    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  BUILDING SMARTER: THE BENEFITS OF INVESTING
                            IN RESILIENCE AND MITIGATION

    =======================================================================

                                    (117-8)

                                 REMOTE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 18, 2021

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-336 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

      PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                      District of Columbia
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      RICK LARSEN, Washington
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    JOHN KATKO, New York                 HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   Georgia
    GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         DINA TITUS, Nevada
    MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           JARED HUFFMAN, California
    DOUG LaMALFA, California             JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida               DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
      Puerto Rico                        SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
    PETE STAUBER, Minnesota              TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              GREG STANTON, Arizona
    DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
    MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
    NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York         CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
    BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    MICHELLE STEEL, California           CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                                         KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
                                         MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
                                         NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
                                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                                         Vacancy

                                    ------                                7

          Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                              Emergency Management

         DINA TITUS, Nevada, Chair
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                District of Columbia
    JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
      Puerto Rico                        CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           Vacancy
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
                                         Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................     v

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
      Buildings, and Emergency Management:

        Opening statement............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
      Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management:

        Opening statement............................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure:

        Opening statement............................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    75

                                   WITNESSES

    Russell J. Strickland, Executive Director, Maryland Emergency
      Management Agency, on behalf of the National Emergency
      Management Association:

        Oral statement...............................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
    Roy E. Wright, President and Chief Executive Officer, Insurance
      Institute for Business and Home Safety:

        Oral statement...............................................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Velma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer, Flood-Prepared
      Communities Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts:

        Oral statement...............................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
    Ben Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability, Zurich North
      America:

        Oral statement...............................................    44
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
    John C. Fowke, Chairman, National Association of Home Builders:

        Oral statement...............................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    51

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Submissions for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus:

        Statement of the BuildStrong Coalition.......................     6
        Letter of March 17, 2021, from the SmarterSafer Coalition....     9
    Letter of March 18, 2021, from the National Ready Mixed Concrete
      Association; National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; and
      Portland Cement Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
      Daniel Webster.................................................    75

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions to Russell J. Strickland, Executive Director, Maryland
      Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the National
      Emergency Management Association, from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus....................    79
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................    86
    Questions to Roy E. Wright, President and Chief Executive
      Officer, Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety,
      from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus....................    87
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................    92
    Questions to Velma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer,
      Flood-Prepared Communities Initiative, The Pew Charitable
      Trusts, from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus....................    93
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   102
    Questions to Ben Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability, Zurich
      North America, from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus....................   103
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   106
    Questions to John C. Fowke, Chairman, National Association of
      Home Builders, from:

        Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus....................   107
        Hon. Michael Guest...........................................   111

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 March 15, 2021

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
    Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
        FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management
        RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Building Smarter: The
    Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation''
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
    and Emergency Management will meet on Thursday, March 18, 2021,
    at 2:00 p.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via
    Cisco Webex, to receive testimony on ``Building Smarter: The
    Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation.'' At the
    hearing, Members will receive testimony from witnesses with
    expertise in emergency management, mitigation and resilience,
    insurance, and construction. The Subcommittee will hear from
    the National Emergency Management Association, the Insurance
    Institute for Business and Home Safety, the Pew Charitable
    Trusts' Flood Prepared Communities program, Zurich North
    America, and the National Association of Home Builders.

                                   BACKGROUND

        For the last several years, the United States has
    experienced an increasing and unprecedented number of
    significant hazard events--hurricanes, tornados, floods,
    derechos, wildfires, abnormal heatwaves, and freezes--that have
    impacted tens of millions of Americans and taken varying tolls
    on countless communities.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Disaster Preparedness: DRRA Implementation and FEMA
    Readiness. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic Development,
    Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. 116th Congress, May 22,
    2019. See also Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America:
    Mitigating Damage and Recovering Quickly from Disasters. 115th
    Congress, April 27, 2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Decades of regular federal data collection and scientific
    research and analysis, as well as private sector research
    indicates that these types of events are increasing.\2\ A
    review of requests for Federal emergency assistance and/or
    disaster relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA) is accordingly on the rise as state, tribal,
    territorial, and local governments' capacity to respond to and
    recover from these events is quickly exceeded given the scale
    and associated losses.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
    ``Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Events''. Available at:
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.
        \3\ Congressional Research Service. Stafford Act Declarations 1953-
    2016: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress (R42702). August
    28, 2017. See also FEMA, Declared Disasters. Available at https://
    www.fema.gov/disasters/disaster-declarations
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2012, Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance
    company, reported that between 1980 and 2011, North America
    suffered $1.06 trillion in total losses, including $510 billion
    in insured losses, and an increase in weather-related events
    five-fold over the previous three decades.\4\ In 2005, it was
    reported that since 1952, the cost of natural disasters to the
    federal government more than tripled, as a function of gross
    domestic product.\5\ These statistics have only grown in the
    intervening years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Munich Re (2012). Severe weather in North America--Perils Risk
    Insurance. Munich, Germany: Muchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft.
        \5\ The Princeton University Geoscience 499 Class, The Increasing
    Costs of U.S. Natural Disasters. Geotimes, November 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For several congresses, this Subcommittee has examined
    increasing costs of emergency assistance and disaster relief,
    and has worked to enact reforms and enhancements to the Robert
    T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
    (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended) to bolster federal
    assistance via FEMA to state, local, tribal, and territorial
    governments to invest in mitigation and resilience, including
    investments in natural infrastructure.\6\ Most recently, in
    2018 the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA, P.L. 115-254,
    Division D) provided additional assistance and eligibility for
    both pre- and post-disaster mitigation from all hazards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Building Community
    Resilience with Nature-Based Solutions: A Guide for Local Communities.
    August 2020. Available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
    2020-08/fema_riskmap_nature-based-solutions-guide_
    2020.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are numerous causes that may be driving these rising
    disaster costs, including population growth and increased
    density in disaster-prone areas, changes in weather and fire
    events, and changes in disaster relief programs. In a 2013
    report to Congress--responding to a provision of the Sandy
    Recovery Improvement Act (P.L. 113-2, Sec. 1111)--FEMA
    acknowledged the increase in the number of extreme disaster
    events and increased vulnerabilities throughout the United
    States due to shifting demographics, aging infrastructure, land
    use, and construction practices.\7\ Further, the Congressional
    Research Service (CRS) analyzed data from over 1,300 major
    disasters since 1989, and adjusting for inflation, found that
    FEMA obligated more than $178 billion for these disasters.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ FEMA, National Strategy Recommendations: Future Disaster
    Preparedness. September 6, 2013. Available at http://www.fema.gov/
    media-library-data/bd125e67fb2bd37f8d609cbd71b835ae/
    FEMA+National+Strategy+Recommendations+(V4).pdf.
        \8\ CRS Memo Data Analysis for House Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee, January 14, 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In November 2020, FEMA released the ``Building Codes Save:
    A Nationwide Study,'' a nearly decade-long assessment of losses
    avoided through the adoption of hazard-resistant consensus-
    based building codes and standards.\9\ The study found that 65
    percent of U.S. counties, cities, and towns had not yet adopted
    modern building codes--defined as codes developed since
    2000.\10\ Analysis of the data shows savings in multiple
    hundreds of millions of dollars for disaster response and
    recovery costs across disaster-impacted areas with modern
    codes.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ FEMA, Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study. November 2020.
    Available at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/
    building-science/building-codes-save-study.
        \10\ Id.
        \11\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DISASTER RECOVERY REFORM ACT OF 2018 (DRRA)

        The DRRA was initially crafted to address the rising costs
    of disasters in the United States and was intended to reform
    federal disaster programs to ensure communities are better
    prepared for future hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes,
    wildfires, and other disasters.\12\ It incentivizes states to
    invest in stronger mitigation measures and resilient
    rebuilding--which will reduce the future loss of life and the
    rising costs of disasters--to ensure that communities are well-
    equipped to better prepare for and withstand disasters of all
    kinds.\13\ The DRRA strengthened and established a consistent
    funding stream for pre-disaster mitigation. A section of the
    DRRA as originally reported by the Committee (later enacted as
    Section 20606 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, P.L. 115-
    123) also directed FEMA to incentivize mitigation by increasing
    the federal cost share. That section has not been implemented.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ H. Rept. 115-1098. Available at https://www.congress.gov/115/
    crpt/hrpt1098/CRPT-115hrpt1098.pdf
        \13\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS) has
    found significant cost savings in mitigation projects and the
    adoption of consensus-based building codes and standards. In
    examining code aspects related to riverine flood, wind, and
    earthquake, the NIBS concluded:
         LThere is a benefit of $11 for every $1 spent by
    designing buildings to meet modern consensus-based codes and
    standards such as those developed by the International Code
    Council (ICC), versus the prior generation of codes represented
    by 1990-era design and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
    requirements.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ National Institute of Building Sciences ``Natural Hazard
    Mitigation Saves Study.'' Available at https://www.nibs.org/page/
    mitigationsaves.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LHazard mitigation projects funded with federal
    grants provided by FEMA, the U.S. Economic Development
    Administration (EDA), and the U.S. Department of Housing and
    Urban Development (HUD) can save the country $6 in future
    disaster response and recovery costs for every $1 spent,
    according to more than two decades worth of data on these
    grants.\15\
         LGenerally, investing in certain mitigation
    measures above and beyond select requirements of the 2015
    International Codes (I-Codes)--the model building codes
    developed by the ICC--can save an additional $4 for every $1
    spent for certain hazards.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Id.
        \16\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MITIGATION ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE FROM FEMA

        FEMA administers mitigation assistance via three main
    Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs: Stafford Act Sec.
    203 Predisaster Mitigation Assistance (PDM, 42 U.S.C. 5133);
    Stafford Act Sec. 404 Hazard Mitigation (HMGP, 42 U.S.C.
    5170c); and the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended, Sec.
    1366 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA, 42 U.S.C. 4104c).
        Additionally, Public Assistance (PA) provided for
    infrastructure repair or replacement and Individual Assistance
    (IA) provided to individuals and households for residential
    repair or temporary forms of housing is subject to statutory,
    regulatory, and policy requirements to bring facilities up to
    the most recent consensus-based codes and standards. The goal
    of these various forms of assistance is to ensure that our
    nation's citizens and communities are resilient to various
    hazards.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ FEMA. Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. Available at
    https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation-assistance-
    guidance
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PDM (BRIC)

        DRRA Sec. 1234 established of a steady stream of funding
    for a nationally competitive predisaster mitigation program.
    FEMA undertook a complete redesign of its previous iteration of
    Stafford Sec. 203 assistance and developed the Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. As
    amended, the Stafford Act now allows the President to set aside
    from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) an amount equal to six
    percent of the estimated aggregate amount of assistance
    provided pursuant to Sections 403, 406, 407, 408, 410, 416, and
    428 for major disasters.
        The application window for the first grant cycle of BRIC
    closed at the end of January 2021. Grants are provided at 100
    percent federal cost share and are capped at a maximum of $50
    million.\18\ Of the states, 49 of 50 submitted applications
    totaling $3.6 billion for the $500 million available for the
    cycle; application review is currently underway, with awards
    expected in summer 2021.\19\ Under BRIC ``mitigation projects
    must, at a minimum, be in conformance with the latest published
    editions (meaning either of the two most recently published
    editions) of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications,
    and standards that incorporate the latest hazard-resistant
    designs.'' \20\ Additionally, FEMA may fund the development,
    adoption, evaluation, and enhancement of building codes and
    standards with BRIC awards.\21\ In October 2020, the Trump
    administration set aside $500 million of the eligible $3.7
    billion from the COVID-19 disaster declarations for the PDM/
    BRIC set-aside in the DRF.\22\ Chairs DeFazio and Titus and
    Ranking Members Graves and Katko sent a letter urging then FEMA
    Administrator Peter Gaynor and then OMB Director Russell Vought
    to reconsider the decision, and fully fund the set-aside to
    ensure a robust BRIC program in the coming years.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ FEMA. Fiscal Year 2020 Notices of Funding Opportunities for
    Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants. Available at https://www.fema.gov/
    grants/mitigation/fy2020-nofo
        \19\ FEMA BRIC program staff briefing call with Committee staff.
    February 24, 2021.
        \20\ FY 2020 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities,
    Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). Available at https://
    www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_fy20-bric-notice-of-
    funding-opportunity_federal-register_August-2020.pdf
        \21\ Stafford Sec. 203(g)(10).
        \22\ CRS. FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation: The Building Resilient
    Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program (IN11515). December 28,
    2020. Available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11515
        \23\ Letter from Ch. DeFazio, RM Graves, Chair Titus, and Chair
    Katko to FEMA Admin. Gaynor and OMB Dir. Vought. October 15, 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HMGP

        Stafford Sec. 404 provides a regular stream of post-
    disaster mitigation funding to states, tribes, and territories.
    For disasters under $2 billion in overall Stafford assistance,
    the HMGP grant is 15 percent of the aggregate assistance. This
    percentage decreases as disaster costs grow; 10 percent for
    disasters more than $2 billion and less than $10 billion, and
    7.5 percent for disasters more than $10 billion and less than
    $35.333 billion. The federal cost share for HMGP grants is 75
    percent.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Stafford Act, Sec. 404(a).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        HMGP grants are managed by states, tribes, and territories,
    and are available for use broadly, beyond declared disaster
    areas for multiple types of hazards. Additionally, HMGP funds
    may fund the development, adoption, evaluation, and enhancement
    of building codes and standards.\25\ The period of performance
    for these grants is exhausted seven years from the date of
    declaration and following an opportunity for extension.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ Stafford Act, Sec. 404(f) and (g).
        \26\ FEMA. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Available at: https://
    www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        HMGP encourages the use of building codes and standards--
    such as the American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural
    Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 24-14, Flood Resistant Design
    and Construction--wherever possible, and sub-applicants to
    states, tribes, and territories must document that their
    project is feasible and effective at mitigating risks of
    hazards.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ 44 CFR Sec. 206.434(c). See also, FEMA 2015 Hazard Mitigation
    Assistance Guidance and Addendum, available at https://www.fema.gov/
    grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation-assistance-guidance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMA

        Flood Mitigation Assistance is not under the jurisdiction
    of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as it is
    authorized by the Committee on Financial Services as part of
    the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FMA is a
    competitive grant program that provides funding to state,
    tribal, territorial and local governments for projects that
    reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to
    buildings insured by the NFIP.
        In the fiscal year 2020 grant cycle, which closed in
    January 2021, $200 million was available for FMA. Up to $4
    million is available for project scoping (max grant award per
    applicant is $600,000), up to $70 million is available for
    community flood mitigation projects (max amount of assistance
    available to any NFIP-participating community is $30 million),
    and $126 million will be awarded for technical assistance,
    flood hazard mitigation planning, and individual flood
    mitigation projects.\28\ The federal cost share for FMA grants
    is typically 75 percent, although mitigation projects for
    repetitive loss properties can adjust to 90 percent, and severe
    repetitive loss properties up to 100 percent federal cost
    share.\29\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ FEMA. Fiscal Year 2020 Notices of Funding Opportunities for
    Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants. Available at: https://
    www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/fy2020-nofo.
        \29\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PA)

        FEMA provides PA to restore facilities based on pre-
    disaster design and function. However, conformity with the
    latest published editions of relevant consensus-based codes and
    standards, incorporating the latest hazard-resistant designs is
    required. Additionally, establishing minimum acceptable
    criteria for the design, construction, and maintenance of
    residential structures and facilities may be eligible for
    assistance for the purposes of protecting the health, safety,
    and general welfare of the facility's users against
    disasters.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ 44 CFR Sec.  206.226(d)(1)-(5). See also 44 CFR Sec.
    206.226(f)(2), Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG)
    (2020), and FEMA Recovery Interim Policy FP 104-009-11.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE (IA)

        In providing IA, FEMA adheres to all applicable codes and
    standards for the multiple types of assistance that may be
    available for disaster survivors, pursuant to Stafford Sec.
    408(c)(2)(i) and 44 C.F.R. Part 206, Subpart D (Federal
    Assistance to Individuals and Households). When applicable,
    forms of IA also comply with the National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA); accessibility-related standards found in the
    Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and the Americans with
    Disabilities Act and associated ADA Accessibility Guidelines
    and HUD's Design Details for Accessible Disaster Relief
    Housing; 24 C.F.R. 3280, Subpart A (Manufactured Home
    Construction and Safety Standards); 44 C.F.R. Part 9, Subpart A
    (Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands); 24 C.F.R.
    982.401 (Housing Quality Standards (HQS), Subpart 1 Dwelling
    Unit: Housing Quality Standards, Subsidy Standards, Inspection
    and Maintenance); 44 C.F.R. 206.117(b)(4) (Permanent and Semi-
    permanent Housing Construction); Recreation Vehicle Industry
    Association and California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards
    and/or the Toxic Substances Control Act Title VI requirements
    for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products found
    in recreational vehicles; and Uniform Federal Accessibility
    Standards (UFAS).\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ FEMA. Response to Committee RFI on applicable codes and
    standards for IA. Provided March 10, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MITIGATION FRAMEWORK LEADERSHIP GROUP (MITFLG)

        In the wake of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina,
    several reform efforts were authorized by the Post-Katrina
    Emergency Management Reform Act (P.L. 109-295, Title VI),
    including the establishment of the National Mitigation
    Framework, which included the creation of the Mitigation
    Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG). FEMA chairs the MitFLG,
    which is responsible for organizing mitigation efforts across
    the federal government, in cooperation and coordination with
    state, local, tribal, and territorial public-sector
    representatives. Additionally, the MitFLG assesses the
    effectiveness of these capabilities across the United
    States.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ FEMA. Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG).
    Available at: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-
    preparedness/frameworks/mitigation/mitflg
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The second edition of the National Mitigation Framework was
    released in June 2016. It focuses on a whole of community
    approach to mitigation and resilience, with a penultimate goal
    of nurturing a national culture of preparedness and reducing
    the impacts of disaster and the resultant loss of life and
    property.\33\ In August 2019, the MitFLG released the National
    Investment Mitigation Strategy report (NIMS), which seeks to
    identify and measure the effectiveness of mitigation
    investments, and inform decisions on when and where to make
    investments using the whole of community approach that has been
    leveraged in other phases of emergency management. The NIMS
    encourages investment in both pre- and post-disaster
    mitigation--across the whole of community--with three shared
    goals: 1) showing how mitigation investments reduce risk, 2)
    coordination of mitigation investments to reduce risk, and 3)
    making mitigation investment standard practice.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ FEMA. National Mitigation Framework (June 2016). Available at:
    https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/
    National_Mitigation_Framework2nd_june2016.pdf
        \34\ FEMA/MitFLG. National Mitigation Investment Strategy.
    Available at: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/
    fema_national-mitigation-investment-strategy.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has long
    acknowledged that ``limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal
    Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks'' is a high
    risk area.\35\ FEMA, and the federal disaster relief and
    mitigation assistance it provides, combined with the efforts of
    the MitFLG, can and should play a significant role in reducing
    this exposure--ultimately ensuring that taxpayer resources are
    being invested in projects that are buying down future risk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ Government Accountability Office. Limiting the Federal
    Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks.
    Available at: https://www.gao.gov/highrisk/limiting-federal-
    governments-fiscal-exposure-better-managing-climate-change-risks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The hearing will highlight best practices across FEMA's
    efforts in encouraging and growing resilience and mitigation
    across the nation, as well as identify additional opportunities
    for continued enhancement, whether expanding eligible
    activities to mitigate against additional vulnerabilities to
    growing hazards, or better alignment between FEMA's pre- and
    post-disaster assistance programs.

                                  WITNESS LIST

         LRussell Strickland, Executive Director, Maryland
    Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the National
    Emergency Management Association
         LRoy Wright, President & CEO, Insurance Institute
    for Business and Home Safety
         LVelma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer,
    The Pew Charitable Trusts
         LBen Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability,
    Zurich North America
         LJohn ``Chuck'' Fowke, Chairman, National
    Association of Home Builders

         BUILDING SMARTER: THE BENEFITS OF INVESTING IN RESILIENCE AND
                                   MITIGATION

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
          Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
                   Buildings, and Emergency Management,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in
    room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Cisco Webex,
    Hon. Dina Titus (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present in person: Ms. Titus, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Norton, Mr.
    Garamendi, Mr. Webster, Mr. Massie, Miss Gonzalez-Colon, Mr.
    Guest, and Mr. Graves of Louisiana.
        Present remotely: Ms. Davids, Mr. Pappas, Mrs. Napolitano,
    and Ms. Van Duyne.
        Ms. Titus. The hearing will come to order.
        The chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time
    during today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
        For Members participating remotely, if a Member is
    experiencing any connectivity issues, or any other technical
    problems, please inform the committee staff as soon as possible
    so you can receive assistance. I will make a good-faith effort
    to provide every Member experiencing any kind of connectivity
    issue an opportunity to participate fully in the proceedings.
        It is the responsibility of each Member seeking recognition
    to unmute their microphone prior to speaking, and to keep your
    microphone muted when not speaking to avoid inadvertent
    background noise.
        Should I hear any inadvertent background noise--dogs
    barking, cats meowing, children playing--I will request that
    the Member please mute their microphone.
        And, finally, to insert a document into the record, please
    have your staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
        We want to say good afternoon to everybody who is watching
    or participating and to thank our witnesses for being here
    today.
        This is the subcommittee's first hearing of the 117th
    Congress. Before we get started, though, I would like to take a
    minute to recognize and welcome Mr. Daniel Webster of Florida,
    who is the new ranking member of the subcommittee. Our
    subcommittee has the distinction of being the most productive
    of any of the subcommittees under the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee, and I look forward to working
    together with Mr. Webster to keep that record going as we
    advance policies and programs that safeguard the lives and
    livelihoods of the communities we serve.
        Today's hearing is entitled ``Building Smarter: The
    Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation.'' These are
    two intertwined topics that have enjoyed bipartisan attention
    and cooperation in the past.
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency is, perhaps,
    responsible for the most significant amount of dedicated
    funding for pre- and post-disaster mitigation, and it leads the
    whole-of-Federal Government strategy to build a more resilient
    Nation. Ranking Member Webster is no stranger to these issues.
    As he noted to me, he previously worked in the Florida
    Legislature to enact the State's updated building codes in
    1996, following the devastating impacts of Hurricane Andrew.
    Those updated building codes are one example of a cost-
    effective mitigation strategy, and they have led to more
    resilient communities all across Florida.
        In insurance and emergency management circles, Florida's
    2004 hurricane season is infamous for four major storms,
    Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne, that crisscrossed the State
    during a 6-week span, leaving virtually no square inch
    untouched.
        In the wake of those storms, the Insurance Institute for
    Business and Home Safety conducted a study of residential
    construction comparing homes built before and after the 1996
    adoption of the bolstered codes to examine the impacts on
    insurance claims. The IBHS study found that homes constructed
    after the new codes saw 60 percent fewer claims, and those
    claims were 42 percent less costly than the homes constructed
    before the strengthened codes.
        Now, that is just one example, but we know that when homes,
    businesses, and other infrastructure are built stronger from
    the get-go, or are built back stronger following disasters,
    they are less likely to be seriously damaged in future events.
    That ability to bounce back faster is a measure of their
    resilience. Unfortunately, as more American communities grapple
    with ever increasingly severe natural hazards, we don't have to
    look hard to find examples of communities that we all represent
    that have been knocked down by recent disasters.
        Last month, for example, Texas electric utilities suffered
    a multiday catastrophic failure resulting from an unusual deep
    freeze. Something similar happened in 2011 and also in 1989,
    and one of the recommendations of the multiple after-action
    reviews in 2011 was for generating companies to invest in
    insulation for equipment and heaters or other technologies that
    are commonly employed by their counterparts in areas more prone
    to cold weather.
        While the power generators are typically investor-owned
    utilities and ineligible for mitigation assistance from FEMA,
    their failure to invest in this type of mitigation led Governor
    Abbott to request a major disaster declaration for all 254
    Texas counties, to provide relief to the 4\1/2\ million
    households that lost power, and to the public buildings and
    other infrastructure damaged by the deep freeze.
        In a briefing from Members of Congress and their staffs
    last month, the State's emergency manager, Chief Nim Kidd,
    estimated that the resulting damages experienced by public
    buildings, private businesses, and residents from last month's
    rolling blackouts from days' long power outages would likely
    result in a need for more Federal disaster assistance, more
    than was allocated to respond and recover from 2018's Hurricane
    Harvey, and that was the State's costliest natural disaster up
    until that point.
        And it was reported on Tuesday that at least 57 Texans lost
    their lives as a result of severe winter weather--from
    hypothermia, carbon monoxide poisoning, medical equipment
    failures, falls, and car crashes. We haven't even touched upon
    the ever-increasing threat of wildfires across the West and the
    expansive risks to low-lying communities from rising tides or
    storm surges.
        The majority of the assistance FEMA provides in response to
    Presidential disaster declarations funds the repair or
    replacement of infrastructure. In addition to this Public
    Assistance funding, the Stafford Act provides for 15 percent of
    eligible disaster costs to be sent to disaster-impacted States
    to be used in post-disaster mitigation projects. This is
    referred to as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
        These projects have provided a significant return on
    investment to the taxpayer. Depending on the type of project,
    the National Institute of Building Sciences has demonstrated
    between $4 and $11 in reduced disaster recovery costs resulting
    from federally funded mitigation projects. Let me repeat that:
    A return between $4 and $11 depending on the project, and that
    is a key point for us to remember.
        In 2018, following significant analysis work by this
    subcommittee, Congress amended the Stafford Act with the
    passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act. For the first
    time, taking lessons learned from the successful Post-disaster
    Mitigation Program, we decided that FEMA should have a
    similarly funded Pre-disaster Mitigation Program. This program
    existed prior to the reform bill, but was inconsistently funded
    by our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. We thought
    we needed to take a closer look at this and found that the
    programs should differ from the Hazard Mitigation Grant
    Program, because it would be nationally competitive.
        For a State like Nevada, that can make a huge difference.
    We have 86 percent of our land owned by the Federal Government,
    so we don't get much disaster relief, so pre-disaster
    mitigation would be a game changer.
        FEMA's program is called BRIC, Building Resilient
    Infrastructure and Communities. It is too soon to tell how
    effective BRIC is, but just to look at the figures, the first
    application cycle had $500 million available; applications
    totaled more than $3.6 billion. So, obviously, there is a great
    demand.
        So we want to examine what works and what is flawed in
    FEMA's approach to mitigation and resilience, how the Agency
    can further empower States, Tribes, Territories and localities
    to better leverage this type of program.
        I look forward to all of our witnesses' and our Members'
    perspectives, and working with Ranking Member Webster and our
    colleagues to advance future legislative efforts out of this
    subcommittee to provide FEMA the resources and tools that it
    needs to make American communities more resilient, more
    resistant to predictable hazards.
        [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress
         from the State of Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic
            Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
        Good afternoon, and thank you to our witnesses.
        This is the Subcommittee's first hearing of the 117th Congress, but
    before we get started I just want to take a moment to recognize Mr.
    Daniel Webster of Florida, the new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.
        Our Subcommittee has the distinction of being the most productive
    of any under Transportation and Infrastructure and I look forward to
    working together to keep that record going as we advance policies and
    programs that safeguard the lives and livelihoods of the communities we
    represent.
        Today's hearing is titled, ``Building Smarter: The Benefits of
    Investing in Resilience and Mitigation''--two intertwined topics that
    have enjoyed bipartisan attention and cooperation.
        The Federal Emergency Management Agency is perhaps responsible for
    the most significant amount of dedicated funding for pre- and post-
    disaster mitigation, and leads the whole of the federal government's
    strategy to build a more resilient nation.
        Ranking Member Webster is no stranger to these issues. As he noted
    to me, he previously worked in the Florida Legislature to enact the
    state's updated building codes in 1996 following the devastating
    impacts of Hurricane Andrew.
        Those updated building codes are one example of a cost-effective
    mitigation strategy. And they have led to more resilient communities
    all across Florida.
        In insurance and emergency management circles, Florida's 2004
    hurricane season is infamous for the four storms--Charley, Frances,
    Ivan, and Jeanne--that crisscrossed the state during a six-week span,
    leaving virtually no square inch of the state untouched.
        In the wake of those storms, the Insurance Institute for Business
    and Home Safety conducted a study of residential construction,
    comparing homes built before and after the 1996 adoption of the
    bolstered codes to examine the impacts on insurance claims.
        The IBHS study found that homes constructed after the new codes saw
    60 percent fewer claims, and those claims were 42 percent less costly
    than the homes constructed before the strengthened codes.
        That's just one example, but we know that when homes, businesses,
    and other infrastructure are built stronger from the get-go, or are
    built back stronger following disaster, they're less likely to be
    seriously damaged during future events. That ability to bounce back
    faster is a measure of their resilience.
        Unfortunately, as more American communities grapple with ever
    increasingly severe natural hazards, we don't have to look hard to find
    examples of communities that we all represent that have been knocked
    down by recent disasters.
        Last month Texas electric utilities suffered a multi-day
    catastrophic failure resulting from an unusual deep freeze.
        Something similar happened in 2011 and also in 1989, and one of the
    recommendations of the multiple after action reviews in 2011 was for
    generating companies to invest in insulation for equipment and heaters
    or other technologies that are commonly employed by their counterparts
    in areas more prone to cold weather.
        While the power generators are typically investor-owned utilities
    and ineligible for mitigation assistance from FEMA, their failure to
    invest in this type of mitigation led Governor Abbott to request a
    major disaster declaration for all 254 Texas counties to provide relief
    to the four and a half million households that lost power and to the
    public buildings and other infrastructure damaged by the deep freeze.
        In a briefing for Members of Congress and their staffs last month,
    the state's emergency manager, Chief Nim Kidd, estimated that the
    resulting damages experienced by public buildings, private businesses,
    and residences from last month's rolling blackouts from days-long power
    outages would likely result in the need for more federal disaster
    assistance than was allocated to respond and recover from 2018's
    Hurricane Harvey, the state's costliest natural disaster to that point.
    And it was reported on Tuesday that at least 57 Texans lost their lives
    as a result of the severe winter weather--from hypothermia, carbon
    monoxide poisoning, medical equipment failure, falls, and car crashes.
        We haven't even touched upon the ever-increasing threat of
    wildfires across the West, or the expansive risk to low-lying
    communities from rising tides or storm surges.
        The majority of the assistance FEMA provides in response to
    Presidential disaster declaration funds the repair or replacement of
    infrastructure. In addition to this Public Assistance funding, the
    Stafford Act provides for 15 percent of eligible disaster costs to be
    sent to disaster-impacted states to be used in post-disaster mitigation
    projects--this is referred to as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
    (HMGP).
        These projects have provided a significant return on investment to
    the taxpayer: depending on the type of project, the National Institute
    of Building Sciences (NIBS) has demonstrated between $4 and $11 in
    reduced disaster recovery costs resulting from federally-funded
    mitigation projects--ranging from the adoption of stronger building
    codes to physical infrastructure projects.
        In 2018, following significant analysis and work by this
    Subcommittee, Congress amended the Stafford Act with the passage of the
    Disaster Recovery Reform Act. For the first time, taking the lessons
    learned from the successful post-disaster mitigation program, we
    decided that FEMA should similarly fund a Pre-disaster Mitigation (PDM)
    program.
        This program existed prior to the reform bill, but was
    inconsistently funded by our colleagues on the Appropriations
    Committee. This program would differ from the Hazard Mitigation Grant
    Program in that it would be nationally competitive, with a goal of
    making investments in mitigation and resilience before disaster could
    strike.
        For a state like Nevada, which rarely receives Hazard Mitigation
    assistance due to more than 84 percent of the state being federal lands
    and our few and far between Presidential disaster declarations, the new
    Pre-Disaster Mitigation program could be a game changer for communities
    I represent in Clark County, where an investment in a transformative
    mitigation project has the potential to benefit a significant number of
    people and businesses.
        FEMA is calling the new Pre-Disaster Mitigation program ``BRIC'',
    for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities.
        It's too soon to tell how effective BRIC is, but the first
    application cycle closed at end of January for a pot of $500 million
    dollars. FEMA received nearly a thousand applications for projects
    totaling more than $3.6 billion dollars.
        The demand clearly exists across the nation for this kind of smart
    investment. FEMA funding--as well as smaller pots of federal funding
    for mitigation and resilience-focused projects--reduce future exposure
    to the federal government on the disaster relief side of the ledger.
        We'll examine what works and what's flawed in FEMA's approach to
    mitigation and resilience, and how the Agency can further empower
    states, tribes, territories, and localities to better leverage the
    various types of available assistance to protect their communities.
        I look forward to all of our witnesses' and Members' perspectives,
    and working with Ranking Member Webster and our colleagues to advance
    future legislative efforts out of this subcommittee to provide FEMA the
    resources and tools needed to help make American communities more
    resilient to predictable hazards.
        Before I recognize Ranking Member Webster for his opening remarks,
    I ask unanimous consent to insert two items for the record.
        First, a statement from the BuildStrong Coalition, which has been
    such a leader on these issues. And I believe a few of our witnesses
    today are also proud members of BuildStrong.
        Additionally, the Committee has received a letter from the
    SmarterSafer Coalition outlining its priorities in this space, as well.
        Without objection, so ordered.

        Ms. Titus. I thank you for your attention. And I now
    recognize Ranking Member Webster for his opening remarks.
        I ask unanimous consent--before you begin, Mr. Webster, if
    you will indulge me--unanimous consent to insert two items into
    the record. One is a statement from the BuildStrong Coalition,
    which has been a leader on these issues. I believe a few of our
    witnesses today are actually members of BuildStrong. Also, the
    committee has received a letter from the SmarterSafer Coalition
    outlining its priorities in this space.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

      Statement of the BuildStrong Coalition, Submitted for the Record by
                                Hon. Dina Titus
        On March 18, the Subcommittee will hold its first legislative
    hearing, ``Building Smarter: The Benefits of Investing in Resilience
    and Mitigation.'' Chairwoman Titus and Ranking Member Webster are to be
    commended for leading the committee in prioritizing this initial
    hearing on mitigation and resilience investments to address the rising
    costs and losses associated with disasters, including how mitigating
    disaster impacts intersect with climate adaptation and serves as a core
    component of the national conversation on resilient infrastructure and
    communities. As the Committee considers the next chapter of disaster
    policy and legislation, the BuildStrong Coalition is honored to
    continue our role to drive the focus on laws, policies, and programs
    that aid in the creation of a disaster resilient nation. We remain
    ready to continue this work and are prepared to serve as a resource to
    advance your commitment to enhancing our country's resilience profile.
        The BuildStrong Coalition, formed in 2011 to respond to an
    increasing number of severe disasters, is made up of a diverse group of
    members representing firefighters, emergency responders, emergency
    managers, insurers, engineers, architects, contractors, and
    manufacturers, as well as consumer organizations, code specialists, and
    many others committed to building a more disaster resilient nation. The
    BuildStrong Coalition has been a partner with this Committee in its
    work to investigate causes of, and devise the solutions to, the rising
    cost of disasters in the U.S. since you initiated this conversation in
    2013. We have been honored to present witnesses and participants in
    hearings, roundtables, and briefings to identify opportunities for
    policy changes that promote mitigation and the smart investment of
    federal resources to address our country's increasing number of severe
    and costly weather events, including informing several provisions of
    the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254).
        In the face of growing climate risk, we have been focused on what
    legislative changes and policy initiatives are needed to appropriately
    incentivize smart mitigation and resilience activities and practices,
    while also removing the challenges and obstacles that may stand in the
    way or hinder the progress of disaster resilience. We implore the
    Committee to use this hearing as a launching pad for the next
    bipartisan legislative package to shape the resilience conversation
    across this country--to create a Resilient America.
        This Committee stands poised to increase disaster resilience in the
    U.S. and ensure that disaster resilience remains at the forefront on
    the infrastructure, COVID-19 recovery, and disaster assistance reform
    conversation. This is the Committee's opportunity to influence the
    overall national resilience strategy and establish the framework for
    the next chapter in increasing disaster resilience in the U.S.,
    including how resilience intersects with adaptation and responds to
    climate impacts, and is a core component of the national resilience
    conversation. This Committee must fill the leadership role in
    addressing climate impacts by acting on legislation that incentivizes
    and provides resources to facilitate smart, climate-conscious behaviors
    and mitigation and removes the moral hazards and policy impediments
    inhibiting decision makers from creating resilient systems and
    communities. The BuildStrong Coalition has developed the following
    policy recommendations and principles that are critical, supported by
    data and science, and should be included in the Committee's next
    legislative package on community resilience.
                    I. Secure More Resources for Mitigation
        Congress should increase the funding for retrofits and investments
    in resilience before the next disaster, climate impact, or catastrophic
    failure.
        Mitigation saves lives, property, and taxpayer money. Mitigation
    also saves the environment. But the federal resources to help build
    state and local capacity and fund risk-reducing, cost-effective
    mitigation projects that harden critical lifeline infrastructure and
    help individuals invest in residential resilience are woefully
    inadequate. FEMA and other Federal Agencies need more tools to help
    impacted communities recover smarter and stronger and end the cycle of
    build, damage, rebuild.
        Legislation is needed to:
          Direct expired, unspent FEMA mitigation assistance to
    FEMA's new pre-disaster mitigation grant program, the Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program.
          Increase the set aside for pre-disaster mitigation (BRIC
    program) from 6% to 15%.
          Authorize Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding
    statewide for all states that requested hazard mitigation assistance
    under their major disaster declaration requests for COVID-19.

        And we know that this is a smart use of Federal resources that will
    save taxpayer dollars. Federal funding that promotes better land use,
    modern science applied to home construction, and increased mitigation
    measures can dramatically reduce the devastation brought by these
    disasters. Based on the findings of the National Institute of Building
    Sciences (NIBS):
          Adopting Model Building Codes Saves $11 per $1 Invested
          Federal Mitigation Grants Save $6 per $1 Invested
          Exceeding Codes Save $4 per $1 Invested
          Mitigating Infrastructure Saves $4 per $1 Invested
    II. Drive Resilient Homes and Communities through Strong Building Codes
        Congress should create incentives for building stronger and tie
    existing federal funding streams to the adoption and enforcement of
    strong, modern building codes, in order to better protect homes,
    families, and communities.
        Individuals and communities are kept safe in times of disasters
    through the strength of their homes and the infrastructure that
    provides critical resources and services in affected areas. This is
    particularly prevalent as we learn lessons from COVID-19 and begin to
    understand how to increase resilience to wildfires. Disaster-resilient
    and sustainable construction and the use of stronger building codes
    have been proven to save lives, reduce the damage of natural disasters,
    and protect the environment. Unfortunately, only a handful of states
    have adopted the most modern building codes, and many lack the
    resources to adequately implement codes. To help correct this paradigm
    at the federal level involves creating incentives that encourage state
    and local governments to adopt modern building codes, while
    simultaneously equipping communities with the tools and resources
    needed to carry out meaningful enforcement regimes.
                     III. Resilient Lifeline Infrastructure
        Congress should require investments in lifeline infrastructure and
    those resources should be directed at risk-reducing, cost effective
    investments to promote the hardening of lifeline infrastructure and
    disaster-resilient construction and the adoption and implementation of
    risk-reducing standards.
        Lifeline infrastructure refers to electric power, water and
    wastewater systems, natural gas and liquid fuel, telecommunication, and
    transportation. Disruptions in these systems due to disasters threaten
    lives and impede community recovery. By investing in the resilience of
    these systems, we can reduce, if not eliminate, the impact of
    disasters, allowing key infrastructure to be restored and reducing the
    duration and cost of recovery. Through the application of the highest
    building codes, standards, and technologies to these systems and
    ensuring access to resources to invest in mitigation by non-profit
    owners of infrastructure, we can ensure system-wide increases in
    resilience in key lifeline infrastructure.
        Disaster-resilient and sustainable construction and infrastructure
    is important to reduce the damage of natural disasters and protect the
    environment. This involves applying the highest codes and standards and
    leveraging resources to support and incentivize the adoption and
    enforcement of building codes and professional standards. This includes
    standards that strengthen materials against all hazards including wind,
    flood, seismic, and ice. Most importantly, all disaster recovery and
    mitigation projects should incorporate smart technologies to improve
    monitoring and distribution for lifeline infrastructure and require the
    use of resilient and non-combustible materials standards for lifeline
    infrastructure.
              IV. Incentivize Individual Investments in Resilience
        Congress should incentivize investments in resilience through tax
    benefits, grant conditions, and easing administrative burdens.
        In addition to more resources for mitigation and communities, both
    public and private entities need incentives to drive their investments
    in mitigation. Whether by supporting the creation of federal tax
    incentives that reward resilient behavior, the development of
    mitigation tax breaks, or other incentives, individuals and businesses
    will find it easier to invest in resiliency, including undertaking
    activities like retrofitting homes, if these resources are available.
    This would also foster private sector investment in mitigation through
    new financing opportunities. Targeted tax incentives and removing tax
    penalties will encourage resilient construction techniques to withstand
    damage from strong winds or flooding and prevent losses from wildfires
    and seismic events.
        Through these investments, homeowners and communities ultimately
    save money through tax savings and avoided recovery costs and losses in
    the next disaster.
                       V. Use Resilient American Products
        Congress should ensure the use of resilient, American-made products
    in the construction and retrofit of lifeline infrastructure.
        Now more than ever, we need to support American jobs and American
    products. An investment in resilience across American communities must
    include long-term, non-emergency construction projects that maximize
    the use of American-made goods, products, and materials. These efforts
    create jobs and fuel the economic engines in our communities.
                               VI. Build Capacity
        Congress should ensure that state, local, tribal, and regional
    entities are given the tools and resources to increase capacity and
    capability to identify risks and hazards and mitigate those risks
    before the crisis occurs.
        It is clear that for this country to be successful in enhancing our
    resiliency, we must focus on capacity building for state and local
    governments and turn to considerations of sustainability, adaptability,
    and creative financial instruments that can be leveraged to drive
    socially responsible investments in resilience. State, local, and
    tribal governments must increase their ability to mitigate against all
    hazards. Accordingly, they must increase their ability to identify
    hazards and successfully implement these funds to accomplish selected
    risk-reducing projects. Increased engagement and education efforts on
    mitigation planning, program requirements, and opportunity awareness
    will enhance community resilience across all levels of government.
        Further, regulatory controls must be loosened to facilitate and
    encourage public-private partnerships. Governments must work with the
    private sector to increase community and national resilience. The
    private sector is currently conducting high-level work throughout the
    resilience and mitigation arena and there is tremendous opportunity to
    utilize expertise and industry knowledge, take advantage of existing
    programs, identify best practices, and incorporate lessons learned from
    the private sector. By leveraging the private sector and encouraging
    and facilitating public-private partnerships, we can maximize available
    resources for the benefit of the entire country.
                                   Conclusion
        The BuildStrong Coalition calls on the House Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development,
    Public Buildings and Emergency Management to take the next critical
    step to drive disaster resilience across the nation through the
    introduction of legislation that would effectuate these policy ideals,
    changes in authority, development of incentives, and streamlining of
    assistance to serve our communities in an equitable and
    transformational way.
        The BuildStrong Coalition and its members stand ready to partner
    with the Committee as it moves toward the introduction of the next
    piece of transformational disaster policy and legislation driving
    mitigation and resilience against disaster and climate impacts. The
    compelling arguments for these policy changes are grounded in
    overwhelming science and evidence. We would be honored to present
    subject matter experts, data, and best practices, as well as
    participants in hearings, roundtables, and briefings--a role we have
    filled many times in the past. We are excited to join congressional
    leaders like you as we identify opportunities for policy changes that
    promote disaster resilience and the smart investment of federal
    resources to address our country's vulnerable homes and communities,
    aging infrastructure, and the increasing number of severe and costly
    weather events. Together, we can help save the lives and property of
    our citizens.

