you go to the southwest waterfront, we call it the wharf, we finished phase one. it looks like the whole thing is finished but phase two is yet to come. we're building on the southeast waterfront called capital river. again, that's ongoing. there will be another 10 years of building. i have to ask you -- is it safe to build on water fronts? what does fema require? what does the army corps of engineers require? what do they require of those building on the waterfront to

make sure that those areas are huge waste with a jurisdictions involved, not to mention the rivate sector? can anybody build on the waterfront? the waterfront, i have no information that the waterfront was implicated but i would be a fool to sit here and say everything is fine unless you tell me that they're either regulations or safeguards that have been required or are required for all who build on the waterfront and i'd like to hear from both of you since the federal presence is velocity. mr. byard? mr. byard: yes, ma'am. you know, majority of our population, as you well know, lives on the waterfront. when i was with the state of alabama, the governor asked me at the time, how do we help

hurricane evacuations and i said, ban air conditioning 50 miles from the coast and people will stop coming. obviously, the economic impacts are very -- ms. norton: you have to build on the waterfront. mr. byard: from a fema perspective, i would first look at initiatives that were passed by the committee. you know, the incentive to build stronger. excuse me, the bipartisan -- ms. norton: you're telling me that when people -- building occurs on the waterfront, i don't know what you mean by incentives, those that build understand they are required or there are economic incentives to do so? mr. byard: so what i'm saying -- let me rephrase that. part of the authorities that were granted in the bipartisan budget act that was passed was the incentives to build -- at a more resilient rate. fema has no authority over necessarily over what is built. that is a local and state issue. i would also, you know, as we have a working group that's

looking -- ms. norton: of course. you have mitigation authority. mr. byard: we have mitigation authority, again, working with an eligible applicant. there is is he not mitigation authority that we can direct or tell a local business how to build. we would work with the district in that case to see what are the local codes of the district? i don't know that. fema is not in position to know that. you know, i would -- i'll let the corps talk about that. ms. norton: mr. alexander. mr. alexander: yes, ma'am. i'll be quick. as mr. byard just said, the corps has no authority and oversight on the district or any other state -- ms. norton: i can't hear you, sir. mr. alexander: as mr. byard said, the corps has no authority which they can direct the district or any state or locality on what they can build or what they cannot build. but the corps does urge local governments to, you know,

enforce their zoning and certainly enforce building to establish codes. if you're going to build on the waterfront, whether it's river or coastal, you know, ensure you're out of the flood plane. you may have to do that by standoff or through elevation. it's the major reason we do shore protection projects along the nation's beaches. it is not primarily for recreation. it's for the protection of infrastructure and the economy. ms. norton: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. barletta: thank you. we will now begin a second round of questions. i'd like to remind all members today's the annual hotdog lunch in rayburn so we will hold everyone strictly to five minutes. in february, as part of the bipartisan budget act of 2018, congress enacted a provision that will allow fema to incentivize mitigation through the increase of the federal

cost share of disaster assistance. mr. byard, what is the status of fema's implementation of these provisions? mr. byard: yes, sir. we have a working group that's currently convened looking at how do we best implement and as you heard administrator pollson, we need to look at a pilot program. we want to take full advantage of the authority that congress, you know, granted us in that provision. it fits the administrator's strategic plan. you know, definitely we're looking at that. we want to do it right to start with so we have the intent of the provision as laid out by the act. mr. barletta: thank you. administrator paulison, what principles do you think should be driving fema's development of these mitigation incentives? mr. paulison: thank you. i think most important thing it's not a giveaway program, that the states have to do certain things to qualify for

that extra money, have a statewide building plan, have a mitigation plan, done assessment of the risk and put those mitigation dollars towards alleviating those risks. i think we need to make sure we're not wasting these taxpayer dollars but we're actually giving the dollars to states, do things to reduce costs. we had $200 billion last year. if we put strong mitigation in place for 2018 perhaps next year it won't be $200 billion. with the same amount storm. our conversation with fema is, they're doing a great job getting this thing going but let's make sure the states do what is necessary to mitigate the disaster costs. otherwise we're just wasting our money. mr. barletta: ms. gardner, what do you think are the greatest challenges facing state and local governments related to a cost share program designed to

