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


                         CREATING A MORE RESILIENT NATION: 
                             STAKEHOLDERS' PERSPECTIVES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS,
                         RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 17, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-54

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                     

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                      

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-404 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

               Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas            John Katko, New York
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island      Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey     Clay Higgins, Louisiana
J. Luis Correa, California           Michael Guest, Mississippi
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan             Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri            Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Al Green, Texas                      Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Yvette D. Clarke, New York           Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
Eric Swalwell, California            Diana Harshbarger, Tennessee
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Andrew S. Clyde, Georgia
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey    Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida
Kathleen M. Rice, New York           Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Val Butler Demings, Florida          Peter Meijer, Michigan
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California    Kat Cammack, Florida
Josh Gottheimer, New Jersey          August Pfluger, Texas
Elaine G. Luria, Virginia            Andrew R. Garbarino, New York
Tom Malinowski, New Jersey
Ritchie Torres, New York
                       Hope Goins, Staff Director
                 Daniel Kroese, Minority Staff Director
                          Natalie Nixon, Clerk
                                 
                                 
                                 ------                                

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

                Val Butler Demings, Florida, Chairwoman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas            Kat Cammack, Florida, Ranking 
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey         Member
Al Green, Texas                      Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey    Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex  Andrew R. Garbarino, New York
    officio)                         John Katko, New York (ex officio)
              Lauren McClain, Subcommittee Staff Director
          Diana Bergwin, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
                    Aaron Greene, Subcommittee Clerk
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               Statements

The Honorable Val Butler Demings, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Florida, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 
  Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery:
  Oral Statement.................................................     1
  Prepared Statement.............................................     2
The Honorable Kat Cammack, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency 
  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery:
  Oral Statement.................................................     4
  Prepared Statement.............................................     9
The Honorable Clay Higgins, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Louisiana.............................................     3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Prepared Statement.............................................    10

                               Witnesses

Chief Orlando Rolon, Chief of Police, City of Orlando:
  Oral Statement.................................................    11
  Prepared Statement.............................................    13
Mr. George Dunlap, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, 
  Mecklenburg County, North Carolina:
  Oral Statement.................................................    19
  Prepared Statement.............................................    21
Mr. Chris P. Currie, Director, Homeland Security and Justice 
  Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office:
  Oral Statement.................................................    24
  Prepared Statement.............................................    26

                             For the Record

The Honorable Kat Cammack, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency 
  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery:
  Statement of Dr. David O. Prevatt, F.SEI, F.ASCE, Professor of 
    Civil and Coastal Engineering, Engineering School of 
    Sustainable Infrastructure & Environment, University of 
    Florida......................................................     5