     Letter of March 17, 2021, from the SmarterSafer Coalition, Submitted
                       for the Record by Hon. Dina Titus
                                                        March 17, 2021.
    Hon. Peter DeFazio,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Sam Graves,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Dina Titus,
    Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
            Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
    Hon. Daniel Webster,
    Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
            Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
        Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairman Titus, and
    Ranking Member Webster:
        The SmarterSafer Coalition (SmarterSafer) is a diverse coalition of
    conservation and environmental groups, taxpayer-focused organizations,
    insurance and reinsurance interests, and housing advocates. As Congress
    turns its attention to comprehensive infrastructure legislation,
    SmarterSafer writes to express our priorities on the matter. We
    appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter into the record for
    tomorrow's hearing in the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management entitled ``Building Smarter: The
    Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation.''
        There is an important nexus between infrastructure funding,
    disaster preparedness, and ``Building Smarter.'' American
    infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and stormwater systems, was
    not designed to account for a changing climate and is ill-equipped to
    withstand natural catastrophic risks. Roads and bridges are buckling
    under higher temperatures, increased snowfall, wildfires, and
    disastrous flooding. Stormwater management systems are overwhelmed by
    natural catastrophes.
        SmarterSafer members remain united in our support for fiscally
    sound, environmentally responsible approaches to natural catastrophe
    and infrastructure policy. As such, we encourage you and your
    colleagues to address the nation's failing infrastructure in a manner
    that balances environmental protection and better stewardship of
    taxpayer dollars.
    Pre-Disaster Mitigation
        The federal government currently spends more on post-disaster
    cleanup and reconstruction than on pre-disaster mitigation. That
    equation must change if we want to better protect our communities from
    future natural catastrophes. Pre-disaster mitigation efforts protect
    individuals and protect taxpayer dollars. Every $1 invested in
    mitigation is estimated to save $6 on post-disaster spending. These
    investments are particularly appropriate as many communities across the
    country anticipate another year of devastating natural disasters, which
    will increase their vulnerability at the same time they continue to
    grapple with the COVID-19 crisis. SmarterSafer supports many elements
    of H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, that were not enacted in the 116th
    Congress including greater funding for pre-disaster flood mitigation
    efforts and investments in natural infrastructure and deployment of
    climate-resilient technologies, the importance of which are outlined
    below.
    Natural Infrastructure
        Natural infrastructure--including healthy wetlands, functional
    floodplains, forests, mangroves, and dunes--provides effective
    solutions to guard against flooding and erosion. NOAA estimates that
    U.S. coastal wetlands alone provide $23.2 billion in storm protection
    each year. During Hurricane Sandy, for example, wetlands reduced
    damages by more than 22 percent in more than half of the areas directly
    affected by the storm. Increased funding and incentives to protect and
    restore wetlands, watersheds, floodplains, and forests will strengthen
    our communities and ecosystems. These natural features also provide
    important wildlife habitat and will assist in creating outdoor
    recreation opportunities and restoring tourism activity.
        As we look to invest in climate-resilient and cost-effective
    infrastructure, greater emphasis should be placed on natural
    infrastructure that can absorb floodwaters and buffer and protect
    communities from increased catastrophic risk. Nature-based approaches
    should be used in combination with or as an alternative to gray
    infrastructure where feasible.
    Climate-Resilient Infrastructure
        From devastating wildfires in the Western United States to flooding
    in Houston to dam failures in Michigan, it's clear that our approach to
    infrastructure is failing. Climate resilient infrastructure is
    necessary to ensure that our families and communities are protected, as
    well as our future investments. Federal funds--whether provided through
    disaster assistance, Community Development Block Grants, or other
    programs--should be directed to outcome-driven projects that strengthen
    communities and reduce long-term risk. Federal infrastructure
    investments should require stronger minimum design standards and
    incorporate forecasts of future conditions for the lifespan of a
    structure.
        In addition, high-quality information and data is necessary to
    inform strategic infrastructure investments and development decisions.
    SmarterSafer supports increased scientific climate data sharing within
    the government and between the public and private sectors. Bipartisan
    legislation like the Built to Last Act, introduced in the 116th
    Congress by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep.
    Matt Cartwright (D-PA), would ensure that standards-developing
    organizations that issue building codes have access to forward-looking
    meteorological information, including data on wildfires and other
    environmental trends.
    Infrastructure in America's Floodplains
        America's public infrastructure remains threatened by more frequent
    and severe flooding. SmarterSafer members are very supportive of
    President Biden's recent executive order restoring the federal flood
    protection standard as an important step in protecting lives,
    communities, properties, and taxpayer investments. SmarterSafer has
    long championed House efforts to reinstate such a standard, including
    through the Flood Resiliency and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2020,
    introduced in the 116th Congress by Reps. David Price (D-NC) and Lee
    Zeldin (R-NY), which would promote resiliency standards and taxpayer
    protection with respect to infrastructure investments and flood risk.
    While recent progress has been made, Congress should act to require
    government-funded agencies involved in floodplain construction to
    follow certain mitigation strategies to ensure that funds are used for
    projects that can withstand disasters. Along those lines, SmarterSafer
    also supports the Build for Future Disasters Act of 2020, legislation
    introduced in the 116th Congress by Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Andy
    Barr (R-KY) that would limit new construction inside federally
    designated floodplains.
        We have consistently supported and will continue to ask Congress to
    consider preservation of green space and the elevation of structures
    above base-flood levels. Finally, Congress should also consider the
    racial inequities inherent in federal buyout programs that reflect and
    perpetuate discriminatory practices and historic redlining. According
    to numerous studies, buyouts disproportionately benefit white and
    wealthy communities. Low-income and minority homeowners and communities
    should be given priority and additional assistance to address and
    balance the history of placing low-income and minority housing in areas
    of higher risk.
    Risk Transfer
        The United States has an infrastructure funding gap of more than $2
    trillion and the public sector alone cannot close it. Policymakers at
    all levels of government must find ways to make every dollar go
    further, and should consider enhanced public-private partnerships and
    risk-transfer opportunities. The private sector, particularly the
    insurance industry, has both the willingness and capacity to take on
    additional risk associated with natural disasters. By leveraging
    private financing and insurance and reinsurance availability,
    policymakers can shift some financial burdens associated with climate
    change from the government's balance sheet to willing private sector
    participants.
        We also encourage the House to consider targeted data-driven
    measures that help Congress and the administration to identify
    communities most in need of climate adaptation. Opportunities for
    public-private partnerships and cost-sharing agreements should be given
    serious consideration in an effort to bolster private sector
    investments in climate resilient infrastructure.
    The Role of Climate Research in Infrastructure Investment
        We encourage you to consider our nation's research infrastructure
    especially as it pertains to climate risk, ocean science, disaster
    resilient engineering, and green infrastructure. COVID-19 further
    demonstrates the need for more resilient, comprehensive, and efficient
    research infrastructure, and is revealing unmet needs that are
    hampering the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Congress should
    consider new investments in research infrastructure that are important
    to enhancing our nation's overall capabilities and competitiveness for
    years to come, including American-organized or staffed not-for-profits
    conducting vital research abroad, whether at sea, in biodiverse
    habitats or other in situ locations important to furthering U.S.
    research objectives. Additionally, we would encourage the Senate to
    advance any forthcoming measure that aims to improve the sharing of
    climate information.
        Thoughtful infrastructure spending can and should simultaneously
    provide economic growth, security for communities, and long-term
    savings for taxpayers. We greatly appreciate your efforts and
    consideration of the aforementioned suggestions to promote fiscally and
    environmentally responsible infrastructure. Our coalition stands ready
    to be a resource to you and your colleagues as legislation to forward
    your infrastructure platform takes shape.
            Respectfully,
                                               SmarterSafer Coalition.

                                    MEMBERS
                          Environmental Organizations
                                American Rivers
                 Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
                                 ConservAmerica
                             Defenders of Wildlife
                          National Wildlife Federation
                    Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
                              Surfrider Foundation

                        Consumer and Taxpayer Advocates
                          Coalition to Reduce Spending
                            National Taxpayers Union
                               R Street Institute
                           Taxpayers for Common Sense
                         Taxpayers Protection Alliance

                        Insurer and Reinsurer Interests
             Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR)
                             The Chubb Corporation
                              Liberty Mutual Group
           National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC)
                           National Flood Association
                       Reinsurance Association of America
                                    Swiss Re
                                      USAA

                              Mitigation Interests
                     Natural Hazard Mitigation Association

                                    Housing
                              Habitat for Humanity
                          National Housing Conference
                      National Leased Housing Association

                              ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS
                               Allianz of America
                          American Consumer Institute
            American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA)
                          Center for Clean Air Policy
                              Friends of the Earth
                             Institute for Liberty
                                Zurich Insurance
        Ms. Titus. Mr. Webster.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chair Titus, for holding this
    hearing today. I really appreciate it. I am thankful for the
    witnesses, including Mr. Fowke, who is from Florida,
    representing the National Association of Home Builders.
        I am pleased to serve as ranking member of this
    subcommittee, look forward to working closely with the chair on
    issues critical to this subcommittee, including resiliency and
    mitigation, which are very important to Florida.
        So, in 2015, work was done in this committee, and we
    learned that just 25 percent of the disasters accounted for
    more than 92 percent of the disaster costs. While disaster
    declarations have increased, these numbers show it is a small
    number of large disasters that are driving the disaster costs.
        Ultimately, the real solution to lowering disaster costs is
    upfront investment in mitigation, which the chair talked about,
    hardening of existing structures, which is sometimes very
    economical, and yet, brings about much savings, not only the
    savings, but also strength to the building.
        We know mitigation saves lives, and reduces property
    damages and disaster costs. Study after study shows, as the
    chairman said, that for every $1 invested in mitigation, $4 to
    $11 are saved.
        We have seen the benefits of mitigation firsthand in
    Florida. After a devastating 2004-2005 hurricane season,
    Florida made specific policies and behavior changes to improve
    on our disaster preparedness, including an overhaul, which
    began quite a few years ago before that, to rewrite the
    building code and implement it.
        The cornerstone of these changes was mitigation through
    resilient construction techniques and improved communication
    and coordination between the State and local agencies. Florida
    worked with industry leaders, homebuilders, the insurance
    industry, and other stakeholders on a regional-based approach,
    recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach does not really
    work, but that leveraging incentive programs and other avenues
    to help manage costs to consumers would work.
        These investments in mitigation help to protect Florida
    communities against hurricanes, flooding, and other hazards.
    Whether it is hurricanes, floods, or wildfires, ensuring the
    investments make sense and are cost-efficient is important to
    ensuring effectiveness.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and
    this is an important topic.
        Thank you, Chair Titus, for holding this hearing. And I
    yield back.
        [Mr. Webster's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress
    from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
            Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
        Thank you, Chair Titus, for holding this hearing today. I want to
    thank the witnesses, including Mr. Fowke from Florida representing the
    National Association of Home Builders.
        I am pleased to serve as the Ranking Member of this subcommittee,
    and I hope to work closely with Chair Titus on issues critical to this
    subcommittee, including resiliency and mitigation.
        Disaster costs have increased significantly over the years. In
    2015, through work done by this committee, we learned that just 25
    percent of all disasters accounted for more than 92 percent of disaster
    costs. While disaster declarations have increased, these numbers show
    it is a small number of large disasters that are driving disaster
    costs.
        Ultimately, the real solution to lowering disaster costs is upfront
    investment in mitigation. We know mitigation saves lives and reduces
    property damage and disaster costs. Study after study demonstrates that
    for every $1 invested in mitigation $4 to $11 are saved.
        We have seen the benefits of mitigation firsthand in Florida. After
    the devastating 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, Florida made specific
    policy and behavior changes to improve our disaster preparedness. The
    cornerstone of these changes was mitigation through resilient
    construction techniques and improved communication and coordination
    between state and local agencies.
        Florida worked with the insurance industry, homebuilders, and other
    stakeholders on a regional-based approach, recognizing that a one-size-
    fits-all approach wouldn't work, but that leveraging incentive programs
    and other avenues to help manage cost to consumers would. These
    investments in mitigation help to protect Florida communities against
    hurricanes, flooding, and other hazards.
        In 2018, we enacted significant reforms, including the Disaster
    Recovery Reform Act, that modernized FEMA's predisaster mitigation
    program and provided an ongoing funding mechanism. But just as critical
    as funding is the investment in proven mitigation measures appropriate
    for the specific hazards in a given area. Whether it's hurricanes,
    floods, or wildfires, ensuring the investments make sense and are cost-
    beneficial is important to ensuring effectiveness.

        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
        Before recognizing our witnesses, I would ask for Mr.
    DeFazio, the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure, for his opening remarks.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        FEMA has been busy. It was quite a year--the pandemic,
    above average tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires in
    the United States. And I have got to thank the people at FEMA.
    There were a lot of parts of the last administration that
    became pretty dysfunctional. FEMA did not, and they were able
    to deliver, and I appreciate all of the people who engaged in
    that hard work.
        The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
    program, the BRIC program as we call it, is totally
    oversubscribed. The demand is phenomenal. The savings are even
    more extraordinary and phenomenal, in addition to ongoing
    savings for the individuals, communities, businesses, in terms
    of reduced insurance costs when they undertake these
    activities.
        In October, I led a bipartisan letter with Ranking Member
    Graves, Chair Titus, and then-Ranking Member Katko to FEMA
    Administrator Gaynor and OMB Director Vought, urging them to
    set aside the full $3.7 billion for BRIC from the COVID
    declarations. Unfortunately, they ignored that, and they set
    aside only $500 million. I am hopeful that that can soon be
    corrected by this administration.
        And also, when we did the DRRA, the Disaster Recovery
    Reform Act, I think that was the last Congress, the Congress
    before--I can't remember anymore--we established a Post-
    disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for FEMA for fire
    management assistance. And I think there are activities that
    need to be expanded and considered under that program.
        For example, you probably can't move an entire community
    out of the wildland-urban interface when it comes to fire, but
    in the case of Blue River in my district, the fire was started
    by a fire that fell from a pole with a severe and absolutely
    unprecedented unusual wind out of the northeast, which doesn't
    happen, but, hey, a lot of weird things happen these days.
        So, considering to put the utilities underground, yeah, it
    is an additional cost, but it is a one-time cost. You are not
    going to have to put back the poles again or maybe put back the
    poles and start another fire again, and then go back and put
    the poles back up, et cetera.
        So I think that we need to expand our view of what kinds of
    activities will be acceptable. And I don't believe all of this
    investment has to be borne directly by the Federal Government.
        Going all the way back to the 113th Congress, I worked with
    Representatives Reed, Pascrell, and Diaz-Balart to introduce
    the Disaster Savings and Resilient Construction Act, which we
    will reintroduce. It provides tax incentives to encourage
    individuals and companies to basically prepare their homes and
    businesses to whatever is the predicted natural disaster and
    known risks in their areas, lessening costs of insurance claims
    and certainly future disaster relief. And I plan on working
    with our colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, and,
    hopefully, they will advance the measure.
        Just 3 years ago, the Republican-controlled Congress and
    White House decided that DoD had to establish a resilience
    standard for all its at-risk facilities, and everything
    critical had to be a minimum of 2 feet above base flood-level
    elevation. So, if it is good enough when the Federal Government
    invests money in the Pentagon and its bases, I think it should
    be for all federally funded infrastructure, and we will be
    looking in our surface bill to build back resilience.
        Then during our February markup, my friend from Louisiana,
    Representative Garret Graves, offered an amendment to set aside
    $500 million of the $50 billion we gave to FEMA disaster relief
    to be used to establish a national flood standard. I am
    certainly open to working with him in pursuing one. My
    colleagues, Mr. Price of North Carolina and Mr. Zeldin of New
    York, have recently introduced legislation with a similar goal,
    which has been referred to the committee.
        So we have got our work cut out for us to go forward in a
    bipartisan way, to work and help give FEMA the tools and the
    capability and the flexibility it needs to meet with new and
    evolving risks. BRIC is just one example of how quickly we
    could make these investments with the oversubscription of that
    program.
        And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
          Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chair Titus, and thank you to our witnesses for being
    with us today. The issues we'll be discussing have proven results as
    driving factors in reducing risk and future costs to the federal
    taxpayer for disaster relief.
        As Chair Titus noted in her opening remarks, the return on
    investment is quite measurable and significant. And, this oversized
    return on investment reminds me of the work done by the people at FEMA:
    whether they are administering disaster relief and assistance, funding
    mitigation projects, or undertaking efforts to bolster national
    resilience one individual or community at a time, they play an outsized
    role and punch well above their weight.
        Representing a district recently impacted by catastrophic
    wildfires, I've seen FEMA work with partners at the state and local
    level, as well as with disaster survivors who have lost everything--
    it's worth taking a moment to recognize FEMA's seemingly tireless
    workforce.
        In the last year alone, FEMA has been tapped to respond to the
    pandemic with a record-setting number of concurrent Stafford Act
    declarations; responded to above-average tornado, flood, hurricane, and
    wildfire seasons while operating under unprecedented COVID protocols;
    pushed tens of billions of dollars of assistance to state, tribal,
    territorial, and local partners in disaster relief and unemployment
    assistance; and now it is concurrently leading the effort to vaccinate
    the nation and squelch the pandemic while also assisting its sister
    federal agencies to provide more humane conditions for migrants seeking
    refuge in the U.S.
        For all the work FEMA employees have done and will continue to do
    to help us recover from disasters--thank you.
        Smart investments of Federal dollars in projects focused on
    mitigating risk and bolstering resilience is just basic good
    government, and will lessen the impacts of future disasters. When we
    help mitigate risk using the programs and efforts of FEMA, we make
    homes and the built environment of our communities more insurable--
    shifting the burden from the Stafford Act as being the de facto insurer
    of last resort for so much of the nation.
        We know these programs are oversubscribed--just look at the volume
    of interest in the BRIC program for this cycle. It's imperative that
    BRIC is fully capitalized so it can fund an even greater number of
    projects in the out years.
        Last October, I was proud to lead a bipartisan letter with Ranking
    Member Graves, Chair Titus, and then Ranking Member Katko to FEMA
    Administrator Gaynor and OMB Director Vought urging them to set aside
    the full $3.7 billion calculation for BRIC from the COVID declarations
    granted pursuant to the Stafford Act. Instead, the previous
    administration only set aside $500 million. This administration can
    correct for that mistake, but not at the expense of ongoing vaccination
    efforts.
        In the DRRA, we successfully included the establishment of post-
    disaster HMGP funding for FEMA's Fire Management Assistance Grants, so
    that states that experienced wildfires of a magnitude warranting
    federal help could also benefit from post-disaster mitigation
    assistance. Additionally, we expanded eligible activities under the
    HMGP program to be inclusive of additional hazards, such as earthquake
    early warning technology.
        Given the experiences of communities in Oregon, California, and
    other states running into roadblocks using the HMGP funding for certain
    activities in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), it appears that
    additional activities must be taken into consideration to ensure that
    the Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs address all hazards
    equitably.
        For example, an entire community may not be able to be relocated
    out of the WUI, so it may be cost beneficial to underground utilities
    to prevent future disasters from taking them down, or it may make sense
    to rebuild a fire station in a lower-risk area of the WUI than to
    simply not build one back at all.
        And, I don't believe that all of this investment must be borne
    directly by the Federal government. Going back to the 113th Congress, I
    have joined with Representatives Reed, Pascrell and Diaz-Balart to
    introduce the Disaster Savings and Resilient Construction Act, which is
    about to be re-introduced.
        It would provide tax incentives to encourage individuals and
    companies to gird their homes and businesses from natural hazards and
    known risks, lessening costs of insurance claims and future disaster
    relief. I plan on working with our colleagues on the Ways and Means
    Committee and urge them to advance the measure this congress.
        Nearly three years ago, a Republican-controlled Congress and
    President Trump agreed that the resilience of Department of Defense
    (DOD) facilities was worthy of establishing a resilience standard
    across the department. The FY19 John McCain Defense Authorization Act
    explicitly requires that DOD facilities constructed in a special flood
    hazard area must be built at a minimum of two feet above the base flood
    elevation. If the facility is deemed to be critical infrastructure--
    such as a power plant, hospital, school, or fire or police station--the
    minimum requirement is three feet above base flood elevation.
        If it's good enough for the billions of dollars we invest in the
    DOD, then why not for other federally-funded infrastructure?
        During our February markup, my friend from Louisiana,
    Representative Graves, offered an amendment to set aside $500 million
    of the $50 billion dollars we provided for FEMA disaster relief to be
    used to establish a national flood standard, and I'm open to working
    with him in pursuing one. Our colleagues--Mr. Price of North Carolina
    and Mr. Zeldin of New York--have recently introduced legislation with a
    similar goal, which has been referred to the Committee.
        We have our work cut out for us. The T&I Committee has always taken
    on challenging tasks and tried to find a bipartisan path forward. I'd
    expect the same here. We'd all like to see our communities stronger and
    safer--more resilient from known risks.
        The crush of applicants for BRIC is proof that there's no lack of
    shovel-ready projects that can get underway, put engineers and trades
    to work, and lessen the impacts of future disasters.
        I look forward to working with Chair Titus as we move forward, and
    in finding areas of agreement with our colleagues across the aisle.
    Thank you.

        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves is not with us to make a statement, so we would
    now like to welcome the witnesses on our panel:
        Mr. Roy Wright, who is president and CEO of Insurance
    Institute for Business and Home Safety; Ms. Velma Smith, senior
    government relations officer of the flood-prepared communities
    initiative for The Pew Charitable Trusts; Mr. Ben Harper, head
    of corporate sustainability, Zurich North America; Mr. John
    Fowke. Would you like to say something about Mr. Fowke, Mr.
    Webster? Didn't you say he was from Florida?
        Mr. Webster. Well, he is national chairman of the National
    Association of Home Builders, and he is also from Florida, a
    builder over in the Tampa area, Tampa Bay area.
        Ms. Titus. All right. We are glad to have him.
        And Mr. Russell Strickland, I believe Ms. Norton would like
    to introduce him.
        Ms. Norton. Yes, Madam Chair. I would be pleased to
    introduce today as a witness, Mr. Russell J. Strickland from my
    neighboring State of Maryland. Mr. Strickland is an experienced
    emergency management professional who has more than 40 years of
    experience in the field of emergency services and first
    responder activities at the State and local levels of
    government, academia, and the private sector.
        This includes expertise in fire and rescue services,
    emergency medical services, fire inspection and investigation,
    communications, and emergency management leadership.
        Mr. Strickland currently serves as the executive director
    of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency. In his current
    role, Mr. Strickland leads the Agency that has primary
    responsibility and authority for disaster risk reduction and
    consequent management for the State of Maryland. This includes
    service as a direct advisor to the Governor during disasters
    and coordinating support for local government as requested.
        With his extensive background, I am pleased that we have
    Mr. Strickland here to testify before us this afternoon. And I
    thank you, Mr. Strickland, and you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
        We are delighted to have all of our witnesses. They
    certainly bring a level of professionalism and expertise to the
    panel, and we look forward to hearing from them.
        Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
    included in the record. Since your written testimony has been
    made a part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
    limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
        We will now proceed with the witnesses and begin with Mr.
    Strickland.

        TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL J. STRICKLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
    MARYLAND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
    EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; ROY E. WRIGHT, PRESIDENT AND
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS AND
    HOME SAFETY; VELMA SMITH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS OFFICER,
       FLOOD-PREPARED COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE, THE PEW CHARITABLE
     TRUSTS; BEN HARPER, HEAD OF CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, ZURICH
         NORTH AMERICA; AND JOHN C. FOWKE, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
                      ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS

        Mr. Strickland. Thank you for the kind introduction and for
    holding this hearing, and allowing me to testify on behalf of
    the National Emergency Management Association.
        In the State of Maryland, we rely on investments in
    mitigation, and a whole-community approach to addressing our
    vulnerabilities. These investments ensure that when a disaster
    strikes, the communities affected will be able to effectively
    respond and build back stronger.
        However, our journey to be a more resilient State and
    Nation faces some challenges that, with your permission, I
    would like to address.
        First, your foresight in creating the Building Resilient
    Infrastructure and Communities program, BRIC, has allowed
    States to implement projects that will strengthen our
    collective resilience for the long term. However, State and
    local needs currently far exceed available funding. As such, we
    strongly encourage Congress to work with FEMA and OMB to allow
    the full 6-percent set-aside of eligible disaster spending
    every year for this program. BRIC is transformative in its
    capacity to support large infrastructure projects, particularly
    those related to stabilizing community lifelines, and that is
    why it is so important.
        Further, building resilience for Maryland's energy and
    communications lifelines is central to supporting our
    communities as they try to return to normal operations after a
    disaster. Given that in many States, the private sector owns
    and operates most critical infrastructure, leveraging BRIC
    funding with public-private partnerships will strengthen our
    resilience. The Federal Government remains an active partner in
    supporting our mitigation projects and strengthening our
    resilience. Earlier this year, Maryland submitted an
    application to the BRIC program, and we are looking forward to
    getting started.
        Second, FEMA's all-or-nothing approach to building code
    standards in this year's BRIC application scoring may unfairly
    place communities that are still working through that adoption
    process at a disadvantage, perpetuating a cycle that puts
    people and buildings at risk.
        In my written statement, I go into detail about the
    benefits provided by using building codes that are appropriate
    to local hazards to avoid disaster losses and increase
    resilience. While these benefits are a worthwhile investment,
    States often must conduct a lengthy legislative process to
    adopt new building codes. FEMA should remain flexible in
    supporting States and locals as they work to adopt the building
    codes appropriate to their risk profiles.
        Another challenge in our efforts to build back stronger is
    the complexity of many FEMA grant programs and the extensive
    requirements that the jurisdiction must satisfy to access FEMA
    funding. For example, one difficulty is assisting the many
    locals who do not have sufficient staffing and capacity to
    develop successful grant applications. This is particularly
    challenging for our low- and moderate-income communities that
    face repetitive hazard risk. We should work together to
    simplify the requirements or provide increased funding to hire
    staff to assist local jurisdictions in writing competitive
    grants.
        With disasters increasing in size and frequency, our
    recovery and resilience efforts must be in line with building
    back stronger, rather than the previous capabilities and
    capacity. As you know, the State of Maryland is threatened by a
    host of hazards in a coastline vulnerable to sea level rise and
    erosion. In addition to our work with Federal partners,
    Maryland is working to establish cross-sector partnerships that
    reduce risk to our people, property, and critical
    infrastructure. Effective coordination is critical, and
    Maryland has seen successful partnerships with FEMA through
    hazard mitigation assistance, and our hosting of a FEMA
    integration team which places FEMA personnel in a State
    emergency operation center.
        None of these challenges, however, cannot be overcome. A
    strong working relationship with this committee has brought us
    this far, and I am sure will bring more opportunities for
    success in the future.
        On behalf of the State emergency managers, thank you,
    again, for holding this hearing and drawing attention to the
    needs of the emergency management community. Emergency
    management is a team sport, and we will surely be more
    successful in saving lives and property when we work together.
        Thank you very much.
        [Mr. Strickland's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Russell J. Strickland, Executive Director,
        Maryland Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the National
                        Emergency Management Association
        Thank you, Chairman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, and
    distinguished members of the Committee for allowing me to testify
    today.
        I am proud to testify today representing the National Emergency
    Management Association (NEMA). NEMA represents the state emergency
    management directors of all 50 states, territories, and the District of
    Columbia. As Executive Director of the Maryland Emergency Management
    Agency and on behalf of my colleagues in state emergency management, we
    thank you for holding this discussion on the importance of investing in
    mitigation and resilience.
            Understanding the Landscape of Mitigation and Resilience
        As disasters become more frequent and larger in scale, scope, and
    complexity, we know we will never be able to respond our way out of the
    vulnerabilities our communities face. Instead we must invest in
    mitigation projects that work with our communities to build resilience
    where it is needed most. These investments are key to ensuring that
    when a disaster occurs the communit(ies) affected will be able to
    withstand its impacts and rapidly recover.
        Communities need to be supported and provided resources to pursue a
    pathway to increase their resilience. This includes support for their
    mitigation projects from inception to implementation. We must also
    place comprehensive, transformational mitigation at the forefront of
    our national security strategy to reduce risk. We also have to be
    flexible with each community and recognize that each has its own set of
    unique risks and vulnerabilities. Then, we can identify obstacles and
    provide solutions to overcome them and continue to build upon our
    successes.
        I am known among my colleagues for saying, ``mitigation is the
    center of the universe,'' because these projects are imperative as we
    seek to avert the worst possible impacts of disasters and prepare our
    communities for when the next disaster strikes. As a coastal state
    Maryland is prone to a host of water-related hazards, including
    flooding, severe storms, and hurricanes, as well as tornadoes,
    earthquakes, and excessive heat. This is in addition to the risks faced
    across our nation by threats such as pandemics. Mitigation activities
    can be as individual as washing hands and wearing a mask to combat
    COVID-19 or purchasing flood insurance when living in a flood zone or
    as large as conducting coastal restoration to mitigate the impacts of
    climate change in the Chesapeake Bay.
        Resilience must be made actionable to be effective. The NEMA
    Resilience Committee is focused on considering methods to ensure that
    resilience is incorporated into all stages of emergency management,
    from updating preparedness and mitigation plans to incorporating
    resiliency principles into exercises and rebuilding stronger post-
    disaster.
        Maryland and other states across the nation are working to
    inculcate a culture of preparedness and promote resilience through
    increased public awareness of risk, enhancements to critical
    infrastructure, and mitigation projects that incorporate nature-based
    solutions and public-private partnerships.
                            The Maryland Experience
    Success
        As we collectively move beyond a traditional mitigation mindset to
    one that incorporates large infrastructure projects and partnerships we
    must go beyond tradition to think broadly about resilience. Building
    dynamic partnerships across the whole community to include non-profits
    and the private sector will expand our capacity to reduce risk across
    the landscape. Maryland, under the leadership of Governor Larry Hogan,
    is making great strides in establishing partnerships across sectors and
    across nations in order to bring innovative solutions to the challenges
    we are facing. During his 2019-2020 chairmanship of the National
    Governors Association, Governor Hogan made strengthening the resilience
    of America's critical infrastructure a top focus for states.
    Challenges
        Among the most significant challenges to increasing mitigation and
    resilience projects is the need for funding that is flexible and
    accessible to vulnerable low- and moderate-income communities. Many
    communities that are at elevated levels of hazard risk are those with
    limited resources to invest in disaster risk reduction.
        Relatedly, grant applications involve all levels of government,
    ranging from local to state to federal. Many grants have cumbersome
    proposal and application requirements. This further exacerbates the
    challenges for jurisdictions without sufficient staff to shepherd an
    application to its fruition. Continuing to streamline processes at the
    federal level where possible will increase engagement from under
    resourced jurisdictions, and their strengthened resilience will enhance
    our local, state, and national resilience.
                           BRIC Program and Set-Aside
        Section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018
    (P.L. 115-254) authorizes the National Public Infrastructure Pre-
    Disaster Mitigation fund, which has been implemented as the Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. The program
    provides opportunities for increased whole community collaboration to
    pursue transformative mitigation projects. The first application period
    for this new program closed at the end of January 2021.
        Maryland submitted a proposal to remainage the Middle Branch of
    Baltimore City. The area is home to the Nation's first Urban Wildlife
    Refuge but plagued by flooding and environmental degradation. The BRIC
    proposal will be the catalyst to address flooding and climate change
    risk and support a vulnerable community with valuable environmental
    resources. Additionally, this area supports critical infrastructure and
    facilities, such as Harbor Hospital and a main thoroughfare to support
    activity for the Port of Baltimore. Reducing the flooding risk will
    continue to ensure the protection of these vital community services.
        BRIC provides opportunities to support capacity and capability
    building activities for communities to identify and develop resilience
    projects. However, there are opportunities for greater flexibility
    within this program in order to support the development of complex,
    innovative projects and also prioritize resources for vulnerable
    communities. The current State set-aside of $600,000 for each State,
    Territory, and District of Columbia is far too limited to support the
    development of the types of resilience projects needed to combat the
    risks on the horizon.
        BRIC is funded by a set-aside of up to six percent of estimated
    disaster grant expenditures. For the initial offering, FEMA made $500
    million available and the total applicant pool totaled $3.6 billion
    dollars. This clearly demonstrated the need and desire among state,
    local, tribal, and territorial governments to invest in mitigation if
    the opportunity is available. As such, we strongly urge Congress to
    work with FEMA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure
    that the full six percent set-aside is available each year.
        Supporting the Implementation of Consensus-Based Building Codes
        Strong building codes save lives and protect property. A commonly
    cited statistic (and appropriately so) from a series of ongoing
    National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) studies is that
    mitigation investments return $6 for every $1 invested, but even more
    impressively, the study's authors found that there is a national
    benefit of $11 in return for every $1 invested in designing buildings
    to model building codes.
        We have seen this play out nationwide where newer building codes
    have been implemented. Notably, Alaska underwent a 7.0 earthquake in
    late 2018 that was very geographically similar to the famed 1964
    earthquake which killed more than 100 people. In 2018, however, with
    the adoption of model building codes there were no reported deaths or
    serious injuries.
        Last year FEMA released Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study
    which concluded that the U.S. will avoid $132 billion in losses from
    hazard events by 2040 because of buildings built to international
    standards. While not all codes are appropriate in all instances,
    ensuring building codes meet the needs of a locality and its hazard
    profile has a demonstrated impact on community resilience in the event
    of a disaster.
        This year a piece of the scoring rubric for BRIC worth 20 percent
    of the total score is whether the applicant has a mandatory building
    code adoption requirement (2015 or 2018 versions of the International
    Building Code and International Residential Code). These points are
    awarded in an all-or-nothing fashion, potentially disadvantaging those
    applicants who do not have the capability to change building code
    standards within their states unilaterally and must undergo a lengthy
    stakeholder and legislative process to do so. FEMA has stated that it
    wishes to support the adoption of appropriate building codes through
    BRIC but if applicants are disadvantaged because of their older
    building codes and unable to obtain funding for those projects it
    perpetuates a cycle that leaves buildings and people less safe.
    Especially in the initial years of the BRIC process, we encourage FEMA
    to be understanding of the different status of codes nationwide and
    work collaboratively and not punitively to support the states as they
    work to raise their building code standards.
     Integrating Community Lifelines Into Mitigation and Resilience Efforts
        BRIC is an opportunity to create transformative, community-based
    projects that work with the private sector, homeowners, locals, and
    other stakeholders that incentivizes large infrastructure projects for
    community lifelines. Governor Hogan recently testified before the U.S.
    Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on the importance of
    investing in resilient transportation and infrastructure projects which
    bolster our collective resilience in the face of disasters and cyber
    threats \1\. As a designated community lifeline, resilient
    infrastructure and transportation networks will enable areas affected
    by disaster to more rapidly return to normal function.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on
    ``Building Back Better: Investing in Transportation while Addressing
    Climate Change, Improving Equity, and Fostering Economic Growth and
    Innovation.'' February 24, 2021. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/
    index.cfm/hearings?ID=A076F488-6A1E-41DB-9279-7C943023D8D9
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ensuring community lifelines, particularly energy and
    communication, are resilient against hazard impacts is a priority for
    Maryland and many other states to ensure the safety and security of our
    residents post-disaster. Community lifelines are often owned and
    operated by the private sector, further underscoring the need to
    embrace partnerships and educate those outside of traditional emergency
    management on the role everyone can play in mitigation and resilience.
                             Building Back Stronger
        An immediate post-disaster priority is beginning the long process
    to rebuild a community. Increased resilience helps us to do that more
    quickly, as those in the community are more prepared and ready for the
    impacts. However, with the scale of disasters growing we must be
    prepared to build back stronger in anticipation of the future, rather
    than building back to previous capacity and capability which was
    insufficient.
        As always when working with multiple organizations and levels of
    government, coordination can always be improved. Maryland has seen
    significant benefits in this space from the placement of a FEMA
    Integration Team (FIT) within the Hazard Mitigation and Public
    Assistance programs. These FEMA personnel have served to expedite
    processes and be a dedicated source to ensuring resources are made
    available to disaster survivors as soon as possible.
        MEMA continues to see successes in FEMA's Public Assistance 406
    Mitigation programs and Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. In 2018,
    Frederick County, MD sustained intense damages due to flooding. Through
    the Public Assistance 406 Mitigation program we were able to go above
    an in-kind replacement to implement a larger scale resilience project
    that will reduce future losses to residential and commercial properties
    within the community. Through the Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs
    we are continuing to build upon these efforts by pursuing funding to
    increase the level of protection of the surrounding infrastructure.
        A significant challenge when it comes to building back stronger is
    the length of time between when a disaster declaration is approved and
    when the funding associated with that declaration is available in the
    impacted areas. Streamlining federal requirements and processes while
    still ensuring judicious stewardship of taxpayer dollars is critical to
    helping communities when they need it most.
        On August 4, 2020, Tropical Storm Isaias made landfall in Maryland
    resulting in widespread flooding and several tornadoes touching down in
    our rural communities. These impacts were additionally challenging as
    we were in the midst of COVID-19 response efforts. Due to COVID-19
    restrictions on travel, the Joint Preliminary Damage Assessment was
    done remotely for the vast majority of the event. This then places a
    documentation burden on state and local personnel that is not typically
    seen at this phase of the process, making meeting the 30-day deadline
    for a declaration request impossible. Changes were also made to the PDA
    guide during the pandemic that were conflicting and prohibitive when
    considering how to mitigate damaged infrastructure during the Public
    Assistance project phase.
        Maryland's request for federal assistance through a Presidential
    Major Disaster Declaration was initially denied and was finally awarded
    through the appeals process six months later on February 4, 2021. This
    six-month delay caused us to miss opportunities to build upon the
    State's resilience and implement mitigation projects. Citizens do not
    have the ability to wait months to receive assistance and return to
    their homes and businesses. Our local governments are not able to wait
    months to make repairs and improvements to critical infrastructure. We
    urge Congress to work with FEMA in order to continue to streamline
    federal assistance programs in order to expedite programs and
    capitalize on mitigation opportunities.
                                   Conclusion
        On behalf of the state emergency managers, thank you again for
    holding this hearing and drawing attention to the needs of the
    emergency management community. In Maryland, we are acutely aware of
    the need to build upon the momentum from the implementation of the BRIC
    program to further improve mitigation and resilience efforts to ensure
    we effectively support our communities in their time of need. As you
    consider the topics of this hearing, please remember that investing in
    mitigation and resilience makes real differences in the lives of those
    affected by disasters and allows us to build back smarter to lessen the
    impacts of future events.