ncentivize mitigation? mr. sheehan: as we look to invent advise mitigation programs, we need to be able to plan. mitigation measures take a long time to put into place. i think if anything -- i know one of administrator long's priorities is to simplify or take the complexity out of fema. anything we can do to reduce the complexity and build predictability in the funding streams will help us to be better mitigators. ms. gardner: to build on that, we definitely share that same -- that same concept. the actions that mr. paulison are r. sheehan discussed all challenges that we face but

from the state and local perspective, the more you do in policy to add incentives, it reintegrate to the importance and it gives us the leverage we need to do those mitigation steps even though they are lengthy and even though they are costly because there are other things to spend that money on. the more incentives that are there at all levels and as i mentioned earlier directly to private sector partners and citizens would also be a benefit, the more incentives there are just gives us more leverage to back up those mitigation projects and hopefully do more in the future. mr. barletta: thank you. the chair recognizes ms. titus for five minutes. ms. titus: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd just like to go back to some questions i was asking earlier. as you noted in your generalized answer, i had some specific questions i want to

ask you one more for the record. can you very specifically provide to the subcommittee a detailed justification of the -- or the project worksheets underwhich prepa is requesting reimbursement for power restoration in puerto rico? can you give us that information? mr. alexander: i just want to make sure, you're asking for the project worksheets that prepa, that fema is working with prepa on for the remaining category b work -- mr. byard: for that? ms. titus: for all of it. for the prior and remaining? mr. byard: well, the remaining, as we close on the emergency work, you know, the permanent restoration work which is two different categories of work, as you well know, i'm sure, is done under a different authority. under the stafford act but under section 428. the estimates are not there. there is no forward project worksheet, if you will, for the

remaining work. ms. titus: can you give us an accounting for what they did that you're paying them back for? mr. byard: sure. ms. titus: very simple, commonsense things, people understand, will you give us that? mr. byard: sure. i will check with our counsel to make sure but it's -- we have nothing to hide. ms. titus: it should be public record? mr. byard: it should be. ms. titus: great. i look forward to getting it. mr. byard: good. ms. titus: mr. alexander, continue a question that was asked by mr. defazio. i guess we have contradictory information but in a letter we got from fema that was dated last night, it says that the two megagenerators at the power plant will be demobilized on august 18, is that not accurate? mr. alexander: ma'am, we are working with fema to extend the

mission assignment for several months. i believe through potentially mid october. it's the albacoa power plant that will be demobilized. ms. titus: that is -- you are trying to extend the other two. mr. alexander: there are three megagenerators. two gas turbin engines. intent now is they currently are to -- that mission assignment ends i believe 18, august. right now on the island, federal coordinating officers are working with the corps and puerto rico on potentially extending that mission assignment for several more months into the fall. ms. titus: if that doesn't work out the deadline is august 18, right? mr. alexander: that would not be our decision, ma'am. the current mission assignment ends 18, august, for palaseco. the albacoa generator will be

demobilized tomorrow night at midnight. ms. titus: all right. i want to be sure that's clear because it sounded like you wouldn't demobilize the other two, that there wasn't question about it. also, i'd now like to go back to the point we were making about animals. we know people are much more likely to leave a disaster area if they can take their pets or they know what's going to happen to them. but we saw in the last disaster, i think it's harvey, pet shelters -- ms. gardner, i am sure you are well aware -- all over texas were taking in rescue animals. they use fema resources to do that. yet, there's little or no reporting on how those funds were used. that's why mrs. comstock and i introduced a bipartisan bill called the pet aid act just to do minimum reporting. back to fema about how resources are used, how pets are reunited, how they're cared for. just seems common sense. i would ask the local and the

state emergency management folks what they think about that bill, if they have any suggestions for it, if they can help us to get that passed, would it make their job easier, and also will be more accountability? mr. - ms. gardner or sheehan? ms. gardner: at the local level it would help with accountability. again, just like the other, with leveraging and helping us to reintegrate the need because apathy is the biggest challenge we have with all citizens. it takes about seven warning messages to get the person to take an action to protect themselves. and animals just accentuate that problem because they won't behind. ir animals the more we can do on the front end to explain what's going to happen with -- what that process will look like and their animals will take care of, they'll evacuate when asked to and do things proactively