 
      CREATING A MORE RESILIENT NATION: STAKEHOLDERS' PERSPECTIVES

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, May 17, 2022

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                    Committee on Homeland Security,
                   Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 
                                    Response, and Recovery,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in 
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Val Butler Demings 
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Demings, Cammack, Higgins, Miller-
Meeks, and Garbarino.
    Chairwoman Demings. [Audio malfunction]--and exclusion. 
According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 
``The years 2020 and 2021 had the highest numbers of domestic 
terrorist attacks and plots.'' On top of the tragic loss of 
life in Buffalo, our Nation saw mass shootings again this same 
past weekend at a California church and a Texas flea market.
    As we confront these challenges it is critical that our 
first responders are prepared and our communities are 
resilient. It is critical that we support legislation and 
support programs that improve the overall preparedness and 
resiliency of communities across the Nation. The Urban Area 
Security Initiative, also known as UASI, is one such program.
    As a chief of police, I saw first-hand the benefits of 
UASI. Our department relied on this critical program to help 
keep our community safe and ensure that our first responders 
were ready to respond during the worst of times. UASI funding 
helps ensure that our first responders in Orlando and 35 other 
jurisdictions across the Nation are equipped and trained to 
respond safely and effectively during natural disasters, 
terrorist attacks, civil disturbances, and other crisis 
situations.
    Last year, I introduced, H.R. 5615, the Homeland Security 
Capabilities Preservation Act, which recognizes the importance 
of preserving security capabilities achieved with UASI funding. 
I am pleased that the legislation passed the House this year on 
March 7. I will continue to do my part and push for this 
legislation to become law.
    Last year this subcommittee held two hearings on the 
importance of strong communications networks. As many of us 
here today can attest, robust, state-of-the-art, communications 
technology is critically important for keeping our communities 
safe and building resiliency during emergencies.
    FirstNet has supported thousands of public safety agencies 
by empowering first responders, law enforcement, and emergency 
managers with the tools and technology they need to coordinate 
their responses, thereby resulting in more favorable outcomes.
    We also know climate change, too, presents a tremendous 
challenge and test of resiliency. We in Florida know all too 
well the dangers of stronger hurricanes, more frequent and 
severe tornadoes, and rising floodwaters. We must do more 
around prevention, but when disaster strikes, we must help 
communities recover as quickly as possible and address the 
special needs of underserved, rural, and urban areas.
    FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities 
program is directing a portion of funds to flow to 
disadvantaged and underserved communities.
    I am also proud to be a co-sponsor of Chairman Bennie 
Thompson's legislation, H.R. 7668, the ``Federal Emergency 
Management Advancement of Equity Act'', which will help make 
disaster response efforts fairer and more effective.
    We all know that we face many challenges. But creating a 
more resilient Nation is the answer to meeting these 
challenges. We look forward to the work ahead and hearing from 
our witnesses today.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Demings follows:]
                  Statement of Chairwoman Val Demings
                              May 17, 2022
    Good morning; thank you for joining us today.
    We are here to discuss how we can build a more resilient Nation and 
keep every person in Florida and across the country safe.
    First responders, law enforcement, and emergency managers are the 
bedrock of public safety in our communities and crucial to our safety 
and resiliency.
    We need to fund and support law enforcement and first responders so 
that they are ready and able to answer the call when the time comes.
    We all know the challenges. Crime and violence, climate change and 
stronger storms, and rising levels of domestic terrorism which puts 
every American at risk.
    This past weekend 10 Americans lost their lives in Buffalo, New 
York, to a domestic terrorist radicalized by ideologies of hate and 
exclusion that have been spread and promoted on television, at 
political rallies, and even here in the halls of Congress.
    According to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 
``the years 2020 and 2021 had the highest numbers of domestic terrorist 
attacks and plots.''
    And on top of the tragic loss of life in Buffalo, our Nation saw 
mass shootings this same past weekend at a California church and a 
Texas flea market, and other violent crime across the country.
    As we confront these challenges and work to ensure that our first 
responders are prepared and our communities are resilient, it is 
critical that we support the Urban Area Security Initiative, also known 
as the UASI program.
    During my 27-year career in law enforcement, I saw the benefits of 
UASI in Orlando. As a chief of police, I relied on this critical 
program to help keep our community safe and ensure that our officers 
were ready to respond if the worst should happen.
    UASI funding helps ensure that our first responders in Orlando and 
35 other jurisdictions across the Nation are adequately equipped and 
trained to do their jobs safely and effectively.
    I strongly support efforts to strengthen the UASI program. As we 
confront violent extremists at home and abroad, this funding is 
critical to keeping every person who lives, works, and travels in 
Florida safe.
    Last year, I introduced, H.R. 5615, the ``Homeland Security 
Capabilities Preservation Act,'' which recognizes the importance of 
preserving security capabilities achieved with UASI funding for 
communities. I am pleased that the legislation passed the House this 
year on March 7. I will continue to do my part and push for this 
legislation to become law.
    In the fall, this subcommittee held two hearings on the importance 
of strong communications networks. As many of us here today can attest, 
robust communications technology is critically important for keeping 
our communities safe during emergencies and building resiliency. For 
this reason, I introduced legislation (H.R. 6768) that would 
reauthorize the First Responder Network Authority, known as FirstNet.
    FirstNet has supported thousands of public safety agencies by 
empowering first responders, law enforcement, and emergency managers 
with the tools and technology they need to coordinate their responses.
    The program was established with resiliency in mind, and we need to 
continue to preserve the gains in communications it has made.
    Climate change, too, presents a tremendous challenge and test of 
resiliency.
    To be clear, the climate crisis is already upon us. We in Florida 
know the dangers of stronger hurricanes and rising floodwaters. We must 
do more to prevent these storms from worsening, and to support all 
communities when disaster strikes, especially those who are currently 
underserved and least able to bounce back.
    The administration is working to ensure that underserved 
communities can access mitigation funds. Additionally, FEMA's Building 
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC program, is directing 
a portion of funds to flow to disadvantaged communities.
    However, Congress still needs to pass real legislation to ensure 
that every American community has the tools they need to weather 
disasters and to rebuild afterward.
    I am a proud cosponsor of Chairman Bennie Thompson's legislation, 
H.R. 7668, the ``Federal Emergency Management Advancement of Equity 
Act,'' which will help make disaster response efforts fairer and more 
effective.
    We all know that we face many challenges. But as we work to 
confront and triumph over these threats, we have an opportunity to fix 
old problems, improve emergency responses, support our first 
responders, and build a resilient, strong Nation that has the tools to 
defeat any challenge.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can 
work together to continue building a more resilient America.