        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Wright.
        Mr. Wright. Good afternoon, Chair Titus, Ranking Member
    Webster, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to be with you all today.
        If 2020 has taught us anything, it is that the home is of
    paramount importance, and for too many, vulnerable to the
    forces of Mother Nature.
        The dangers of COVID-19 led Americans to seek refuge in
    their homes, juggling remote work, childcare, and other
    necessities of life under a single roof. The year 2020 showed
    us that housing is infrastructure. Yeah, housing is
    infrastructure.
        And yet, 2020 should also be remembered as the year that
    climate change barged through the front door of American
    families. The year 2020 delivered the most active Atlantic
    hurricane season on record, the most named storms in history,
    the outlandish number of acres that were burned by wildfire,
    and the Midwest derecho that was the costliest thunderstorm in
    our Nation's history. NOAA reported another 2020 record. There
    were 22 weather and climate disasters that broke through the $1
    billion cost mark.
        A look at 2020 in a broader context: while natural perils
    last year were particularly bad, it was not an anomaly. There
    is a pattern of major disasters that just won't let up. That is
    a factoid. So what do we do about it? We must adapt, and adapt
    now. In an era where severe weather continues to disrupt lives,
    displace families, and drive financial loss, our team at the
    Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety developed the
    science and building practices so that the places where people
    live, learn, work, worship, and gather, are safe, stable, and
    strong.
        The risk is on an escalating path. Our partners, the
    Reinsurance Association of America, have been leveraging
    private sector analytics and public data to visualize the
    interplay between natural hazards, housing stock, and
    socioeconomic vulnerabilities.
        I want you to look at the specifics in my written
    testimony, but here is the central point: We must leverage
    public-private partnerships if we are going to focus limited
    resources on the places of greatest impact.
        As IBHS studies wind, rain, hail, and wildfire, we see
    specific and actionable pathways that will bend down these risk
    curves. But we cannot allow resilience to be a luxury item.
    Home and community resilience cannot be the exclusive option of
    the top two quartiles of income in this country.
        So, some congressional pathways for strengthening the
    resilience of American homes: First, encourage strong statewide
    building codes. As you contemplate legislation, target those
    investments at places where we can spur new and sustained
    commitments by States to using modernized codes. We need the
    total investment to grow, not just switch out local dollars and
    replace them with Federal grants.
        For those Americans who have the means to take actions, we
    need to nudge them to do so with resiliency tax credits, like
    the bipartisan bill that Chairman DeFazio mentioned.
        And where the pathway to home resilience is not readily
    affordable, we need to use national and State policy mechanisms
    to achieve our goal. The BRIC program could be better
    calibrated to fund residential resilience projects.
        What would it look like if we had created community
    disaster resilience zones, a derivation of the Build America
    Bonds that drove private sector funding to address natural
    disaster risks of exposed communities, particularly focusing on
    underserved socioeconomic areas.
        Next, we need to prioritize resilient infrastructure. The
    cascading disaster in Texas last month put a clear spotlight on
    something we have known, but have long ignored. The resilience
    of homes is intrinsically connected to the resilience of
    community infrastructure, especially water and energy.
        As Congress works with the Biden administration to develop
    an ambitious infrastructure bill, we urge this subcommittee to
    champion resilience and climate change adaptation as central
    objectives of that legislation. Do not miss the opportunity to
    reduce the future costs of disaster relief by making resilience
    to severe weather and changing climate a central component of
    the infrastructure. We need to extend this to public buildings.
    You all know this quite well with category E under the Stafford
    Act. Stop incentivizing communities to skip insurance, because
    they know FEMA will simply pay the bill.
        In closing, Americans are not powerless against severe
    weather. It is possible to reduce the damage inflicted today
    and into the future. Meeting this pressing need will require an
    all-of-the-above approach.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [Mr. Wright's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Roy E. Wright, President and Chief Executive
           Officer, Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety
        Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak
    with you today about the importance of residential resilience as we
    think about strengthening families, communities, and adapting to the
    adverse effects of future climate conditions. My name is Roy Wright,
    and I am President & CEO of the Insurance Institute for Business & Home
    Safety (IBHS). IBHS is a 501(c)(3) organization, enabled by the
    property insurance industry's investment, to fund building safety
    research that leads to real-world solutions for home and business
    owners, helping to create more resilient communities.
        Severe weather disrupts lives, displaces families, and drives
    financial loss. IBHS delivers top-tier science and translates it into
    action so we can prevent avoidable suffering, strengthen our homes and
    businesses, inform the insurance industry, and support thriving
    communities. The perils we study at IBHS are part of the natural world
    in which we live, but social and economic disasters occur when these
    perils meet human populations that live or work in harm's way. In order
    to break the cycle of destruction, it is essential to address all
    aspects of the building performance chain: where you build, how you
    design and construct, and how well you maintain and repair. As a
    building science institute, IBHS focuses on the ways that weather
    behaves, what makes homes and businesses vulnerable, and how our
    buildings can be more resilient. We exist to help ensure that the
    places where people live, learn, work, worship, and gather are safe,
    stable, and as strong as the best science can equip them to be.
        Our research teaches that improving residential resilience can
    require an assortment of actions, incentives, and stakeholders. To make
    a home more resilient to wildfire, for example, takes individual,
    collective, and governmental action. The homeowner must take care of
    basic yard maintenance, create a zone of defensible space around the
    house, use non-combustible building materials, and take steps to
    prevent embers from entering the home. Even those property-specific
    actions may not be sufficient, as the other houses, structures, and
    vegetation in the surrounding area must also be maintained
    appropriately. Community and government action, like creating fuel
    breaks, maintaining common spaces, and managing wildland fuel sources
    are also important. To protect a single home, an ``all of the above''
    approach is necessary.
        The same is true at the national level. Resilience to the natural
    perils we face, particularly when one considers the effects climate
    change has on these perils, requires an assortment of initiatives
    designed to strengthen American homes. These programs should seek to
    leverage public and private financing, data, and analytics to maximize
    our national competencies in the resilience space, regardless of where
    those competencies sit. Today, I will make the case for investments in
    residential resilience; provide a set of pathways that Congress can
    take to help make resilience more available for all Americans,
    regardless of their financial means; and propose several ways that
    resilience can be incorporated into upcoming infrastructure bills.
    Strengthening our resilience to natural perils and climate change is
    among the most pressing challenges we face as a nation, but solutions
    are within our reach.
                      The Case for Residential Resilience
    1. A Changing Climate Increases Natural Perils
        If 2020 taught us anything, it is that the home is of paramount
    importance--and for too many, vulnerable to the forces of Mother
    Nature. The dangers of COVID-19 led Americans from all fifty states to
    seek refuge in their homes, juggling remote work, child-rearing, and
    all the other necessities of life under a single roof. And yet, 2020
    should also be remembered as a year of natural fury--the year that
    climate change affected families across the country. Last year
    delivered the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, with the
    most named storms in history, the worst wildfire season ever, with a
    record-shattering 18 infernos of 100,000 acres or more across the West,
    and a Midwest derecho that was the most costly thunder storm in
    national history. According to reporting from the NOAA's National
    Centers for Environmental Information, 2020 set a record of 22 billion-
    dollar weather and climate disasters in the United States. However, we
    must look at 2020 in the broader context: while natural perils last
    year were particularly bad, they were not anomalous. 2020 was the sixth
    consecutive year in which ten or more billion-dollar weather and
    climate disaster events have occurred in the United States. Considering
    this trend, we must adapt by making our families, businesses, and
    communities more resilient to a changing climate and associated severe
    weather.
        The Reinsurance Association of America (RAA) has developed a tool
    that leverages publicly available data to visualize the interplay
    between natural hazards, housing stock, and socio-economic
    vulnerabilities. Using the data pulled from, among other sources, the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Risk Index and the U.S.
    Census Bureau, the RAA tool provides us with the ability to pinpoint--
    at the census tract, county, or Congressional district level--where
    natural perils, older housing stock, and disadvantaged populations
    converge to create zones of heightened vulnerability and risk. Exhibit
    A to this testimony demonstrates how this tool can be used by analyzing
    data for two Congressional Districts: Nevada-01 and Florida-11.
        In the Chairwoman's district, Nevada's 1st District, the tool
    demonstrates that the most significant natural peril is earthquake,
    with the earthquake-related Expected Annual Loss scores ranging from
    relatively moderate to very high. Clark County has a low community
    resilience score assigned by FEMA, meaning that the county has minimal
    ability to prepare for anticipated natural hazards, adapt to changing
    conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. At a
    census tract level, FEMA's social vulnerability scores for the
    Chairwoman's district range considerably, but many are in the top two
    quartiles as compared to the rest of the nation. This means that many
    of the people in Nevada-01 are, using FEMA's definition in its National
    Risk Index Primer (December 2020), susceptible ``to the adverse impacts
    of natural hazards, including disproportionate death, injury, loss, or
    disruption of livelihood'' when considering ``the social, economic,
    demographic, and housing characteristics of a community that influence
    its ability to prepare for, respond to, cope with, recover from, and
    adapt to environmental hazards.'' Moreover, many of the housing units
    in the district were built prior to 2000 and over half were built prior
    to 1990, demonstrating an aging housing stock that was not built to
    modern building codes. Put together, Nevada's 1st District is a good
    candidate for expanded federal mitigation aid, as it has unmet needs, a
    vulnerable population, an aging housing stock, and areas of heightened
    risk of earthquake loss.
        In the Ranking Member's district--Florida's 11th District--the tool
    demonstrates that hurricane, high wind, and wildfire are the natural
    perils most contributing to Expected Annual Loss. Hurricane, the most
    significant peril in the district, could cause the most damage to
    people and property in the eastern part of the district--particularly
    in Lake County. In addition, the FEMA scores for community resilience
    are in or near the bottom quartile of the nation in each of the
    counties in the district, meaning that the counties lack the resources
    to respond and recover from a natural disaster. Further, the FEMA
    social vulnerability data suggests that much of the population in this
    district has relatively high vulnerability as compared to the rest of
    the country. The age of the housing stock in Florida-11 is mixed, with
    more than fifty percent of housing units in the district built before
    2000. This district, too, would benefit from increased investments in
    residential and community resilience.
        These areas highlight where resilience investments are most needed.
    The work that RAA has done demonstrates the analytic role that the
    private sector--and particularly the insurance industry--can play to
    help policymakers at all levels of government develop resilience-
    strengthening policies that will respond to the deepest needs.
    2. Solve with Research
        The core perils studied at the IBHS Research Center are wind, wind-
    driven rain, hail, and wildfire, all relevant to today's hearing
    because they could become more frequent and destructive with a changing
    climate. The design of our Research Center--with 105 fans capable of
    generating wind speeds approximating the gusts of a Category 3
    Hurricane--provides unique capabilities to replicate real world weather
    conditions that arise during high wind and convective storms. We have
    developed a unique capability to replicate the density, hardness, and
    kinetic energy of natural hailstones to assess the durability and
    damageability of asphalt shingles and other products. We also have made
    significant, long-term investments wildfire research. Wildfire is one
    of the most important perils we study at the IBHS Research Center. This
    is the only place beside real-world wildfire events that can expose
    full-size buildings and building components to realistic thermal
    exposure of flames and embers. Creating a realistic scenario to study
    building vulnerabilities to wildfire has made IBHS the epicenter of
    wildfire research over the past decade and has attracted other research
    organizations to collaborate with IBHS. In addition to work at our
    facility, our scientists and partners have conducted post-disaster
    investigations to examine the factors that contributed to the losses
    from these destructive fires. IBHS' best-in-class science fills
    knowledge gaps to achieve significant social and economic benefits
    across all regions and demographics of America.
        In choosing specific research projects, we are driven by our
    mission of translating our research into action. That means that we
    choose science that can shape building codes and standards, evolve our
    FORTIFIED program of beyond code resilience standards, influence
    building professionals and products, improve consumer choices, and
    advance sound public policy solutions. At a fundamental level,
    consumers deserve to have confidence that the time and financial
    investments they make in resilience will live up to their reasonable
    expectations. Our research demonstrates that home and business
    resilience is available at a range of price points, and that poor
    choices or inaction can result in damage or destruction when severe
    weather strikes.
    3. Build and Retrofit for a Resilient Today and Tomorrow
        Due to the research conducted at IBHS, actions to strengthen the
    resilience of residential structures are not just knowable but known.
    For instance, when we think about the perils of wind and wind-driven
    rain, we start with the roof. When roofs fail, they can kick-start a
    cascade of failures such as water infiltration, projectile damage, and
    destruction of rooftop equipment, resulting in as much as 70-90 percent
    of insured residential losses from some disasters and deeply disrupting
    those who relied on their roofs for protection. It is critical to
    educate home and business owners to pay more attention to their roof
    and to understand how to extend its life and reduce the likelihood of
    storm-related damage. IBHS research shows one easy way to achieve this
    is by applying tape over the roof deck's joints before the underlayment
    is applied (this is called a ``sealed roof deck''). The process costs
    only several hundred dollars for a typical roofing installation but can
    save tens of thousands of dollars in the event the roof cover is blown
    off during a high or prolonged wind event. Small investments today can
    prevent large losses in the future--but we must find ways to get people
    to pay attention and act.
        Strengthening resilience to wildfire poses a significant challenge.
    Our field observations following the worst 2017/2018 California fires
    indicate that understanding survivability is complex, with many
    different factors combining to determine whether a structure was
    destroyed, damaged, or relatively unscathed. Notwithstanding these
    complexities, research has shown there are steps that give a home a
    much better chance of surviving an encounter with wildfire. As with
    wind perils, homeowners should start with their roof, using only Class
    A roofing materials that provide the most fire resistance. Homeowners
    should also pay close attention to the five foot ``ignition zone''
    around their home, maintaining a buffer zone free of vegetation, yard
    debris, structures like sheds, and other combustible materials. Similar
    maintenance should be maintained under existing decks, which should be
    constructed with non-combustible materials if possible. Additionally,
    using \1/8\ inch or finer metal screens in openings to attics, vents,
    gables, and crawlspaces can prevent flying embers from entering the
    home. Guidance on these actions can be found in IBHS's ``Suburban
    Wildfire Adaptation Roadmap,'' which fills a critical gap in wildfire
    science by identifying effective and actionable ways to drive down the
    growing losses that occur when wildfire spreads beyond the wildland-
    urban interface (WUI) into dense suburban communities, as well as our
    WILDFIRE READY guide, both of which were released last year.
        While some of the actions that can mitigate the risk of wildfire
    are low-cost or are based primarily on sweat equity, other retrofit
    options--such as replacing siding and windows with non-combustible
    alternatives--can be costly and, for some, unaffordable. Addressing the
    cost barrier for resilience is one place where government programs can
    help make resilience to natural perils a reality for more families and
    communities.
      Congressional Pathways for Strengthening the Resilience of American
                                     Homes
        Federal legislation is an essential part of the ``all of the
    above'' approach needed to strengthen residential resilience. Through
    targeted policies, programs, and funding, Congress can encourage
    responsible decision-making at the state, local, Tribal and territorial
    (SLTT) level, incentivize resilience investments by homeowners,
    financially support resilience for disadvantaged populations, and
    improve existing federal pipelines for resilience funding.
    Collectively, these actions can help narrow the resilience gap in the
    United States and better prepare families and communities for severe
    weather and a changing climate.
    1. Encourage Strong, Statewide Building Codes
        Strong, and strong enforced, building codes are an important tool
    to improve resilience. Building codes are sets of regulations,
    standards, and guidelines adopted by states and local communities to
    promote the construction of safe and durable structures. Historically,
    codes focus on life safety, but through proper application, they also
    can reduce the disruption natural hazards have on our lives. FEMA's
    2020 ``Building Codes Save'' study found that existing codes will
    result in $132 billion in losses avoided between 2000 and 2040. If all
    new buildings in the United States were built to modern editions of
    model building codes, the losses avoided would be more than $600
    billion. However, adoption and enforcement of building codes are not
    uniform across the country, or even within some of our most hazard-
    prone states. In fact, the FEMA study reported that 30 percent of new
    construction occurs in communities with either no codes at all or codes
    that are more than twenty years outdated. This must change, and federal
    action can encourage the adoption and enforcement of strong, state-wide
    building codes based on the most current model codes.
          A mitigation provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of
    2018 included new Public Assistance cost-share incentives for states to
    invest in resilience, including an increased federal share (up to 10
    percent more) for Stafford Act funding to states and territories that
    undertake eligible mitigation actions like adopting current building
    codes. Congress can amend the Stafford Act to give FEMA the flexibility
    to use a portion of the cost-share for all disaster relief and
    mitigation programs as a tool to encourage strong building codes and
    other pro-resilience actions by SLTTs.
          Congress can amend the Stafford Act to direct FEMA's
    Building Resilient Infrastructures and Communities (BRIC) program and
    Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to create set-asides to
    incentivize new state-level building code enactment, modernization, and
    enforcement. These funds should target the creation and expansion of
    building code activities, not simply fund what is ongoing in given
    jurisdiction.
    2. Promote Resilient Retrofits with Financial Incentivizes
        While building codes are a fundamental tool for shaping the
    resilience of tomorrow's homes, they do not strengthen resilience where
    Americans live today. Only retrofits can improve the resilience of
    existing houses.
        Social science suggests that effectively evaluating risk--
    particularly high impact, low likelihood risk like natural disasters--
    is challenging. When it comes to natural perils, people usually feel
    more protected than they are. For those with the financial means to
    invest in resilient retrofits, government incentives can provide the
    additional nudge they need to act. The tax code is a place where
    Congress can create financial incentives that encourage homeowners to
    invest in their own resilience.
          Congress can revisit resilient tax credit bills from the
    last Congress such as H.R. 3462 (the ``SHELTER Act'') or H.R. 7979 (the
    ``Disaster Savings and Resilient Construction Act of 2020''), which
    would have provided tax credits for eligible expenses paid by
    individuals and businesses for purchases that help reduce potential
    damage from hurricanes, flooding, and other forms of natural disaster.
    Tax credits for resilience investments are most effective when they are
    available for sunny day resilience actions as well as those taken in
    the post-disaster context.
          Congress can end the federal taxation of the benefits
    individuals and businesses receive from state-based catastrophe-loss
    mitigation programs, such as the California Bolt + Brace program for
    strengthening buildings located in earthquake prone areas, and the
    Strengthen Alabama Homes program, which provides grants funds to
    upgrade to a FORTIFIED Roof. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 5494--the
    ``Catastrophe-Loss-Mitigation Incentive and Tax Parity Act of 2019''--
    would have eliminated tax lability for amounts received as part of
    certain state-funded grant programs. Passage of such legislation would
    allow homeowners to take maximum advantage of state resilience grants.
    3. Make Resilience Available for All
        Residential resilience should not be a luxury only available for
    those with financial means. According to sociological research,
    disabled, elderly, low income, and other disadvantaged people are less
    likely to prepare for disasters, evacuate safely, avoid physical or
    psychological trauma, or recover quickly and fully. Low-income
    residents account for a meaningful percentage of the population in many
    coastal communities and other areas that face climate risk, often in
    the most vulnerable housing. This reality places an even higher
    priority on resilience programs that prevent avoidable damage to the
    places these populations live.
        Providing a higher degree of financial support for the residential
    resilience of disadvantaged populations is not just a matter of equity
    and public health--although it is both--it is a responsible investment
    of tax dollars. Improving resilience reduces the costs of future
    natural disasters and the economic disruption associated with related
    dislocations. In addition, providing federal funding for resilience
    projects spurs economic development in needy communities, as many
    residential resilience projects are dependent on skilled roofers,
    contractors, and other technicians. Congress can consider the following
    measures to improve the resilience of our most vulnerable populations.
          Housing for disadvantaged populations should be based on
    three-prong foundation of affordability, resilience, and energy-
    efficiency. By doing so, it is possible to create sustainable and
    affordable homes that reduce costs in the short term through reduced
    water and energy bills and avoid future loss, disruption, and
    displacement through resilient construction or retrofits. The
    convergence of affordability, resilience and energy-efficiency is
    already occurring in Louisiana, where an affordable housing project
    from the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority mandated that affordable
    housing be built to IBHS's FORTIFIED standard and the Energy Star Homes
    Version 3.0 standard.
            Congress can support this type of sustainable housing
    by mandating resilience investment set-asides in all appropriations for
    affordable housing. In the last Congress, H.R. 5187--the ``Housing is
    Infrastructure Act of 2020'' would have provided additional funding for
    public housing, rural housing, Tribal housing, supportive housing for
    the elderly and differently abled, and affordable housing. In each
    instance the bill would have reserved 10 percent of funding for
    activities related to energy and water efficiency. This Congress can
    take up a revised version of this bill so that it includes a 20 percent
    set-aside for activities related to energy and water efficiency and
    resilience.
            In addition, Congress can reauthorize the
    Weatherization Assistance Program and expand it to provide technical
    support and financial assistance for resilience projects as well as
    energy efficiency.
          Although tax credits such as those contemplated by
    proposals like the SHELTER ACT can incentivize homeowners of financial
    means, they do not help low- and moderate-income populations who have
    neither adequate taxable income for the credits to be meaningful nor
    the resources to make resilience investments without more significant
    aid. Congress can explore making resilience tax credits transferable to
    expand their applicability for all Americans. Transferable tax credits
    for resilience investments could allow private and non-profit
    organizations to use the credits as a funding stream for residential
    resilience projects in the affordable housing space.
          Congress can create a Community Disaster Resilience Zones
    (CDRZ) and related bond program to direct public and private sector
    resources to address significant natural disaster risk of exposed
    communities with an emphasis on underserved socio-economic areas. By
    providing preferential treatment for investments in these zones, such a
    program would catalyze private sector investments in projects that
    strengthen residential and community resilience in at-need communities.
    4. Optimize Existing Federal Pipelines for Resilience Funding
        Congress already devotes significant resources to resilience, in
    both the pre-disaster and post-disaster contexts. In 2018, Congress
    made significant strides towards supporting resilience to natural
    perils by passing the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, which led
    to the creation of the BRIC program. By authorizing the President to
    set aside six percent of the total amount of disaster recovery grants
    awarded from the Disaster Relief Fund for pre-disaster resilience
    investments, Congress steered a powerful shift in the way the federal
    government prepares communities for future natural disasters. Now that
    the BRIC program has been implemented, we have greater insight into how
    Congress could further optimize this important resilience tool.
          The 25% state cost-share for BRIC funding may create a
    significant barrier for underserved communities with small tax bases
    and fewer resources in taking advantage of the program. This inherently
    inequitable outcome runs contrary to the purpose of the program.
    Congress can address this issue by allowing greater flexibility for the
    state cost-share of BRIC funds (i) by allowing states to buy down their
    share through resilience-advancing actions like smart land use and
    modern building codes and (ii) by allowing SLTT entities to partner
    with private and philanthropic sources to pay for some of the cost
    share. While SLTTs should always have some skin in the game, greater
    flexibility in putting together the state cost-share will make BRIC
    more meaningful for underserved communities and, thus, more equitable.
          The BRIC program could be better calibrated to fund
    residential resilience projects in two ways. First, Congress can direct
    FEMA to create a pilot program to help establish residential resilience
    grant programs. Grants are more effective tools than reimbursements,
    especially for disadvantaged populations, because funding is provided
    up front. Second, the BRIC application process can be streamlined to
    make it easier for projects involving multiple structures to qualify
    for funding by instituting a benefit cost analysis (BCA) waiver for
    SLTT initiatives that fund certain kinds of residential resilience
    projects, such as grant programs supporting Fortified retrofits. FEMA
    has previously taken steps like this for other programs, such as in the
    Wind Retrofit Guide for Residential Buildings (P-804).
          Congress can amend the Stafford Act to make BRIC and HMGP
    funds interchangeable in two key respects. Successful BRIC applicants
    should be awarded applicable HMGP funds before BRIC funds--a change
    that will spend down unused HMGP funds and prevent BRIC
    oversubscription. Additionally, expired HMGP funds should be swept into
    the BRIC program to avoid wasting government funding earmarked for
    resilience projects. By making BRIC and HMGP funds more
    interchangeable, FEMA can maximize its ability to fund resilience
    projects.

        In addition to BRIC, Congress has an opportunity to strengthen
    other government programs intended to build residential and community
    resilience both before and after natural disasters. The following
    opportunities could strengthen, expand, or otherwise optimize existing
    programs in ways that will aid residential resilience.
          The time after a natural disaster, particularly one which
    displaces a family, is the worst time to contend with government
    bureaucracy. The process by which homeowners apply for post-disaster
    relief from FEMA, HUD, and SBA should be simplified and streamlined.
    Congress can direct these agencies and departments to develop a single
    application and tracking process to support Americans seeking
    government aid when they are most vulnerable.
          The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides post-
    disaster low-interest loans to business owners and homeowners, one of
    the primary sources of financial assistance for long-term disaster
    recovery. These resilience-supporting loans are only available in the
    disaster recovery context. Congress can direct SBA to expand its
    physical damage loan and mitigation assistance programs to apply in the
    pre-disaster context as well, helping homeowners to finance sunny-day
    resilience projects.
          The Department of Housing and Urban Development's
    Community Development Block Grants-Disaster Recovery Program (CDBG-DR)
    is designed to provide funds to address needs not met by other federal
    disaster recovery programs. Consistent with the recommendation by the
    House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Congress should
    permanently authorize the HUD CDBG-DR program.
                     Prioritizing Resilient Infrastructure
        Last month, we witnessed the devastating, cascading impacts that
    vulnerable infrastructure can have on the resilience of homes. When a
    cold snap caused power outages throughout the state of Texas, unheated
    pipes froze and burst--resulting in the unfamiliar sight of residents
    boiling melted snow for drinking water and causing the dislocation of
    families and billions of dollars in losses.
        As this cascading chain of damage in Texas demonstrates, the
    resilience of homes is intrinsically connected to the resilience of
    community infrastructure, especially water and energy infrastructure.
    As Congress works with the Biden Administration to develop an ambitious
    infrastructure bill, we urge this Subcommittee to champion resilience
    and climate change adaptation as central objectives of that
    legislation. The failure to make resilience to severe weather and a
    changing climate a central component of new infrastructure is a missed
    opportunity that will result in higher disaster relief costs for
    generations to come.
        In this context, we suggest three additional policies and programs
    that Congress could consider that would advance the resilience of
    families, communities, and our Nation.
          On his first day in office, President Biden reinstated
    the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS), which requires that
    federally funded projects be resilient to flood hazard. The common-
    sense purpose of the FFRMS is to provide reasonable assurance that the
    American taxpayer need not pay twice for the same project. Congress
    should enshrine the FFRMS in statute and expand it to require that
    federally funded projects be designed and built for resilience to other
    significant natural perils, including high winds and wildfire. Above
    all, ensure that this Flood Standard applies to all funds expended
    under any new infrastructure bill being considered by the full
    Committee.
          Public buildings and facilities that are built to
    withstand natural perils can provide a refuge during natural disasters,
    contribute to the continuity of government services following the
    disaster, and can be affordably insured. Too often, however, they are
    not built with resilience in mind and are not insured, instead
    contributing to both the resilience gap and the insurance coverage gap.
    Congress should encourage and help fund the resilience of public
    buildings and facilities. Additionally, and as proposed by the House
    Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Congress can allow SLTTs to use
    Stafford Act funds for the payment of insurance premiums and
    deductibles. Together, this can result in public buildings and
    facilities that are physically and financially more resilient.
          Congress can also consider putting limits on Stafford Act
    funding for SLTTs without appropriate insurance coverage for public
    buildings, so that Public Assistance is not treated as a de facto
    public insurance program.

        In closing, I would like to thank you for the recognizing the
    importance of resilience and the critical role IBHS research plays to
    help strengthen the built environment. Americans are not powerless
    against severe weather--it is possible to reduce the damage inflicted
    today and in the future. Meeting this pressing need will take an ``all
    of the above'' approach for which Congress plays an essential role. I
    appreciate the opportunity to share some of our ideas with you today.
                                   appendix a
    Data provided by the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA)
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright. I like your
    comment, ``Climate change barged through the front door of
    American families.''
        Mr. Wright. It did.
        Ms. Titus. I may have to use that, but I promise I will
    footnote you if I do.
        Mr. Wright. It is all yours.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        We will go to Ms. Smith.
        Ms. Smith. Thank you, Chairwoman Titus, members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you on behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts.
        This afternoon, I would like to just underscore a few of
    the points from my written testimony, and as others have noted,
    the bottom line is we are losing the battle with extreme
    weather.
        A couple of points to note: The Congressional Budget Office
    has warned of an estimated average cost to the Federal
    Government of at least $17 billion every year; that cost is
    only for losses associated with hurricane winds and storm-
    related flooding.
        Presidential disaster declarations since 2000, we totaled
    up the obligated amounts for repairing or rebuilding utilities,
    public buildings, water and wastewater facilities, and other
    assets. Excluding emergency work, we are talking $67 billion.
    But as others have said, we can do better because pre-disaster
    mitigation pays.
        The National Institute of Building Sciences, as the chair
    and the ranking member have noted, give us the figures of how
    much we could be saving for every dollar spent. But even as we
    slowly work our way to correct the problems with buildings and
    infrastructure at risk today, we fear that we add to the
    problem with new investments that don't have ample protection.
    This sort of shortsighted spending should stop and it can.
        There are already important instances of resilience
    investment that show us what can be gained and what is
    possible. Take the case of the Texas Medical Center devastated
    by Hurricane Allison, but restored with resilient features to
    be strong enough to withstand the ravages of Harvey, or the
    Spaulding Rehab Hospital built to serve a waterfront community
    in Boston, but built to continue functioning as sea levels
    rise.
        Consider the innovation and the no-regrets adaptation
    solutions that architects, planners, and engineers are
    designing; restored rather than filled wetlands that keep homes
    from flooding and stop sewage overflows; oyster reefs
    protecting roadways; rail line piers that can be elevated as
    needed rising along with the sea; levees set back from rivers
    that redirect flood waters and restore habitat.
        Many resiliency solutions will bring multiple benefits,
    keep businesses open and supply lines functioning, offer
    employment, bring open space to harsh environments, and address
    those painful social inequities. Some use nature itself to
    bring down the cost.
        It is perplexing then that such approaches have not been
    deployed more widely, that more communities, more developers,
    and more public and private investors have not completed
    thorough, forward-looking vulnerability assessments, made
    sensible siting choices, and embraced modern building codes.
        That is why we believe that you must act swiftly in your
    infrastructure work to address this growing resilience gap. We
    are hopeful that you will require new investments in
    transportation to incorporate resilience, new investment
    authorizations for water infrastructure to require assessment
    of vulnerabilities and getting ready for weather extremes, and
    assuring that new Federal funding for housing projects with
    Federal funds choose not the low-lying risky land because it is
    cheap, but incorporate proven means of keeping people high and
    dry and safe.
        As Chairman DeFazio has noted, this has been done before in
    the NDAA, and you can do it again. We certainly call your
    attention to H.R. 481, the Flood Resiliency and Taxpayer
    Savings Act, introduced by Congressmen Price and Zeldin. We
    think that is worth your swift action.
        In closing, I thank the chair for taking up this important
    issue, and for inviting Pew to engage in this discussion. I
    look forward to your questions.
        [Ms. Smith's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Velma Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer,
        Flood-Prepared Communities Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts
        Chairwoman Titus, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of The Pew
    Charitable Trusts (Pew), I thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. My name is Velma Smith. I am a senior officer working with Pew's
    flood-prepared communities initiative.
        Pew's flood-prepared communities initiative has been focused on the
    increasingly costly and common problems of floods and flooding damage.
    Our aim is to reduce the impact of flood-related disasters on the U.S.
    economy, communities, and environment. Pew is working to prioritize
    investments in flood-ready infrastructure, mitigate against the impact
    of disasters, modernize flood insurance, and promote nature-based
    solutions to flooding. Given that work and the fact that flooding and
    coastal storms have accounted for roughly 70 percent of all
    Presidential Disaster Declarations over the past decade \1\, my
    comments this afternoon will focus largely on how flooding has and can
    impact communities and how Congress might address these problems in the
    context of infrastructure investment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, OpenFEMA Data Sets,
    Disaster Declaration Summaries, https://www.fema.gov/about/openfema/
    data-sets
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Costly Disasters are on the Rise
        First, the overall disaster numbers and the trendline. Flooding and
    other weather-related disasters are on the rise. The National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tells us that 2020 set numerous
    records \2\: 22 extreme weather and climate events caused $1 billion or
    more in losses, jumping from a previous high of 16 that occurred in
    both 2011 and 2017. Western wildfires reached historic proportions in
    2020, and the Atlantic hurricane season produced 30 named storms, 12 of
    those making landfall in the contiguous U.S. Last year's record events
    came on the heels of the third consecutive decade in which the mounting
    number and costs experienced by the country reached levels never before
    seen. Totals have now exceeded $1.8 trillion in aggregate since
    1980.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Centers for Environmental Information, National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``Billion-Dollar Weather and
    Climate Disasters: Overview,'' https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
    overview
        \3\ National Centers for Environmental Information, National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``Billion-Dollar Weather and
    Climate Disasters: Summary Stats,'' https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
    summary-stats
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Costs are Felt by Communities and the American Taxpayer
        Those disasters and many others whose impacts did not hit the
    billion dollar mark have proven costly to U.S. families and businesses,
    localities and states, and to federal taxpayers who pay a significant
    portion toward disaster losses--over and above emergency assistance--
    through programs such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
    (FEMA) Public Assistance and Individual Assistance programs, the U.S.
    Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration
    (FHWA) Emergency Relief Program, the Small Business Administration's
    disaster loan programs, the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development's Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery
    (CDBG-DR) and more.
        Without consistent accounting of costs across federal agencies and
    states \4\, it is hard to know precisely how much is being spent, but a
    snapshot of just one program suggests the scale of the threat. Pew
    looked specifically at the monies spent under FEMA's Public Assistance
    Program (PA) to help communities build back and repair damaged public
    buildings, utilities, water systems, roads, and other public assets.\5\
    Overall, for disasters declared from 2000 to the present, the amount
    obligated for PA, excluding emergency protective management, debris
    removal, and state management assistance, tops $67 billion.
    Expenditures on public utilities and buildings account for the lion's
    share: more than $26 billion for utilities and more than $23 billion
    for buildings. In looking at this number, the Committee should keep in
    mind that obligations for the more recent disasters will grow. This
    data counts only the projects for which plans have been made and
    obligations approved.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The Pew Charitable Trusts, ``How States Pay for Natural
    Disasters in an Era of Rising Costs: A nationwide assessment of
    budgeting strategies and practices,'' https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/
    media/assets/2020/05/how-states-pay-for-natural-disasters-in-an-era-of-
    rising-costs.pdf ; and Government Accountability Office, ``High-Risk
    Series: Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most
    High-Risk Areas,'' GAO-21-119SP, March 2, 2021, https://files.gao.gov/
    reports/GAO-21-119SP/index.html
        \5\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, OpenFEMA Dataset: Public
    Assistance Funded Projects Details, updated March 3, 2021, https://
    www.fema.gov/openfema-data-page/public-assistance-funded-projects-
    details-v1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another tally comes from a study released in 2017. That analysis by
    the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) \6\ looked at risk and loss
    associated specifically with hurricane winds and storm-related flooding
    across three sectors: residential, commercial, and public. It estimated
    expected average annual costs to the federal government--assuming the
    status quo in terms of public policy and excluding some federal costs
    as well as costs borne by state and local governments--an average cost
    of $17 billion per year. One of the options to alter this outlook, CBO
    noted, was to ``increase funding for mitigation.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Congressional Budget Office, ``Expected Costs of Damage From
    Hurricane Winds and Storm-Related Flooding,'' April 2019, https://
    www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-04/55019-ExpectedCostsFromWindStorm.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    repeated its own warnings about the risks of climate change.\7\ Since
    2019, GAO's High-Risk Report has called on the government to improve
    its preparation for future disaster, and its accounting of disaster
    spending. According to GAO, the federal government must address the
    long-term financial exposure of disaster assistance programs and
    ``fully implement measures that promote resilience.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Government Accountability Office, ``High-Risk Series: Dedicated
    Leadership Needed to Address Limited Progress in Most High-Risk
    Areas,'' GAO-21-119SP, March 2, 2021, https://files.gao.gov/reports/
    GAO-21-119SP/index.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               It Pays to Prepare
        On the mitigation side of the disaster balance sheet, there are
    compelling numbers as well, because--as others on this panel have
    underscored--mitigation pays. Many studies of mitigation efforts have
    shown what can be gained.
        The most widely quoted of these studies comes from the National
    Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council,
    a panel of experts in fields related to the building sciences. This
    group has taken a rigorous look at mitigation projects of multiple
    types, including adoption and enforcement of building codes and
    mitigation for different types of community infrastructure. In some
    categories, NIBS researchers have been able to revisit their own work
    and refine it over multiple years. Their conclusions, over and over
    again, tell us that mitigation saves and that the sooner the mitigation
    actions are taken, the more the associated benefits will multiply. The
    amount of savings varies by type and by project, but overall, the
    numbers run in ranges from $2 in savings per mitigation dollar invested
    to as high as $11 saved per dollar invested.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ National Institute of Building Sciences Multihazard Mitigation
    Council, ``Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report,'' December
    2019, https://www.nibs.org/page/mitigationsaves; and National Institute
    of Building Sciences Multihazard Mitigation Council, ``Natural Hazard
    Mitigation Saves: Utilities and Transportation Infrastructure,''
    October 2018, https://www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/docs/NHMS-
    UtilitiesFactSheet.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Numerous studies echo those findings. For example, researchers
    found great value in homes built in compliance with strong, wind-
    resistant codes; they reported damage reductions of greater than 70
    percent, compared with other structures.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Simmons, Kevin M., et al., ``Economic Effectiveness of
    Implementing a Statewide Building Code: The Case of Florida,'' Land
    Economics, May 2018, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/690441 ; and Kusisto,
    Laura and Arian Campo-Flores, ``Homes Built to Stricter Standards Fared
    Better in Storm,'' Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2017, https://
    www.wsj.com/articles/one-early-lesson-from-irma-hurricane-building-
    codes-work-1505559600
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Other work in Florida, where loss avoidance from past mitigation
    projects is analyzed by the State after major storm events,\10\ shows
    large benefits from activities such as buyouts of flood-prone
    structures, elevation of buildings, and improvements to storm drainage.
    The State of Florida studies conclude that ``mitigating the risk of
    natural hazards in Florida is a sound investment'' with a positive
    economic benefit in terms of employment and economic stabilization
    following a disaster.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Florida Division of Emergency Management, ``Loss Avoidance
    Assessment: Hurricane Matthew (DR-4283),'' April 2017, https://
    www.floridadisaster.org/globalassets/importedpdfs/01_dr-4283-loss-
    avoidance-report.pdf; and ``Loss Avoidance Assessment: Tropical Storm
    Debby: FEMA-4068-DR-FL, Flood Mitigation Projects, LA #2012-01,''
    https://www.floridadisaster.org/globalassets/importedpdfs/report-
    tsdebby-la.pdf
        \11\ Koon, Bryan W., et. al., ``Florida Division of Emergency
    Management's Bureau of Mitigation Economic Impact Analysis,'' August
    2011, https://www.floridadisaster.org/globalassets/importedpdfs/fdem-
    economic-impact-analysis-final-3.14.12.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Following the devastating 2013 floods in Colorado, analysts also
    determined that stronger building requirements, setbacks and
    restrictions on the siting of critical facilities kept storm damages
    from running even higher than encountered, but they also found that
    earlier and more widespread adoption of mitigation requirements could
    have reduced the costs even further. This investigation concluded that
    if older critical facilities, including police stations, emergency
    operations centers, hospital emergency rooms, fire stations, and
    schools, had been removed from flood zones, damages might have been cut
    substantially. One of the recommendations in this FEMA report is for
    more widespread adoption of critical facility siting restrictions.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ FEMA, ``Reducing Losses through Higher Regulatory Standards:
    2013 Colorado Floods Case Study, FEMA-DR-4145-CO,'' March 2015,
    prepared by Dewberry Consultants LLC for FEMA, https://www.fema.gov/
    media-library-data/1429759760513-f96124536d2c3ccc07b3db4a4f8c35b5/
    FEMA_CO_RegulatoryLAS.pdf ; and FEMA Region VIII, ``Loss Avoidance
    Study: The water didn't stop.'' http://www.casfm.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2017/08/R8_Loss_Avoidance_Study.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Mitigation Lags as Costs and Threats Mount
        Despite the proven value of mitigation and disturbing predictions
    of more frequent severe storms and rising sea levels, we too often fail
    to act. Localities hesitate to restrict new building in risky areas or
    adopt and enforce the most recent building codes. On this point, FEMA's
    National Advisory Council in 2019 has warned that nearly 70 percent of
    the more than 23,000 cities and towns facing floods, high wind,
    hurricane, seismic, or tornado hazards had not adopted or enforced the
    latest protection codes.\13\ Without up-to-date codes and proper
    planning, low-lying, damaged structures are rebuilt with the same
    vulnerabilities; public buildings, including those that provide
    essential services or store important public records are too often
    repeatedly damaged and repaired without major improvements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``National Advisory
    Council Report to the FEMA Administrator, November 2019,'' https://
    www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_nac-report_11-2019.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There is no publicly available database with information on those
    assets that have been damaged numerous times and repaired or replaced
    using federal funding, though a Department of Transportation rule now
    requires states to begin gathering and reporting this information to
    the Department.\14\ We do know, however that some assets that may be in
    harm's way, in fact, belong to the federal government. After reviewing
    just a portion of the federal property inventory, the Office of
    Management and Budget identified more than $80 billion in federal
    assets located in designated flood zones.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Asset Management Plans and
    Periodic Evaluations of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and
    Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events,'' Final Rule, 81 FR 73196,
    October 24, 2016, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2016-10-24/
    2016-25117
        \15\ Office of Management and Budget, ``Climate Change: The Fiscal
    Risks Facing the Federal Government, Preliminary Assessment,'' November
    2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
    reports/omb_climate_change_fiscal_risk_report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Some disaster experts, like the researchers at the Wharton School,
    place at least part of the blame for inaction on disaster or flood
    amnesia \16\--perhaps a very human and understandable tendency to put
    aside the traumas of the big events. They also point out the very real
    need for better public education and hazard risk disclosure.\17\ Pew
    agrees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Kunreuther, Howard, ``Improving the National Flood Insurance
    Program,'' Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, 2018,
    https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/
    improving_the_national_flood_insurance_program.-Behavioral-Public-
    Policy-2018.pdf
        \17\ Kousky, Carolyn, ``How Americans Fail at Communicating Flood
    Risk,'' Bloomberg CityLab, October 11, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/
    news/articles/2018-10-11/why-flood-risk-information-doesn-t-reach-the-
    american-public
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Disasters Create Cascading Consequences and Long-Term Costs
        We might also suggest that, at some level, we may be allowing the
    large and growing numbers to deceive us. We total up the costs the best
    we can and as we should, but when we focus solely on the billions of
    dollars, perhaps we forget other important facets of disaster. The
    aggregate numbers can obscure the cascading impacts that follow a
    failure to invest in resiliency, the lasting consequences, the human-
    scale tragedies, and the true fragility of critical lifelines.
        In looking only at the totals, we tend to forget what FEMA's
    Federal Advisory Council reminds us in their 2020 report \18\ to the
    Agency: ``[D]isasters disproportionately affect those who are already
    socio-economically marginalized in a community, subjecting them to even
    greater depths of poverty.'' We may not see the true gravity of a storm
    that damages a small hospital in a rural community where that hospital
    is not only a health care lifeline but also the major employer. We may
    put aside that image of wheel-chair-bound seniors sitting in waist-deep
    flood waters in Dickinson, Texas during Hurricane Harvey.\19\ We may
    not readily consider the dangers to first responders driving on flooded
    roadways, the disruptions to important supply chains when interstates
    are closed for days or weeks, the sewage spills that threaten public
    health and close recreational facilities, or the water or power
    disruptions and their secondary impacts. Or we may miss the report that
    tells of more than 5,000 children separated from their families after
    Hurricane Katrina, some for months.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``National Advisory
    Council Report to the FEMA Administrator, November 2019,'' https://
    www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nac-report_11-2020.pdf
        \19\ Villafranca, Omar, CBS News, ``Elderly are among the most
    vulnerable during Harvey,'' August 28, 2017, https://www.cbsnews.com/
    news/hurricane-harvey-senior-citizens-nursing-home-dickinson-texas-
    elderly-vulnerable/
        \20\ Broughton, D., et. al., ``Getting 5000 Families Back Together:
    Reuniting Fractured Families After a Disaster: The Role of the National
    Center for Missing & Exploited Children,'' Pediatrics, 117, Supplement,
    May 2006, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/
    Supplement_4/S442.short
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But perhaps we should give more weight to these stories and
    statistics that show us how disaster--and the failure to anticipate
    disaster--can exacerbate existing inequities and frailties in our
    communities and how the vulnerability of one asset can reverberate
    across a town or an entire region.
        Today, Pew is hopeful that the experiences of past disasters as
    well as the mounting costs will instill in the members of this
    Committee a sense of urgency to close the nation's resilience gap. We
    believe you can do so by making certain that new investments in
    infrastructure incorporate new requirements for resilience.
        Some might counter that requirements for new infrastructure
    projects to assess hazards and incorporate protections will be too
    costly; that unneeded delays will occur. Clearly, a balance must be
    struck, but we ask the Committee to consider the wasted costs that
    accrue when a vulnerable facility must be repaired or rebuilt
    repeatedly. And to keep in mind the delays and disruptions to family
    and civic life when a community loses water or power, shutters a
    school, or finds itself isolated by destroyed bridges and impassable
    roads.
                Resiliency Initiatives Point the Way to Progress
        As this Subcommittee considers how to support resilient
    infrastructure investment and what levels of assistance to offer, there
    is also good news. There are already successes: projects and programs
    that recognize risks and build in a capacity for durability and
    resilience. A few of these may be useful to your deliberations. They
    should give you assurance that resilience can grow, if you make it a
    priority for infrastructure spending.
    Healthcare Facilities
        Take a look at the University of Texas Medical Center. In 2001, one
    storm dumped as much as 80 percent of the rainfall that Houston and
    Harris County, Texas would normally experience over a full year.\21\
    Tropical Storm Allison was cited as a 1,000-year event and called by
    some the worst urban storm in the U.S. to that point.\22\ At the
    largest aggregated medical campus in the country, water rose 22 feet
    and the force of flow through the sprawling operation and its
    underground tunnels was enough to blow doors off their hinges and cause
    cinderblock walls to collapse.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Harris County Flood Control District, ``Tropical Storm
    Allison,'' undated, https://www.hcfcd.org/storm-center/tropical-storm-
    allison-2001/
        \22\ U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, ``After Record-Breaking
    Rains, a Major Medical Center's Hazard Mitigation Plan Improves
    Resilience,'' https://toolkit.climate.gov/case-studies/after-record-
    breaking-rains-major-medical-centers-hazard-mitigation-plan-improves
        \23\ Tucker, Edgar L. and Angela N. Smith, ``Planning for the Worst
    at the World's Largest Medical Complex,'' presented at the Texas
    Emergency Management Conference, March 26, 2013, https://
    www.preparingtexas.org/Resources/documents/
    2013%20Conference%20Presentations/Planning%20for%20the%20Worst.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The flood took out all essential services: electrical power,
    heating, ventilation, air conditioning, water, fire detection and
    suppression, and sewage. Medical personnel managed evacuation of
    patients, sometimes transferring equipment and staff with patients
    headed to facilities that would otherwise have been unable to care for
    them. Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine lost one of the
    world's most extensive collections of breast cancer specimens--some
    60,000 specimens collected over a period of 25 years.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Bankhead, Charles, ``Tropical Storm Sets Back Research in
    Houston,'' Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 93, Issue
    18, http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/18/1366.long
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To avoid a repeat of the Allison disaster, the Center undertook an
    extensive review of vulnerabilities of the entire campus and developed
    a comprehensive plan to manage risks into the future. Improvements
    included a new, elevated combined heat and power utility plant,
    multiple flood doors and gates to close off areas susceptible to
    flooding, an elevated utility raceway that also serves as a pedestrian
    walkway, rooftop telecom cell towers, major improvements in drainage
    and stormwater management across the campus and in the larger
    watershed, a state-of-the-art flood warning system, various perimeter
    berms and barriers to protect facilities up to the 500-year flood
    level.\25\ In addition, because the Houston area has experienced ground
    subsidence of more than three feet since 1976 and that subsidence can
    alter the flood-readiness of buildings, a solar-powered system for
    monitoring ground subsidence was installed.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ Fang, Zheng , et.al., ``Case Study of Flood Mitigation and
    Hazard Management at the Texas Medical Center in the Wake of Tropical
    Storm Allison in 2001,'' Natural Hazards Review, Vol 15, Issue 3, Aug
    2014, https://www.buildinggreen.com/sites/default/files/
    Fang14TMC_Final.pdf
        \26\ U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, ``After Record-Breaking
    Rains, a Major Medical Center's Hazard Mitigation Plan Improves
    Resilience,'' https://toolkit.climate.gov/case-studies/after-record-
    breaking-rains-major-medical-centers-hazard-mitigation-plan-improves
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These improvements allowed the Center to continue functioning
    throughout Hurricane Harvey.\27\ The storm presented challenges for
    receiving patients and rotating medical staff and security, and one
    hospital suffered a broken water pipe, but overall, the Center's
    preparation allowed it to function and to return to a normal schedule
    as the floodwaters cleared in the area. As former Congressman Ken
    Bentsen noted in an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, ``With the region
    knocked to its knees, the Medical Center stood tall on dry land.'' \28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Galehouse, Maggie, ``Despite Hurricane Harvey, TMC
    Institutions Are Operational and Accessible,'' TMC News, Aug 28, 2017,
    http://www.tmc.edu/news/2017/08/despite-hurricane-harvey-tmc-
    institutions-operational-accessible/
        \28\ Bentsen, Ken, ``Bentsen: The Texas Medical Center defeated
    Harvey,'' The Houston Chronicle, Sep 4, 2017, http://
    www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Bentsen-The-Texas-
    Medical-Center-defeated-Harvey-12172307.php
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As compelling as this story is, there are even more good examples
    in this arena. Many public health and medical professionals and in the
    engineering and architectural services that support them are taking the
    risks of climate change and future disasters to heart. Other
    facilities, like the LEED-gold-certified Spaulding Rehabilitation
    Hospital in Charlestown, Massachusetts, are being built with resiliency
    as a priority.\29\ Sited on the waterfront, the Spaulding facility was
    designed around sea level rise projections out to the year 2100. The
    facility's first floor was placed as high as possible; critical
    mechanical and electrical equipment are on the roof, and patient-
    critical functions have been kept off the ground floor. Building
    designers included a combined heat and power plant for backup power;
    elevated all vents; incorporated operable windows; and designed the
    landscaping to offer reef-like barriers to mitigate against storm
    surge.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ Urban Land Institute, ``Developing Urban Resilience: Spaulding
    Rehabilitation Hospital,'' 2018, https://developingresilience.uli.org/
    case/spaulding-rehabilitation-hospital/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Charlestown facility completed in 2013 is just one belonging to
    Massachusetts-based Partners HealthCare, which has since taken on the
    task of assessing the risks posed by climate change and weather
    disasters to all of its facilities and services.\30\ For this effort,
    the company is using its own expertise developed during the planning
    for Spaulding as well as guidance on best practices developed by the
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Morgan, Jamie, ``Partners HealthCare undergoes systemwide
    resiliency assessment,'' Health Facilities Managment, https://
    www.hfmmagazine.com/articles/3475-partners-healthcare-undergoes-
    systemwide-resiliency-assessment
        \31\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ``Primary
    Protection: Enhancing Health Care Resilience for a Changing Climate,''
    Fall 2014, https://toolkit.climate.gov/sites/default/files/
    SCRHCFI%20Best%20Practices%20Report%20final2%202014%20Web.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Clearly, not every medical facility could accomplish the massive
    re-engineering that occurred in Houston, and not every feature of the
    Spaulding facility will transfer elsewhere, but to the extent that
    Congress funds the infrastructure aspects of our health care
    facilities, it should assure that any new resources help to make these
    critical facilities safer and more reliable in the face of disaster.
    Transportation
        The transportation sector, as well, has positive news and
    developments and examples of innovation in preparedness. On that front,
    we again thank the Committee for the groundwork it laid last year for
    reauthorizing highway programs. We understand that resilience in
    surface transportation can be complex, perhaps the ultimate example of
    connectedness. That is why we wholeheartedly endorse the Committee's
    proposals to incorporate resiliency into the long-term planning and
    asset management programs that are the heart of the National Highway
    Performance Program (NHPP).\32\ We also support the creation of a new
    pre-disaster mitigation program, efforts to use natural infrastructure
    for flood resilience, and, where possible, the relocation or
    construction of alternatives to repeatedly damaged facilities. We
    recommend that we incentivize action on those repeatedly flooded
    transportation assets with changes to the Federal Highway
    Administration's (FHWA) Emergency Relief (ER) program: requiring
    resiliency improvements and protective features for the non-emergency
    and permanent work undertaken with ER allocations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ Letter from Thomas Wathen, The Pew Charitable Trusts to The
    Honorable Nancy Pelosi, The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, The Honorable
    Peter DeFazio, The Honorable Sam Graves, June 29, 2020, https://
    www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/06/pew-letter-on-transportation-
    reauthorization-bill.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the transportation sector, we see indication that resilience
    advancements are both needed and feasible today: in Delaware, where
    oyster reefs are part of the solution to protecting a coastal highway;
    \33\ in Arkansas, where the State Game and Fish Commission, the Nature
    Conservancy, the Arkansas Economic Development Commission, and other
    partners have set up a program to reduce flooding on rural roads and at
    the same time improve water quality and protect habitat; \34\ in
    California, where designers address the threat of rising seas to a
    coastal rail line with a structural solution that is, itself,
    adaptable: precast piers and caps that allow insertion of additional
    pier segments, if needed.\35\ In Virginia, the Hampton Roads
    Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) is working with military
    leadership in the region to address the impacts of sea level rise that
    threaten military readiness and the transportation needs of the region,
    collaborating to set priorities for protecting road segments, tunnels,
    and bridges vulnerable to future damage and destruction,\36\ and the
    Department of Transportation itself is advancing resilience with
    trainings and outreach for highway planners and engineers based on
    their implementation guide ``Nature-Based Solutions for Coastal Highway
    Resilience.'' \37\ In this sector as well, there is ample evidence that
    new infrastructure should and can incorporate resilience. Resiliency is
    what we should demand of new roads and bridges built today and going
    forward.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Hodges, Tina, Federal Highway Administration, ``Nature-based
    Resilience for Coastal Highways,'' presentation to the International
    Conference on Coastal Engineering, July 29, 2018, https://
    ewn.el.erdc.dren.mil/workshops/2018_07-29-NNBF-short-course/ppt/1145-
    1205_Hodges-NNBFTransportationCaseStudy.pdf
        \34\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``Better Unpaved Roads
    for Nature and People in Arkansas,'' 2021, https://www.fema.gov/case-
    study/better-unpaved-roads-nature-and-people-arkansas; Kloer, Phil,
    ``The dirt road connection: Arkansas multi-partner project benefits
    residents, endangered and at-risk species,'' U.S. Fish & Wildlife
    Service, August 29, 2017, https://www.fws.gov/southeast/articles/the-
    dirt-road-connection/
        \35\ Wright, Richard N., ``Adapting Infrastructure and Civil
    Engineering Practice to a Changing Climate,'' presentation to the
    National Academies' Roundtable on Science and Technology for
    Sustainability, June 5, 2015, https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/
    groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_165893.pdf
        \36\ Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, ``Hampton
    Roads Military Transportation Needs Study: Roadways Serving the
    Military and Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge,'' July 2013, https://
    www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/
    Roadways%20Serving%20the%20Military%20&%20Sea
    %20Level%20Rise-Storm%20Surge%20Report.pdf
        \37\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Implementation Guide:
    Nature-based Solutions for Coastal Highway Resilience,'' September
    2019, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/
    ongoing_and_current_research/green_infrastructure/implementation_guide/
    fhwahep19042.pdf ; and FHWA, ``Peer Exchange Report: Nature-based
    Solutions for Coastal Highways,'' August 2018, https://
    www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/
    ongoing_and_current_research/green_infrastructure/coastal_highways/
    fhwahep18070.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Water and wastewater utilities
        Water and wastewater utilities, as well, have and will be impacted
    by erratic and wild weather that can bring both drought and flood, and
    some in this industry are leading efforts to adapt, seeking to avoid
    problems with service shutdowns and sewage overflows. Just over a
    decade ago, a report produced by the National Association of Clean
    Water Agencies conducted what they called an early analysis of
    adaptation costs through the year 2050.\38\ That assessment indicated
    that costs to utilities could range from just under $500 billion to
    more than $900 billion. Some of these utilities, have already
    undertaken some adaptations--including the Milwaukee Metropolitan
    Sewerage District which is solving flooding problems and greening the
    region with an ambitious nature-based stormwater management
    program.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ National Association of Clean Water Agencies, ``Confronting
    Climate Change: An Early Analysis of Water and Wastewater Adaptation
    Costs,'' October 2009, https://www.amwa.net/publication/confronting-
    climate-change-early-analysis-water-and-wastewater-adaptation-costs-
    2009
        \39\ Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Green
    Infrastructure, https://www.mmsd.com/what-we-do/green-infrastructure ;
    The Pew Charitable Trusts, ``Milwaukee's Sustainability Leader Advances
    a Back-to-Nature Strategy to Lower Risk,'' July 20, 2020, https://
    www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/07/20/
    milwaukees-sustainability-leader-advances-a-back-to-nature-strategy-to-
    lower-flood-risk
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Housing
        Others on this panel have provided ample information about the
    value of and the need for more resilience in the housing sector, but we
    would also mention a recent initiative there, one aimed at enhancing
    protections for multi-family housing and keeping those units
    affordable. The Keep Safe Miami initiative \40\ is a new outgrowth of
    work by Enterprise Community Partners, a non-profit with a strong
    record of assistance for communities recovering from disasters. The
    Miami work builds on previous manuals and trainings on resiliency,\41\
    now offering owners and operators of affordable housing a set of tools
    that will help them assess the vulnerabilities of their properties,
    consider adaptation strategies for their specific portfolio of
    properties, set priorities, and guide them through the options for
    financing new resilience investments. At the same time, the program
    will train residents on disaster preparedness and steps they can take
    to save money with energy efficiency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Enterprise Community Partners, ``Keep Safe Miami,'' 2021,
    https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/solutions-and-innovation/emergency-
    management/keep-safe-miami
        \41\ Shoeman, Laurie, Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., ``Ready
    to Respond: Stragegies for Multifamily Building Resilience,'' 2015,
    https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/resources/ready-respond-strategies-
    multifamily-building-resilience-13356
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Congress Must Act
        These few examples--across multiple sectors--are encouraging and
    worth celebrating. These and more show us that there are multiple
    resilience strategies that can protect people and property in a
    changing climate. Unfortunately, they have yet to become the norm. They
    must, however, for as the Department of Transportation reminds us,
    ``many of the structures being built today will still be in use fifty
    or, in some cases, one hundred years in the future.'' \42\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``U.S. Department of
    Transportation Climate Adaptation Plan: Ensuring Transportation
    Infrastructure and System Resilience,'' undated, non-working link on
    dot.gov
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        That is why Pew urges this Committee to be clear and specific as
    you work on a broad infrastructure package or other legislative
    vehicles that will use federal dollars for investment in
    infrastructure.
        If you stipulate that federal dollars may only be used on projects
    adopting appropriate safety approaches, then those investments will
    begin to fill the deep and growing resilience gap that researchers have
    identified. According to NIBS, the Nation's disaster losses are
    increasing by about 6 percent per year, 10 times faster than the
    population and costing America an average of $100 billion yearly, they
    conclude. The NIBS researchers tell us that the United States could
    cost-effectively spend $520 billion to reduce its disaster liability by
    $2.2 trillion.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ National Institute of Building Sciences, MultiHazard
    Mitigation Council, ``A Roadmap to Resilience Incentivization,'' 2020,
    Porter, K.A. and Yuan, J.Q., eds., https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nibs.org/
    resource/resmgr/reports/mmc_nibs_resilience_incentiv.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Require Consideration of Future Risk
        Pew urges the Committee to tie infrastructure funding to
    requirements to look forward and consider future risks. For too long
    and in too many places, we have built or repaired as if the last large
    disaster were an isolated aberration, never to be repeated. This is
    particularly true in the case of flooding and coastal storms, where we
    foolishly assume that risk is stationary rather than dynamic. Relying
    solely on the 100-year floodplain as the metric of flood risk, we would
    suggest, is akin to driving the freeway looking only in the rearview
    mirror. It doesn't work. We must plan for the harsher hazards on the
    horizon.
        In 2018, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2019 (NDAA) \44\ addressed this problem when it comes to the military.
    It expanded the military's authority to ensure readiness through energy
    and disaster resilience. On the flooding front, it called for looking
    at the design life of projects, assessing the risks that might be
    encountered over that time period, and then incorporating protections
    against those risks. It accepted the reality of uncertainty and the
    current lack of detailed, site-specific future risk data in some
    instances. That is why the statute allows for incorporation of a
    straight-forward margin of safety on flood volumes where detailed, as
    necessary. Other agencies can and should follow this path.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ P.L. 115-232
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Leverage Nature-based Solutions
        In addition, Pew urges the Committee to direct those who design a
    new generation of infrastructure to consider the role that nature can
    play--not only in enhancing protections, but also in lowering costs and
    providing other important benefits, such as cleaner water, protected or
    restored wildlife habitat, tourism, and recreational opportunities.
    Nature-based approaches, used in place of or alongside of more
    traditional ``grey'' defenses, will frequently be more adaptable,
    easier to scale up, and can become stronger and offer more resilience
    over time. In many instances, the nature-based solutions are also those
    most readily embraced by local communities.
                            Allow Silos to be Broken
        Whether they serve in a large city or a rural village, community
    leaders must always look to solve multiple problems. They want to do
    more than guard against hazards and can with resilient infrastructure
    projects that provide multiple benefits. We are hopeful that
    infrastructure legislation will allow for many types of resilience
    projects that break down silos and deliver multiple benefits: projects
    such as the previously mentioned Arkansas roads program, Atlanta's
    green solution to storm sewer pollution in Historic Fourth Ward Park;
    \45\ the ouR-HOME project in North Richmond, California,\46\ and a
    major river corridor project in Iowa.\47\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ The Trust for Public Land, ``City parks, clean water: Making
    great places using green infrastructure,'' 2016, https://www.tpl.org/
    city-parks-clean-water
        \46\ Bay Area Resilient by Design, ouR-HOME, undated, http://
    www.resilientbayarea.org/our-home
        \47\ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, ``Iowa River Corridor Project:
    Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge,'' 2013, https://www.fws.gov/
    midwest/planning/PlansByState/IRCP_CMP_final-July10-2013.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We urge you to allow for and encourage such multi-benefit projects
    and to consider targeting funds to communities that have high risks and
    high poverty and social vulnerabilities. Many communities need the
    types of projects highlighted in this testimony, but not all have the
    resources to achieve them. Infrastructure legislation could follow the
    model of the new FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
    (BRIC) program that offers technical assistance and additional help to
    localities with significant resource constraints. Another approach that
    the subcommittee may wish to consider is one being explored by disaster
    experts at the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA).\48\ With data-
    driven analysis of socio-economic as well as physical vulnerabilities,
    RAA believes those communities most in need of adaptation assistance
    can be identified. Their proposal is for a new program using Community
    Disaster Resilience Zones bonds, which could leverage private sector
    funds for investments in resilience, adding to the commitments made by
    state and federal agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ Conversation with Frank Nutter, President, Reinsurance
    Association of America, March 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Act Now
        We also urge this Subcommittee and the full committee to act
    swiftly on bipartisan legislation that has been introduced to
    specifically address future flood hazards. The Flood Resiliency and
    Taxpayer Savings Act, H.R. 481, would make these sorts of important
    protections permanent for all federal spending going forward. It is
    supported by a wide range of taxpayer and environmental organizations,
    housing advocacy groups, insurers, and engineers. We look forward to
    timely action on that important proposal as well.
        In closing, I'd like to draw your attention to two commission
    reports written a decade apart. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who
    saw his state suffer enormously from Hurricane Katrina, commissioned a
    post-disaster report \49\ that was blunt in its assessment of what had
    gone on prior to the storm: ``[W]e're facing some of the same
    challenges of recovery, rebuilding, and renewal in 2006 because we
    failed to engage them fully after 1969.'' Katrina drove Mississippi to
    try to do better, to build back better than they had in recovering from
    Hurricane Camille. And after Harvey hit Texas, a state that we all know
    has faced a long line of hurricanes, tropical storms, and floods,
    Governor Greg Abbott's Commission report,\50\ ``Eye of the Storm'' was
    also clear in its urgent call to ``future proof'' Texas and frank about
    shortcomings in the State's flood preparedness. Harvey's lessons have
    prompted a serious and ambitious effort to bring enhanced flood
    resiliency to the Lone Star state as well.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal,
    ``After Katrina: Building Back Better than Ever,'' December 31, 2005
        \50\ ``Eye of the Storm: Report of the Governor's Commission to
    Rebuild Texas,'' November 2018, https://www.rebuildtexas.today/wp-
    content/uploads/sites/52/2018/12/12-11-18-EYE-OF-THE-STORM-digital.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress is now poised to address the pressing infrastructure needs
    described in the most recent report card issued by the American Society
    of Civil Engineers.\51\ As you take on this challenge, we urge you to
    seize the opportunity. The time for hesitation has passed. Congress
    must require better building practices and more durable infrastructure
    protected against future flooding, fire, tornados, and other hazards.
    Accelerate the ``future-proofing'' our nation so sorely needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ American Society of Civil Engineers, ``2021 Report Card for
    America's Infrastructure,'' https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Again, we appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in this important
    topic and the opportunity to participate today. I look forward to your
    questions and working together.

        Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Ms. Smith.
        Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Yes, good afternoon. I would like to thank
    Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, and other members of
    the committee for the opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Ben Harper, and I am the head of corporate
    sustainability at Zurich North America. I am a civil engineer
    by training and sit on the sustainability advisory committees
    for the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National
    Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board, the
    Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, and others.
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the critical
    importance of investing in resiliency and mitigation as we seek
    to reduce loss from disasters and speed individual and
    community recovery.
        Zurich North America is part of Zurich Insurance Group, a
    leading multiline insurer that has been serving its customers
    in global and local markets for over 150 years. Our role as a
    global insurer provides for a unique perspective as to the
    required response and our urgency of the need to respond.
        My testimony is focused on the importance of physical
    resistance from natural hazards. But as risk managers, we fully
    recognize the interconnected nature of risk. Using our core
    risk assessment skills to respond to some of the most
    significant long-term societal and environmental trends, we
    have identified climate change as, perhaps, the most complex
    risk facing society today. It is intergenerational, it is
    international, and it is interdependent.
        Our aim at Zurich is to leverage our sector's role of
    primary risk signaler for society to help raise awareness of
    the increasing frequency and intensity of natural hazard events
    and, ultimately, to incentivize the behaviors and best
    practices that will be required to both mitigate the worst
    impacts, and adapt to changing weather patterns. We do this
    because Zurich's mission is to protect individuals, businesses,
    and communities, and simply because it is the right thing to
    do.
        Furthermore, from an industry perspective, we do this
    because the impact of extreme weather events is escalating, and
    without enhancing resiliency and mitigation measures, many
    assets may simply become uninsurable. The property casualty
    industry has a tradition of being at the forefront of disaster
    mitigation. For example, in the late 1800s, several historic
    fires consumed vast areas of our largest cities, including New
    York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Recognizing that the new
    normal of tightly packed, dense construction greatly elevated
    fire hazards, the insurance industry sounded the alarm for
    adding sprinklers, fire breaks in construction, and other
    mitigation techniques as a necessity to maintaining community
    continuity.
        The industry was forced to send risk-based price signals,
    which is a technical way of saying insurance will be
    prohibitively expensive, or certainly unavailable in some cases
    if you do not adapt to these practices.
        Given the trends that are occurring and the frequency and
    severity of weather events, we are, again, sounding this alarm.
    Investing in mitigation measures, including resilient
    infrastructure, nature-based solutions, and low-carbon
    technologies, is required if society is to continue to operate
    with the continuity and resiliency that is expected.
        It is encouraging, however, that these changes require
    minimal investment in comparison to the benefits received. The
    2019 analysis of the benefits of building resiliency into
    infrastructure systems in developing countries, suggests that
    the extra cost of building resilience into these systems is
    only 3 percent of overall investment needs.
        However, when taken into account with the capital cost and
    operating costs of the asset, in most cases, the total life-
    cycle cost will be lower in a hardened, resilient structure.
        In our own post-event studies conducted after significant
    flood, drought, and wildfire events,our analysis shows that
    every $1 spent on resiliency upfront resulted in a $5 savings
    in post-disaster. Like the integration of fire safety in modern
    construction, the necessity of which is unquestioned today, so
    should the inclusion of resiliency in building and
    infrastructure.
        Earlier in this testimony, I noted the concept of
    interconnected risk. This is a fundamental concept in risk
    management, which is directly applicable when managing physical
    risk as we have been discussing. For example, if we provide
    business interruption insurance for a casino operating on the
    Mississippi coast, which is built with hardened, resilient
    components, we need to also consider the supporting
    infrastructure that can have a direct impact to that insured.
        In this example, the value of the resilient building is
    limited if the casino is fully capable of operating after a
    major weather impact, but the roadways leading to the facility
    are damaged and impassable. This is just one example of why it
    is fundamental to consider the supporting infrastructure when
    building a complete resilient environment.
        I also note the urgency in addressing these issues. Just 2
    weeks ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers published
    their 2021 America's Infrastructure Report Card, which gave the
    U.S. infrastructure an overall grade of C-minus, which, sadly,
    is an improvement from the previous score of a D-plus.
        Simply put, we are at a crossroads with regards to aging
    structures, and combined with the significant increase in
    severe weather events, we can no longer afford to deploy
    temporary Band-Aid fixes. And without proper resiliency
    standards as an integral part of all vertical and horizontal
    construction, we will simply be in the same situation we are
    facing today, with increased perils without proper preparedness
    and all at a significant cost.
        Thank you, and I look forward to some of the questions.
        [Mr. Harper's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Ben Harper, Head of Corporate Sustainability,
                              Zurich North America
        Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairwoman Titus, Ranking
    Member Webster and other members of the committee for the opportunity
    to testify today. My name is Ben Harper and I am the Head of Corporate
    Sustainability for Zurich North America.
        I am here today to provide testimony as to the critical importance
    of investing in resiliency and mitigation as we transition to a new,
    low-carbon society and seek to reduce losses from disasters. Our role
    as an insurer not only provides us with a unique perspective on the
    required response, but also on the urgency in which we need to respond.
        Before I start, though, let me introduce the company for which I
    work. Zurich North America is part of Zurich Insurance Group, a leading
    multi-line insurer that has been serving its customers in global and
    local market for 150 years. With approximately 55,000 employees, Zurich
    provides a wide range of property and casualty, and life insurance
    products and services in more than 215 countries and territories.
    Zurich's customers include individuals, small businesses, and mid-sized
    to large companies, as well as multinational corporations.
        For over a century, Zurich North America has called the greater
    Chicago area home. In 2016, Zurich moved its U.S. corporate campus a
    few blocks north from its previous location in suburban Schaumburg,
    Illinois to an award-winning headquarters that has earned LEED
    Platinum certification, the highest rating from the U.S. Green
    Building Council. The distinctive design underscores our commitment to
    resilience, collaboration and innovation. Our headquarters became the
    largest LEED Platinum-certified structure of its kind in the United
    States and the only one of its kind in Illinois. On the one-year
    anniversary of Zurich's headquarters, we reported a 30% reduction in
    water and electricity consumption compared with our previous location.
    We have since improved on these metrics, and in North America
    operationally have reduced paper consumption by 80% and have eliminated
    single-use plastics. Globally, Zurich became carbon neutral in 2014 and
    we are committed to using 100 percent renewable energy across our
    global operations by 2022. In addition, we recently signed on to the
    EV100 pledge, committing to switch our entire global automobile fleet
    to electric vehicles by 2030. These are a few examples of adhering to
    our commitment to a more sustainable world, which enhances our
    customers trust in us as we encourage them to pursue their own
    transitions to a more sustainable tomorrow.
        As has become particularly evident in the last 12 months, no person
    or place is immune from disasters or disaster-related losses. As an
    insurer tasked with helping communities, individuals, and businesses
    recover from a catastrophe we are at the forefront of realizing and
    quantifying the large-scale consequences for the nation and its
    communities. We have direct insight into the difficulties in quickly
    returning to ``normal'' and are continually looking for solutions to
    reduce impacts and shorten recovery times. Infectious disease
    outbreaks, terrorism, social unrest, or financial disasters in addition
    to natural hazards can all create difficult fiscal, social, cultural,
    and environmental choices to ensure basic security and protection
    against hazards and disasters. My testimony today will be focused on
    the importance of physical resilience from natural hazards but, as risk
    managers, we fully recognize the interconnected nature of risk.
        Using our core risk assessment skills to respond to some of the
    most significant long-term societal and environmental trends, we have
    identified climate change as perhaps the most complex risk facing
    society today. It is intergenerational; it is international; and it is
    interdependent. Representing the consensus of the international
    scientific community, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (IPCC) finds strong evidence that climate change is occurring, that it
    is influenced by human action, and that it is leading to changes in
    extreme weather and climate events.
        For context, global losses from natural disasters in 2020 are
    estimated at $210 billion, of which some $82 billion was insured \1\.
    Both overall losses and insured losses were significantly higher than
    in the previous year (2019: $166bn and $57bn respectively) \2\. The US
    share of losses was exceptionally high: natural disasters in the US
    accounted for $95 billion (2019: $51bn) of overall losses and $67
    billion of insured losses (2019: $26bn) \3\. Globally, of the ten
    costliest natural disasters in 2020, six occurred within the United
    States \4\. However, the most disturbing statistic is that this year's
    natural disasters claimed an estimated 8,200 lives \5\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.munichre.com/en/company/media-relations/media-
    information-and-corporate-news/media-information/2021/2020-natural-
    disasters-balance.html
        \2\ Ibid.
        \3\ Ibid.
        \4\ Ibid
        \5\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is Zurich's aim to leverage our sector's role as a primary risk
    signaler for society to help raise awareness of the increasing
    frequency and intensity of natural hazard events, and ultimately to
    incentivize the behaviors and best practices that will be required to
    both mitigate the worst impacts and adapt to changing weather patterns.
    We do this because Zurich's mission is to protect individuals,
    businesses and communities, and because we believe it's the right thing
    to do. Furthermore, from an industry perspective, we do this because
    the impact of extreme weather events is escalating, and without
    enhancing resiliency and mitigation measures many assets will simply
    become uninsurable.
        As an insurer of physical property and business continuity, we are
    tasked with providing economic resilience in the form of an insurance
    policy. Economic resilience is inclusive of three primary attributes:
    the ability to recover quickly from a shock, the ability to withstand a
    shock, and the ability to avoid the shock altogether. When an event
    does occur--such as a flood, fire or wind damage--it is best for both
    the owner and the insurer to minimize the time it takes to recover. And
    we know the recovery time will be less if the insured asset is able to
    better withstand the detrimental effects of the event or, simply put,
    is more resilient. This scenario is easier shown in the graph to the
    right:
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        As indicated in the graph, the value of a physical asset--perhaps a
    home, factory or office building--loses some value as an impact of the
    event. Bringing the value of that asset back to its base worth is the
    role of insurance. While the loss of the physical asset is clearly a
    significant cost, the time it takes for recovery can be just as costly,
    especially to the asset owner. Where we aim to be as an industry is in
    the smallest triangle above and bounded by the red lines, which means
    an insured can get back to their normal operations as quickly and
    efficiently as possible. This means the impact was minimalized and the
    speed to recovery maximized. And this will only occur when a structure
    or asset is built to a correct and current resiliency standard.
        The property & casualty industry has a tradition of being at the
    forefront of disaster mitigation, which is why we are in a unique
    position to provide comment on resiliency and mitigation. A useful
    analogy is the development of fire codes in the late 1800's. During
    this period, several historic fires consumed vast areas of our largest
    cities, including New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Recognizing
    that the ``new normal'' of tightly packed, dense construction greatly
    elevated fire hazard, the insurance industry sounded the alarm for
    adding sprinklers, fire breaks in construction, and other mitigation
    techniques as a necessity to maintaining community continuity. Further,
    the industry was forced to send risk-based price signals, which is a
    technical way of saying insurance will be prohibitively expensive or
    simply unavailable in some cases if you do not adapt to these
    practices. Given the trends that are occurring in the frequency and
    severity of weather events, we are again sounding the alarm. Investing
    in mitigation measures, including resilient infrastructure, nature-
    based solutions, and low-carbon technologies, is required if society is
    to continue to operate with the continuity and resiliency that is
    expected.
        What is encouraging is that these changes require minimal
    investment in comparison to the benefits received. Current data
    suggests that the extra cost of building resilience into infrastructure
    systems is only `` . . . 3 percent of overall investment needs.'' \6\
    However, when taking into account both the capital costs and operating
    costs of the asset, in most cases the Total Lifecycle Cost will be
    lower in a hardened, resilient structure. And the savings are even more
    significant if the structure is impacted by weather. In our own post-
    event studies conducted after significant flood, drought and wildfire
    events, our analysis shows that for every $1 spent on resiliency up
    front resulted in $5 savings post-disaster. Like the integration of
    fire safety in modern construction--the necessity of which is
    unquestioned today--so should be inclusion of resiliency in building
    and infrastructure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Hallegatte, Stephane, Jun Rentschler, and Julie Rozenberg.
    2019. Lifelines: The Resilient Infrastructure Opportunity. Sustainable
    Infrastructure Series. Washington, DC: World Bank pg.xiii.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As I noted previously, insurers play a critical role in assisting
    communities, individuals, and businesses recover when catastrophe
    strikes. Importantly, the industry also plays a vital role in improving
    community preparedness and risk management before the disaster hits. In
    furtherance of this mission, Zurich has undertaken a series of
    initiatives to apply the analytics of insurance to a much broader set
    of stakeholders. Our goal with is to demonstrate the effectiveness of
    investing in pre-event resilience and shift funding from recovery to
    resilience.
        In 2013 Zurich launched its Global Flood Resilience Alliance, a
    multi-sector partnership focusing on finding practical ways to help
    communities strengthen their resilience to floods. In 2018, we extended
    and expanded the program with the goal to increase third-party
    investments dedicated to pre-event resilience by $1 billion. We seek to
    do this by rolling out best-practice community programs that
    demonstrate the value of resilience-building and advocating for more
    investment in resilience with authorities and public and private
    funders.
        Another approach we take is to share our knowledge about resilience
    through the publication of our Post-Event Review Capabilities, or
    PERCs. To date, we have completed 16 PERCS globally. In the United
    States, we have conducted four (4) such reports covering flooding
    events in North Carolina,\7\ South Carolina,\8\ and Houston,\9\ and
    wildfires in California \10\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ hurricane-florence-building-resilience-for-the-new-normal.pdf
    (zurichna.com)
        \8\ https://www.zurichna.com/-/media/project/zwp/zna/docs/kh/
    climate-resilience/perc-sc-
    report.pdf?la=en&rev=08690b6e85b2401ea050ceddfc21c658
        \9\ https://www.zurichna.com/-/media/project/zwp/zna/docs/kh/
    weather/perc_harvey_final.pdf
    ?la=en&rev=e653cf8b7970497eac14abb7b32633fa
        \10\ california-wildfire-report.pdf (zurichna.com)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Zurich's PERC analyses of global disasters demonstrates that:
          Disaster risk management is playing catch-up to an
    increasingly larger exposure to natural hazards.
          Globally, spending on climate-related response is far
    greater than investment in pre-emptive risk reduction strategies.
          Where money is invested on weather-related prevention, it
    typically goes to protecting physical structures rather than more cost-
    effective risk management such as environmental planning.
          Infrastructure protection already in place--levees, for
    example--can produce a false sense of security.
          Few incentives exist to encourage ``building back
    better'' and including resilience into the rebuilding process.
          The neediest in society are often neglected before and
    after disasters, and sometimes are still recovering from one event when
    the next one strikes.

        From our perspective, prevention and resilience-building are not
    just about humanitarianism, they are about more effective use of scarce
    funds. As noted previously, our research on the cost-benefit analysis
    from dozens of specific flood resilience programs shows that investing
    in resilience not only reduces suffering, it also is responsible
    budgeting.
        I would like to further explain the statement I made earlier in
    this testimony regarding interconnected risk. This is a fundamental
    concept in risk management, which is directly applicable when managing
    physical risks as we have been discussing. We know there are direct
    pathways that influence outcomes, so when considering resiliency, we
    need to consider the entire built environment. For example, if we
    provide business interruption insurance for a casino operating on the
    Mississippi coast built with hardened, resilient components, we need to
    also consider the supporting infrastructure that can have a direct
    impact to that insured. It does no good to have a resilient building
    that is fully capable of operating after a major weather impact, but
    the roadways leading to the facility are damaged and impassable. This
    is just one example of why it is fundamental to consider the supporting
    infrastructure when building a complete, resilient environment. Lastly,
    the urgency in addressing these issues should be considered immediate.
    Just two weeks ago, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
    published their 2021 America's Infrastructure Scorecard that gave the
    U.S. infrastructure an overall grade of C-, which sadly is an
    improvement from the previous score of D+. Simply put, we are at a
    crossroads with regards to aging structures and, combined with the
    significant increase in severe weather events, we can no longer afford
    to deploy temporary or band-aid fixes. And without proper resiliency
    standards as an integral part of all vertical and horizontal
    construction, we will simply be in the same situation we are today:
    facing increased perils without proper preparedness--and all at a
    significant cost.
        In closing, let me reinforce that the insurance sector has a
    fundamental role to play in helping society prepare for and address the
    costs associated with severe weather events. We are proud of the
    leadership our sector is taking in driving awareness and action on this
    critical issue. Zurich is dedicated to continuing to play a leadership
    role in driving global sustainability, and we invite and encourage
    everyone to join us in this essential effort.
        Thank you.

        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Fowke.
        Mr. Fowke. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, members of the
    committee, I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of
    the National Association of Home Builders.
        I would like to discuss the importance of housing
    affordability, the role that modern building codes play in
    reducing damage from natural disasters, and the need for
    mitigation policies and programs to improve the resiliency of
    the existing housing stock. I also want to focus on suggested
    financing mechanisms and other incentives to spur investment of
    production of homes that are both resilient and affordable.
        My name is Chuck Fowke. I am the National Association of
    Home Builders chairman of the board, and I am a custom
    homebuilder in the Tampa Bay area. I have served on the city of
    Tampa and the State of Florida Hurricane Codes Committees,
    which gave me a firsthand look at what catastrophic disasters
    can do to communities.
        The unusual number of significant disasters over the past
    several years has been sobering, igniting a nationwide dialogue
    about risk, resiliency, and mitigation. NAHB has been actively
    engaged in these discussions, and we have been a long-time
    leader in the drive to make homes more resilient.
        To do so, we have repeatedly demonstrated commitment to
    sound Federal disaster and flood plain management policies and
    cost-effective, market-driven resiliency solutions that
    maintain housing affordability, while balancing the needs of
    growing communities.
        Housing affordability is a real concern for many consumers.
    It is at a 10-year low for single family market. Almost one-
    third of the Nation's households pay more than 30 percent of
    their income for housing. NAHB estimates that if the median
    U.S. new home price goes up by $1,000, more than 150,000
    American households would be priced out, and no longer able to
    afford the American dream.
        Recognizing this crisis, Congress must factor in housing
    affordability when looking at solutions to build more resilient
    communities. Numerous proposals from legislators and
    stakeholders have suggested that mandates and more stringent
    building codes, such as the use of the latest published codes,
    are the answers to improving residential resiliency. We
    strongly disagree. Many of the code provisions are too
    prescriptive, too costly, and would do very little to improve
    resilience. That is because homes built to modern post-2000
    building codes are resilient and making significant updates are
    unnecessary.
        Evidence from FEMA and others support the fact and
    demonstrate that modern building codes have been very effective
    in preventing the destruction of homes due to various storms,
    fires, and earthquakes. For example, after the 2018 hurricane
    in Mexico Beach, Florida, studies showed that homes built post-
    2000 remained standing while older homes did not.
        It is imperative that Congress recognize the importance of
    defining the latest published building code as one of the two
    most recently published editions of codes. This definition is
    essential, as it provides States with the flexibility they need
    to follow their own code adoption, implementation, and
    enforcement processes, while remaining eligible for Federal
    funds and other assistance.
        It is also important for State and local governments to be
    able to tailor building codes and amend them as necessary to
    fit the needs of their communities and protect their citizens.
    Modern codes are intended to be flexible. What is best for
    Nevada is not best for Florida.
        Another important factor in the resiliency discussion is
    the role of existing housing stock. Ninety-eight million homes
    out of the Nation's 124 million homes were built before 2000.
    This older housing stock was not subject to the modern building
    codes that are now in effect.
        It is imperative that Congress focus on improving the older
    homes, structures, and infrastructures that are less resilient
    to natural disasters. Federal incentives, tax credits, grants,
    and other assisted programs, would go a long way to facilitate
    and help fund the upgrades needed to ensure our homes and
    communities are ready for the future. These practical solutions
    will also ensure that working families have access to safe,
    decent, and affordable housing.
        In conclusion, we urge Congress to take a practical
    approach when seeking to mitigate the effects of future natural
    disasters. Relying on existing building codes, heeding the
    expertise of State and local governments, focusing on improving
    existing housing stock, and providing incentives is the best
    way to encourage greater resiliency in the Nation's housing
    stock. This will also preserve housing affordability for new
    and existing homes.
        Thank you for the opportunity today to testify before you.
        [Mr. Fowke's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of John C. Fowke, Chairman, National Association of
                                 Home Builders
        Chairwoman Titus and Ranking Member Webster, I am pleased to appear
    before you today on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders
    (NAHB) to share our experience and views regarding building resilience
    and mitigation. My name is Chuck Fowke, and I am NAHB's Chairman of the
    Board. I am also the founder and president of Homes by John C. Fowke
    Inc., and have built hundreds of homes throughout the Tampa Bay area.
    In addition to being a custom home builder, I have served on the City
    of Tampa and State of Florida Hurricane Codes Committees. In my
    capacity on those committees, I have had a firsthand look at what
    catastrophic disasters can do to homes and communities and how
    investing in mitigation can alleviate some of the challenges.
        NAHB represents more than 140,000 members who are involved in land
    development and building single-family and multifamily housing,
    remodeling and other aspects of residential and light commercial
    construction. NAHB's members construct approximately 80 percent of all
    new housing built in the United States each year. NAHB's mission is to
    enhance the climate for housing and the building industry, including
    providing and expanding opportunities for all people to have access to
    safe, decent and affordable homes.
        This testimony will focus on the following key points:
          Maintaining housing affordability must be the cornerstone
    to any efforts to create cleaner and stronger homes.
          Modern building codes (e.g., post-2000) are resilient.
          State and local governments must retain authority over
    their land use and code adoption processes.
          Modernizing the existing housing stock is crucial.
          Incentive programs and other funding mechanisms must be
    provided to offset the increased costs for above-code and mitigation
    activities.