instead of waiting until they're already impacted. mr. sheehan: ma'am, i do -- we do know that people are less likely to evacuate or there are additional complications people don't -- aren't able to take their pets with them. you know, it does present a logistical challenge when people bring pets. r ideas of animals are dogs, cats, birds. our countrymen sometimes have other ideas what's pets and those require special attention. i do think we have a lack of data around this and that reporting will be helpful for us in helping to manage it. if we're going to continue to manage it we need to so people can evacuate, then we need the data. ms. titus: that will be great. thank you. mr. barletta: the chair recognizes mr. mast for five minutes. mr. mast: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. alexander, let's go back to lake okeechobee during hurricane season. the corps of engineers recently said when they were announcing the releases of water to the treasure coast of florida from lake okeechobee in their risk

calculation was the threat of life to 36,000 people south of lake okeechobee. that's something that goes into that risk assessment matrix. knowing the situation there, one inch of water, six inches of water, one foot of water, that can be the difference of failure or not failure on that 730 mile square lake of lake okeechobee during a storm. so, again, i point out, the corps of engineers absolutely mansion and pays attention to -- manages and pays attention every inch of water on lake okeechobee, evaporates off lake okeechobee, goes to another body of water, the corps of engineers pays attention to it. now, i want to ask again, you do not have the numbers for how much water is maintained on lake okeechobee for the purpose of drinking water? mr. alexander: sir, i don't

believe i ever said the corps doesn't manage and knows exactly how much water is in the lake itself. that being said, again, lake okeechobee is not lefrpbled like our multipurpose reservoir. we work on a balance between 12 1/2 and 15 1/2 feet and that balance is to meet multiple purposes, environmental, water, supply, water control, flood, navigation. but at the end of the day, we have to place a premium on risk. mr. mast: at the end of the day it's risk. if you're keeping more water on the lake than what should be on there, then that puts at risk, according to the corps of engineers, 36,000 people south of lake okeechobee? so i'm formally requesting from the corps of engineers you do tell me exactly how much water you keep in terms of inches or feet on lake okeechobee or in terms of gallons for the purpose of agriculture, irrigation? for the purpose of drinking

water in the communities. for the purposes of the agreement with the tribes. what are the amounts through those consumptive use permits that is kept on the lake, because the corps of engineers needs to manage how much water is on the lake through your own admitans for all of those purposes in addition to risk management, in dation to a number of other things, how much you water on each of those, i'm making a formal request to the corps of engineers. i want to move to one thing. i recently sent a letter in the name of hurricane preparation and risk management, this water that's being released into my community out of lake oak chobey the corps does have discretion based upon pollution concerns that could be in the water and i asked the specific question -- what level of pollution or toxins of water in lake okeechobee would be considered too great of a level where the corps of engineers would say, we cannot discharge water to these epicenters of population, the treasure coast of florida or west coast of florida, what level of toxin in

the water would be considered too great? and the answer was entirely avoided. so i want to ask you, if there was cyanide in the water, would the corps of engineers cease discharging water to these epicenters of human population? mr. alexander: you know, sir, i am not avoiding your question. i don't have the answer. again, i am offering an engagement, whether it's here in d.c. or down in your district with the district leadership, with experts here at headquarters, army corps, and to discuss these matters. i am not an expert in lake okeechobee. i did receive your questions in advance. if i had specifics as to how many i would provide it. mr. mast: if there were lead in the water, would the army corps of engineers cease releasing the water? mr. alexander: sir, i can't answer that. i don't know what the tolerable levels are. mr. mast: if there were arsenic in the waters, would the corps cease discharging water to my

community that is not naturally connected to lake oak chobey the corps of engineers is discharging the water as a result of risk management, hurricane preparedness, that if they're discharging water right now, clearly enough water was not discharged earlier in the season? mr. alexander: again, sir, i don't have the specific answers. i have to believe, though, there are other regulating agencies who do pay attention to what those toxic levels are. i am confident they work hand in hand with the corps as we look at those releases. gain, i would offer a detailed issue and it needs to involve officials other than the corps. mr. mast: thank you for the second round of questions. mr. barletta: thank you for your testimony. your comments have been helpful to today's discussion. if there are no further questions, i'd ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open

until such time as witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing. without objection, so ordered. i'd like to thank our witnesses, again, for their testimony today. if no other members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> we were able to show you half of the hurricane preparation hearing. you can see all of it online at c-span.org. the u.s. house gaveling back in in just under 10 minutes. in an eastern. legislative work includes the 2019 interior financial services spending bill. also today, a resolution -- a resolution supporting the officers of i.c.e., immigration and customs enforcement. also start working on a