        The unusual number of significant natural disasters over the past
    several years has been sobering. At the same time, they have ignited a
    nationwide dialogue about risk, resiliency and mitigation. NAHB has
    been actively engaged in these discussions for many years and we have
    taken a leadership role in improving the resiliency and performance of
    new and existing homes. In fact, NAHB and its members have a long
    history of supporting, developing and participating in many state and
    local initiatives, as well as various federal activities aimed and
    reducing disaster losses and improving resiliency. We have repeatedly
    demonstrated our commitment to working with all levels of government to
    promote and implement sound disaster and floodplain management policies
    and improve the resiliency of the homes we build and the communities we
    serve. In doing so, we take pride in helping to develop cost-effective,
    market-driven solutions that maintain housing affordability while
    balancing the needs of growing communities with the need for reasonable
    protection of life and property.
        Today, I would like to discuss the importance of housing
    affordability, the role modern building codes play in reducing damage
    from natural disasters, the need for mitigation policies and programs
    to improve the resiliency of the existing housing stock, and suggested
    financing mechanisms and other initiatives to spur investment in the
    production of homes that are both resilient and affordable.
                             Housing Affordability
        Housing affordability continues to be a concern for households
    across the nation. Many people cannot afford to purchase a new home or
    install energy efficient or resilient features in an existing home--and
    that's before Congress considers any new policies aimed at tackling
    climate change. These challenges are real and we are hopeful that this
    Subcommittee will refrain from enacting any policies that will
    exacerbate these existing realities.
        According to NAHB research conducted earlier this year, housing
    affordability in the single-family market remains near a 10-year low.
    Only 58.3 percent of new and existing homes sold in the last quarter of
    2020 were affordable to families earning the U.S. median income of
    $72,900, while these same families could only afford about 40 percent
    of the new homes.\1\ \2\ At lower income levels, the reality is even
    starker. Based on conventional assumptions and underwriting standards,
    the minimum income required to purchase a $100,000 home is $22,505. In
    2021, about 21.1 million households in the U.S. are estimated to have
    incomes below that threshold and, therefore, cannot afford a $100,000
    home. To make matters worse, in many areas of the country, homes priced
    below $100,000 simply don't exist.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Quint, Rose, Housing Affordability Holds Steady; Challenges
    Loom, National Association of Home Builders, February 8, 2021, accessed
    at https://eyeonhousing.org/2021/02/housing-affordability-holds-steady-
    challenges-loom/ on March 15, 2021.
        \2\ Zhao, Na, Ph.D., NAHB Priced-Out Estimates for 2021, National
    Association of Home Builders, February 2021, accessed at https://
    www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/news-and-economics/docs/housing-economics-
    plus/special-studies/2021/special-study-nahb-priced-out-estimates-for-
    2021-february-2021.pdf?_ga=2.166628414.1684294592.1615476404-
    1214384301.1615476404 on March 15, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Clearly, owning or renting a suitable home is increasingly out of
    financial reach for many households. In fact, almost a third of the
    nation's households are cost burdened and pay more than 30 percent of
    their income for housing. At the same time, net new households are
    being formed faster than new single-family and multifamily homes are
    coming online to accommodate them, so there is both a surge in need and
    not nearly enough supply.
        The nation continues to experience a housing shortage and an
    affordability crisis. Despite these real challenges, many continue to
    suggest that home builders should build structures that are more
    resilient and/or efficient in an effort to respond to and stem the
    impacts of climate change, meet carbon emissions limits or further
    environmental goals. Oftentimes, such additional requirements are
    unnecessary because many new homes outperform existing ones and these
    new mandates will only serve to exacerbate the current housing
    affordability crisis.
        For example, building costs are estimated to increase between
    $4,000 and $16,000 due to the changes from the 2009 to the 2015
    Residential Building Code \3\ and the additional cost of raising the
    height of the foundation for a new 2000-square-foot home was estimated
    in 2017 to range from $890-$4,470 per foot of elevation.\4\ Obviously,
    those costs are passed along to the consumer and can have a significant
    impact on the pool of eligible buyers. Indeed, NAHB estimates that in
    2021, a $1,000 increase in the median new home price would price
    153,967 U.S. households out of the market.\5\ But, as shown, complying
    with many code changes or undertaking building retrofit activities can
    be significantly more costly than $1,000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Home Innovation Research Labs. (2014, December). Estimated
    Costs of 2015 IRC Codes. NAHB. https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/
    advocacy/docs/top-priorities/codes/code-adoption/irc-2015-cost-
    study.pdf
        \4\ See Association of State Floodplain Managers, The Costs &
    Benefits of Building Higher, 2018, accessed at https://s3-us-west-
    2.amazonaws.com/asfpm-library/General/
    Benefits_Cost_Freeboard_ASFPM_2018.pdf on March 15, 2021. While it is
    not clear how these estimates were derived, many NAHB members have
    reported costs that are significantly greater than those indicated in
    this publication.
        \5\ Zhao, Na, Ph.D., NAHB Priced-Out Estimates for 2021, National
    Association of Home Builders, February 2021, accessed at (https://
    www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/news-and-economics/docs/housing-economics-
    plus/special-studies/2021/special-study-nahb-priced-out-estimates-for-
    2021-february-2021.pdf?_ga=2.166628414.1684294592.1615476404-
    1214384301.1615476404) on March 15, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Stricter construction standards and mitigation come with a price
    tag. Regardless of the level of benefit, some entity has to provide the
    upfront funding required to conduct the construction or mitigation
    activities or they will not occur. This is where the challenge lies for
    most consumers and homeowners. Just because more stringent codes or
    pre-disaster mitigation may provide a benefit doesn't mean it can or
    will be implemented. While the federal government has historically made
    funding available for these types of activities, most of the programs
    have been consistently oversubscribed and target the highest risk
    structures or the lowest income properties, which make it unlikely that
    they will be able to fully serve the array of mitigation needs
    associated with existing housing. New sources, avenues, and incentives
    must be found if we are to make meaningful progress on resiliency while
    maintaining housing affordability.
                                 Building Codes
        It is clear that the unusual number of significant natural
    disasters occurring over the past few years, coupled with ongoing
    concerns over the effects of climate change, have increased awareness
    of and raised concerns about the resilience of buildings. Although most
    states and localities are governed by building regulations that are
    designed to protect homes and their occupants from severe weather
    events and hazards, some argue that more should be done. NAHB
    disagrees. Modern codes have proven to be resilient. More stringent
    codes can come at costs that not only curtail homeownership and
    significantly hinder housing affordability, but can severely impact
    state and local economies because they greatly influence how or if
    existing structures and cities are reengineered, rebuilt and/or
    remodeled and impact how and where or if new homes and communities are
    built. Instead of ratcheting up their stringency, the nation needs to
    embrace modern building codes and the positive role they play and focus
    on ensuring they are sufficiently flexible to address regional risks
    and associated considerations.
    Modern Codes are Resilient
        Building codes are designed to establish minimum requirements for
    public health and safety for commercial and residential structures.
    Although they have existed in various forms for decades, building codes
    in the United States achieved a milestone in 2000 when the three
    regional code organizations were consolidated into the International
    Code Council (ICC) and their codes were combined to create the first
    set of ``I-Codes'', which were published in 2000. Although there are
    other building codes available, the I-Codes are by far the most widely
    used model building codes, with some form of the International Building
    Code (IBC) adopted in all 50 states and versions of the International
    Residential Code (IRC) adopted in 49 states. Like most model building
    codes and referenced standards, the I-Codes are modified through a
    formal public consensus process every three years. This has resulted in
    the publication of a new edition in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018
    and 2021.
        When the I-Codes were created, a number of major improvements were
    immediately made to the traditional building code requirements within
    the residential building code to address issues observed after
    Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the California earthquakes of 1989 and
    1994. Although additional improvements have been made since the I-
    Codes' debut in 2000, the number of changes incorporated into the newer
    editions of the IRC that dramatically impact structural reliability and
    occupant life safety within residential structures have greatly
    diminished. In other words, the modern building codes (e.g., post-2000)
    have proven to be resilient and the need for triannual updates is not
    necessary for improved resilience. Homes designed and constructed to
    the national model building codes are built to withstand major damage
    from disasters and already provide substantial resiliency for many high
    seismic, high wind, heavy snow, wildfire and flooding events.
        Despite this, a number of recent proposals targeted at making
    buildings more resilient are predicated on requiring the use of
    ``latest published editions'' of certain codes or standards. This is
    unnecessary and creates a number of challenges. First, although many
    believe that homes built following the ``latest published edition'' of
    the building code equate to more resilient homes, that is not
    necessarily the case when compared to those built to previous editions
    of the IRC. Homes built to modern building codes--defined as any
    edition of the IRC--have been shown to be resilient. Evidence from FEMA
    and others demonstrate the IRC, throughout its history, has been very
    effective in preventing the destruction of homes due to various storms
    and earthquakes and significantly reducing damage to wall and roof
    coverings.\6\ Further, because many of today's new homes are built
    ``above code,'' with additional sustainable and high-performance
    building features, they are even more durable and resilient.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ For example, FEMA's Summary Report on Building Performance--
    2004 Hurricane Season (FEMA 490, March 2005) indicated that ``no
    structural failures were observed to structures designed and
    constructed to the wind design requirements of . . . the 2000 IBC/
    IRC'', and FEMA's Summary Report on Building Performance from Hurricane
    Katrina (FEMA 548, April 2006) stated ``most structural failures
    observed . . . appeared to be the result of inadequate design and
    construction methods commonly used before IBC 2000 and IRC 2000 were
    adopted and enforced.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, it is not clear that this definition recognizes and
    accommodates the different risks, building technologies and landforms
    that occur across the country or specifically allows the model codes to
    be amended--a step that is crucial to maintaining the resiliency of the
    codes. Third, because each state and local government follows its own
    code adoption, implementation, and enforcement processes and has
    limited dedicated resources, many are not able to adopt the latest
    published codes within expected timeframes. Evaluating and adopting a
    new building code is a time consuming and costly undertaking--a multi-
    step process that oftentimes requires state legislative as well as
    administrative action and that can take years to complete. Given these
    realities, mandating the adoption of the ``latest published editions''
    creates an unintended disadvantage for many states and localities that,
    under other measures, would be considered fairly up to date in
    maintaining their codes (e.g., following a standard and predictable
    process and timeline).
        The successful performance of the IRC over the past 20 years is an
    indication of the ``maturing'' of building codes as they have gone
    through the iterative process of refinement since 2000. While tweaking
    the code to reflect technological advances will continue, it is clear
    that major changes aren't as necessary as they used to be. Similarly,
    because the codes are nearing a point of diminishing returns in terms
    of the cost/benefit ratio, additional updates may not be cost-
    effective. Homes can be built to withstand any disaster, but homes
    cannot yet consistently be built to withstand any disaster and be
    affordable. New homes built to modern codes are safe. New homes built
    to modern codes are resilient. There is no need to require more
    stringent requirements or the adherence to the latest published edition
    of the code--especially if that is interpreted to mean the most recent
    version.
    Modern Codes Address Local Conditions
        State and local governments play a key role in the codes adoption
    process and determining the value of and need for certain code
    requirements. Because the model codes are meant to be amended, for
    decades, state and local governments have been responsible for
    evaluating each new edition of the model consensus-based building codes
    and determining which provisions are applicable within their borders.
    They do so by adding, removing, or revising provisions so that the
    codes better fit the construction practices and techniques, geography
    and risks, and economic and market conditions within the region. If
    they were unable to make these vital changes, state and local
    governments would be stuck trying to fit the square peg of national
    codes into the round hole that represents local conditions. Equally
    problematic, doing so would impose numerous unnecessary requirements on
    builders--requirements that translate into higher costs for buyers.
        The ability to tailor the codes is a key component in ensuring the
    codes are resilient. Some states make few changes to the model codes,
    others hand-pick the provisions and/or amend certain requirements, and
    others use the model code as a baseline to create their own state-
    specific code. In this way, jurisdictions can assess their specific
    risks and needs to create the code that best suits their specific
    seismic, wind, flood, and/or other conditions. At the same time, they
    can avoid imposing mandates (and associated compliance costs) for
    provisions that are not applicable or designed to address levels of
    risks that are not present in their areas, such as elevation
    requirements outside the traditional flood hazard areas, or increased
    structural requirements for snow loads in more temperate regions.
        Under this rubric, Nevada is free to identify the risks it faces
    and adopt the codes that are best suited to its locale, geography and
    economic conditions, while North Carolina is able to do the same. In
    fact, because the model codes are intended to be tailored, amendments
    are made to nearly every code that is adopted at the state or local
    level, whether it applies to only the administrative requirements or
    major rewrite of the entire document. For example, North Carolina
    adopted its 2018 building codes based on the 2015 I-Codes on January 1,
    2019 with 38 pages of amendments.\7\ Similarly, Nevada adopts the
    building codes at the local level, but collaborates statewide on the
    amending process and had 14 pages of amendments on the residential code
    alone.\8\ Any federal efforts must not alter this vital underpinning
    and must allow and embrace amendments as an important component of
    ensuring both the codes' applicability and resiliency, and, in turn,
    its affordability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/Engineering_and_Codes/Documents/
    2018_NCBuilding
    Code_amendments/2018_NCBuildingCode_amendments.pdf
        \8\ See http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/building/plan-review/
    Building%20Codes/2018_IRC_
    Amendments.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Building Codes do not Address Existing Homes
        As currently structured, most building codes apply only to new
    construction. This means that any effort to increase the stringency or
    otherwise focus on the implementation of building codes overburdens new
    construction and essentially ignores the performance and resiliency of
    the existing housing stock. Such a result is unacceptable.
        According the 2019 American Housing Survey, over half (65 million)
    of the nation's 124 million homes were built prior to 1980 (98 million
    prior to 2000); and therefore, most were not subject to the modern
    building codes that are now in effect. Equally problematic, the latest
    Census statistics show the number of homes built before 1970 that are
    taken out of commission is only about 6 out of every 1,000 being
    retired per year. These low rates of replacement mean that the built
    environment in the U.S. will change slowly and continue to be dominated
    by structures that are at least several decades old. Indeed, optimistic
    estimates suggest that if 1.2 million homes were built every year,
    after 20 years only 16 percent of the conventional housing stock would
    consist of new homes built between now and then. In comparison, 68
    percent would still consist of homes built before 1990.\9\ Clearly,
    these statistics demonstrate the impact that newer building codes can
    have on the built environment is limited because new construction
    represents such a small portion of the housing stock. Any effort to
    increase those gains would be difficult and costly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Emrath, Paul, Ph.D., More New Homes Needed to Replace Older
    Stock, National Association of Home Builders, August 2, 2018, accessed
    at https://eyeonhousing.org/2019/01/more-homes-needed-to-replace-older-
    stock/ on March 15, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In sum, those who call for the adoption of more stringent and
    costly building requirements fail to acknowledge that this would do
    very little to provide further protection from natural disasters.
    Inappropriately focusing on new construction would create hardships for
    state and local governments and would make new housing prohibitively
    expensive for hard-working families at a time when the nation is
    already suffering through a housing affordability crisis.
                            Pre-Disaster Mitigation
        The American housing stock continues to age, especially as
    residential construction continues its modest rebound after the Great
    Recession. Because recent production has fallen short of even the
    levels needed to accommodate the number of net new households, there is
    increasing pressure to keep existing homes in service longer--homes
    that may not perform as well or be as resilient as newer homes.
    Retrofitting these homes represents the biggest opportunity to improve
    the resiliency of the nation's housing stock.
    Existing Housing Stock Ripe for Retrofit
        Older homes are less resilient and energy efficient than new homes.
    They were not built to the stringent requirements contained in modern
    codes, use (and lose) more energy, and are more susceptible to damage
    from natural disasters. Many of the post-disaster investigations
    support this conclusion. For example, in FEMA's Mitigation Assessment
    Team Report regarding Hurricane Sandy, the summary reads, ``Many of the
    low-rise and residential buildings in coastal areas [that had
    observable damage] were of older construction that pre-dates the
    NFIP.'' \10\ Similarly, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home
    Safety stated in its preliminary findings report for Hurricanes Harvey
    and Irma that, ``Total destruction from wind occurred to mobile homes,
    as well as older site built conventional homes,'' and ``Newer homes
    generally performed better than older buildings.'' \11\ Clearly,
    upgrading existing buildings and improving their ability to withstand
    disaster events must play a key role in any efforts to improve the
    nation's overall resiliency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Assessment
    Team Report Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York, November 27,
    2013, accessed at (https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/
    44511/PDF/1/play/) on May 19, 2019.
        \11\ Brown-Giammanco, Ph.D., Hurricanes Harvey and Irma--IBHS
    Preliminary Findings Report, Insurance Institute for Business & Home
    Safety, accessed at (https://ibhs.org/wp-content/uploads/wpmembers/
    files/Hurricane-Harvey-Wind-Damage-Investigation_IBHS.pdf) on May 19,
    2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Flexible and Cost-Effective Options Critical
        As policymakers seek to mitigate the effects of future natural
    disasters, they need to create an array of opportunities to facilitate
    upgrades and improvements to the older homes, structures and
    infrastructure that are less resilient to natural disasters because
    they were built when there were no national model codes in existence or
    constructed following codes that are now outdated. Modernizing existing
    structures and properties to improve their resiliency can take many
    forms--ranging from better sealing roof penetrations or installing
    hurricane shutters to elevating the structure or improving the site's
    stormwater management. Clearly, mitigation will be largely dependent on
    property location and condition, type of hazard and level of risk,
    geographic conditions, economic levels, community and individual
    resources and other factors. Like most efforts, however, there is no
    one solution that can address the full range of issues and needs
    associated with improving resiliency. Therefore, flexibility in program
    design, application and implementation is vital. Any federal assistance
    must also be broadly applicable over geographic and economic spectrums
    at both the community and individual levels. While some will need
    financial assistance, others may benefit from technical expertise or
    innovation.
        At the individual home level, recognizing many households do not
    have the interest or means to conduct larger scale renovation projects,
    NAHB, in concert with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the,
    International Code Council, and the Insurance Institute for Business &
    Home Safety, is developing a series of Tech Notes that describe
    different types of retrofit techniques that can be used to increase the
    resiliency of existing buildings. Importantly, these how-to fact sheets
    focus on strategies that require minimal costs (typically less than
    $1,000 for a typical home), but have a significant impact on reducing
    damage.
        The first six topics that have been completed include sealed roof
    decks, attachment of roof coverings, flashing and sealing of roof
    penetrations, use of hurricane shutters, use of impact resistant doors
    and methods of preventing ice dams. It is hoped that these new
    resources will help homeowners understand their options, recognize that
    certain mitigation options can be cost-effective, and compel them to
    take action. NAHB continues to demonstrate its commitment to increase
    the performance of homes through the development of these resources and
    the ongoing promotion of voluntary participation in green building
    programs.
        We strongly urge Congress to recognize and promote voluntary,
    market-driven, and viable green building, high performance and
    resiliency initiatives for both new and existing homes. Unlike
    mandates, these programs can promote lower total ownership costs
    through insurance and utility savings as well as provide the
    flexibility builders need to construct homes that are recognized as
    being cost-effective, affordable and appropriate to a home's geographic
    location.
                         Incentives/Funding Mechanisms
        Incentive programs that offset the increased costs for above-code
    and mitigation activities are an important tool to reduce the barriers
    that many resiliency opportunities pose and encourage more homeowners
    to invest in home modernization. For example, due to the high initial
    costs associated with investing in certain resiliency and mitigation
    efforts, many homeowners are unable to finance desired or necessary
    upgrades and, without assistance, would likely forego the improvements.
    Mitigation funding and/or incentives that are available at the federal
    and state levels, as well as those that could be offered through the
    real estate valuation and transaction processes, can address this
    issue, produce results and have proven to be attractive alternatives to
    mandates.
    Federal Incentives
        Congress has taken a number of steps over the years to alleviate
    the challenges associated with funding retrofits--most prominently
    through federal funding for pre-disaster mitigation and tax incentives.
    NAHB asserts that continuing and expanding these types of programs is
    necessary in order to realize measurable change in the resiliency of
    the housing stock. Indeed, coming up with what can be significant up-
    front costs or increased down payments needed to finance improved
    resiliency is often the most difficult part of new or existing home
    upgrades.
        Tax incentives are another proven way to realize results and, as
    they have been effective at advancing energy efficiency improvements,
    perhaps could be used as a model for resiliency. Sections 25C for
    qualified improvements in existing homes (building components), 45L for
    new homes and 179D for commercial buildings have permeated the market
    and assisted many families and building owners to invest in efficiency.
    Continuing and expanding programs like these, which have demonstrable
    results, will compel more homeowners to take positive actions.
    State Incentives
        States can also play a role in enticing positive behavior. One
    alternative that has been used in several states is providing insurance
    discounts to homeowners who conduct specific activities. In Texas, the
    state's hurricane insurance pool, the Texas Windstorm Insurance
    Association, offers premium discounts of 19 percent to 33 percent for
    building code compliance. In Rhode Island, insurers are required to
    waive the hurricane deductible for insured homeowners who voluntarily
    implement mitigation measures that are specified in the insurance
    regulation. In Alabama, tax credits of up to $3,000 are available for
    retrofitting a taxpayer's legal residence to make it more resistant to
    hurricanes, tornadoes, other catastrophic windstorm events, or rising
    floodwaters.
        In addition, the Alabama State Legislature established the
    Strengthen Alabama Homes Act in 2011 to provide grants to qualified
    homeowners to retrofit their homes to reduce property damage caused by
    hurricanes or other catastrophic windstorm events. Clearly, these state
    programs have proven to be popular, as they provide value through loss
    reduction, yet enable and facilitate broader participation through
    reduced costs. The recognition and expansion of programs like these is
    one way to engage participation while offsetting the hefty costs
    associated with upgrades.
    Other Incentives
        There are a number of other opportunities to facilitate,
    incentivize, and offset the costs of voluntary above-code construction
    and/or pre-disaster mitigation that could be achieved through public-
    private partnerships and other collaboration. These options include
    modifications to property valuation and financing protocols; loans,
    grants and other funding programs; and insurance premium reductions
    within the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), among others.
        Under current practice, in most instances, mortgage companies,
    appraisers, assessors and real estate professionals do not consider the
    costs or benefits associated with the various resiliency upgrades. This
    creates a disincentive to take proactive steps to reduce a home's
    exposure, as those expenditures are not necessarily considered to be
    valuable amenities. If the improvements are not included in the
    appraisal or appraised value of the structure, not only is the buyer
    uninformed about the home's qualities, his or her willingness to pay
    more can be significantly diminished.
        By recognizing and valuating the upgrades, appraisers can
    consistently give weight to these improvements in their valuations,
    lenders may reconsider qualifying loan ratios, realtors can promote
    their benefits, and homeowners would get assurances that the
    investments they have made will retain value and be recognized in
    resale. Homes will also get the upgrades needed to better weather storm
    events, thereby reducing future damage, insurance outlays and homeowner
    displacement.
        Other opportunities to facilitate, incentivize, and offset the
    costs of voluntary above-code construction and/or pre-disaster
    mitigation include tax incentives, grants, the creation of a
    weatherization assistance-like program for resiliency, and/or financing
    programs that would allow the costs of retrofits to be added to a
    mortgage.
        Congress is encouraged to consider a full range of federal
    incentive and funding opportunities, as well as ways to promote and
    facilitate state-level and private efforts to optimize the resiliency
    of new and existing homes. Clearly, overcoming the significant hurdles
    of how to finance upgrades and entice homeowners to take action will be
    a key to the success of any effort to increase investment in resilience
    and mitigation.
                                 Moving Forward
        Sound building codes are already in place in most communities and
    they are doing their job. NAHB is supportive of voluntary and
    incentive-based efforts to improve the nation's resilience, but remains
    concerned with how any expansion of federal authority over state and
    local governments' ability to adopt location-appropriate building codes
    or take other steps may impact where and how homes are built or
    severely constrain the production of affordable housing. NAHB is also
    troubled by the inappropriate focus the adoption of the most recent
    versions of codes places on new construction at the expense of the
    existing housing stock and strongly believes that expanding mitigation
    opportunities and targeting upgrades to existing structures could help
    to better manage and more evenly reduce the risks.
        We strongly urge this Subcommittee through its oversight role to
    focus any efforts related to housing on cost-effective, market driven
    solutions that encourage greater resiliency in the nation's housing
    stock while preserving housing affordability for both new and existing
    homes. Further, given our members' knowledge and experience building
    homes and communities--activities that place them on the front lines in
    terms of designing, planning and building to reduce risks and minimize
    future losses, we stand ready to assist and help deliver positive
    results and help you reach your goals.
                                   Conclusion
        I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
    testify today and share NAHB's views. The nation's home builders have
    long supported the adoption and implementation of building codes as a
    way to ensure the homes we build are solid and safe. In doing so, what
    has become clear is that with each new home we build, we are
    transforming our communities into resilient cities of the future.

        Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. And I apologize, it is Mr.
    Fowke, not Mr. ``Folk.'' So thank you for being with us.
        Mr. Fowke. That is OK.
        Ms. Titus. I now ask unanimous consent that members not on
    the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
    today's hearing and ask questions.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I would now like to recognize members of the committee for
    questions. Each Member will be recognized for 5 minutes of
    questions, and I will start by recognizing Chairman DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
    opportunity to go first.
        Just to any members of the panel, we are looking at major
    investments in water infrastructure, both wastewater and
    drinking water, in the infrastructure package upcoming in the
    next couple of months.
        I found in my district that plastic melts in severe fires
    and, obviously, then you have issues with seismic that could
    relate to other substances.
        How are we going to deal with this? I think maybe the last
    witness was talking about localities. I guess you would assess
    what your risks are, what your biggest concern is and then try
    and attempt to rebuild the infrastructure in a way that deals
    with that?
        Mr. Wright. I guess, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would tell
    you that that is exactly the right case. You have got to deal--
    particularly on this infrastructure side, but on the housing
    stock as well, specifically with the risk as it exists in that
    community. So, you think about how things tie together. You
    think about the pipes, but also think about water
    infrastructure, and whether or not the infrastructure itself
    can withstand a major storm, a major storm surge event, or a
    fire that approaches it. Things like a flood risk management
    standard is so imperative because if water comes up and over
    into a wastewater treatment plant, it shuts down.
        Mr. DeFazio. All right.
        Ms. Smith. I would add, Mr. Chairman, that the important
    thing is also to look at the risk as it will exist in the
    future. You don't want to have to rebuy a new infrastructure.
    You don't want to have to rebuild housing again. So you want to
    look, to the extent that you can, where is going to be the
    saltwater intrusion that could affect the placement of new
    water supplies, where should the pumps be placed, all sorts of
    things, the wastewater facilities, how can you keep the
    electricity running when you are flooded. So to look at future
    risk as well as current.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
        And then, I guess, probably to Mr. Fowke, or others can
    answer, but you raised concerns about the potential for a
    $1,000 increase in cost; yet, I was just talking to Mr.
    Garamendi, who had to leave, and he was the insurance
    commissioner for a number of years in California, and I was
    talking about how I had seen a photo after a chaparral fire of
    a neighborhood where everything was toast, except for one
    house, and that house was built with concrete siding, a tile
    roof, and metal shutters, and block attic vents, and it was
    still standing. But I am willing to bet that current building
    codes don't require that, and it probably cost a lot more than
    $1,000 to get to that point.
        So do you think like with building in chaparral areas and
    other things as L.A. expands, that the modern building code
    will take care of that, which would be probably asphalt roof,
    certainly wouldn't include shutters and other things.
        Mr. Fowke. Well, I believe that codes should be flexible
    where they can change in nature to where issues take place
    throughout different regions of the country. To make houses to
    where they meet and exceed some of the things that you are
    mentioning here, if they are not affordable, I don't think the
    consumer will ever have the opportunity to enjoy or appreciate
    the savings or the use of that facility.
        Mr. DeFazio. Well, the point being, if someone is doing a
    major new development, and they are building it in such a way
    that in the chaparral area, it is likely to burn down, that is
    going to impose considerable costs, obviously, on the
    individuals, and on the insurance and potentially on Stafford.
    So there are kind of front-end costs, back-end costs on these
    things, and I think there has to be a balance, and it should
    be, it seems to me, dictated by the region and the risk, and
    not, say, well, we will get a uniform national building code
    and houses are bolted down now, they don't fly off the
    foundation, blah, blah, blah, we are taking care of these
    things. I think it needs to be more regionalized and localized.
        So insurance would like to, or perhaps, someone else
    respond to that?
        Mr. Harper. Sure. Thank you for the question.
        I would echo your comments that, you know, there is a
    national building code, and there is a need for regional codes
    as well. Natural disasters, there is uniqueness to different
    geographical areas. And when you use the example of wildfire,
    that is one of those where I think it is almost a combination
    of what can you do from a regional perspective with codes, and
    then what can you do, also, from a larger built environment
    perspective? How can we use public lands and parks to create
    buffer zones? How can zoning be used to reduce exposures by
    mandating clustering of the built environment, creating
    defensible space, and ensuring transportation networks are
    interconnected?
        So codes can be used to influence building styles, building
    materials, and landscapes. So I think there are several tools
    in the toolbox, but I would agree that there are very unique
    regional components to what we are trying to do here. But I
    think we also have to look at all of our possible tools that we
    have, including the built environment in which that structure
    is sitting.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Mr. Webster.
        Mr. Webster. I would say that, first of all, Mr. Fowke, you
    raised some important issues on affordability in your
    testimony. We can push stronger building codes. However, if
    those building codes cost too much money, then the homeowners
    can't afford them and we haven't improved mitigation. So where
    is the real balance between those two? I mean, there has to be
    a balance, and I know in Florida there are places where we
    balance that out. What do you think?
        Mr. Fowke. Well, Ranking Member Webster, I think Florida is
    a perfect example of balance. After Hurricane Andrew, I was
    able to witness firsthand the destruction that took place. It
    was devastating. It was almost hard to imagine the damage that
    took place.
        The knee-jerk reaction was to build homes that were
    bulletproof and could withstand any kind of storm. But we
    learned very quickly the affordability was out the window then.
    A consumer cannot afford the home. It was very unattractive.
    And, so, we looked for balance, and we worked real hard in
    research and development after Hurricane Andrew.
        And Mexico Beach, Florida, the last hurricane in 2018, was
    a great example where older homes did not stand. The newer
    homes that were built post-2000 stood up against the storm, and
    it was a success story.
        We learned a lot about Hurricane Andrew, and the research
    that took place there and the practices that have happened
    afterwards have been a success story in Florida.
        But, like I said earlier as well, what we do in Florida is
    not necessarily what they need to do in Nevada, and, therefore,
    the codes need to be flexible throughout the country in
    different regions. One size doesn't fit all.
        Mr. Webster. How can we support homeowners with existing
    homes in improving their resiliency at their properties?
        Mr. Fowke. Well, if funding was available for existing
    homes, the commerce is out there where companies will come in
    and bring your house up to current codes. Things that we
    learned that were very simple were application of windows,
    strapping of the trusses on the building, and installation and
    application of the exterior doors and garage doors. Some of
    these items here that I just mentioned would be very cost
    effective and add value to the home, and also add safety to the
    homeowner.
        Mr. Webster. So can you talk about your work in Florida for
    which you were typically used as a model for building codes and
    mitigation, and how the flexibility to address affordability
    can be worked into mitigation activities and planning?
        Mr. Fowke. Well, we looked at, first, the failure of the
    homes in Hurricane Andrew, when Hurricane Andrew happened, and
    from there, we looked at solutions, and we learned quickly that
    if the roof trusses were to lift, the exterior wall would
    collapse; therefore, the entire structure would collapse. So we
    started out with strapping down the trusses, putting more rebar
    in concrete in the exterior walls and beefing up the exterior
    walls.
        In velocity zones, we made sure that we had the velocity
    tight windows, impact windows. And, in the installation of
    windows throughout the State, we used more stringent
    application for installing the windows so that they weren't
    easily removed from high winds.
        But another thing in Florida, Ranking Member Webster, that
    we need to pay attention to--and it is not a coastal problem,
    but the flood insurance issue is set to expire in September,
    and we continue to put a Band-Aid on that.
        And, so, I would say to this committee today, too--and I
    sat on a roundtable discussion with Congressman Charlie Crist a
    few years ago, and we began to look for solutions to the flood
    insurance issue.
        And, so, I think--hand-in-hand, I think the insurance
    members on this call today will also agree with me that we need
    to quit putting a Band-Aid on flood insurance. And I am not
    saying that because I am from Florida, because floods are not a
    coastal issue.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        I would like to ask a couple of questions myself. This can
    go to anybody on the panel. We are trying to be the best
    stewards of taxpayer money, and we have reacted to a lot of
    this weather that you have all mentioned in creating a number
    of disaster programs. You have got some in HUD. You have got
    some in defense, in transportation, DOE, EPA, just all these
    different programs.
        I wonder if you could talk to how we can make them more
    accountable, how they can be more cost effective, and how they
    can be more coordinated so you don't just keep creating layers
    of bureaucracy and difficulty for people who need to apply for
    these funds that come from different sources.
        Mr. Strickland. I would like to speak on behalf of the
    national emergency managers to that point, because that is an
    issue that we really are constantly up against. It is the
    numerous Federal programs, both before, during, and after a
    disaster.
        And, if there could be a way, at the Federal Government
    level, to centralize this coordination--and, to us, it would
    really be FEMA needs to be well aware of all of the programs
    that are available within the Federal Government, and to be
    able to coordinate with the States those programs and how they
    may be most effective per what that particular State's issue
    and risk vulnerabilities might be.
        That, to us, would be of great, great assistance.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Smith. Madam Chair, if I could add, perhaps, somewhat
    of a friendly amendment to Mr. Strickland's approach, that we
    see that this is an issue, and it is important to try to
    harmonize and allow the various programs to work together, to
    have more flexibility on trying to match dollars from NRCS at
    USDA, with FEMA dollars, for buyout, or something of that sort.
    I think allowing for projects that have co-benefits will be
    helpful.
        Mr. Wright. Taking it one step further, there was a
    National Mitigation Framework developed 7 years ago, and it has
    been revised once. And, in that, they created a mitigation
    framework leadership group. It has all of the Federal agencies
    on that group. My prior role at FEMA, I got to lead that group.
        It has the right people at the table. It had the right
    conversations. But, to be honest with you, Madam Chair, there
    is not a mandate legally. There is not a mandate from Congress
    that tells those individual programs with different departments
    in different committees of jurisdiction to make it simpler, to
    bring those efficiencies there.
        And, so, it is done far too ad hoc. Far too much of it is
    informal, because everyone is following their own organic act,
    their own legal framework.
        And, to Mr. Strickland's point, it just becomes
    unreasonable by the time you are trying to implement it on the
    ground.
        Ms. Titus. Sometimes you get into jurisdictional battles
    among the agencies as well. Nobody wants to----
        Mr. Wright. Absolutely.
        Ms. Titus [continuing]. Give up any turf or any budget.
        Mr. Wright. This is true.
        Ms. Titus. Sounds like from all of you that this might be
    something that we need to look at more carefully, and we will
    welcome your wise counsel as we do that.
        One other question. We saw in FEMA's National Advisory
    Committee report that underserved communities stay underserved.
    They usually don't get the benefits of some of these programs.
        I wonder if you all might comment on how we could better
    serve those communities, get the information to them, get the
    resources to them, supplement their ability to apply for
    grants. Any suggestions?
        Mr. Wright. I think twofold. One of them is there is a need
    to have the capabilities on the ground to develop the
    applications. I think the bigger issue is the ability to bring
    the match.
        In almost every State, the locality has to bring that 25-
    percent match, which is required in all of these--at least the
    FEMA grant programs that we are referencing here today. And
    underserved communities don't have that. And that was my point
    earlier. While there were $3.6 billion worth of applications
    that came in from BRIC, I wonder how many of those are coming
    from underserved communities. How many of them really have
    that?
        So, I am always reticent to say that we should change cost
    shares all the way to 100 percent, but I do think it is
    appropriate to look at that cost share and potentially make
    adjustments, specifically when underserved communities will
    increase their resilience.
        Ms. Titus. Well, we did have that included in the rescue
    package, and so it is a possibility. We might want to give--
    maybe look at that and shape it in such a way that it would be
    limited. Good suggestion.
        Excuse me, Ms.--sorry----
        Ms. Smith. I would just suggest, Madam Chair, that an
    example from the State of Florida might be helpful where they
    provide different amounts for different localities' share,
    depending on what kind of efforts have been undertaken, and,
    perhaps, you could do that with a balancing sliding scale based
    on level of need.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Guest?
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Harper, in your testimony, you cite my State of
    Mississippi as an example that you use on page 5. You say there
    on page 5--it says: ``When considering resiliency, we need to
    consider the entire built environment. For example, if we
    provide business interruption insurance for a casino operating
    on the Mississippi coast built with hardened, resilient
    components, we need to also consider the supporting
    infrastructure that can have a direct exact impact to that
    insured. It does no good to have a resilient building that is
    fully capable of operating after a major weather impact, but
    the roadways leading to the facility are damaged and
    impassable. This is just one example of why it is fundamental
    to consider the supporting infrastructure when building a
    complete, resilient environment.''
        Mr. Harper, can you speak on the importance of investing in
    resilient infrastructure as a public good, which would then
    support private investment? And do you believe that such
    investment would then incentivize private investment in
    resilient structures in new construction in those areas?
        Mr. Harper. Yes, sir. You know, speaking to the importance
    of infrastructure is also talking about the importance of
    response and recovery. We need to invest in infrastructure
    systems that can withstand disaster in order to allow emergency
    responders--at minimum, allow emergency responders in and to
    allow recovery to begin as soon as possible, opening up
    businesses within days, and not weeks.
        Further, with more detail provided in my written testimony,
    as you stated, infrastructure is critical to economic
    resilience, which is really two parts: One is lessening the
    impact of the events, and two is the speed to the time of
    recovery to normal. And, as an insurance provider, that is
    really our role, is to try to make people whole and make people
    businesses once again, and that is two-part.
        And that is why it is so critical right now, when you do
    look at an asset, to consider all parts of resiliency, which
    infrastructure is a critical part of that.
        With regards to the second part of your question, I
    absolutely believe that investment in sound, resilient
    infrastructure will incentivize private investments. In
    particular, infrastructure performance is a key due diligence
    metric in analyzing commercial real estate investment. Simply
    put, nobody wants to invest in a property with an above-average
    chance to become a stranded asset.
        And, even if there is development in a noninvestment
    market, companies want safe access to and from their facility
    for both customers and employees. And that is why resilience in
    infrastructure has to be part of the conversation.
        Mr. Guest. And, continuing kind of on that same vein, in
    February, winter storms across the South devastated many local
    water and electric systems. Jackson, the capital city of
    Mississippi, a city that I am proud to represent, parts of the
    city lost water for more than 3 weeks, and here we are now 5
    weeks out, and there are still portions of the city that do not
    have an adequate supply of clean drinking water.
        This has affected families, businesses, schools. All have
    been affected by this.
        Mr. Harper, you speak also in your testimony--on page 6,
    you say that ``we are at a crossroads with regards to aging
    structures and, combined with the significant increase in
    severe weather events, we can no longer afford to deploy
    temporary or Band-Aid fixes.''
        And so my question to you is: What fixes to our aging
    infrastructure can we make that will be most beneficial to the
    taxpayers?
        Mr. Harper. I think, at this point, it is not only what
    fixes can we make, but what replacements need to be made? If
    you look at a lot of the aging infrastructure, so much of it
    was built post-World War II, and, with the rapid growth in
    population in certain areas, that infrastructure, we continued
    to put Band-Aids on that.
        One example is stormwater systems in this country, which,
    if you look at the ASCE report card, I believe received a D-
    minus. That is just one example of the aging infrastructure
    that we not only need to look at it and say, hey, what can we
    do as a temporary fix, but, has it reached the end of useful
    life? And would we be better served if we put those funds truly
    towards replacement with an eye for the future, recognizing
    that times have changed?
        We are living in an environment where the frequency and
    severity of storms is occurring in a much greater rate, and we
    need to plan accordingly for that. So, there is that potential
    that our existing infrastructure, even with certain upgrades,
    may still be inadequate. So we really need to look at that with
    an eye for what we expect to see in the coming years.
        Mr. Guest. Thank you, sir.
        And, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton?
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I particularly
    thank you for this hearing. It is about something that the
    Congress just seldom does, investing ahead of time in order to
    save money in the long run.
        My first question is for Mr. Fowke. I was interested in
    your comments on housing affordability. My district and many
    others like it find that young people, for example, are living
    in apartments meant for two. Four or five are in that
    apartment. Housing affordability is a major concern throughout
    the country.
        Residents who most need to modernize their housing are the
    least likely to have the resources to do so.
        Could I ask you, therefore: how effective are tax
    incentives for low-income communities who don't pay enough
    taxes to get a credit for home improvements? And what other
    resources are there for them to modernize their homes? So could
    I ask that two-part question.
        Mr. Fowke. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
        I think that it is important that there is financing
    opportunities for people in these areas. The older homes stock
    in our country is the area that needs real attention, that
    needs construction to bring it up to being resilient.
        Affordability has become more and more difficult with
    regulations. Twenty-five to thirty percent of a house before it
    is ever built--the cost of the house--is in regulations. And
    there are people trying to make code changes out there that are
    companies that are promoting a product in commerce. So we need
    to trust research and use good data to make our decisions.
        But the financing opportunity should be out there and
    available to these areas that you are speaking of in your
    district so that these older homes can be--the construction of
    those homes can be brought to date, and have them be brought up
    to being more resilient.
        Ms. Norton. Yes. And I am not sure how low-income people
    are going to be able to do so. I understand your answer.
        My next question is for both Mr. Wright and Ms. Smith,
    because you have focused on disadvantaged and low-income
    residents. The most vulnerable housing to face challenging
    upheavals in a disaster will make it difficult for low-income
    and disadvantaged people.
        What ideas do you have for how Congress can focus
    resilience and mitigation on aid of some kind on those who are
    most vulnerable? That is for you, Mr. Wright.
        And, Ms. Smith, in a related question, you talk in your
    testimony about breaking silos, to use infrastructure to
    deliver benefits to communities. How can breaking silos benefit
    high-poverty, vulnerable communities?
        That two-part question is for Mr. Wright and Ms. Smith.
        Mr. Wright. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
        I think that there are a number of pieces that are here.
    So, clearly, when people have the ability to pay for it, we
    need to nudge them to go do it. Sometimes those kind of tax
    incentives will help.
        But I do think some ideas, like the community disaster
    resilient zones, literally putting ways by which private
    investment would be incentivized to go into those areas, you
    know, variations, or maybe in a more targeted way towards
    opportunity zones, first of all.
        Second of all, many times these people are renting, and
    this is a point where the HUD financing is there for those
    multifamily dwellings. They may be a renter, but there is
    Federal money that is backing those pieces up.
        So, how do we make it a requirement at the point of
    construction and even an ongoing requirement, that if you are
    getting support, capital or otherwise, through HUD, you must be
    meeting these resilience standards so that those who live there
    can withstand the events.
        Ms. Norton. Ms. Smith?
        Ms. Smith. Yes. I would certainly second what Mr. Wright
    has said, is that, in many cases, it is the rental housing that
    suffers significantly, and a lot of those folks are renting and
    don't even recognize that there is a flood risk, for example.
        I would go back to what Mr. Harper said. Some of the answer
    is a whole-of-community solution. You may be able to help those
    who are least able to help themselves by having better
    stormwater infrastructure, and having better protection across
    the community, not just the housing itself.
        My testimony points out a really promising project by
    Enterprise Community Partners with the city of Miami, called
    Keep Safe Miami, where they are trying to work with housing
    portfolio owners, to the multihousing portfolio owners, so that
    they can improve those housing units, and protect the people
    who are their renters.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon?
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
    to the ranking member.
        And I was looking at the statements of all the witnesses
    today, and of course I think my constituents have had an
    intensive 4 years between hurricanes, earthquakes, and now the
    pandemic. One thing is clear, and it is about not that those
    disasters are not coming to us, but how fast we can recover
    from them?
        And losing services, losing water, losing electricity, and,
    in our case, even telecom, was something that we never
    experienced before. So there is some truths, basics here.
    First, natural disasters are never going to stop happening, and
    we need those mitigation measures so our infrastructure and
    housing and businesses are prepared to face them.
        And, second, we cannot make infrastructure and buildings
    indestructible, even if we wish. So that resiliency and the
    capacity to get back to functioning should be the one that we
    measure.
        And it is not just fixing what is broken like it was
    before. Every time, I think, that is wasteful, and the proper
    mitigation and the resiliency measures in our times should be
    to build back better. And I have been preaching that for the
    last 4 years, because I think it is a taxpayer's expense and a
    waste of money if we do not change the new buildings to the
    current codes.
        So, in that sense, I worked with Congressman Graves in the
    fight for the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, and I will continue
    to do and be by his side seeking those provisions to be fully
    implemented. I think the critical services definition that we
    have been promoting in several bills--and I am glad that one of
    the witnesses even brought those issues up.
        But I think, also, advocating for bringing structures to
    the current building and safety codes, regardless of the
    previous States should be the measure for all areas that are
    being impacted by disasters.
        However, I must bring up that there is something here that
    we need to take care of as well, and it is the issue of the
    funding. And you just brought it up. I must point out that,
    from the information that I do have from FEMA, Puerto Rico
    received $2.9 billion for risk mitigation assistance. Of that,
    only $108 million has been obligated.
        So, it is not just that the money has been approved by
    Congress. It is how fast, or why people are stopping that money
    from being obligated. And we must pay attention to why and who
    is responsible, and what are the issues that are stopping that
    money from coming?
        So I will make one question right now to the Insurance
    Institute for Business and Home Safety, and it is that--I am
    looking at the appendix that you provided in your statement.
    And I think it is good to know the census tract about the
    National Risk Index among other things, but I am not seeing
    Puerto Rico there.
        So my question is: Are we included, and, if not, why?
        Mr. Wright. So thank you for the question.
        We included two illustrations in this, looking at the one
    in Florida and one in Nevada, and I would be pleased to follow
    up with you and look at some of the particulars that are
    existing that apply there. It is built off of national risk
    inventory pieces from FEMA, as well as other private-sector
    pieces. And I will work with your staff to make sure that you
    get yours as well.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
        And one of the issues that has been one of the hurdles and
    obstacles back home in Puerto Rico is that, in order to get
    some FEMA funds to be obligated for Public Assistance, in many
    areas, you need those municipalities and the State to actually
    look at their insurance. And we have been fighting, for the
    last 3 years, to get the insurance to pay.
        Some of them went into bankruptcy. So it has been a
    nightmare for a lot of private owners, including the government
    of Puerto Rico, just to recover those funds. And that is
    stopping much of the rest of the recovery process with
    government buildings and public infrastructure, because we need
    to wait for that.
        In that sense, there is a claim, at least in my district--I
    don't know if that is happening in the rest of the districts
    here--how can we expedite that process of reviewing, doing the
    assessment, making the proper payments, because once that is
    done, then you have FEMA, and then you have the local
    government doing the match-up for many of those issues.
        Do you have any recommendations to direct me in that sense?
        Mr. Wright. You know, ma'am, I think everything has to do
    with the particulars of the claim that is in place, as is the
    case in Puerto Rico, as is all across the United States. It is
    a State-regulated entity on the insurance side of the equation,
    and oftentimes, they are best positioned to lay in that space.
    And, in some cases, you are saying some of those providers may
    not exist as they did formerly.
        Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I know my time has expired, Madam
    Chair, so I will submit some questions for the record.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Well, we want to be sure that you follow up with
    the information on Puerto Rico to Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
        Mr. Wright. We will do so.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Ms. Davids?
        Thank you. Then we will go to Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        It is with great interest that I am listening to this. One
    of the things that we noted is that Mother Nature no longer is
    dependable. We have things that have happened, like the cold in
    Texas. And in California, we have problems with earthquake,
    with fire, and with the levees out in northern California. But
    I have long been a proponent that below ground is where the
    utilities are to go.
        But Mr. DeFazio is right [audio malfunction].
        Ms. Titus. We lost you, Grace. I don't know if it is your
    end or at our end. Do you want to try something, some magic?
        We will come back to you, Grace. Oh, sorry.
        Ms. Van Duyne?
        Ms. Van Duyne. Oh, yes. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Fowke, I just wanted to ask you a question. You had
    suggested that we should take a comprehensive look at disaster
    preparedness and recovery.
        Would you mind elaborating on that?
        Mr. Fowke. Would you repeat the question again?
        Ms. Van Duyne. Sure. Sure. You had suggested that we should
    take a comprehensive look at disaster preparedness and
    recovery, and I am just wondering if you wouldn't mind
    elaborating on that.
        Mr. Fowke. Well, I think, if I spoke to that, it was in
    regards to the model that the State of Florida has been over
    the years, responding to hurricanes, preparing for future
    hurricanes, and disasters that happen.
        I am proud to say that I am a resident of Florida and a
    homebuilder in Florida, and some of the requirements have been
    difficult for everyone to accomplish and adjust to, but the
    fruits of our labor have proven, like I said earlier, in Mexico
    Beach, the results that we saw from there.
        But, going forward, the State of Florida has done an
    outstanding job being prepared for hurricanes, and the response
    we have when a natural disaster happens, and even strong winds
    can cause a lot of disaster or rain.
        So the State of Florida has done an outstanding job of
    being prepared for this, and I am just proud to say that we
    have done a lot of work and research towards that goal.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Well, I know you have. When I worked at HUD
    back in 2017, when we had Hurricane Harvey and we had Hurricane
    Maria--I am sure you remember that--I think the initial
    estimates for damage in Florida was going to be over $5
    billion, and ended up being less than half a billion dollars.
    And that was almost specifically exclusively due to the fact of
    the resiliency build; and a lot of States did not have that, as
    Jenniffer was pointing out about Puerto Rico.
        So I think we definitely learned our lessons on that.
        Mr. Fowke. And we are very, very much in favor of anything
    that we can do, because Puerto Rico is kind of a neighbor of
    ours, and we have been working very hard to do what we can to
    help Puerto Rico and the residents in Puerto Rico.
        But, to give you an example of construction preparedness,
    though, there has been a new rule in Florida where you have
    your code where the house has to be built, for instance, 12.5
    feet above sea level, to meet 100-year flood plain
    requirements, and now they have just added an item called
    freeboarding, which adds another foot to that requirement.
        And the layman doesn't understand how 1 more foot adds, in
    some cases, $5,000 to $10,000 to the cost of a house. So I keep
    going back to housing affordability.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Yeah.
        Mr. Fowke. It is of the utmost importance for everyone,
    everybody that has the dream of owning a home in our country.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Oh, yeah. You just kind of teed me up, by
    the way, for my other question.
        There are some regulations, or administrative burdens, that
    increase the time it takes homebuilders to deliver projects and
    prevent innovation on resiliency. How can Congress address
    those, and what kind of recommendations would you have? What
    are you seeing?
        Mr. Fowke. Policymakers need to reduce regulations.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Do you want to be more specific? I just got
    here. I just got here.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Fowke. Well, next time I am up in Washington, I will
    have a class for you.
        Ms. Van Duyne. OK.
        Mr. Fowke. But, no. In Florida, I guess we are the leaders
    in a lot of things in coastal construction, because hurricanes
    are so prominent in our area. Ranking Member Webster was
    involved with our codes committees that worked to create these
    codes for hurricanes.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Well, I guess I was just asking, do you see
    that some of the regulations basically prohibit kind of the
    innovations on different----
        Mr. Fowke. Yeah, it does. It takes time, especially in the
    land development side of it.
        Ms. Van Duyne. OK.
        Mr. Fowke. In some areas, there are multiple layers of
    approvals, and, so, we have experienced that in Florida, and we
    are--as a State, we are trying to do some things to help
    eliminate some of the regulations. But some of it is
    repetitive, and once you get past one layer of regulation,
    there is another layer for you that is redundant. It is almost
    a similar request, but just from a different office.
        And so, I mentioned earlier that 25 to 30 percent of the
    cost of a house right now is regulations, and the majority of
    the regulations are attributed to the land development side of
    it. But time is money, and under the circumstances now with
    COVID and a lot of the shortages of materials and things we are
    experiencing as an industry, lumber prices, affordability is
    becoming very, very difficult. And we take this very seriously
    at the National Association of Home Builders.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Excellent. Well, thank you very much.
        Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        I believe Mrs. Napolitano is back with us?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, I am. Can you hear me now?
        Ms. Titus. OK. We can, so the floor is yours.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        My statement has been that maybe we need to look at what
    agencies deal with hurricanes, or any kind of emergency and
    what they do with the moneys they get. I know that you say that
    they don't want to give up any kind of title or ownership, but
    it would be nice to know what they do with anything they are
    given.
        The other thing I want to say is we ignore the Native
    Americans, and, of course, the Territories as you have heard
    from Puerto Rico. The Mariana Islands have suffered a lot of
    hurricanes.
        But, to Mr. Wright, the building codes in California are
    very extensive and very harsh--I know that--but we have
    earthquake, we have fires, and we have levees up in northern
    California. Mother Nature has thrown a lot of curves, and will
    continue to give us heartache, I think.
        So how can we prepare for that? How do we amend our
    building codes? Because every area is different. You can't say
    that one applies to all of them. And any information that you
    can give, dissemination to the legal cities, to the Governors,
    to give to the cities so they can start looking at things that
    they should be looking out for in their own areas. Anybody?
        Mr. Wright. Yes. And thank you, Congresswoman.
        What I would say to you is, first of all, California has
    really, really solid building codes. I think on the earthquake
    side, particularly, they are very good. They have good pieces
    on wildfire as well.
        But remember that most of the homes in California were
    built well before any of the wildfire building codes came into
    effect in that space.
        As we move forward in that space, we have got to find a
    way, particularly in wildfire, to understand there is
    individual to the----
        [Audio interruption.]
        Mr. Wright. I will keep going. Sorry. That there is the
    structure itself, but it is also the neighborhood and the
    surrounding community, and it really requires all three of
    those layers to take action.
        Wildfire is one of those few pieces, that even if you
    perfectly mitigate your home, your neighbor's not doing the
    right thing can cause your home to burn.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Sorry about that.
        Yes. And I have an area in my backyard that we have a
    mountain range, and so, we do have the ability of fires, and we
    had several in the last couple of years that have really been
    devastating. And then, it deals with the slush, the mud coming
    down off the mountains, because later you get rains, and then
    you get that additional burden for residents.
        Mr. Wright. Yes. The Bobcat Fire this year that kind of set
    off a whole series of cascades there in your district, and
    then, when the rains do come, that turns into mud and flooding.
        Mrs. Napolitano. To Ms. Smith, can you discuss the need for
    increased investment in water quality in some water projects?
    That is one of the areas that Chairman DeFazio and Mr.
    Fitzpatrick and I introduced in the reauthorization of the
    Clean Water SRF Program recently, and it includes a grant
    program. But can you touch on that?
        Ms. Smith. Be happy to.
        As a former member of the Virginia State Water Control
    Board, I know how important those programs are to States and to
    localities. And I do understand that, it was maybe 10 years
    ago, some of the leaders actually from California in the
    wastewater industry and the water utility industry were calling
    it the era of assessments, so that there is a lot of work going
    on assessing vulnerability.
        And I think, to the extent that you--for the utilities that
    haven't done the assessments, to getting that going in your
    infrastructure package, and also, to adding money so that they
    will be able to start building in the protections to elevate
    their mechanical components, their electric, to protect--put up
    berms to protect their intake points, protect groundwater
    supplies, all of that.
        If you can add that into your package, that would be
    greatly needed and greatly appreciated, I think.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, we appreciate any comments you have
    to forward to the committee or to committee staff or to my
    office, and we will look at them and see if we can add them
    now. But I would certainly like to thank everybody for being on
    here.
        It is interesting. Back maybe 10 years ago, maybe more than
    that, I was looking at the insurance for the riverbed, and it
    opened my eyes to the fact that many people don't know, because
    they are renters that have the housing, and they don't hear
    about it, and they don't get the insurance, and they are at
    risk.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        You know, one thing that hadn't been mentioned is all these
    projects, whether it is assessment or mitigation or
    construction, result in the creation of jobs, and that is
    another plus that comes from all of this.
        Now I go to Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, Madam Chair, I want to actually commend you for your
    statement and questions earlier about all of the different
    funding streams and resiliency programs across the Federal
    Government. I believe Mr. Wright, to some degree, covers it in
    his testimony as well.
        As we all know, in this committee, we have nearly $100
    billion in backlog Corps of Engineers-authorized projects. We
    put $2 to $3 billion a year into the construction of those. You
    do the math, and you will finish them approximately never.
        In addition, we have the BRIC program; pre-disaster
    mitigation; Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; Community
    Development Block Grant; disaster recovery; you have NFIPs, ICC
    program; the Federal Highway Administration has an emergency
    program; the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. On
    and on and on. And the problem is, is all of these programs,
    they are siloed.
        Now, Madam Chair, we work with you, and I, again, want to
    thank Chairman DeFazio for the work we did on at least knocking
    down one wall between Corps of Engineers programs and the
    Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.
        Look, if somebody has got a great idea for mitigation or
    resiliency in their communities, we should be incentivizing
    them to commingle the dollars and get these projects done, not
    installing barriers to that.
        And I want to turn to Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Strickland, would you like to share opinions or just
    thoughts about the various Federal funds that can be used
    potentially for mitigation or for resiliency-type investments,
    yet the programs coming from a Federal agency--in some cases,
    even the same agency--aren't allowed to be commingled, which
    therefore prohibits completing projects? Do you think that is
    something we should be addressing?
        Mr. Strickland. Absolutely, and that is something our
    association has been very interested in. And it really came to
    light, particularly with some of the disasters in North
    Carolina, where there is the pre-disaster mitigation money, and
    then there is also the post-disaster mitigation money, and then
    the opportunity for the funding out of HUD with the Community
    Development Block Grant.
        And the challenge of trying to line those programs up so
    they can complement each other and truly make a long-term
    difference, what I would call, really pushing forward the
    future of mitigation, making it transformational--I know North
    Carolina had some real challenges with that, and worked very
    heavily with you all on that as well as at their State level.
        But we constantly run into that where we have money from
    two or three different Federal programs, but we can't use that
    money to be part of the match to another program. Then we will
    run into situations where the national highway administration
    has coverage of the center of the roadway after a disaster, but
    FEMA has the left and right of the roadway. It is very
    cumbersome and challenging to get through that.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
        And, Madam Chair, look, I remind you, part of the
    dysfunction, or perhaps a lot of it, is our fault. You know, in
    the Congress, the House Financial Services Committee has
    jurisdiction over the Community Development Block Grant
    program.
        Candidly, I think that that really is something that is
    related to disasters and should be more so under this
    committee's jurisdiction.
        But thank you, Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Wright, I really enjoyed reading through your
    testimony. There are a lot of things in here that I think are
    really insightful, based on your extensive experience with
    NFIP. Actually, one thing I maybe disagree with and I just want
    to ask you to clarify. You have said that we should permanently
    authorize the Community Development Block Grant Disaster
    Recovery Program, and I wanted to understand.
        Do you believe that that specific program should be
    permanently authorized, or do you believe that a long-term
    recovery program should be authorized?
        Mr. Wright. It is a long-term recovery program, CDBG-DR
    being the one that Congress has been using. The principal
    reason to say it needs to be permanently authorized is, right
    now, it is a whole new program that starts up every single
    time. It can have very different rules. It would be better if
    there were some predictable pieces to CDBG-DR, thus our
    recommendation that it have a permanent imprimatur from the
    authorizers, as opposed to just getting filled up by the
    appropriators.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. And I think that that
    objective is what we really should be focusing on, and just
    to----
        Mr. Wright. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana [continuing]. Remind the committee,
    we worked with Congresswoman Plaskett and introduced
    legislation to actually do a FEMA long-term recovery program
    within this committee's jurisdiction that would achieve the
    objectives. Folks came and testified before this committee,
    and, on average, it takes HUD 7 years to hit the same outlays,
    percentages as the Economic Development Administration's
    disaster program that they hit--I think it was in 12 months or
    16 months or something like that. So it further impacts the
    disaster victims.
        And, Madam Chair, thank you very much. I look forward to
    working with you on some of these issues, and yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Yeah. I think we have our work cut out for us,
    but we have some common goals here, and I look forward to
    pursuing them with you, Mr. Graves.
        Ms. Davids?
        Ms. Davids. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I would actually love to follow up on what Congressman
    Graves brought up a couple of minutes ago. You know, I
    represent Kansas' Third Congressional District. We are pretty
    centrally located. We have one of the largest intermodal hubs
    in the country, and we happen to also have the confluence of
    the Kansas and Missouri Rivers.
        Unfortunately, studies have shown that the Kansas City
    metro area is likely to be one of the most impacted
    metropolitan areas because of climate change. And I think the
    idea of how we fund projects and what we are doing around that
    is really important, and Mr. Graves brought up some of the
    different funding options.
        And, at the close of the 116th Congress, the House and the
    Senate reached an agreement to establish a resilience revolving
    loan fund that would seed State-level funds, and would make 30-
    year low-interest-rate loans to communities for investments in
    resilience and mitigation projects. And that loan option is one
    that has worked well on water infrastructure.
        I am curious, Mr. Strickland, from your perspective as a
    State leader in this space, if you could provide the
    subcommittee with some of your thoughts on this new funding
    option. And, you know, maybe we will be looking at Maryland for
    ways to utilize this new option.
        Mr. Strickland. Well, I appreciate that very much, because,
    actually, Maryland has a bill in right now that would create a
    fund that we could utilize for building resilience, and really
    through mitigation projects.
        Several other States have done the same thing, and I think
    it is in the cooperation between the State governments and the
    Federal Government with this project that we will really be
    able to make some strong headway, particularly where we build
    these funds, and we ultimately have some of the match
    requirements that are available for the other grant programs as
    we move forward. So we are 100 percent behind that.
        Ms. Davids. Thank you, Mr. Strickland.
        And I don't know if anybody else wants to weigh in on this
    new funding option.
        Ms. Smith. I would add from The Pew Charitable Trusts that
    we certainly see a revolving loan fund concept--that construct
    can help build institutional capacity and knowledge that can be
    shared. So it is a good approach. We had backed that
    specifically for flood, but think it makes sense to do it as
    well across the board.
        So we are very supportive.
        Mr. Wright. If I could, I would go just one step farther
    down this line. I think, as we look at the larger amounts of
    dollars that are available in a BRIC program, or other kinds of
    recovery pieces, the ability to bring match will be a gap.
        If this revolving fund is put in place and adequately
    filled up, I think it really becomes a reservoir for people to
    be able to take actions far faster than they would be able to
    do if they were simply waiting.
        Ms. Davids. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        And I yield back.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Well, I would like to thank our panelists very much for
    your information. Your presentations have been very helpful. We
    will want to pursue some of the things that we have talked
    about today, and we will look to you as a resource.
        Are there any other questions? Mr. Webster, any comments?
        Well, then, in that case, I don't see any questions, so,
    again, thank you all for participating. I will ask unanimous
    consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
    such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
    questions that may have been submitted to them in writing, or
    provide information that was requested by the Members during
    the hearing.
        I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
    for 15 days for any additional comments and information
    submitted by the Members or the witnesses to be included in the
    record of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Thank you again, and the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
         from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chair Titus, and thank you to our witnesses for being
    here today.
        I also want to thank and recognize the new Subcommittee Ranking
    Member, Mr. Webster of Florida.
        Florida's annual hurricane season has given him significant
    practical and policy experience with federal disaster preparation,
    mitigation, and recovery programs.
        I want to thank him for taking on this leadership role.
        Whether it's combating the threat of hurricanes in Florida, severe
    flooding in my district, or wildfires or tornados in others, resiliency
    has been the cornerstone of the emergency management work of the
    Committee.
        Even before it was popular, it was this committee that helped press
    the importance of investment in mitigation.
        We can't continue to throw good money after bad by simply
    rebuilding infrastructure and communities year after year rather than
    building and rebuilding to withstand and last.
        I've seen that firsthand in my district and I know other members
    have as well.
        Again, it is through investment in mitigation that we are going to
    get a handle on the increased costs of disasters.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and the ongoing
    work of the Committee on this topic.
        Thank you, Chair Titus. I yield back.

       Letter of March 18, 2021, from the National Ready Mixed Concrete
    Association; National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; and Portland
      Cement Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster
                                                        March 18, 2021.
    Hon. Dina Titus,
    Chair,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
            Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
            Management, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Daniel Webster,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
            Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
            Management, 505 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC.
        Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        Thank you for holding today's hearing on ``Building Smarter: The
    Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation.'' The General
    Services Administration (GSA) owns and leases nearly 377 million square
    feet of space in 9,600 buildings in more than 2,200 communities
    nationwide.\1\ This footprint represents a significant investment of
    public funds and houses many of the most critical functions of the
    federal government.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We applaud the Subcommittee's recognition of the importance of
    resilience and mitigation related to these buildings. Constructing
    federal buildings and leasing existing structures built to resilient
    standards will safeguard taxpayer dollars, prevent the need to rebuild
    after natural disasters, and lower the embodied carbon of federally
    owned and utilized structures.
    Resilient Construction and Breaking the Cycle of Destruction
        The number of billion-dollar disasters per year is rising. In 2020,
    the U.S. experienced 22 billion-dollar severe weather and climate
    disasters.\2\ These disasters represent devastating loss of life,
    crippling economic setbacks, and significant expenditure of federal
    emergency relief funds to rebuild and restore communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For federal buildings, natural disasters also represent a potential
    disruption in service and loss of taxpayer funds as buildings are
    repaired or restored. Building to resilient standards and investing in
    pre-disaster mitigation efforts to prepare our built environment and
    our communities to resist the impacts of natural disaster represents
    significant taxpayer savings as resilient buildings do not require
    significant repairs.
        A study by the National Institute of Building Sciences indicates
    that resilience and mitigation yield a $13 savings for every $1
    invested.\3\ Similarly, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
    Concrete Sustainability Hub reports that factoring resilience into
    building design can also reduce lifetime repair and maintenance in
    hazard-prone areas.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/reports/
    mitigation_saves_2019/ms_v4_overview.pdf
        \4\ https://cshub.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/
    CSHub_Building_Resilience_
    Final%20.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To that end, it is critical that we build our public buildings,
    infrastructure and federally-funded structures to resilient standards
    that allow our facilities to withstand extreme weather events and
    return to normal operations as quickly as possible.
        Recognizing the limits of this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, we
    would further note that resilient construction and mitigation should
    not be limited to federal buildings. Nearly one-third of all existing
    buildings in the United States will need to be rebuilt by 2030, simply
    because they were not designed to last any longer. As these buildings
    are rebuilt, we must take the opportunity to rebuild and replace with
    resilient construction materials and techniques that will improve their
    resiliency and durability to the changing climate.
        We recommend to the Subcommittee's consideration the Disaster
    Savings and Resilient Construction Act, legislation to provide a tax
    credit for home and business owners who build or rebuild after a
    natural disaster to a resilient standard. The legislation will
    incentivize owners of structures to build or rebuild to a structure to
    withstand future natural disasters. This policy will reduce federal and
    social costs or rebuilding, but also eliminate the embodied carbon
    associated with reconstruction activities. We strongly encourage
    Congress to pursue policies that incentivize private construction and
    reconstruction to a resilient standard, and strongly encourage this
    Subcommittee to prioritize resilient construction in standards for
    federal buildings.
        Federal agencies have an important role to play as well. The
    General Services Administration, for example, has been a leader in
    developing policy to promote green building design and procurement.
    Much of that work has focused on the construction phase of the planning
    and assessment process, largely focusing on greenhouse gas intensity.
    But greenhouse gas intensity and resiliency are inextricably linked. To
    be truly effective in incentivizing sustainable construction and
    operations, these efforts need to consider resiliency on equal footing
    with carbon intensity and other factors.
    Sustainable and Climate Benefits of Resilient Construction
        In addition to preserving life, preventing economic losses, saving
    taxpayer dollars, and minimizing disruptions in federally provided
    services housed in public buildings, incorporating resilient
    construction standards and pre-disaster mitigation planning in public
    buildings represents an opportunity for reducing carbon emissions.
    Buildings account for nearly 40% of U.S. emissions.\5\ While much of
    that is operational emissions, embodied emissions can be reduced by
    resilient construction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.eesi.org/topics/built-infrastructure/description
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addressing methods for reducing embodied carbon, the
    Underwriters Laboratory identified building and designing for the long
    haul, use of recycled material and taking note of the embodied impacts
    through Environmental Product Declarations.\6\ Building to resist
    damage brought on by natural disasters prevents emissions generated by
    rebuilding and repairs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://spot.ul.com/blog/embodied-vs-operational-carbon/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Research shows that in hazard-prone areas, the maintenance costs
    can be significant over the lifetime of a building. In fact, the costs
    of hazard-related repairs--financially and environmentally--can exceed
    the initial construction costs. To reduce repair related costs, which
    include energy consumption and repairs due to damages from hazards, it
    is important to invest in resilient building construction. Research
    published by Massachusetts Institute of Technology helps building
    designers and owners calculate the risk and level of investment for
    residential buildings in hurricane-prone communities.
        This research can be used to calculate the break-even cost when
    comparing a proposed baseline wood construction with an enhanced
    concrete design for a multi-family residential building. In New
    Orleans, for example, MIT's research shows the break-even cost for an
    $8.5 million midrise apartment building is 8%, meaning nearly $700,000
    could be spent up front on mitigation while still breaking even on
    total cost over the life of the building--and obviating the need for
    future reconstruction and its environmental impacts.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://cshub.mit.edu/bemp-dashboard
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Material Neutral Approach to Construction Materials
        In approaching resilient construction and mitigation, we urge the
    Subcommittee to take a material neutral approach. Establishing material
    neutral standards for the durability, sustainability and performance of
    federal buildings allow engineers and construction professionals to
    construct the most resilient buildings and facilities. A material
    neutral approach avoids picking winners and losers and maximizes
    engagement from industry.
        In establishing material neutral standards, we urge the
    Subcommittee to encourage the adoption of a life cycle analysis that
    evaluates the impacts of competitive materials using a cradle-to-grave
    or cradle-to-cradle full life cycle view of materials and a full life
    cycle cost analysis of construction and building operations. Without
    considering the costs and benefits of material selection during the
    use, reuse, recycling, or disposal phases of the lifecycle, federal
    efforts to transition to a carbon neutral economy will be limited, if
    not counterproductive.
    Concrete as a Sustainable Building Material
        While we strongly advocate that Congress take a material neutral,
    standards-based approach to resilient construction, we believe that
    concrete is a critical building material to improve the resiliency of
    infrastructure and buildings--both public and private.
        Concrete represents disaster-resilient construction that is capable
    of withstanding the impacts of natural disasters and climate change,
    resistant to natural elements like water and fire, and represents
    building systems with the potential for net-zero energy efficient
    structures.\8\ Concrete absorbs and permanently sequesters carbon over
    its lifetime and is recycleable--further absorbing carbon during the
    recycling process and over its next life. Furthermore, technological
    innovation and optimal mix designs hold the promise of net zero
    emission concrete.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.specifyconcrete.org/blog/icfs-and-net-zero-
    residential-construction
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Similarly, stone, sand and gravel--critical components to
    concrete--are an essential resource for developing any type of
    infrastructure and are key to producing renewable energy sources and
    sustainable public works. From new electric vehicle charging stations,
    to natural gas and hydrogen production and transportation, our members
    stand ready to supply the needed construction materials for these
    projects that will be needed to reduce emissions across the
    transportation industry.
        In producing these essential materials, the aggregates industry
    takes every effort to run operations effectively to minimize waste,
    reduce air emissions, and to conserve water and are always working to
    improving energy efficiencies and developing alternative energy
    sources. The aggregates industry has undertaken many greenhouse gas
    mitigation efforts, such as investing heavily in fuel-efficient mobile
    equipment and improving operational efficiency. Further, our members
    are working to deploy new technologies that help further the goal of
    reducing environmental impacts like the utilization of recycled
    construction materials.
        Members of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association are
    leaders in taking aggressive action to protect our environment and
    enhance environmental stewardship. Companies across the industry
    routinely develop award-winning projects reclaiming land and unused
    areas that conserve critical habitats and promote biodiversity.
        Cement, the binding agent that binds these materials and gives
    concrete its strength, is also part of a sustainable future. US cement
    manufacturers have invested heavily in technology to make their plants
    more energy and fuel efficient, substituting fossil fuels for lower-
    carbon alternative, and leveraging alternative low-carbon cement mixes
    like portland limestone cement and fly ash cement. These new
    technologies not only reduce the carbon emissions associated with
    cement manufacturing, they divert fly ash, nonhazardous wastes, and
    other alternative materials from landfills, impoundments, and the
    environment in the form of discarded waste, reducing the burden on host
    communities.
        The Portland Cement Association sees significant opportunity to
    advance this transition to more efficient operations and lower carbon
    feedstocks and fuels going forward. Indeed, these innovations are at
    the heart of the cement industry's developing roadmap for achieving
    carbon neutrality across the cement concrete supply chain by 2050. To
    achieve these advances, however, the industry looks forward to working
    with the committee to develop incentives and reduce impediments to
    rapid transition.
    Sustainable Access to Construction Materials
        We encourage the Committee to examine policies that ensure local
    sources of aggregates are available to supply construction projects. To
    build the 21st century energy and transportation infrastructure that
    will lead to reduced emissions we must have a sustainable supply of
    building materials.
        Further, having access to locally sourced materials is a key factor
    in reducing costs of infrastructure projects and provides greater
    return to taxpayers. Further, decreasing the distance aggregates must
    travel to a project has shown to significantly reduce tail pipe
    emissions from haul trucks and improve road safety. Ensuring
    sustainable aggregates supply will support local economies with high
    paying jobs, reduce construction costs, and improve environmental
    outcomes.
        We appreciate the opportunity to present these views and look
    forward to working with you on these important issues.
            Respectfully,
                             National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
                           National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.
                                           Portland Cement Association.

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to Russell J.
     Strickland, Executive Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency,
           on behalf of the National Emergency Management Association

        Question 1. At the close of the 116th Congress, the House and
    Senate reached an agreement to establish a resilience revolving loan
    fund that would seed state-level funds that would make 30-year low-
    interest loans to communities for investments in resilience and
    mitigation projects. This loan option is one that has worked well with
    water infrastructure. From your perspective as a state leader in this
    space, can you provide the subcommittee with your thoughts on this new
    funding option and whether Maryland is looking to utilize this new
    option?
        Answer. The resilience revolving loan fund is an opportunity which
    Maryland intends to utilize, and communities across the nation will be
    able to use to build stronger communities as the program is developed.
    The Maryland General Assembly passed a bill establishing a state-level
    revolving loan fund intended to capitalize on this federal legislation
    in an effort to generate additional funding for mitigation and
    resilience actions. The Resilient Maryland Revolving Loan Fund also
    promotes equity by prioritizing communities with the greatest financial
    need and targeting historically disenfranchised jurisdictions. We
    believe that this action, in addition to the actions by the federal
    government, will greatly enhance our mitigation, building resilience
    efforts, specifically with the matching fund requirements. We also
    encourage Congress to prioritize resilience and mitigation as they
    consider bills that provide sweeping investments in infrastructure. The
    investments we make now will have impacts for generations to come.
        As a witness representing all state emergency managers, however, I
    would be remiss in not also mentioning apprehensions by some of my
    colleagues. Hurdles in other states include a lack of organizational
    capacity to manage such a program and potential legal impediments to
    local participation. At this time, I am not sure how widespread the use
    of resilience revolving loan funds will be nationwide.

        Question 2. Studies show that $1 of prevention saves $4-$6 in
    disaster losses. Yet the government spends $1 pre-disaster for every
    $14 post disaster. Does the National Emergency Management Association
    (NEMA) believe more should be done at the federal level to shift and
    balance these numbers since we know pre-disaster spending saves
    taxpayer dollars and lives? If so, does NEMA have specific
    recommendations to modify the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
    (FEMA) existing Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs?
        Answer. NEMA strongly believes that mitigation spending is
    paramount to creating more resilient infrastructure and driving down
    the overall costs of disasters. Programs such as the National Public
    Infrastructure Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Program (also known as
    BRIC) will go a long way toward shifting the paradigm away from
    mitigating post-event. But while pre-disaster mitigation is important,
    so too are the programs currently built to aid in mitigation efforts.
    The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), for example, is funded
    based on receiving a disaster declaration and known costs while BRIC is
    a competition-based program. Both provide benefits to the overall
    system and allow a diversity of states to participate. Not all
    mitigation funding should be post-disaster, but neither should it all
    be competitively based through programs such as BRIC.
        Overall, grantees should be empowered to implement transformative
    mitigation actions with the greatest potential community benefits by
    allowing states and locals the discretion to choose projects which meet
    FEMA allowable project types and align them with the goals established
    in approved mitigation plans. Given that local communities are on the
    front lines of fighting the battle against climate change and
    disasters, they understand more clearly the threats and hazards facing
    their communities. Thus, Congress should give FEMA the flexibility to
    maximize BRIC funds by exploring a combination of competitive and
    formula-based awards. This will allow states to administer BRIC grants
    and will better-align mitigation priorities across all levels of
    government.
        States and communities have access to a variety of possible
    mitigation programs across the federal government, all with the
    overarching goal of helping grantees become more resilient and better
    prepared for future disasters. The specific authorities and purposes of
    such programs usually vary, however, and FEMA may not have authority to
    allow grantees to co-mingle funds or shift the priorities of specific
    grant dollars. Nonetheless, FEMA should:
          Work across the federal interagency and with Congress to
    obtain the necessary authorities to allow grantees to blend various
    projects with support from other mitigation programs available within
    FEMA and across the federal government.
          Allow for collaboration, convergence, and promotion of
    projects that enhance the level of protection of people and property
    across various programs regardless of the funding sources and legal
    requirements.
          Anticipate future conditions by broadening allowable
    project types which meet hazard impacts.

        In terms of broad programmatic changes, NEMA believes time must
    first be allowed for new programs such as BRIC to take hold and be
    properly evaluated. BRIC was created in 2018 and a full application and
    award cycle has not yet been completed. While we appreciate the
    excitement over further developing mitigation programs, constantly
    changing guidance, programs, and priorities creates confusion at the
    state and local levels and does not allow newly established programs to
    be fully implemented.

        Question 3. Investment in hazard mitigation such as flood control
    projects and seismic retrofitting is key to improving our disaster
    resilience and reducing the costs of future disasters. To this end, in
    the nine-year period fiscal year 2010 to 2018, FEMA funded $11 billion
    in state and local hazard mitigation efforts through four grant
    programs. However, many state and local officials report that the grant
    application process for these programs is prohibitively complex and
    lengthy. What steps could FEMA take to simplify and streamline the
    grant application process and encourage state and local investment in
    hazard mitigation?
        Answer. Grantees should be empowered to implement transformative
    mitigation actions with the greatest potential community benefits by
    allowing states and locals the discretion to choose projects which meet
    FEMA allowable project types and align them with the goals established
    in approved mitigation plans. This will better-align mitigation
    priorities across all levels of government. Additionally, trusting the
    applicants' judgement in making policy and project determinations will
    better meet the varied needs of diverse communities. This can be
    accomplished by FEMA establishing its priorities as early as practical
    in the application process.
        Applicants should also be allowed greater oversight of funding
    activities. The current oversight regime is overly restrictive due to
    the numerous stipulations requiring applicants to serve as the
    ``middleman'' to convey information and arrange reviews between sub-
    applicants and FEMA. This prevents the achievement of FEMA's goal of
    proper, full-cycle grant management and implementation. If an
    application is eligible under FEMA's allowances and meets the
    guidelines established through the FEMA approved hazard mitigation
    plans, then applicants should be provided the ability to exercise
    discretion in funding allocations to include decisions such as
    conducting sub-award reviews, approving sub-awards, and monitoring
    projects and finances.
        Disasters occur without warning and require immediate resources.
    The length of time the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance application
    takes must be shortened. Oftentimes disaster survivors are not able to
    wait several months or years for hazard mitigation assistance when in
    reality funding is needed quickly. In these circumstances they pursue
    alternative pathways to return to normal and the opportunity for
    mitigation is lost. This creates a disaster rebuild cycle that could
    potentially be averted by seizing the opportunity for mitigation.

        Question 4. Have you, or has the Maryland Emergency Management
    Agency (MEMA), found resistance in your efforts to better prepare
    Maryland communities for disasters? If so, from whom?
        Answer. ``Resistance'' is not necessarily seen in our efforts to
    strengthen resilience. However, resultant financial requirements can
    sometimes generate resistance given competing priorities. In our
    efforts to inculcate a culture of preparedness, the greatest resistance
    we encounter again, is financial, in that we need staff and operational
    support. Too much of the time we are focused on the response phase,
    without which when events occur additional damage could potentially
    result. Thus, we need to be prepared to respond. And yet the need to
    build a resilient state through transformational prevention,
    protection, and mitigation is equal, if not greater, when coupled with
    our recovery efforts.
        Maryland is a state with diverse needs. Our rural, low resourced
    communities raise concerns regarding the ability to provide the non-
    Federal share portion of the projects for community-based proposals,
    but there are also financial concerns in our urban communities. In some
    urban communities, homeowners face challenges with providing the cost-
    share for individual projects.
        Local communities must be mindful of local, state, and federal
    priorities in order to be successful in the nationally competitive
    grant cycles. As such, providing local jurisdictions and states the
    flexibility to prioritize the projects that align with their priorities
    will reduce the complexity of identifying and developing projects.
        Investments made today will translate into safer communities in the
    future. Across the nation most emergency managers do not experience
    resistance to implementing these types of programs, however there are
    many other programs and initiatives that are prioritized for funding
    ahead of mitigation and resilience. With a renewed bipartisan focus on
    building stronger infrastructure and the first year of BRIC projects
    submitted it is an opportune time to surge funding into communities to
    not only build needed infrastructure but do so in a way that will adapt
    to our changing environment and save future taxpayer dollars.

        Question 5. As the Committee looks to be the best stewards of
    taxpayer dollars, what actions can Congress and federal agencies take
    to better harmonize the numerous emerging disaster programs (HUD's
    CDBG-DR and Mit programs, DOT, DOE, EPA, etc.) so these that they are
    accountable, cost effective, and coordinated for seamless delivery of
    disaster assistance and that they remove unnecessary barriers to
    recovery?
        Answer. There are three specific ways in which the Committee can
    ensure disparate federal disaster programs are accountable, cost-
    effective, and coordinated.
        First, clarify FEMA's role during incidents and disasters that
    require multi-agency coordination. FEMA should be the lead coordinating
    agency for all multi-agency incidents across all phases of the
    incident, to include recovery. This includes Stafford Act and non-
    Stafford Act events.
        Second, develop a universal application for disaster survivors and
    grant management system for applicants and subapplicants that could
    then be utilized across all federal disaster assistance programs. This
    seamless interagency data sharing would enable significantly better
    communication and coordination, as well as faster disbursement of funds
    and improved oversight and accountability.
        Finally, no discussion of long-term recovery would be complete
    without addressing the CDBG-DR program at the Department of Housing and
    Urban Development (HUD). We always appreciate the support of Congress
    in appropriating funds to CDBG-DR, and HUD has been a great partner to
    the states in administering the program. The program, however, remains
    bifurcated from other federal recovery programs and the lack of a
    regular authorization leaves states waiting months, if not years for
    HUD to publish Federal Register notices for funding.
        Congress should consider working with stakeholders to affect
    Stafford changes that include prioritizing pre-disaster mitigation
    funding programs, aligning federal funding for recovery and resilience
    (e.g. CDBG) under FEMA, and applying the countless lessons learned in
    the wake of the COVID-19 global pandemic.

        Question 6. How does NEMA believe that FEMA can better help
    communities identify and implement hazard mitigation and disaster
    resilience efforts that will have the greatest impact on reducing
    community risk?
        Answer. FEMA has adopted the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST) definition of resilience: ``The ability to prepare
    for and adapt to changing conditions and withstand and recover rapidly
    from disruptions. Resilience includes the ability to withstand and
    recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally occurring
    threats or incidents.'' It is better to allow the states to work with
    locals to identify those efforts as they are the most knowledgeable of
    the impacts to a certain region, as long as they stay within the
    confines of what FEMA has adopted to mean resiliency. FEMA can
    certainly maintain their role as support but should provide flexible
    funding to state and local organizations to implement resilience
    locally.
        True investment and commitment is required in order to assist
    communities in identifying hazards and assessing vulnerabilities. FEMA
    must ensure sufficient resources and funding are available and
    accessible to continue to support hazard mitigation planning efforts
    and subsequent implementation.

        Question 7. What actions should federal agencies take to help the
    nation achieve greater disaster resilience? For example, what
    opportunities exist for federal agencies to ``mainstream'' risk
    reduction, by integrating disaster resilience goals and activities into
    all their missions and initiatives?
        Answer. Federal agencies must start now in understanding each of
    the missions and how they respond to varying events. Through these
    partnerships, they could find out who would be best positioned to
    implement assistance to the states and locals for the next disaster;
    find ways to improve mitigation and preparedness efforts; and overall
    provide a more robust national resiliency plan that covers the health
    of our citizens and communities. If it is FEMA's role to be the primary
    lead, then they must be challenged to create such partnerships and
    understanding of the other agencies' missions. FEMA should apply the
    emergency management system model of multi-agency coordination to the
    issue of resilience and mitigation programs. Having those partnerships
    and knowledge already in place adds to the resiliency of our nation by
    stakeholders knowing where to go at any given point rather than waste
    valuable time trying to understand all the intricacies of each of our
    federal partners and how they could be best utilized to streamline
    response and recovery. Leveraging FEMA as a one-stop-shop for all
    mitigation and resilience programs across the federal agencies would be
    a tremendous benefit to resource constrained state and local
    communities. This is not to suggest that all these programs should
    legally reside within FEMA, but rather to empower FEMA to assist states
    in managing disparate federal programs.

        Question 8. Fewer than 40 percent of FEMA-funded Public Assistance
    projects have included a mitigation component during the period 2010 to
    2018. What can FEMA do to incentivize state and local officials to
    incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-damaged
    facilities?
        Answer. NEMA believes the incentive for state and local officials
    to incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-damaged
    facilities is inherent in states' desire to prevent impacts from future
    disasters. What interferes with that incentive, however, is the
    flexibility in existing programs to give states the ability to manage
    necessary improvements to facilities during repair operations. Projects
    funded through the Public Assistance (PA) program are currently micro-
    managed primarily out of fear of fulfilling audit requirements in
    subsequent years. If states had more flexibility to implement PA at
    their discretion with FEMA merely ensuring programmatic requirements
    are met, such mitigation priorities would occur naturally.

        Question 9. In the latest Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    High-Risk Report, issued early this year, GAO again finds that the
    federal government must reduce its fiscal exposure by managing climate
    change risks and that it has yet to make measurable progress to reduce
    its fiscal exposure to climate change. What do you think the federal
    government ought to do to build or rebuild infrastructure so that it is
    resilient to future conditions of climate change-related impacts such
    as inland and coastal flooding, wildfires, or extreme heat over the
    life-cycle of the project?
        Answer. NEMA strongly believes that mitigation spending is
    paramount to creating more resilient infrastructure and driving down
    the overall costs of disasters. States hold the expertise on the
    impacts their communities experience due to such future conditions
    listed in the question. The federal government can support efforts to
    mitigation spending in such programs already discussed such as BRIC or
    HMGP. These programs should prioritize addressing climate change risks
    and encourage projects with co-benefits.

        Question 10. The Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities
    (BRIC) program offers the opportunity for the nation to make sizable
    investments in disaster risk reduction. How can FEMA administer BRIC to
    ensure effective reduction of risk to whole systems, communities, and
    regions rather than as a ``pre-disaster mitigation on steroids'' that
    invests more money using the same fragmented, stove piped, and
    parochial approaches that historically have failed to result in
    significant overall risk reduction or address the nation's most
    significant infrastructure and community risks?
        Answer. NEMA believes the BRIC program will be successful if the
    following tenets are followed:
        1.  Promote broader Grantee Collaboration and Consistency. Promote
    broader grantee collaboration to encourage creative applications
    crossing state, jurisdictional, or artificial FEMA regional boundaries.
        2.  Expand the Traditional Definition of ``Mitigation'' and
    Encourage Large Infrastructure Projects. This includes encouraging
    large infrastructure projects that would not only promote health and
    safety but expand economic opportunities and the impact of mitigation.
        3.  Empower Grantees to Control Mitigation Priorities. By allowing
    grantees greater oversight of funding activities, the new program can
    be uniquely streamlined and ensure better alignment of mitigation
    priorities across all levels of government.
        4.  Allow for Coordination Across Existing Programs. Existing
    federal programs remain disjointed which does not harness the full
    power of available programs and funding. If not already in place, FEMA
    must seek the appropriate authorities to leverage various mitigation
    programs across the federal interagency to reduce administrative
    burdens and ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds.
        5.  Maintain a Minimum Set-Aside for All Applicants. A minimum set-
    aside allows those small or rural states a fair chance to compete for
    mitigation projects while also rewarding disaster-prone states which
    already support large mitigation initiatives.
        6.  Support and Enhance Planning and Traditional Projects. While
    large infrastructure projects remain the hallmark of the new mitigation
    program, the underlying need for building capacity and supporting
    traditional projects is paramount to achieving nationwide resilience.
        7.  Rethink the Notice of Priorities, Application Process, and
    Award Cycles. The establishment of priorities, the overall application
    process, and even common assumptions on traditional award cycles should
    be challenged, streamlined, and improved if barriers exist.
        8.  Build Implementation Capacity Through Technical Assistance.
    Large infrastructure projects require expertise from across federal,
    state, and local agencies. Grantees and FEMA must reach across other
    partners and stakeholders in all aspects of this new program from
    setting priorities, aligning projects, and implementing strategies.
        9.  Offer Flexibility in Benefit-Cost Analysis Approaches. The
    current Benefit-Cost Analysis is cumbersome and unfair to small and
    rural states. While making changes to the overarching programs, the
    Benefit-Cost Analysis must be simplified with a more level playing
    field.

        Question 11. We are just beginning to assess the response to the
    2020 BRIC grant cycle. Can or has NEMA already identify areas which
    need to be improved or challenges that need to be addressed?
        Answer. Given that local communities are on the front lines of
    fighting the battle against climate change and disasters, they
    understand more clearly the threats and hazards facing their
    communities. Thus, Congress should give FEMA the flexibility to
    maximize BRIC funds by exploring a combination of competitive and
    formula-based awards. This will allow states to administer BRIC grants
    and will better-align mitigation priorities across all levels of
    government.
        The program must also be fully funded. Up to six percent of the
    previous year's disasters losses are available for the program. In
    2020, despite over $900 million in funding availability, the
    administration only authorized $500 million in BRIC funding. Demand far
    outpaced the available funding in this grant cycle. Additional funding,
    to include the full six percent of COVID-19 disaster losses from 2020
    should be included in the 2021 cycle.

        Question 12. State and local officials often mention the challenges
    they face in implementing and enforcing codes, largely due to a lack of
    resources. What more could the federal government do to help states and
    communities overcome this hurdle?
        Answer. The federal government should incentivize state and local
    adoption of strong building codes based on national standards and the
    hazards of the region. In many states, legislatures can take action on
    the matter by implementing statewide building code requirements. The
    federal government should provide resources to states to make this a
    reality, as well as support states and communities that are unable to
    unilaterally make these changes. NEMA is positioned to assist state
    emergency managers in state-action on building codes.

        Question 13. In November 2020, a FEMA study found that over a 20-
    year period, cities and counties with modern building codes would avoid
    at least $32 billion in losses from natural disasters, when compared to
    jurisdictions without the same codes. What steps can FEMA take to
    further promote and help communities adopt modern building codes?
        Answer. While not all codes are appropriate in all instances,
    ensuring building codes meet the needs of a locality and its hazard
    profile has a demonstrated impact on community resilience in the event
    of a disaster. FEMA programs should be careful not to usurp state
    authority in setting building codes appropriate to a variety of
    situations based on local conditions; however, FEMA can incentivize
    adoption of building codes through administration of grant funds and
    provide additional resources to assist communities in updating building
    codes.

        Question 14. Building departments are charged with protecting their
    communities and ensuring construction adheres to the building codes and
    resiliency requirements their jurisdiction has adopted. Many of these
    departments relied on paper-based processes prior to the pandemic and
    had to quickly adapt to work remotely--presenting challenges to their
    efforts. As Congress considers investments in infrastructure, should
    resources be provided to assist building departments in modernization,
    resulting in more efficient processes while maintaining their public
    protection mission? Does NEMA feel these resources should pass through
    emergency management agencies to building officials, or directly to
    state building agencies?
        Answer. The day to day management of building codes is the
    responsibility of building officials, but emergency managers must be
    able to provide consultation on local and regional hazards. While
    resources to address these challenges could go directly to building
    officials, they should include stipulations that require input from the
    local emergency manager. Emergency managers understand the broader
    implications of disaster risk and are uniquely positioned to apply a
    strategic perspective to the issue of building codes. Similarly,
    emergency managers are not involved in the technical execution of
    infrastructure projects (e.g., roads) but should provide input into the
    process from a risk reduction perspective. In summary, emergency
    managers should have equal/fair representation in the planning and
    building code adoption process.

        Question 15. We know that the adoption of the latest edition of the
    building code gives the greatest return on investment--$11 for every $1
    invested. What can be done federally to incentivize states to adopt and
    enforce model statewide building codes?
        Answer. FEMA has stated that it wishes to support the adoption of
    appropriate building codes through programs such as BRIC but if
    applicants are disadvantaged due to their older building codes and are
    unable to obtain funding for those projects it only perpetuates a cycle
    that leaves buildings and people less safe. Especially in the initial
    years of the BRIC process, we encourage FEMA to be understanding of the
    different status of codes nationwide and work collaboratively and not
    punitively to support the states as they work to raise their building
    code standards.

        Question 16. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
    modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
    and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
    public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
    structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
    building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
    the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
    best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
        Answer. In recent years, NEMA's state-based membership has evolved
    to accept ``consensus-based building code'' requirements in many cases.
    While this still interferes with the ability for states to set their
    own requirements, it at least sets a baseline of quality while avoiding
    more onerous requirements such as ``modern'' building codes.

        Question 17. It seems that even across FEMA's programs, there is
    not the uniform application of consensus-based codes and standards
    (Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the
    National Flood Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent
    application across the numerous federal programs that drive investments
    in resilience and mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive
    orders effectively reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management
    Standard. Should there be a legislative requirement that the
    investments of all federal funds in built infrastructure follow these
    foundational flood requirements?
        Answer. Federal grant funds to state and local communities should
    be focused on providing flexible solutions to state and local risk
    problems. The federal government should not be investing in projects
    that fail to eliminate long-term risk to disasters. In the same vein,
    FEMA and other granting organizations should avoid overly prescriptive
    requirements that increase barriers to entry for vulnerable and
    disenfranchised communities.

        Question 18. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
    mitigation? How can those be overcome?
        Answer. Across the nation households are struggling to meet the
    basic requirements of daily life. While there are a number of actions
    households can take to reduce their disaster risk, they are oftentimes
    cost prohibitive or not in line with the immediate priorities of the
    family. A nationwide campaign to inform homeowners of the concrete
    steps is a first step in raising awareness of hazards and what can be
    done to lessen said hazards. The federal government also can provide
    incentives for homeowner action through tax credits for eligible
    actions.
        Aside from existing homes, new construction standards should be
    based upon consensus building codes for the area and lessen the impacts
    of hazard impact on individual homes. This includes limiting future
    development in high-hazard areas and installing hazard mitigation
    solutions in new construction like tornado safe rooms in areas
    vulnerable to tornadoes. Other steps, including mandatory residential
    sprinkler systems have been shown to drastically reduce losses and save
    lives.

        Question 19. What actions can Congress take that would be most
    effective in supporting the resilience of low- and moderate-income
    families?
        Answer. The first action Congress can take to most effectively
    support the resilience of low- and moderate-income families is to
    ensure federal programs maintain the necessary flexibility to allow
    states to serve those populations. In addition to providing flexibility
    to states, Congress should not over-prescribe requirements on FEMA,
    thereby allowing the states and FEMA to work together in making sure
    programs are best tailored to the conditions of individual communities.
        Broadening the definition of small, impoverished communities will
    provide a pathway for more low- and moderate-income families to access
    the increased Federal cost-share and reduce financial barriers to
    implementing mitigation.

        Question 20. In its recent equity report, FEMA's National Advisory
    Committee stated that throughout the entire disaster cycle, communities
    that have been underserved stay underserved, and thereby suffer
    needlessly and unjustly. How could FEMA better target federal
    assistance to communities of low- to middle-income, and communities who
    have been historically and disproportionately disadvantaged?
        Answer. FEMA could target federal assistance to communities of low-
    to middle-income, and communities who have been disadvantaged by:
          Providing easier access and simplifying FEMA disaster
    assistance programs so that rural communities and disadvantaged
    individuals/families can apply and receive assistance;
          Reviewing all grant programs through an equity lens to
    determine whether funding increases or decreases equity over time, and
    make necessary adjustments; and
          Targeting preparedness and mitigation resources to
    communities that are most in need of federal funding to build
    resilience in those communities.

        Question 21. According to the First Street Foundation there are
    nearly 4.3 million homes across the U.S. with substantial flood risk
    that would result in financial loss. The analysis indicates that if
    these homes were to be insured against flood risk through the National
    Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the rates would need to increase to
    cover the risk today, and that the cost of expected annual loss of
    properties in the next 30 years will grow by as much as 61% due to
    climate change. Do you think Congress should compel FEMA to develop an
    affordability program under the NFIP? If so, how urgent is the need,
    especially for low- and fixed income, historically disadvantaged
    communities and communities of color?
        Answer. The National Flood Insurance Program does not fall under
    the emergency management agency in most states. NEMA believes, however,
    that Congress should do all it can to ensure a robust, affordable,
    solvent, and effective flood insurance program available to the
    broadest population of eligible residents.

        Question 22. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
    partnerships to help educate and promote resilience and overcome
    potential obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing
    in resilience?
        Answer. Building relationships and trust are the most critical
    elements of forging creative partnerships between the private and
    public sectors to help educate and promote resilience. The biggest
    obstacle that has plagued the public private partnership conversation
    is the myth that you have to give something to get something. After
    what we have seen and experienced this past year, we should all have a
    better understanding of what community is and that we are all in this
    together.
        Recent changes in funding programs have opened the door to a
    community's ability to apply the whole of community approach but the
    education on how to implement and engage is lacking. Some stakeholders
    have expressed concern that smaller projects or funding for planning
    may be less likely to obtain support through programs like FEMA's
    Building Resilience Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program, and
    that small, impoverished, or rural communities may not have the
    capacity to apply for and administer the larger amounts which could be
    funded by such programs.
        In addition to federally funded programs, Congress could consider a
    program similar to a medical thrift savings plan translated to disaster
    preparedness and resilience initiatives. This could mean that an
    individual and businesses could participate by directing pre-tax
    dollars toward preparedness and resilience efforts for themselves and
    their employees. Similar to a medical savings plan, specific activities
    would be pre-determined as being eligible. Private sector partners
    could, and likely would, promote these programs internally and benefit
    from the outcomes and the tax breaks. For example, a business could
    match savings and implement preparedness programs teaching and
    supporting employees to build personal plans and put policies and
    protocols in place for how they deal with disasters. Similarly,
    individuals who participate could direct money towards priorities such
    as flood insurance, preparedness kits, home generators, and disaster
    savings.
        The full solution to developing these relationships, however, do
    not and cannot rest solely with Congress. Another obstacle that needs
    to be considered are the various regulations and laws currently in
    place in each state dictating the way in which states and locals can
    engage with the private sector. Each state must determine what if any
    legislative changes need to be made to enable these partnerships to
    flourish.

     Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Russell J. Strickland, Executive
       Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the
                   National Emergency Management Association

        Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
    vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
    minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
    yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
    state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
    implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
    vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
    mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
    participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
    a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
    property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
        a.  What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
    assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
    in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
    standards?
        Answer. FEMA must reduce the complexity of the grant programs the
    agency administers in all program areas. This includes making Public
    Assistance funding that is used to rebuild public infrastructure
    flexible enough to not only recover but also build back stronger, while
    simultaneously applying the principles of mitigation in the recovery
    process.
        With regard to FEMA's Individual Assistance (IA) Program, efforts
    should be made to continue to streamline the process and lessen the
    administrative burden on survivors. This includes continuing to embrace
    strategies to shift the burden from survivors to FEMA staff, and
    working to implement known challenges in the administration of the IA
    program.
        FEMA should have field staff who can immediately deploy and begin
    the process of appraising structures as an effort to streamline this
    process for individuals and communities. The current standard practice
    is that the homeowner and/or community hire an appraiser and are
    reimbursed once the project is approved.
        Based on the state-specific issues inherent with this question,
    however, we recommend consulting with the Mississippi Emergency
    Management Agency for further elaboration.

        b.  Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
    mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
    following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
    new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
    allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
        Answer. FEMA should look to the real estate market to identify
    opportunities to expedite the buyout process following disasters.
    Disaster survivors are not able to wait several months to relocate or
    find alternative housing. In addition to expediting the time required
    to develop an application and receive FEMA funding, FEMA should offer
    support services for relocation. These include social services required
    when individuals are unexpectedly relocated from their homes. For low-
    and moderate-income families, they may be limited on how far they can
    move from their existing homes due to transportation, employment, and
    other factors. FEMA should coordinate with other agencies in order to
    provide these types of social services to assist in relocation.
        Based on the state-specific issues inherent with this question,
    however, we recommend consulting with the Mississippi Emergency
    Management Agency for further elaboration.

      Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to Roy E.
    Wright, President and Chief Executive Officer, Insurance Institute for
                            Business and Home Safety

        Question 1. You indicated during the hearing that your organization
    had done follow-on studies about how Hurricane Michael affected the
    Florida Panhandle, including the importance of building codes. Could
    you please detail for us the findings with specific attention to homes
    built prior to 2000, prior to 2008, and over the past decade?
        Answer. The IBHS damage assessment for Hurricane Michael focused on
    the initial landfall location near Panama City, Florida. This allowed
    the team to investigate structural performance of residential
    construction in the area of highest winds and in lower wind speed areas
    west of the storm track to obtain a cross-section of performance of
    residential construction across the various wind speed zones.
        Although IBHS was not able to assess houses based on year of
    construction in this study, IBHS did observe that newer residential
    buildings built under the modern Florida building codes as compared to
    older construction. In addition, IBHS observed that FORTIFIED
    construction proved effective for minimizing wind damage in the
    hardest-hit area of Mexico Beach. Another nearby FORTIFIED residence
    demonstrated the added advantage of elevating the structure to minimize
    the effects of storm surge. Further, construction practices for the
    Habitat for Humanity's Habitat Strong residences (which encourages
    beyond-code construction techniques based on those of the FORTIFIED
    Home program) proved effective, as these structures performed better
    than many of the surrounding structures when subjected to winds near
    the design level. This finding demonstrates that resilience is possible
    across all levels of home values.
        Aerial images available from NOAA also provide points of comparison
    between homes constructed to the Fortified standard and neighboring
    houses. The below image demonstrates that the roof on the circled
    Fortified house, located above the canal, performed better than the
    roofs on the line of houses, built in the 2004-2006 time frame
    according to real estate records, on the other side of the canal.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Question 2. You highlighted the need to target investments in
    expanding and modernizing building code implementation through the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Building Resilient
    Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. Could you please provide
    specific details on your recommendation?
        Answer. Congress can amend the Stafford Act to direct FEMA's
    Building Resilient Infrastructures and Communities (BRIC) program to
    create set-asides to incentivize new state-level building code
    enactment, modernization, and enforcement. These funds should target
    the creation and expansion of building code activities, not simply fund
    what is ongoing in given jurisdiction. These funds would be most
    effective if used to catalyze advancement in building code adoption and
    enforcement, not as a stream of ongoing financial support.

        Question 3. You spoke at length in your testimony about housing as
    infrastructure. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
    mitigation? What specific actions do you suggest Congress take to
    address this infrastructure need while advancing resilience, both for
    new and existing construction, and also for low- and moderate-income
    families?
        Answer. The two most significant obstacles for residential
    mitigation are risk awareness and funding. Regarding the first
    obstacle, social science suggests that effectively evaluating risk--
    particularly high impact, low likelihood risk like natural disasters--
    is challenging for most people. When it comes to natural perils, people
    usually feel more protected than they are. To overcome this obstacle,
    Congress should direct federal agencies to make more climate- and
    natural disaster-related data available to the public. This will allow
    both the public and private sector to use this data to shape policies,
    inform communities and individuals, and develop market-based solutions
    to risk.
        Regarding the second obstacle, different types of financial
    incentives and support mechanisms are needed to provide funding for
    residential resilience. This includes:
          Tax credits for eligible expenses paid by individuals and
    businesses for purchases that help reduce potential damage from
    hurricanes, flooding, and other forms of natural disaster. Making these
    tax credits transferable would make them a useful financial resource
    for low- and moderate-income families that otherwise would not be able
    to take advantage of the credits.
          Ending federal taxation for of the benefits individuals
    and businesses receive from state-based catastrophe-loss mitigation
    programs.
          Creating resilience set-asides within funding
    authorization for existing affordable housing programs. Investing in
    resilience and energy- and water-efficiency for housing for low- and
    moderate-income families ensures that those homes have lowered monthly
    utility and insurance costs and are more able to avoid damage in future
    natural disasters. This creates a framework in which those homes are
    enduringly affordable--and not just affordable on the day of purchase.

        Question 4. Our water infrastructure has proven time and again to
    be vulnerable to be heat and seismic events. We have learned that some
    water systems have been contaminated in the wake of wildfire due to
    melting pipelines. What can we do to strengthen key infrastructure
    against these risks?
        Answer. IBHS research does not extend to the components of water
    infrastructure. As with other types of infrastructure, however, water
    infrastructure should be built to both current consensus standards (if
    available) and be able to withstand knowable risks for a thirty-year
    period. Put another way, infrastructure should only need to be built
    once in a generation. Moreover, existing infrastructure need not be
    rebuilt in every instance to make it resilient to knowable natural
    perils. For example, replacing materials that can melt during wildfires
    could be a more cost-effective resilient-enhancing investment than
    replacing whole water infrastructure systems.

        Question 5. Wildfires in western states have been devastating to
    the lives of so many survivors and communities. In the wake of every
    fire, we worry about the next one. How can Congress provide new tools
    to mitigate against the risk of wildfires and prepare before wildfires
    strike?
        Answer. Wildfire risk to homes, businesses, and communities can be
    reduced but it cannot be eliminated. In part, this is because the
    intensity of wildfires varies in parcel scale, and wildfire-resistant
    building materials and designs that are effective up to a certain
    thermal exposure are limited once these thresholds are met. The
    insurance industry's understanding of wildfire risk and the steps that
    can make homes and communities more resilient is improving. We know a
    variety of mitigation actions at different price points that can
    decrease a home's resilience to wildfire. Notwithstanding this initial
    progress, developing a collective understanding of the various dynamics
    of wildfire risk is complicated by the interdependencies in densely
    developed suburban neighborhoods, where resilience-enhancing actions by
    one homeowner can be undermined by a neighbor's failure to take proper
    actions. In addition, because of the importance of defensible space,
    ongoing property maintenance (including but not limited to controlling
    vegetation) makes it very difficult to assess a home's vulnerability
    over time.
        Due to the interdependence of homes that make up a community when
    it comes to wildfire risk and resilience, Congress should consider ways
    to incentivize or financial support whole neighborhoods to take
    consistent resilience actions that will maximize the benefits for all
    members of the neighborhood.

        Question 6. How can FEMA better help communities identify and
    implement hazard mitigation and disaster resilience efforts that will
    have the greatest impact on reducing community risk?
        Answer. FEMA could work with communities--particularly those that
    face heightened risk of natural perils and have high levels of
    socioeconomic vulnerability--to develop community-wide resilience
    projects that can be put into place should funding--through federal
    programs or private sector investment--become available. FEMA, along
    with the Army Corps of Engineers and other relevant federal departments
    and agencies, can provide technical assistance by collaborating with
    State Hazard Mitigation Officers and local officials to develop such
    projects. Congress can consider additional funding to support technical
    assistance for such communities.
        To the extent Congress enacts a Community Resilience Development
    Zone program with a related bond program--as referenced in my March
    18th testimony--or a community wants to apply for BRIC funding in the
    future, pre-planned projects benefiting from technical assistance from
    federal agencies and departments would be particularly useful.

        Question 7. What actions should federal agencies take to help the
    nation achieve greater disaster resilience? For example, what
    opportunities exist for federal agencies to ``mainstream'' risk
    reduction, by integrating disaster resilience goals and activities into
    all their missions and initiatives?
        Answer. All government programs and investments that have bearing
    on the built environment should take natural disaster resilience into
    account, such that federally funded projects need only be built once
    during a generation. The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
    (FFRMS), which requires that federally funded projects be resilient to
    flood hazard, exemplifies this approach. The common-sense purpose of
    the FFRMS is to provide reasonable assurance that the American taxpayer
    need not pay twice for the same project. Congress should enshrine the
    FFRMS in statute so it cannot be revoked by executive order, and expand
    it to require that federally funded projects be designed and built for
    resilience to other significant natural perils, including high winds
    and wildfire.
        Government coordination on resilience and risk reduction--such as
    what already occurs at the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group
    (MitFLG)--can help integrate disaster resilience and activities into a
    broader set of governmental missions and initiatives. The National
    Mitigation Investment Strategy, developed by the MitFLG, is one example
    of this type of coordination. In addition, the nation would benefit
    from the development of a National Climate Resilience Strategy, which
    should focus specifically on building climate resilience into
    communities, services, built infrastructure, and natural and working
    lands. Like the FFRMS but with a broader focus, such a strategy could
    assess the expenditures and programmatic decisions of every federal
    agency--including procurement, grants, and loans--through a climate
    resilience lens.

        Question 8. The BRIC program offers the opportunity for the nation
    to make sizable investments in disaster risk reduction. How can FEMA
    administer BRIC to ensure effective reduction of risk to whole systems,
    communities, and regions rather than as a ``pre-disaster mitigation on
    steroids'' that invests more money using the same fragmented, stove-
    piped, and parochial approaches that historically has failed to result
    in significant overall risk reduction or address the nation's most
    significant infrastructure and community risks?

        Question 9. We are just beginning to assess the response to the
    2020 BRIC grant cycle. Can we already identify areas which need to be
    improved or challenges that need to be addressed?
        Answer. This response refers to Questions 8 and 9.
        FEMA has a tremendous opportunity to make BRIC the flexible,
    creative, simple, and transformative program it was envisioned as to
    drive resilience on a systemic basis. The following approaches can help
    optimize BRIC to meet the needs of communities across the country.
          Encourage community-wide participation in resilience.
    FEMA should use BRIC to encourage and incentivize holistic approaches
    to SLTT disaster risk reduction that bring a variety of community
    stakeholders into the planning and carrying out of resilience-enhancing
    projects and programs. Resilience is not solely an emergency management
    issues--community disaster reduction must also include input from
    stakeholders representing housing, public works, transportation, and
    other forms of infrastructure. FEMA should use the BRIC application
    process to encourage SLTTs to bring together these stakeholders to
    develop projects that improve community resilience holistically.
    Additionally, FEMA should ensure that BRIC funding goes to support
    projects that improve resilience to all natural hazards--including
    wildfire and wind--and not just flood projects.
          Improve access and equity. Too many communities lack the
    technical capability to develop projects that would qualify for BRIC
    funding and the financial capacity to pay the 25% state cost-share for
    BRIC funding. This lack of capability and capacity may create a
    significant barrier for underserved communities with small tax bases
    and fewer resources in taking advantage of the program--an inherently
    inequitable outcome that runs contrary to the purpose of BRIC. Congress
    can address this issue by funding additional technical assistance for
    underserved communities and by allowing greater flexibility for the
    state cost-share of BRIC funds (i) by allowing states to buy down their
    share through resilience-advancing actions like smart land use and
    modern building codes, and (ii) by allowing SLTT entities to partner
    with private and philanthropic sources to pay for some of the cost
    share. While SLTTs should always have some skin in the game, greater
    flexibility in putting together the state cost-share will make BRIC
    more meaningful for underserved communities and, thus, more equitable.
          Encourage residential resilience. The BRIC program could
    be better calibrated to fund residential resilience projects. This
    could be accomplished through the creation of a pilot program to
    establish residential resilience grant programs and by streamlining the
    application process to make it easier for projects involving multiple
    structures to qualify for funding by instituting a benefit cost
    analysis (BCA) waiver for SLTT initiatives that fund certain kinds of
    residential resilience projects.
          Integrate Stafford Act funding. BRIC and HMGP have
    similar resilience goals and more could be done to integrate how the
    programs operate and fund resilience projects. Successful BRIC
    applicants should be able to access HMGP funds to spend down unused
    funds in the post-disaster program--this will alleviate challenges
    associated with BRIC oversubscription. Additionally, if HMGP funds
    expire, they should automatically roll over to BRIC to provide
    additional funds for that program.

        Question 10. State and local officials often mention the challenges
    they face in implementing and enforcing codes, largely due to a lack of
    resources. What more could the federal government do to help states and
    communities overcome this hurdle?

        Question 11. In November 2020, a FEMA study found that over a 20-
    year period, cities and counties with modern building codes would avoid
    at least $32 billion in losses from natural disasters, when compared to
    jurisdictions without modern building codes. What steps can FEMA take
    to further promote and help communities adopt modern building codes?

        Question 12. We know that the adoption of the latest edition of the
    building code gives the greatest return on investment--$11 for every $1
    invested. What can be done federally to incentivize states to adopt and
    enforce model statewide building codes?
        Answer. This response refers to Questions 10, 11 and 12. A
    mitigation provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 included new
    Public Assistance cost-share incentives for states to invest in
    resilience, including an increased federal share (up to 10 percent
    more) for Stafford Act funding to states and territories that undertake
    eligible mitigation actions like adopting current building codes.
    Congress can amend the Stafford Act to give FEMA the flexibility to use
    a portion of the cost-share for all disaster relief and mitigation
    programs as a tool to encourage strong building codes and other pro-
    resilience actions by SLTTs.
        In addition, Congress can amend the Stafford Act to direct FEMA's
    BRIC program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to create set-
    asides to incentivize new state-level building code enactment,
    modernization, and enforcement. These funds should target the creation
    and expansion of building code activities, not simply fund what is
    ongoing in given jurisdiction.

        Question 13. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
    modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
    and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
    public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
    structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
    building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
    the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
    best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
        Answer. The FEMA Building Codes Save report makes clear that the
    adoption of the latest edition of the building code gives the greatest
    return on investment--$11 for every $1 invested. Legislation requiring
    that federal investments in infrastructure meet current, consensus-
    based building codes and be resilient to knowable natural hazard risks
    would provide an assurance that the American taxpayer need not pay
    twice for the same project. In some instances, consensus-driven model
    building codes may not provide the greatest appropriate protection from
    knowable risks such as high winds or wildfire. Where available,
    Congress should mandate the use of science-based resilience standards--
    such as IBHS's FORTIFIED standards--to ensure that federally-funded
    infrastructure only needs to be built once during a generation.

        Question 14. It seems that even across FEMA's programs, there is
    not the uniform application of consensus-based codes and standards
    (Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the
    National Flood Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent
    application across the numerous federal programs that drive investments
    in resilience and mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive
    orders effectively reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management
    Standard. Should there be a legislative requirement that the
    investments of all federal funds in built infrastructure follow these
    foundational flood requirements?
        Answer. Legislation is more stable and long-lasting than executive
    order. The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) represents an
    important principle: that federally funded projects should be built to
    withstanding knowable risks, so they last for at least a full
    generation. By passing legislation consistent with FFRMS, Congress
    would enshrine this principle in statute and protect it from future
    revocation by executive order. However, flood is not the only known
    natural peril that endangers federally funded projects. Congress should
    go beyond the FFRMS to require that all federally funded projects be
    designed and built for resilience to all knowable natural hazard risks,
    including high winds and wildfire.

        Question 15. Can you please comment on the work that IBHS is doing
    to protect Americans who live in the Midwest and other inland areas
    from the weather disasters that affect these areas of the country?
        Answer. IBHS research into wind, wind-driven rain, and hail are all
    very relevant to Americans who live in the Midwest and other inland
    areas. IBHS research has taught us that wind is wind--whether the wind
    is associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, or severe convective storms.
    The same lessons that hurricane coast has learned over years of
    landfalling hurricanes can protect communities from high winds in
    severe thunderstorms, derechos, and tornadoes. Wind will attack a home
    or business and find the weakest element. Once wind begins to attack a
    home, it often leads to a cascade of damage including costly water
    intrusion. These high winds can push a garage door inward, allowing
    pressure to build inside the garage and push up on the roof and
    surrounding walls--often resulting in major damage to the home and
    displacing families.
        IBHS also has invested resources in better understanding the way
    that hail damages homes and other structures. We developed a roof
    shingle hail impact test to provide insights into the performance of
    shingles labeled as impact resistant. Homeowners in the Midwest and
    inland areas subject to hailstorms can use the IBHS shingle hail impact
    performance ratings to make informed decisions when they replace their
    roof or build a new home.
        Separately or together, wind, rain and hail can cause significant
    damage to roofs and homes. In response, IBHS developed the FORTIFIED
    Home--High Wind & Hail resilience standard, which--in addition to
    meeting the requirements set out in IBHS's FORTIFIED Roof resilience
    standard--requires that the roof use high performing impact-resistant
    shingles rated good or excellent by IBHS. These actions can narrow the
    path of damage and reduce disruption and displacement so often caused
    by these storms.

        Question 16. Can you give some examples how federal legislation
    could draw upon the work of IBHS to help protect Americans from the
    weather disasters they face today, and the weather effects of climate
    change?
        Answer. IBHS delivers top-tier science and translates it into
    action so we can prevent avoidable suffering, strengthen our homes and
    businesses, inform the insurance industry, and support thriving
    communities. One of the ways we translate our science into action is
    through the development of beyond-code resilience standards (e.g.,
    FORTIFIED Home and Commercial) and mitigation guidance documents (e.g.,
    our Wildfire Ready Guide, Thunderstorm Ready Guide, and Hurricane Ready
    Guide). Federal legislation could draw upon these standards and guides
    to structure resilience programs. For instance, the proposed Disaster
    Savings and Resilient Construction Act explicitly references FORTIFIED
    as meeting the resiliency requirements needed to qualify for a tax
    credit. FORTIFIED could also be used as one component to a legislative
    ``building back better'' requirement for post-disaster relief programs
    like HUD's Community Disaster Block Grant-Disaster Relief program.

        Question 17. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
    partnerships help educate and promote resilience and overcome potential
    obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing in
    resilience?
        Answer. In my March 18th testimony, I highlighted the importance an
    ``all of the above'' approach to strengthening climate change
    adaptation and residential resilience. This approach includes a need
    for creative partnerships between the private sector and public sector.
    One example of this kind of collaboration is the analytical tool
    developed by the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA), using
    federal data, that I referenced in my oral and written testimony. This
    tool allows the private and public sector to identify communities that
    have high exposure to natural perils and high levels of socioeconomic
    vulnerability. Using this tool, Congress could establish programs that
    encourage private sector financing of resilience projects that could
    make a meaningful difference for those communities, particularly when
    paired with government programs in the affordable housing, pre-disaster
    mitigation, and economic development space that also seek to strengthen
    resilience for families, businesses, and communities. Creativity in not
    just educating consumers but layering different funding opportunities
    for communities that need the most help is an important way we can
    collectively increase resilience and adapt to climate change.

        Question 18. Is there a role for the insurance industry to help
    bridge the coverage gap, provide risk identification and data, and
    leverage resources to help communities successfully mitigation disaster
    risks?
        Answer. Yes. The insurance industry has the expertise and capacity
    to work with communities all over the United States to help bridge the
    coverage gap, provide risk identification and data, and leverage
    resources to help communities successfully mitigation disaster risks.
    However, Congress should reconsider existing programs which
    disincentivize SLTTs from taking full advantage of private market
    insurance solutions. FEMA funding should not take the place of
    insurance.

    Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Roy E. Wright, President and Chief
      Executive Officer, Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety

        Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
    vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
    minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
    yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
    state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
    implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
    vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
    mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
    participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
    a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
    property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
        a.  What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
    assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
    in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
    standards?
        Answer. The time following a natural disaster, particularly one
    which displaces a family, is the worst time to contend with government
    bureaucracy. The process by which homeowners apply for post-disaster
    relief from FEMA, HUD, and SBA should be simplified and streamlined.
    Congress can direct these agencies and departments to develop a single
    application and tracking process to support Americans seeking
    government aid when they are most vulnerable.

        b.  Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
    mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
    following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
    new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
    allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
        Answer. Too often, the FEMA mitigation acquisition program for
    residential structures takes too long. These choices, often difficult
    for a homeowner, are best made immediately after the disaster--before
    major repair and rebuilding activities begin. Speed matters. If a
    homeowner has already rebuilt, the incentive to participate in the
    acquisition program fades. If the residential acquisition strategy was
    implemented within 30 days of the disaster, survivors would be able to
    use the authorized Individual Assistance programs for temporary housing
    needs.

       Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to Velma
    Smith, Senior Government Relations Officer, Flood-Prepared Communities
                     Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts

        Question 1. How can the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
    better help communities identify and implement hazard mitigation and
    disaster resilience efforts that will have the greatest impact on
    reducing community risk?
        Answer. Given that flooding events have long been the most common
    and costly natural disasters in the United States and that the science
    in this field is advancing rapidly, Pew recommends that FEMA prioritize
    improved information sharing in this area. Most importantly, FEMA
    should work to provide an initial or preliminary set of complete flood
    maps for communities all across the country and to assure that every
    community has the opportunity to engage in a local RISK MAP public
    meeting.
        Basic information about flood risk is a fundamental building block
    for resilience--the means by which communities can understand the
    extent of their existing vulnerabilities as well as the factors that
    may exacerbate or ameliorate those vulnerabilities over time. Armed
    with a recognition of the dynamic nature of flood risk, a deeper
    understanding of current risks, and a sense of what factors drive the
    risk for a given community, local and state decision-makers can address
    existing problems and safeguard the community from future disasters,
    choosing sensible locations for new public infrastructure investments,
    adopting appropriate land use and zoning controls, and selecting the
    adaptation or mitigation actions that will provide the greatest
    benefits.
        FEMA's National Flood Mapping Program, authorized by Congress as
    part of NFIP reform in 2012, mandates that a complete set of flood risk
    data be provided to communities. This includes 100-year and 500-year
    flood elevations in all areas that potentially could be developed as
    well as residual risk information as it relates to flood control
    structures and dams (like dam failure inundation mapping) and future
    conditions information. Pew believes that if communities were provided
    what Congress has mandated, they would begin to have a clear picture of
    overall flood risk. Unfortunately, what FEMA is providing communities
    today is not complete. While the Agency does a credible job in
    maintaining currency of existing flood hazard data, it struggles to
    provide new flood hazard data in areas that have not yet been mapped
    and has not yet begun to provide either residual risk or future
    conditions data.
        Such a mapping effort would require substantial increases in
    funding. In 2019, FEMA testified that based on current appropriations,
    they cannot provide complete flood maps for all communities in the
    nation. With only about one-third of the nation's land area currently
    mapped for flood hazards, expanded coverage across the country would be
    major undertaking--something of a moonshot for FEMA's mapping program.
    For some areas, then, it may be reasonable to allow for a departure
    from the most sophisticated and detailed methods of hydrologic and
    hydraulic analysis that precede formal adoption of flood maps by local
    governments. Instead, the Agency may be able to use base level
    engineering or other methods appropriate on a broad geographic scale to
    build the understanding of flood risk in areas where little knowledge
    exists. See, for example, the information available to supplement
    official flood map information in FEMA region 6: https://
    webapps.usgs.gov/infrm/estbfe/ .

        Question 2. What actions should federal agencies take to help the
    nation achieve greater disaster resilience? For example, what
    opportunities exist for federal agencies to ``mainstream'' risk
    reduction, by integrating disaster resilience goals and activities into
    all their missions and initiatives?
        Answer. The goal of ``mainstreaming'' adaptation and risk reduction
    is an important one, not only for federal agencies but also for states,
    local communities, non-profit institutions and businesses of all sizes.
    Ultimately, policies should drive not just a certain number of
    resilience projects or actions but the creation of a resilience culture
    in which planning for future disasters is incorporated into the range
    of decision-making regarding where and how to build.
        To create this culture of resiliency, the Federal government can
    lead by example, establishing resiliency leadership positions within a
    multitude of agencies, from the White House on down, including, for
    example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as the
    Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Commerce, the
    Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    and assuring that resilience personnel work collaboratively,
    communicate with regularity, and share scientific knowledge and the
    lessons learned from disaster experience. In our view, those positions
    will be effective only if they are adequately resourced and provided
    with the authority and staffing to assure that resilience objectives
    and strategies can be integrated into the day-to-day decision-making
    within those agencies.
        An important report released in 2010 offers a perspective on this
    point of integration. Under contract to FEMA, the American Planning
    Association looked at the extent--or the lack thereof--to which local
    hazard mitigation plans were actually integrated into key local
    decision frameworks. The study demonstrated that many of the hazard
    mitigation plans that had been produced to that point had,
    unfortunately, been essentially ignored as the same communities updated
    comprehensive plans, adopted zoning and subdivision requirements, and
    laid out plans for capital spending on infrastructure and economic
    development. Many plans reviewed--though they served to qualify
    communities for federal disaster assistance and provided a basic
    assessment of local vulnerabilities--were relegated to bookshelves and
    files, rather than used as guideposts to improve local decision-making.
        While this study was specific to local planning, it illustrates
    that challenge for all levels of government and what we would hope the
    federal government will model for others: Resiliency is not
    accomplished simply by report production and appointments. It requires
    an ongoing commitment to assessing and understanding risks, including
    the trajectory of future risks, and to making decisions and deploying
    resources that will mitigate against those risks. It must also be an
    iterative process--with decision-makers taking care to observe the
    results of their choices and improve their adaptive capacity over time.
    Ideally, it will become standard practice--for everything from
    designing roads and bridges to locating affordable housing or critical
    infrastructure--to consider of an array of plausible hazard scenarios
    and to evaluate the consequences of those hazards being realized.
    Decision-makers can then opt for the low-regrets solutions that will
    protect people and property and allow for speedier recovery when
    disasters do occur.
        Pew believes that the federal highway legislation passed out of
    this Committee last year and the measure passed out of the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee offer good models for what will
    be required. Though the two bills differ in many aspects, both include
    provisions that weave disaster preparedness into the existing fabric of
    long-range transportation planning and asset management. It is the
    integration of resilience factors into the everyday decision-making of
    federal programs that is needed, not simply the creation of new,
    isolated silos.
        For the Environmental Protection Agency, this may mean working with
    states to integrate resilience assessments and actions into the
    intended use plans for water and wastewater utility spending; for the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development, collaboration with states
    and localities to assure that the consolidated plans that set
    priorities for affordable housing and community development fully
    incorporate data on current and future hazards and include needed
    protection strategies; for the Office of Management and Budget, a
    review of the methods used to judge cost-effectiveness of projects and
    spending with multiplying benefits achieved far into the future or
    those resolving long-standing social equity problems. For the Small
    Business Administration, targeted education and assistance to small
    scale entrepreneurs to help them safeguard their investments and their
    employees in the event of disasters. Again, we would expect different
    solutions in different agencies, and those diverse responses might well
    be a sign of successful integration.

        Question 3. Fewer than 40 percent of FEMA-funded Public Assistance
    projects have included a mitigation component during the period 2010 to
    2018. What can FEMA do to incentivize state and local officials to
    incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-damaged
    facilities?
        Answer. In our view, the most important figure may not be the
    percentage of Public Assistance projects recorded as containing a
    mitigation component. The more troubling numbers are the overall
    statistics that show increasing demands on the permanent work under the
    Public Assistance program.
        Those numbers combined with large demands on the Disaster Relief
    Fund overall and the backlog of commitments under the Federal Highway
    Administration's Emergency Relief program, tell us that too many public
    assets, including roads, fire stations, schools, and utilities, have
    not been planned and built in a fashion that allows them to continue
    functioning or quickly return to functioning following a natural
    disaster. The demand for repair and rebuild monies also indicates that
    many of these assets are either uninsured or underinsured. The United
    States has, as the National Institute for Building Sciences says, an
    enormous ``resilience gap''--a growing gap cannot be filled solely with
    federal assistance. We see multiple opportunities for Congress and the
    Administration to encourage states and localities to take more
    initiative in this area.
        First, FEMA should assure that any rebuilding or major repair work
    to be accomplished with the aid of Public Assistance dollars will
    follow, at a minimum, the latest consensus building codes. Compliance
    with the latest building codes is a common-sense essential for enhanced
    resiliency.
        Pew also believes that federal tax dollars should be conditioned on
    going beyond current codes. As laid out in H.R. 481, the Flood
    Resiliency and Taxpayer Savings Act, federal agencies should be working
    to assure that projects built with federal support consider not just
    today's risk, but the risk that will be encountered over the expected
    or hoped-for design life of a facility. Such requirements can not only
    assure that federal dollars are not squandered on short-lived,
    disaster-vulnerable projects but also compel states and localities to
    begin assessing the options for fortifying and protecting existing
    critical facilities, roadways, public buildings, and utilities. Even in
    cases where a locality does not have the resources at hand to carry out
    improvements or needed mitigation before disaster strikes, a pre-
    disaster assessment of vulnerabilities and possible solutions may allow
    for quicker action on a safer rebuild if disaster strikes. (See support
    letter for H.R. 481 here: https://www.pewtrusts.org/
    -/media/assets/2021/02/national_support_flood_resiliency_and_taxpayer_
    savings_act_of_2020.pdf .)
        Related to this point, Pew also recommends that all post-disaster
    FEMA teams deployed to help with damage assessments include staff who
    are expert in mitigation projects. By identifying mitigation
    opportunities early on, even as inspectors are still in the process of
    assessing damages and tallying the number of substantially damaged
    structures, these experts can address the timing imperatives that drive
    many communities to opt for less protective, but faster build back.
        Pew also supports efforts to update the disaster declaration
    criteria in ways that will reward states that are making significant
    commitments of state resources to pre-disaster action and, over time,
    will lessen the amount of assistance available to states that choose
    not to make those needed investments.
        In comments submitted to FEMA in February of this year, Pew
    recommended consideration of an indexed approach to declaration
    decisions that could incorporate relative disaster risk, social
    vulnerability, and a demonstrated commitment to and investment in
    mitigation. Given the current concerns around declines in budget
    capacity voiced by many states and localities, we also recommended that
    FEMA move forward on this topic, not with a final rulemaking, but by
    convening a working group of key stakeholders to develop
    recommendations and eventual policy changes. The task for such a group
    would be to develop workable policy recommendations that put the nation
    on an effective path to equitably sharing the challenges and burdens of
    natural hazard risk management and preparedness. Ideally, these
    policies would manage federal costs while establishing mechanisms that
    reward forward-thinking, strategic investments in resilience by state
    and local governments. See the Pew comments here: https://
    www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2021/02/pew-comments-fema-2020-
    0038.pdf
        Finally, we would also recommend that the Committee consider
    requiring improved record-keeping and reporting on buildings,
    utilities, and other assets that suffer repeated damages and require
    Public Assistance funding on multiple occasions. Several years ago, the
    Federal Highway Administration finalized a rule that requires states to
    track and report on repeatedly damaged federal highway segments. (See
    an explanation of the requirements of 23 CFR Part 667 here: https://
    www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/23cfr667_qa.cfm.) A similar requirement
    may be appropriate for other infrastructure assets. This record-keeping
    should also cover the extent to which such assets may be uninsured or
    under-insured.

        Question 4. In the latest Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    High-Risk Report, issued early this year, GAO again finds that the
    federal government must reduce its fiscal exposure by managing climate
    change risks and that it has yet to make measurable progress to reduce
    its fiscal exposure to climate change. What do you think the federal
    government ought to do to build or rebuild infrastructure so that it is
    resilient to future conditions of climate change-related impacts such
    as inland and coastal flooding, wildfires, or extreme heat over the
    life-cycle of the project?
        Answer. Since 2013, the GAO has included the fiscal risks
    associated with climate change in its high-risk report series on
    significant government vulnerabilities. The most recent report echoes
    warnings issued earlier and identifies two key imperatives to reducing
    the federal government's fiscal exposure: One is an increase in
    resources dedicated to pre-disaster hazard mitigation, and the second
    is enhanced state and local disaster resilience. We agree, and we urge
    the Committee to consider both sides of this resilience coin.
        In our view, the federal government can and should more generously
    fund pre-disaster mitigation programs, allowing the National Flood
    Insurance Program a higher level of Federal Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
    funding that can go toward buyouts of flood-prone structures, for
    example, or increasing appropriations to NOAA's National Coastal
    Resilience Fund, which can help coastal communities avert flooding
    disasters while they also protect the integrity of sensitive coastal
    ecosystems. Congress could also initiate and seed new state revolving
    loan funds aimed at promoting mitigation and, as this Committee has
    done, work to establish new resiliency grant programs within the
    Department of Transportation.
        At the same time, however, federal policymakers should press their
    state and local counterparts to do their part. States and localities
    are the key decisionmakers when it comes to land use and, with very few
    exceptions, they are the arbiters of where and how new housing
    developments, local schools, hospitals, and businesses will be built.
    They also benefit directly from long-lived, safe infrastructure and
    building within a community, supporting economic development and
    quality of life as well as generating local tax revenues. If local and
    state governments make decisions and investments that promote unsafe
    building in risky areas, however, the need for more mitigation dollars
    and more recovery dollars will never subside. State and local
    governments must be true partners in resilience with assistance from
    the federal government but also with better management of flood and
    hazard risks--promoting growth and development in areas that are high,
    dry, and safe, not in areas that are at high risk of floods and fires.
        Again, we see great value in the framework laid out in H.R. 481 to
    accomplish these objectives. By clearly requiring the sponsors of
    projects funded in whole or in part with federal dollars to assess and
    address future flood risk, federal agencies will promote a vastly
    improved resilience culture. Pew also sees a need for new policies
    regarding disaster declarations and the availability of funding for
    permanent repairs or rebuilding of roadways, utilities, water and
    wastewater treatment plants, and public buildings. Over time, states
    should be scored and rewarded based on their commitment to smart, safe
    building and reasonable mitigation investments.

        Question 5. The Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities
    (BRIC) program offers the opportunity for the nation to make sizable
    investments in disaster risk reduction. How can FEMA administer BRIC to
    ensure effective reduction of risk to whole systems, communities, and
    regions rather than as a ``pre-disaster mitigation on steroids'' that
    invests more money using the same fragmented, stove-piped, and
    parochial approaches that historically have failed to result in
    significant overall risk reduction or address the nation's most
    significant infrastructure and community risks?
        Answer. See answer below.

        Question 6. We are just beginning to assess the response to the
    2020 BRIC grant cycle. Can we already identify areas which need to be
    improved or challenges that need to be addressed?
        Answer. Given that the new BRIC program closed out its first grant
    application period only three months ago, it may be premature to judge
    the failings or successes of this program at this point. We are
    optimistic, however, that the BRIC framework is a good one that can
    give state and local resilience leaders a level of confidence that
    federal mitigation dollars will be a more reliable source of
    assistance.
        As Members know, the Stafford Act's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
    (HMGP) has long been the largest source of federal assistance for
    mitigation projects. But that mitigation money flows only after a
    disaster has occurred--and because the levels of HMGP funding scale off
    the size of other disaster expenditures--after the costs of recovery
    projects have been tallied. In some instances, disaster-struck states
    have opted to use available HMGP dollars in communities other than
    those affected by the most recent disaster, but for the most part HMGP
    has operated as a post-disaster program.
        BRIC's funding levels also scale from the estimated expenditures
    associated with disasters, but the funding allotments are not earmarked
    for specific states. Instead, those monies go into a fund, and states,
    territories, and tribes, along with localities as sub-applicants, may
    apply and compete for assistance without having experienced a recent
    disaster. By de-linking the funding availability from specific
    disasters, the program is able to operate as a true pre-disaster
    program, thus opening the door for assistance to states that may
    already have done a reasonably good job of mitigating their risks but
    hope to do more. And, with FEMA's decision to manage the fund without
    drawing it down to zero each year, states, territories, and tribes may
    be willing to staff up for mitigation and develop in-house expertise,
    rather than relying solely on contract help with large sums are
    suddenly available.
        The available statistics for this first round of applications
    confirm the pressing need for help: While $500 million was available,
    FEMA received requests totaling $3.6 billion. Considering matching
    funds associated with these requests, the total project costs would
    have come in at close to $5.5 billion. While the bulk of the funding
    requested was for project costs, about a third of the applications
    sought assistance for capacity-building--in our view, a positive sign
    that many communities understand the imperative to get smart and get
    going on adaptation.
        While we would withhold final judgment based only on these broad
    numbers, we suspect it may make sense for FEMA to increase the amount
    of technical assistance it offers in the next round of applications.
    Hopefully, if FEMA sees a pattern of small, under-resourced, or highly
    vulnerable communities having difficulty with certain aspects of the
    application process, it will conduct special outreach and/or simplify
    aspects of the program, such as the benefit-cost calculations.
        And, as Pew noted in comments to the Agency as it set up the
    program, we are hopeful that funding that goes toward writing or
    renewing local or state mitigation plans comes along with greater
    scrutiny and pressure to integrate hazard mitigation planning into
    comprehensive planning, zoning, and capital improvements planning.
        We also agree that broader solutions may be called for in many
    instances, and we would note that the FEMA scoring criteria currently
    provides for additional credits for collaborative applications. As this
    first round of funding concludes, we would also suggest that FEMA also
    consider help connect applicants and sub-applicants within a watershed
    or region who may share a common risk and may each be better able to
    solve their local problems with a regional approach that leverages
    knowledge and resources.

        Question 7. State and local officials often mention the challenges
    they face in implementing and enforcing codes, largely due to a lack of
    resources. What more could the federal government to help states and
    communities overcome this hurdle?
        Answer. See answer below.

        Question 8. We know that the adoption of the latest edition of the
    building code gives the greatest return on investment--$11 for every $1
    invested. What can be done federally to incentivize states to adopt and
    enforce model statewide building codes?
        Answer. With recent changes to the Stafford Act, Congress has
    allowed for more federal resources targeted at building code adoption
    and enforcement. FEMA may now assist local governments post-disaster
    when the tasks of inspections and permitting can overwhelm a community
    that has suffered major damage but has limited capacity in a building
    department. The law is also clear that FEMA may consider local
    commitments to adopting and enforcing the most recent code versions as
    it provides financial and technical assistance to applicants. In our
    view, these were appropriate and useful changes.
        FEMA also incentivizes adoption and enforcement of building codes
    through its Community Rating System (CRS), which provides discounts in
    flood insurance to policyholders based on the activities of the local
    government, including the ratings independently released as the
    Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS). These ratings
    produced by Verisk's Insurance Services Office (ISO) consider the level
    of code adoption and enforcement. (See, for example, FEMA's CRS
    guidance https://crsresources.org/manual/ and a summary report on state
    BCEGS https://www.isomitigation.com/siteassets/downloads/iso-bcegs-
    state-report_web.pdf.)
        We also support efforts to ensure that federal dollars are used
    only for projects that incorporate, at a minimum, the most recent
    consensus-based codes and standards, and we applaud states and
    localities that have taken steps to incorporate or promote even
    stronger requirements, including higher freeboard standards and
    stronger roofing requirements. Alabama, for example, uses its
    Strengthen Alabama Homes program to provide grant funding to residents
    of Mobile or Baldwin counties to make improvements to the FORTIFIED
    HomeTM standards Mobile or Baldwin Counties (https://
    www.smarthomeamerica.org/resources/strengthen-alabama-homes), and New
    York City has released Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines (https://
    www1.nyc.gov/assets/orr/pdf/
    NYC_Climate_Resiliency_Design_Guidelines_v4-0.pdf) that will help the
    City ensure that City-funded infrastructure and facilities are built
    withstand the future impacts of extreme weather and climate change.
        Unfortunately, however, incentives as well as significant outreach
    and technical materials produced and disseminated from through FEMA's
    Building Sciences programs, have not yet led to an adequate nationwide
    commitment to building code adoption and enforcement. As a recent
    report from FEMA's National Advisory Council notes:

            ``Pushback from builders and manufacturers that benefit
            financially or otherwise from weaker building codes have
            stunted inclusion of some disaster-resistant provisions.
            Despite FEMA's positive efforts to strengthen consensus model
            building codes and standards over time, the Agency is ill-
            equipped to engage in a sustained way as building code adoption
            issues threaten the growth of resilience in communities across
            the U.S.''

        The Council's assessment is a troubling one, as is the statistic
    they cite showing that nearly 70 percent of communities facing hazards
    fall short in code adoption and use. That is why we support not only
    the continuation of appropriate incentives and widespread sharing of
    technical information but also clear requirements for code-compliance
    for any project using federal resources. As discussed earlier, Pew also
    supports the possible lowering of rebuilding assistance to states and
    communities that fail to act on code adoption and enforcement.

        Question 9. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
    modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
    and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
    public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
    structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
    building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
    the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
    best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
        Answer. Pew fully supports clear requirements for new construction
    or major reconstruction with federal funding to
        1)  follow, at a minimum, the latest consensus-based codes and
    standards; and
        2)  account for hazards that are anticipated to impact those
    facilities over their excepted lifetimes, incorporating protective
    features to better manage that risk.

        The framework of H.R. 481 offers a common-sense approach for
    addressing future flood risk. For flooding hazards, it provides an
    approach for identifying areas of likely future risk or, where there is
    inadequate information, incorporating a modest safety factor into
    decision-making. This approach will be particularly important in areas
    projected to be impacted by sea level rise, increased frequency and
    intensity of storms, and significant levels of erosion.

        Question 10. It seems as if even across FEMA's programs, there is
    not the uniform application of codes and standards (Public Assistance,
    Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the National Flood
    Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent application across the
    numerous federal programs that drive investments in resilience and
    mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive orders effectively
    reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. Should there be
    a legislative requirement that the investments of all federal funds in
    built infrastructure follow these foundational flood requirements?
        Answer. Pew strongly supports application of up-to-date codes and
    standards for all new construction and the enactment of H.R. 481 as a
    durable, common-sense approach to addressing future flood hazards. We
    urge Congress not to miss the opportunity to assure that newly built
    infrastructure is built to last, and we believe you can do so by
    assuring that any allocations of new funding immediately trigger
    requirements for forward-looking hazard assessments and protective
    designs and construction. In our view, such requirements are important
    to public health and safety and fiscally responsible.

        Question 11. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
    mitigation? How can those be overcome?
        Answer. For flooding, the problem is not simply one of historical
    settlement patterns and the natural affinity that many have for
    waterside living. Multiple additional factors work against residential
    resiliency, including

          a long and continuing resistance to updated building codes;
          serious misunderstandings about the nature and uncertainty of
    flood risks;
          inappropriate price signals; and
          decision-making frameworks that focus solely on the short term.

        One of the most frequent arguments against protective building code
    adoption and enforcement is that code requirements will make new
    housing unaffordable. This is an argument that has been proven wrong
    over and over by flood events. The argument assumes that the primary or
    sole focus should be the selling price of a home and contends that
    because code compliance has the potential to raise the construction
    price by some increment, codes create problems. What this argument
    ignores, however, is the fact that the cost of home ownership is not
    simply the price of a house. The cost of home ownership includes the
    purchase price, but it also includes the cost of living in,
    maintaining, and insuring that home throughout the lifetime of
    ownership. In our view, an ``affordable'' home that is subject to
    recurrent flooding or situated in a dangerous surge or landslide area
    is not truly affordable, when its residents must evacuate to safety,
    lose their belongings, and make costly repairs, often multiple times.
        On this point, states should work to assure that all communities
    adopt and enforce up-to-date codes, and federal funding should not
    support projects that fail to meet current codes or fund new unsafe
    construction located in known high hazard zones.
        Another obstacle derives from misinterpretations of flood maps and
    misunderstanding regarding the 1-percent-annual-chance or so-called
    100-year floodplain. While many people, including policymakers, see
    this as a of the worst-case flood or a prediction, it is neither. The
    designated Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) depict the land areas
    that would be inundated by a flood with an estimated one percent chance
    of occurring in any given year--an imaginary event based on past storms
    and the land uses existing at the time the map is created. The lines on
    the map do not represent a point at which all major flooding would be
    expected to stop, and the one percent probability actually translates
    to a one in four chance of flooding over the 30-year term of many
    mortgages. The government's continued emphasis and reliance on these
    SFHAs as flood forecasts oversimplifies the task of understanding flood
    risk, creating confusion and complacency about managing that risk.
        To address this obstacle, Pew supports adding more information to
    flood maps, including information on future risks, and new requirements
    for disclosure of information on past flooding to allow consumers to
    make sensible decisions before making financial commitments to
    mortgages or leases. FEMA's new insurance rating methodology, Risk
    Rating 2.0, will also improve public understanding of flood risk and
    correct the misleading price signals linked to current and past NFIP
    pricing.
        An additional obstacle is one that FEMA's National Advisory Council
    has discussed. The Council's 2019 report (https://www.fema.gov/sites/
    default/files/2020-08/
    fema_nac-report_11-2019.pdf) points out that the use of a seven percent
    discount rate for assessing the benefits of future savings from flood
    damages drives decision-makers to reject valuable and needed pre-
    disaster mitigation projects. This requirement, instituted long ago by
    the Office of Management and Budget, is one that should be lowered to
    more effectively support effective, long-term mitigation projects that
    will reap savings over time.

        Question 12. Prioritizing mitigation and resilience creates a
    significant opportunity for future infrastructure investment. As
    Congress is poised to consider a comprehensive infrastructure package,
    how can we ensure that those investments also foster disaster
    resiliency? How to we make sure all new infrastructure is resilient?
        Answer. Pew supports clear requirements for federally supported
    projects to be planned and designed to address future risks and, at a
    minimum, to be built in compliance with up-to-date codes and standards.
    In addition, it may be useful for legislative language specific to
    certain types of infrastructure to include references to recommended
    safeguards or approaches, for example, safe rooms for schools in
    hurricane or tornado prone areas; backup power capacity for critical
    facilities; or use of the Department of Transportation's Vulnerability
    Assessment Scoring Tool for roadway projects.
        On this point, it may also be useful for the Committee to confer
    with experts from FEMA's Building Science Branch, which has long
    partnered with other organizations such as the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology, the National Institute for Building Sciences,
    the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and the Institute
    for Business & Home Safety to develop and disseminate important
    technical information and guidance. Their ``Catalog of FEMA Building
    Science Branch Publications and Training Courses,'' (https://
    www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
    2020-07/fema_p787_catalog_2016.pdf) may be a good starting point for
    useful guidance of better protecting newly funded assets like
    hospitals, schools, water utilities, and multi-family housing.

        Question 13. What actions can Congress take that would be most
    effective in supporting the resilience of low- and moderate-income
    families?
        Answer. Pew strongly supports enhanced flood risk disclosure as a
    means of helping all families, particularly those with low- and
    moderate-incomes, make sensible decisions about where to live and how
    to protect themselves from flood losses.
        When provided with useful risk information, including information
    about past flooding events, prospective homebuyers can consider
    alternative neighborhoods, purchase flood insurance, and/or investigate
    mitigation options, such as landscaping improvements, building
    elevation, flood vents, or special placement of electrical or
    mechanical equipment. An informed buyer who has not yet finalized
    financing may be able to roll the costs of flood-resiliency
    improvements into a long-term loan that will protect the structure and
    result in lowered insurance rates. For renters, full flood knowledge
    can allow for the same sort of informed decision-making. The individual
    with mobility issues may choose a safer location, for example, and more
    individuals may decide that an insurance policy to cover loss of their
    belongings in a sensible and affordable safeguard.
        Legislative proposals offered in past sessions of Congress tied new
    flood loss disclosure requirements directly to the National Flood
    Insurance Program, but Members of this Committee may also wish to
    consider disclosure obligations within the context of new federal
    investments in housing.
        Additional mitigation support for low- and moderate-income families
    might also include enhanced funding for pre- and post-disaster
    mitigation actions. For low-income families hit by disasters and
    anxious but unable to move, such assistance might be increased by
    allowing for application of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
    Property Acquisition Act (URA) to more federal buyout offers. Offers
    made under URA or potential new requirements could include additional
    relocation assistance when payment for the market value of a property
    is not sufficient to move the family into a safe and affordable
    alternative home.

        Question 14. In its recent equity report, FEMA's National Advisory
    Committee stated that throughout the entire disaster cycle, communities
    that have been underserved stay underserved, and thereby suffer
    needlessly and unjustly. How could FEMA better target federal
    assistance to communities of low- to middle-income, and communities who
    have been historically and disproportionately disadvantaged?
        Answer. As Roy Wright with IBHS noted in his testimony to the
    Committee, the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA) has developed a
    tool that leverages publicly available data to depict the geographic
    intersect of natural hazards and socio-economic vulnerabilities. Their
    work builds on that of the National Risk Index and would allow for
    identification of some of the communities and neighborhoods that may be
    in most need of assistance. In some cases, the history of these areas
    may have roots in the segregationist policies that ``redlined'' people
    of color or immigrants outside of desirable areas and neighborhoods.
    (See, for example, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-flood-risk-
    redlining/ .) Some of these areas may also have missed out on
    opportunities for hazard investments due to continuing benefit-cost-
    analysis policies that prioritize the value of structures protected for
    selection of flood control or mitigation priorities.
        To address these inequities, FEMA should look to incorporating
    equity considerations into its grant assistance scoring and, as
    necessary, adjust its approaches to benefit-cost analyses. If the
    Agency determines that it lacks authority in this area, then Congress
    should consider new authorities and directives to the Agency. Congress
    might also consider directly targeting enhanced federal assistance to
    these areas and working to leverage these investments with private
    mitigation support through tax credits or other incentives.

        Question 15. According to the First Street Foundation there are
    nearly 4.3 million homes across the U.S. with substantial flood risk
    that would result in financial loss. The analysis indicates that if
    these homes were to be insured against flood risk through the National
    Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the rates would need to increase to
    cover the risk today, and that the cost of expected annual loss of
    properties in the next 30 years will grow by as much as 61% due to
    climate change. Do you think Congress should compel FEMA to develop an
    affordability program under the NFIP? If so, how urgent is the need,
    especially for low- and fixed income, historically disadvantaged
    communities and communities of color?
        Answer. In our view, the information available from the First
    Street Foundation is a welcome addition to what is readily available to
    the public about flood risk. Their analyses and presentations attempt
    to provide credible information about the changes in risk that are
    likely to occur over time. We believe that this information, along with
    more information about past flooding events and claims are important
    tools that should be provided to consumers.
        As Members of Congress understand, however, flood insurance is made
    available and priced on a yearly basis, and while a consumer investing
    a significant portion of his or her savings and income in a 30-year
    mortgage for a property (or the lender) would be wise to consider how
    risk could change over time, the potential for the long-term increase
    in risk does not factor into the current year premium. So some of the
    First Street information speaks, not to this year's insurance rates and
    prices, but to the longer term.
        Will rising sea levels, increases in the intensity and severity of
    storms, and other land use changes mean that some areas will face
    rising threats and likely rising rates in the future? Absolutely. But
    providing subsidies or deep discounts in the short term, though it may
    help to alleviate today's financial pain, is not a true long-term
    solution for those living in these areas. In fact, such subsidies, if
    not carefully targeted and provided along with clear information about
    that growing level of risk, could worsen the problem--further eroding
    the capability of the NFIP to pay premiums and encouraging people to
    remain in or move into risky areas.
        Pew sees the need for multi-pronged solutions. As we have
    discussed, the federal government can help provide good information
    about current risks and the drivers of risk to certain areas. This
    information is essential to good decision-making about land use and
    building requirements imposed at the local or state levels. It can also
    help to identify those areas where current practices may be increasing
    the level of risk and the areas that should be prioritized for
    mitigation. The federal government can also help increase the
    resiliency of communities by increasing its own investments in
    adaptation and mitigation actions and reward state and local partners
    that contribute resources to such projects. In those areas where risks
    are growing or already extreme, this may mean helping people to move to
    safer locations and restoring the natural ecosystems.
        At the same time, FEMA can address the financial pain that some
    low-income families feel as they work to keep themselves insured. An
    important first step in this regard is the implementation of what FEMA
    is calling Risk Rating 2.0. This new rating methodology--the first
    serious update of FEMA's pricing models since the 1970s--offers fairer
    premiums to those who own modestly priced homes, removing the cross-
    subsidies that those policyholders were paying to support those with
    larger, pricier homes.
        Beyond this, the House Financial Services Committee has a proposal
    for targeted insurance assistance to low-income policyholders and a
    proposal for a revolving loan fund that could help those families and
    their communities take mitigation actions. Both of these helpful
    proposals were reported out of Committee in the last session of
    Congress on a bipartisan basis. Pew supports the affordability
    assistance proposal, not only because it is carefully targeted to low-
    income policyholders and less complicated and expensive to administer
    than other proposals, but also because it is packaged with additional
    investment in flood mitigation.

        Question 16. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
    partnerships that help educate and promote resilience and overcome
    potential obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing
    in resilience?
        Answer. Several effective private and public partnerships that may
    offer good models or simply deserve additional support from Congress.
        For example, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's National
    Coastal Resilience Fund partnership program ( https://www.nfwf.org/
    sites/default/files/2021-03/national-coastal-resilience-fund-fact-
    sheet.pdf ) works to restore natural infrastructure in coastal
    communities. This program uses regional coastal resilience assessments
    to identify lands suitable for restoration that could protect people
    and wildlife and minimize the impacts of natural disasters. On-the-
    ground work is carried out with support from Congressional
    appropriations and collaboration involving NOAA, EPA, and the
    Department of Defense, as well as Shell Oil Company, TransRe, AT&T, and
    Occidental. Since 2018, the program has enhanced protection to roughly
    100,400 properties and 2,500 critical facilities or assets.
        Another notable partnership is located in Alabama, where a small
    non-profit, Smart Home Alabama, was able to demonstrate the value and
    the affordability of IBHS's FORTIFIED standards on Habitat for Humanity
    projects in the State's coastal communities. (https://nextcity.org/
    features/view/what-alabama-can-teach-you-about-storm-resilience )
    Assistance from the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium and from
    Allstate Insurance allowed the group, not only to provide residents
    with safe housing, but also to demonstrate to others that building to
    FORTIFIED standards could be done at reasonable costs, saving money and
    lives. Today, Alabama residents who build or retrofit to FORTIFIED
    standards receive discounts on the wind portion of their homeowners'
    insurance policies, and according to the Alabama Center for Insurance
    Information and Research at the University of Alabama, FORTIFIED homes
    sell for nearly seven percent more than comparable, non-FORTIFIED
    homes. (https://www.smarthomeamerica.org/assets/uploads/UniversityofAL
    _Value-Study_FORTIFIEDReport_V2__2.pdf)
        Elsewhere, as we noted in written testimony, Enterprise Community
    Partners has launched a program with the City of Miami to encourage and
    assist the owners of affordable housing to examine the vulnerabilities
    of their buildings to climate change and natural disasters. This
    program aims to keep affordable housing affordable and safe by helping
    these businesses prioritize needed actions and find financing to
    support improvement projects.
        On a larger scale, it may also be possible for Congress to
    incentivize additional private investments into high-risk and high-
    social-vulnerability areas using analytics such as that developed by
    RAA to identify priority areas for mitigation investments. Federal,
    state, and local public funding for infrastructure projects within
    identified priority areas could then be leveraged by providing
    incentives to the private sector to also invest and contribute to these
    projects.

      Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Velma Smith, Senior Government
       Relations Officer, Flood-Prepared Communities Initiative, The Pew
                               Charitable Trusts

        Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
    vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
    minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
    yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
    state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
    implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
    vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
    mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
    participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
    a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
    property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
        a.  What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
    assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
    in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
    standards?
        b.  Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
    mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
    following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
    new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
    allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
        Answer. The question of how best to help the most vulnerable
    amongst us is an important one. Numerous studies provide evidence that
    disasters take a heavy toll on the well-being of those who are
    economically or otherwise disadvantaged--among them the elderly, the
    disabled, and those struggling to support their families. Without ready
    access to temporary housing or savings to repair homes and cars, many
    of these individuals will struggle for many months or years to recover
    from disasters. Some will be permanently impacted.
        Pew believes we can improve on current approaches to helping the
    most vulnerable populations in several ways. In making such
    improvements we caution, however, that speed can work against safety in
    some respects, and policies must guard against shorter timelines that
    simply return families to unsafe conditions.
        In terms of the damage assessments, Pew supports the additional
    resources that have been made available through recent changes to the
    Stafford Act. Additional resources for local governments to staff up
    for assessments can now be made available during disaster response. We
    also urge FEMA to assure that mitigation experts accompany any federal
    teams deployed to help local communities conduct the appropriate damage
    assessments. Those experts can help communities identify important
    opportunities for fortifying structures or otherwise offering better
    protection to damaged neighborhoods.
        We would also recommend that Congress work with FEMA to assure that
    the Agency can extend or expand the availability of temporary housing
    assistance during instances in when repairs or reconstruction may take
    a longer time period in order to incorporate improved protections.
        Pew has also been looking into the issues surrounding buyouts and
    the operation of several state and local programs, including those in
    Birmingham, Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; Austin, Texas; and
    Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina. Our research to date points to
    several possible solutions, including easing of certain procedural
    requirements for state and local governments that establish effective
    ongoing buyout programs. In addition, as a previous response for the
    record indicated, application of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
    Real Property Acquisition Act to certain federally funded buyouts may
    be helpful. The experience of Austin, Texas may be instructive here.
    Over the years, as Austin has developed its own policies and procedures
    and used local funding to supplement buyout offers for low-income
    families. (https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/
    Auditor/Audit_Reports/
    Flood_Buyout_Program__February_2017_.pdf) In a similar fashion, the
    State of North Carolina has offered supplemental assistance for buyouts
    in certain cases. (https://www.ncdps.gov/news/press-releases/2019/10/
    15/state-awards-supplements-
    local-governments-buyout-properties%C2%A0flooded )

    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to Ben Harper,
             Head of Corporate Sustainability, Zurich North America

        Question 1. Our water infrastructure has proven time and again to
    be vulnerable to be heat and seismic events. We have learned that some
    water systems have been contaminated in the wake of wildfire due to
    melting pipelines. Given your experience from an engineering and
    insurance perspective, what can we do to strengthen key infrastructure
    against these risks?
        Answer. This very issue was discussed in an article published in
    the January/February 2021 issue of Civil Engineering. The article notes
    that additional study and research is needed. However, the authors do
    make a few suggestions on how water contamination issues may be
    addressed. Those suggestions include:
          deploying system isolation methods,
          deeper burial or the use of protective casing, and
          carefully selecting materials in fire-prone areas.

        For the Committee's convenience, the article can be read at https:/
    /source.asce.org/response-team-investigates-wildfire-damage-to-buried-
    drinking-water-infrastructure/.

        Question 2. Wildfires in western states have been devastating to
    the lives of so many survivors and communities. In the wake of every
    fire, we worry about the next one. How can Congress provide new tools
    to mitigate against the risk of wildfires and prepare before wildfires
    strike?
        Answer. In 2019, Zurich conducted a Post Event Review Capability
    (PERC) of the 2017 and 2018 California Wildfires (https://
    www.zurichna.com/-/media/project/zwp/
    zna/docs/kh/wildfire/california-wildfire-
    report.pdf?la=en&rev=490b6ac68b5e447a
    81430529d1ef40d9&hash=406FCE82EC0568F9C15C374627142B4E).
        That review makes several recommendations including:
          Using public lands, parks and playing fields to create
    buffer zones can reduce community exposure;
          Zoning can be used to further reduce exposure by
    mandating clustering of the built environment. Creating defensible
    space and ensuring transportation networks are interconnected and
    appropriately sized can reduce vulnerability;
          Parks and recreation centers within the city center can
    be designed to provide both recreational value and space to shelter in
    place as a last resort when conditions overwhelm the community's other
    plans;
          Codes can be used to influence building styles, building
    materials and landscaping.

        As Congress considers comprehensive infrastructure legislation,
    projects that are designed and planned to mitigate loss and enhance
    community resiliency should be given priority.

        Question 3. What do you believe are the most significant steps that
    can be taken to better protect individual homes and communities against
    wildfire, both for new and existing construction?
        Answer. In addition to the recommendations noted previously, the
    adoption and enforcement fire resistant building codes is an important
    component to making homes and communities more resilient. For example,
    chapter 7A of the California Building Code is an excellent first step
    in helping communities in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) reduce
    their vulnerability. The California code can be a model for other
    wildfire prone states.

        Question 4. How can FEMA better help communities identify and
    implement hazard mitigation and disaster resilience efforts that will
    have the greatest impact on reducing community risk?

        Question 5. What actions should federal agencies take to help the
    nation achieve greater disaster resilience? For example, what
    opportunities exist for federal agencies to ``mainstream'' risk
    reduction, by integrating disaster resilience goals and activities into
    all their missions and initiatives?
        Answer. Combined answer to questions 4 and 5:
        As referenced in my written testimony, Zurich has conducted 16
    PERCS globally. In the United States, we have conducted four (4) such
    reports covering flooding events in North Carolina, South Carolina and
    Houston; and wildfires in California. The PERC methodology was
    specifically designed to turn the lessons learned from the consequences
    of disasters into actions that help businesses and communities become
    more resilient and recover quickly from devastating events. We
    encourage FEMA and other federal agencies to consider adopting a
    similar approach. In fact, the PERC model could be adapted to also
    conduct a ``Pre-event'' assessment.
        Additional information on the completed PERC studies and a manual
    that serves as a guide for conducting PERCs are available at Post-Event
    Review Capability--Flood Resilience Portal [https://
    floodresilience.net/perc/#::text=The%20award
    %20winning%20Post%2DEvent,risk%20management%20and%20catastrophe
    %20intervention.]

        Question 6. Fewer than 40 percent of FEMA-funded Public Assistance
    projects have included a mitigation component during the period 2010 to
    2018. What can FEMA do to incentivize state and local officials to
    incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-damaged
    facilities?
        Answer. As noted in written testimony, the Intergovernmental Panel
    on Climate Change (IPCC) finds strong evidence that climate change is
    occurring, that it is influenced by human action, and that it is
    leading to changes in extreme weather and climate events. When awarding
    funds under its Public Assistance program, FEMA should ensure that
    state and local officials are considering the impact of climate change
    and future conditions on the damaged facility. And, if needed, provide
    assistance to ensure that the facility is repaired in accordance with
    the most up to date codes.

        Question 7. In the latest Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    High-Risk Report, issued early this year, GAO again finds that the
    federal government must reduce its fiscal exposure by managing climate
    change risks and that it has yet to make measurable progress to reduce
    its fiscal exposure to climate change. What do you think the federal
    government ought to do to build or rebuild infrastructure so that it is
    resilient to future conditions of climate change-related impacts such
    as inland and coastal flooding, wildfires, or extreme heat over the
    life-cycle of the project?
        Answer. Zurich has identified climate change as perhaps the most
    complex risk facing society today--it is intergenerational; it is
    international; and it is interdependent. Congress should require that
    federal agencies consider future conditions and the impact of climate
    change in the development, planning, and design stages of federally
    funded projects. Several prominent industry groups, including the
    American Society of Civil Engineers, have developed the technical
    guidance that provides the details with regards to integrating climate
    resiliency in infrastructure.
        Additionally, federal agencies should explore the use of risk-
    transfer opportunities, particularly the use of insurance and
    reinsurance. For example, FEMA has transferred over $2 billion of its
    flood risk to the private sector by purchasing reinsurance. Through the
    use of insurance and reinsurance, federal agencies could transfer some
    of the costs associated with climate change from the government
    (taxpayer) to willing private sector participants.

        Question 8. State and local officials often mention the challenges
    they often face in implementing and enforcing codes, largely due to a
    lack of resources. What more could the Federal Government to help
    states and communities overcome this hurdle?
        Answer. Congress could provide tax incentives to individuals and
    business to take steps to harden their homes and businesses. For
    example, the Disaster Savings and Resilient Construction Act, would
    create a $3,000 tax credit for homes and a $25,000 for businesses to
    help with resilient construction.

        Question 9. In November 2020, a FEMA study found that over a 20-
    year period, cities and counties with modern building codes would avoid
    at least $32 billion in losses from natural disasters, when compared to
    jurisdictions without modern building codes. What steps can FEMA take
    to further promote and help communities adopt modern building codes?
        Answer. Through its Building Resilient Infrastructure and
    Communities (BRIC) program, FEMA could prioritize projects that are
    already subject to modern codes and/or those projects that include the
    development of updated codes.

        Question 10. We know that the adoption of the latest edition of the
    building code gives the greatest return on investment--$11 for every $1
    invested. What can be done federally to incentivize states to adopt and
    enforce model statewide building codes?
        Answer. Congress took an excellent first step in enacting the
    Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, which emphasized pre-disaster
    mitigation and allowed funds to be used for the development of
    enforcement of consensus-based codes. Considering the response to
    FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
    program, Congress should consider making additional resources available
    for these activities.

        Question 11. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
    modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
    and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
    public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
    structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
    building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
    the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
    best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
        Answer. Yes, it is imperative that modern, consensus-based codes
    are used in new construction. I also urge the Committee and Congress to
    consider the development and use of a sustainability standard, such as
    ``ENVISION,'' which was developed by the Institute for Sustainable
    Infrastructure (ISI) and Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure
    at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design. Done correctly, such
    a standard can address sustainability, resiliency, and equity.

        Question 12. It seems that even across FEMA's programs, there is
    not the uniform application of consensus-based codes and standards
    (Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the
    National Flood Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent
    application across the numerous federal programs that drive investments
    in resilience and mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive
    orders effectively reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management
    Standard. Should there be a legislative requirement that the
    investments of all federal funds in built infrastructure follow these
    foundational flood requirements?
        Answer. Flooding continues to be the most common natural disaster.
    Zurich, working with other stakeholders and the property and casualty
    industry, supports efforts to enact a federal flood standard. In fact,
    we are working with the American Property Casualty Insurance
    Association (APCIA) and the Smarter Safer Coalition to support the
    Flood Resiliency and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2021.

        Question 13. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
    mitigation? How can those be overcome?
        Answer. Cost is often cited as a major obstacle facing property
    owners. As mentioned in my response to question #8, Congress could
    provide tax incentives for mitigation.

        Question 14. Prioritizing mitigation and resilience creates a
    significant opportunity for future infrastructure investment. As
    Congress is poised to consider a comprehensive infrastructure package,
    how can we ensure that those investments also foster disaster
    resiliency? How to we make sure all new infrastructure is resilient?
        Answer. As noted previously, Congress should incentivize the
    development and enforcement of modern, consensus-based codes; encourage
    sound land use planning and ensure transportation networks are
    interconnected and appropriately sized to reduce vulnerability.
    Further, Congress should require that future conditions and the impact
    of climate change be considered in the development, planning, and
    design stages of federally funded projects.

        Question 15. What actions can Congress take that would be most
    effective in supporting the resilience of low- and moderate-income
    families?
        Answer. As noted in my written testimony, our PERCS have found that
    the neediest in society are often neglected before and after disasters,
    and sometimes are still recovering from one event when the next one
    strikes. This was precisely the case in NC when Hurricane Florence came
    during the slow recovery from Matthew. In addition to investing in pre-
    disaster mitigation funding, we need to improve risk communication,
    ensure have that individuals and business have insurance and,
    importantly, have the appropriate coverage. We need to ensure that
    mitigation funding is indeed reaching vulnerable populations living and
    working in areas vulnerable to catastrophes--that may include expanding
    buy out programs.

        Question 16. According to the First Street Foundation there are
    nearly 4.3 million homes across the U.S. with substantial flood risk
    that would result in financial loss. The analysis indicates that if
    these homes were to be insured against flood risk through the National
    Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the rates would need to increase to
    cover the risk today, and that the cost of expected annual loss of
    properties in the next 30 years will grow by as much as 61% due to
    climate change. Do you think Congress should compel FEMA to develop an
    affordability program under the NFIP? If so, how urgent is the need,
    especially for low- and fixed income, historically disadvantaged
    communities and communities of color?
        Answer. Zurich North American does not participate in the National
    Flood Insurance Program. However, a fundamental principle of insurance
    is that the price of insurance accurately reflect risk. Not only does
    proper pricing ensure solvency, it sends important risk signals to the
    market and property owners. Rather than obscure the true risk, Congress
    should invest in flood mitigation and pre-disaster preparedness,
    particularly in communities where investment has historically lagged.

        Question 17. What would you say is the most important thing for
    policy makers in Congress to do to establish the federal framework to
    facilitate the ability of the private sector--through environmental,
    social, and governance investments and creative financing and
    opportunities--to bring funding and financial resources to communities
    and states to invest in cost-effective, risk reducing disaster
    mitigation and resilience projects?

        Question 18. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
    partnerships help educate and promote resilience and overcome potential
    obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing in
    resilience?
        Answer. Combined answer for questions 17and 18--
        Building resilient communities will take the combined efforts of
    federal, state and local government; the private sector; and individual
    property owners. In addition to the use of traditional risk transfer
    mechanisms (insurance and reinsurance), as a way to leverage private
    investment, Congress could consider approaches such as the Reinsurance
    Association of America's Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZ)
    proposal.

        Question 19. Is there a role for the insurance industry to help
    bridge the coverage gap, provide risk identification and data, and
    leverage resources to help communities successfully mitigate disaster
    risks?
        Answer. Yes, insurers play a critical role in assisting
    communities, individuals, and businesses recover when catastrophe
    strikes. Importantly, the industry also plays a vital role in improving
    community preparedness and risk management before the disaster hits.
    Risk communication is vital to ensure that individuals and businesses
    have insurance, and, importantly have the proper coverage. As a
    commercial insurer, Zurich provides extensive risk management, risk
    engineering, and loss prevention services to our customers.

      Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Ben Harper, Head of Corporate
                      Sustainability, Zurich North America

        Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
    vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
    minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
    yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
    state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
    implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
    vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
    mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
    participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
    a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
    property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
        a.  What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
    assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
    in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
    standards?
        b.  Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
    mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
    following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
    new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
    allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
        Answer. When it comes to mitigation programs related to floods,
    insurers see a loss of opportunity in these programs being used by
    property owners due to the timely and complex bureaucratic process.
    Property owners are most receptive to mitigation offers (including buy-
    outs) immediately following the disaster. The impediments of the
    current lengthy improvement processes often prevent property owners
    from taking advantage of these programs. Rather, property owners are
    left with the untenable decision to wait months, if not years, without
    certainty in their living situation, or accept insurance claims
    payments and rebuild in the same high-risk area. A streamlined approval
    process for severe repetitive loss properties could allow for an
    increase acceptance of mitigation offers, reducing the future burden on
    taxpayers and the NFIP that these properties present.

      Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio and Hon. Dina Titus to John C.
             Fowke, Chairman, National Association of Home Builders

        Question 1. You indicated during the hearing that NAHB, similar to
    the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, had done follow-
    on studies about how Hurricane Michael affected the Florida Panhandle,
    including the importance of building codes. Could you please detail for
    us the findings with specific attention to homes built prior to 2000,
    prior to 2008, and over the past decade?
        Answer. In 2017, regions of Texas and Florida experienced damage
    due to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, respectively. The following year,
    NAHB commissioned Texas A&M University to determine how building code
    editions impacted the amount of damage incurred by residential
    structures.
        The study found that, in Texas, homes built to the International
    Residential Code (IRC) after 2003 performed much better during the
    severe weather events than older homes. The study also found that
    Florida homes built after 1994 and to the Florida-specific building
    code based on the IRC were more resilient to wind damage.
        The study also found that building to the IRC (post 2003) was very
    effective in preventing the destruction of homes due to wind during
    Hurricanes Harvey and Irma and resulted in significantly less damage to
    wall and roof coverings and loss of those components while also
    minimizing window breakage.
        Prior to this study, anecdotal reports, including statements in the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency's damage assessments and media
    coverage, suggested that homes built to the IRC performed well in both
    states. However, there was little empirical evidence to support those
    claims.
        The table below highlights the results from the Texas (Harvey)
    analysis. There is a clear change in the results from pre and post
    2003. Although the overall sample size of homes exceeded 3,000, the
    study did not include forensic analysis of the actual failures (e.g.
    heavy wind, debris, installation errors, etc.). NAHB would encourage
    FEMA, NIST or NSF to perform a more in-depth analysis to better
    understand the failure modes of homes built to the modern (post 2000)
    codes to ensure any further changes to the building codes are targeted
    to documented problems and recurrence levels and properly cost
    justified. NAHB would be willing to participate in the study.

        For the complete study, go to: https://www.nahb.org/advocacy/top-
    priorities/
    building-codes/Construction-Codes-Standards-Research/Damage-Assessment-
    from-
    Hurricanes-Harvey-and-Irma

        Question 2. Wildfires in western states have been devastating to
    the lives of so many survivors and communities. In the wake of every
    fire, we worry about the next one. How can Congress provide new tools
    to mitigate against the risk of wildfires and prepare before wildfires
    strike?
        Answer. There are number of tools that Congress can provide to help
    mitigate the risk of wildfires. First, funding for state and local
    foresters, land managers and others to implement forest management
    practices, such as selective burning and cutting to improve forest
    health, can go a long way toward significantly reducing the intensity
    of many wildfires and improve the ability of the fire service to
    contain them. Also, Congress can provide funding to assist utilities in
    properly maintaining their transformers and transmission lines to
    reduce the chances of their equipment contributing to igniting fires.
        Second, Congress can provide financial incentives to homeowners to
    make existing homes more resistant to wildfires. Replacing existing
    roofing or siding with ignition-resistant materials provides a first
    line of defense against wildfires. But replacing roofing or siding can
    be prohibitively expensive. Helping homeowners cover the upfront costs
    of these retrofit through grants and tax credits can reduce damage and
    improve safety. Likewise, recognizing these retrofits through insurance
    premium reductions or rebates could also make them more cost-effective
    and convince homeowners to invest in mitigation.
        Third, Congress can help communities and homeowners better
    understand their risks and plan and implement effective mitigation
    options. Because wildfire is an interdependent risk, as the damage
    faced by homeowners is dependent on both their actions and the actions
    of their neighbors (and potentially communities), promoting cooperation
    and planning, as well as motivating property-level investments, is
    vital to reducing damage. Likewise, because many homeowners don't know
    where to start or what actions to take to reduce their risks, providing
    information on low-cost options and/or technical assistance to guide
    consumers to desirable endpoints could be an important key to success.

        Question 3. What do you believe are the most significant steps that
    can be taken to better protect individual homes and communities against
    wildfire, both for new and existing construction?
        Answer. States and communities can extend water supply lines to
    developments in wildland-urban interface areas to improve the fire
    service's ability to protect buildings and people from wildfires and
    better contain house fires within originating properties. In addition,
    education should be provided for homeowners located within high fire
    risk areas on the need to create and maintain ``defensible space''
    around their homes. These spaces are designed to slow the rate and
    intensity of fires and provide opportunities to suppress them. Examples
    of maintenance might include removing dry vegetation, leaves, pine
    needles and other combustible materials from such spaces. Homeowners
    also need to be educated about the importance of keeping roofs and
    gutters clean of leaves, pine needles and other debris and making sure
    vents and openings are covered with \1/8\" or smaller mesh to prevent
    embers from getting into attics and crawlspaces.
        If determined appropriate by a community, the International
    Wildland Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) can be adopted, with amendments
    as necessary to serve local needs and understanding of risk, to
    mitigate the spread of wildfires, and protect people and property from
    wildfire exposure. One of the family of I-codes, the IWUIC has as its
    objective the establishment of minimum special regulations for the
    safeguarding of life and property from the intrusion of fire from
    wildland fire exposures and fire exposures from adjacent structures and
    to prevent structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels, even in
    the absence of fire department intervention.

        Question 4. As Congress considers comprehensive legislation to
    modernize and strengthen our nation's infrastructure--our road, rail,
    and aviation networks, hospitals, schools, public housing, and other
    public facilities--would you be supportive of a requirement that these
    structures and facilities be built to the latest consensus-based
    building codes whenever federal funding is used? Are there areas where
    the standards should be increased beyond code requirements to industry
    best practices (i.e., high wind areas)?
        Answer. NAHB continues to support the requirement for
    infrastructure and public facilities to be built to the latest
    published edition of the code as long as the definition of ``latest
    published edition'' means either of the two most recently published
    editions, but cautions against extending such a requirement beyond
    critical facilities.
        Further, NAHB urges Congress to ensure that any such requirement to
    build to the latest code is further clarified to ensure that
    ``reference to a specification or standard that incorporate the latest
    hazard-resistant designs'' is limited to only the edition(s) of those
    specifications or standards that are referenced in the two most
    recently published editions of the applicable consensus-based code.
    This is critical to ensure clarity and avoid any unintended
    consequences for program implementation in the field.
        Finally, NAHB strongly believes that State and local governments
    must retain authority over land use and their code adoption processes
    so they can continue to direct community development and implement the
    codes that best fit their jurisdictions. NAHB urges Congress to ensure
    that any requirement that structures and facilities be built to the
    latest consensus-based building codes be limited to the specific
    projects in question and not be unintentionally used to force
    community-wide adoption of a specific code.

        Question 5. It seems that even across FEMA's programs, there is not
    the uniform application of consensus-based codes and standards (Public
    Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the National
    Flood Insurance Program). There is also inconsistent application across
    the numerous federal programs that drive investments in resilience and
    mitigation. One of President Biden's early executive orders effectively
    reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. Should there be
    a legislative requirement that the investments of all federal funds in
    built infrastructure follow these foundational flood requirements? If
    not, what exceptions do you believe are necessary?
        Answer. NAHB remains concerned about implementation of the Federal
    Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) due to the potential that many
    federal housing and permitting programs the home building industry
    relies on to provide affordable housing for all Americans will become
    unnecessarily burdened by new and unwarranted federal requirements.
    While it is not certain what this administration's implementation of
    FFRMS might look like, prior attempts to implement the FFRMS, which
    sought to apply new federal flood risk reduction standards to all
    federal actions was overly broad and unnecessary. The ripple effect of
    such an expanded scope of coverage could impose unnecessary regulatory
    requirements and additional red tape for home building, home financing,
    home sales, and land development along coasts, rivers, streams, lakes
    and ponds. Equally problematic, these additional requirements will
    severely hinder housing affordability at a time when there is already a
    significant affordable housing shortage.

        Question 6. What are the biggest obstacles facing residential
    mitigation? How can those be overcome?
        Answer. NAHB believes it is essential that Congress keep housing
    affordability and homeownership at the forefront of any discussions
    involving residential resilience. In doing so, Congress is urged to
    focus on cost effective mitigation strategies for the existing housing
    stock, financial assistance options, and reliance on incentives and
    voluntary above-code programs to compel market action and consumer
    response.
        In doing so, Congress must address the biggest challenges, which
    are the initial costs, the need to account for the value of the
    upgrades within property assessments and appraisals, and the need for
    technical assistance to help property owners understand the needs and
    options so they can make the best choices.
        Residential mitigation can take many forms, from reinforcing roofs
    to installing new siding, elevating electrical equipment to elevating
    entire structures. The specific upgrades that are ultimately selected
    and performed are dependent upon risk level, type of risk, structure
    specifics and cost, among others. Many families, however, have limited
    savings and cannot fund the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars
    needed to complete most mitigation projects. Although some funding may
    be available, the federal aid programs are typically oversubscribed and
    payments delayed, making them of limited widespread use. Developing
    programs, grants, incentives, insurance rebates or other mechanisms
    designed to help homeowners overcome the initial costs could go a long
    way toward convincing them to invest in mitigation.
        Similarly, revamping appraisal and assessment protocols to
    recognize the added value associated with these mitigation efforts is
    vital. Under current practice, in most instances, mortgage companies,
    appraisers and real estate professionals do not consider the costs or
    benefits associated with various disaster mitigation and resilience
    projects. This creates a disincentive to take proactive steps to reduce
    a home's exposure, as those expenditures are not necessarily considered
    to add value. If the improvements are not included in the appraisal or
    appraised value of the structure, not only is the buyer uninformed
    about the home's qualities, his or her willingness to pay more can be
    significantly diminished.
        In an effort to spur private investment in efficiency and
    resiliency, the value and benefit of above code practices and
    mitigation measures should be incorporated into standard real estate
    lending practices and real estate listings. By recognizing and
    valuating the upgrades, appraisers can consistently give weight to
    these improvements, lenders may reconsider qualifying loan ratios,
    realtors can promote their benefits, homeowners would get assurances
    that the investments they have made will retain value and be recognized
    in resale and homes would be more likely to get the upgrades needed to
    improve their performance.
        Similar to the valuation process and state insurance discounts,
    recognizing improved resiliency can also be done by tweaking the NFIP.
    Currently, all improvements to fortify a home against flood hazards do
    not result in flood insurance premium discounts. For example, in its
    ``Reducing Flood Risk to Residential Buildings That Cannot Be
    Elevated'' document, FEMA outlines several alternative actions that can
    be taken in lieu of elevation. Of the measures discussed, however, only
    50 percent of them are eligible for flood insurance premium reductions.
    Congress should work with FEMA to ensure that all building practices
    that mitigate risk and improve resiliency provide homeowners with
    clearly understood rate discounts without regard for rating
    methodology.

        Question 7. What actions can Congress take that would be most
    effective in supporting the resilience of low- and moderate-income
    families?
        Answer. NAHB urges Congress to ensure that programs adopted to
    support the resilience of low- and moderate-income families are not
    myopically focused solely on the residential structure itself. Truly
    effective resilience outcomes will only be achieved when programs look
    holistically at the community in which these families live. Residential
    resilience relies not only on the home in which families live but on
    the community's ability to maintain and continue access to such
    lifelines as transportation, electricity, water, food and medical care.
        Additionally, Congress can help support these families and the
    communities they live in by providing help with funding and technical
    assistance needed to ensure mitigation programs are understood and
    accessed. These efforts should include a review of the disparate
    processes and timelines of various mitigation and support programs to
    determine if better alignment will improve understanding and access of
    the programs. Congress should also consider establishing an office
    similar to the Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate (OFIA), to serve
    as a central clearinghouse for homeowners, tenants and communities
    facing roadblocks to conducting effective mitigation via federal
    programs.

        Question 8. What would you say is the most important thing for
    policy makers in Congress to do to establish the federal framework to
    facilitate the ability of the private sector--through environmental,
    social, and governance investments and creative financing and
    opportunities--to bring funding and financial resources to communities
    and states to invest in cost-effective, risk reducing disaster
    mitigation and resilience projects?
        Answer. NAHB encourages Congress to focus on creating a framework
    to support and facilitate measurable, on the ground improvements, as
    well as investments that target first cost financing for mitigation and
    resilience projects. While planning is a vital component to improving
    resiliency, tangible results oftentimes can better compel additional
    action. Likewise, the focus on first cost financing is crucial as many
    people cannot afford to purchase a home, much less one that exceeds
    current building requirements. Likewise, due to the high initial costs
    associated with purchasing and/or installing many above-code resilience
    features, many homeowners are unable to finance desired or necessary
    mitigation projects. For those seeking to incorporate mitigation and
    resilience into construction practices, numerous challenges exist in
    obtaining the necessary financing to support their efforts including
    access to funding or financing that reflects the value of those
    projects.

        Question 9. How can the private and public sectors forge creative
    partnerships to help educate and promote resilience and overcome
    potential obstacles to individuals, communities, and states investing
    in resilience?
        Answer. Partnerships typically grow out of shared interests and
    similar goals. One step that the federal government could expand upon
    that could lead to new relationships is hosting forums, roundtables, or
    other broad gatherings through which participants are able to network
    and explore common interests. A key component of the success of such
    programs is to ensure all impacted and interested stakeholders are
    invited to participate. NAHB held a summit on green home valuation and
    invited key industry stakeholders, the Mortgage Bankers Association,
    the National Association of REALTORS and the Appraisal Institute to
    attend. This event uncovered the need for consistent education, term
    definition and messaging around green and energy efficient homes within
    the industry to lessen confusion in housing policy, legislation and
    valuation. A similar approach among this same group of stakeholders
    could help in overcoming obstacles to invest in resilience.
        In addition, NAHB has partnered with the National Association of
    REALTORS to develop an initiative called ``Home Performance Counts,''
    which provides easy access to resources and information for home
    buyers, home builders, real estate professionals and consumers on the
    potential benefits and value that high-performance building features
    can provide. The outreach and education focus of this initiative can
    serve as a model for other partnerships to build awareness and promote
    investing in resilience.

    Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to John C. Fowke, Chairman, National
                          Association of Home Builders

        Question 1. Mississippi and America struggle protecting our most
    vulnerable populations from recurring disasters. Low-income and
    minority communities often bear the brunt of disasters such as flooding
    yearly in places like Mississippi's South Delta and throughout the
    state. FEMA and MEMA, our state agency in Mississippi, work together to
    implement programs such as mitigation buyouts to remove these
    vulnerable populations from high hazard areas and build back to Federal
    mitigation standards. However, many of these families struggle to
    participate in these programs because of an inability to build back in
    a more resilient way by the time FEMA mitigation funds reach the
    property owners, often taking 6 to 7 months.
        a.  What are ways that the Federal government can better streamline
    assessments and fund disbursement to citizens so that they can rebuild
    in a more resilient way while also maintaining appropriate living
    standards?
        Answer. Many have recognized that the current federal disaster
    programs, while playing a vital role in enabling recovery, are
    challenging for all, but even more so for lower-income households.\1\
    In addition to providing additional funding, which can be done through
    any one of the existing assistance and mitigation programs, other
    proactive measures include making HUD's CDBG-DR program a permanently
    authorized program or at a minimum, shortening the turnaround time for
    fund disbursement; funding technology upgrades and training to equip
    FEMA and local communities to quickly complete damage assessments and
    improve the pace at which payments can be made; simplifying the
    programs and streamlining the associated paperwork burdens that must be
    completed to qualify for assistance; and providing technical expertise
    to help homeowners better understand what mitigation and/or funding
    assistance they may qualify for and what is required to apply.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See, for example, Urban Institute Policy Debate: Improving the
    Disaster Recovery of Low-Income Families, at urban.org/debates/
    improving-disaster-recovery-low-income-families

        b.  Please expand on ways to improve FEMA and state agency
    mitigation buyout programs that take into account what happens
    following the buyout offer, such as ensuring the ability to purchase a
    new home or offering temporary housing until funds are disbursed,
    allowing for more individuals in need to participate in the programs.
        Answer. When considering post-disaster efforts, NAHB urges Congress
    to focus on promoting comprehensive community recovery planning that
    includes a variety of options and actions to restore the vital
    infrastructure and functions of the community as well as the full
    spectrum of housing needs. In doing so, state and local governments
    must retain the authority to make land use decisions and determine how
    best to meet their community redevelopment goals. While mitigation
    buyout programs can be a useful tool within a comprehensive housing
    recovery plan, there are many other options available to address local
    needs. Plans that integrate a full range of housing solutions to assist
    local jurisdictions will not only help in speeding up the process of
    moving local citizens into permanent long-term housing following an
    event, but also serve to help mitigate future risk. NAHB encourages
    Congress to reinforce efforts by FEMA to enhance local disaster and
    recovery planning to ensure that issues such as housing recovery and
    resilience are thought through long before those plans are needed.
    Congress should also facilitate the work of State and local
    jurisdictions by aligning the planning requirements across all of the
    federal agencies to ensure they are working together to achieve risk
    mitigation, increased resilience and maintain the necessary balance
    between the environment and community development.

                                   [all]