    Chairwoman Demings. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, 
and Recovery, the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Cammack, for 
an opening statement.
    Mrs. Cammack, we can't hear you. OK. Go ahead.
    Thank you to our witnesses for just standing by for just a 
moment please.
    We will continue to work on the Ranking Member's sound 
issues, but at this time I call on the gentleman from Louisiana 
to make an opening statement on her behalf, Mr. Higgins.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very grateful for 
our panelists for being with us today.
    From FEMA's own mission statement the primary mission of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency is to reduce the loss 
of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, 
including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-
made disasters by leading and supporting the Nation in a risk-
based comprehensive emergency management system of 
preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. 
May I say, as an American citizen born and raised in south 
Louisiana, working on my 61st year on God's beautiful earth 
here, I have lived through many brutal hurricanes and I have 
come to clearly understand that in the modern era the greatest 
challenge that the citizens of south Louisiana face are not 
form the storms themselves, it is from the bureaucratic 
challenges they face post-storm and to navigate through the 
assistance programs that the Federal Government has justly and 
righteously provided and funded with appropriated monies. These 
agencies and departments are very well-staffed with highly-
trained and dedicated people. Yet the bureaucracy that has 
become manifest in our Nation is so thick at the Federal and 
the State level--there is of course State components here to 
recovery and access the recovery programs. But somewhere along 
the way we have lost site of our true mission.
    The committee will hear from local and State stakeholders 
today on how to improve FEMA's interaction and that is 
important. Disaster response and the subsequent recovery and 
mitigation efforts, start and end with local and State 
officials. Recovery post-disaster is far from a straightforward 
process.
    I represent a region that we are trying to recover from two 
brutal storm seasons. It is like nothing I have ever seen. 
Hurricane Laura hit so hard and so fast, extreme winds 
devastated a dense area of population in my district. There 
wasn't one utility pole that was still standing or not heavily 
damaged. Every tree was down. The first responders couldn't 
respond. You couldn't get through the streets. It was a brutal 
impact and it calls for long-term recovery. The people of 
Louisiana are quite strong and resilient. We know how to deal 
with a storm, it is in our DNA. But the real difficulty we are 
facing right now is from the Government that is designed to 
help us stand back up.
    So I hope that as we move forward, my colleagues, I hope 
that we can seek ways to change the very paradigm of disaster 
recovery and response and how Federal monies are delivered. 
Personally, I think there should be a more direct route to the 
local government entity or the citizen that is deserving of 
recovery assistance and the Federal Government has appropriated 
and lined up recovery assistance. I think that Congress should 
work very hard to streamline these processes and reduce the 
very burdensome and impossible-to-navigate bureaucracy.
    So I hope we can discuss that today. I am very appreciative 
to the Chairwoman and the panelists for being here.
    Chairwoman Demings. We thank Mr. Higgins for that opening 
statement. We will come back to you for your line of 
questioning.
    At this time I do believe the Ranking Member is prepared to 
make her opening statement. The gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. 
Cammack.
    We cannot hear you unfortunately. Wait, wait, try again.
    Mrs. Cammack. They are saying that we can hear me on the 
YouTube channel.
    Chairwoman Demings. Yes, we can now. We can now.
    Mrs. Cammack. OK, all right. Excellent. I guess there was a 
problem with the streaming to YouTube. So now that it is all 
worked out, I appreciate it. Thank you for everyone's patience 
as we worked out some of the technical difficulties in the 
hearing room.
    All right. Chairwoman Demings, thank you so much for 
holding this important hearing today. I am very much looking 
forward to discussing the ways in which we can work together to 
build a more resilient Nation.
    Now, June 1 marks the beginning of the 2022 Atlantic 
hurricane season. With this date fast approaching, it is 
important to remember that while we cannot control the weather 
we can take steps to prepare. As Floridians we are all too 
familiar with the destructive power of hurricanes, but what 
many people don't realize is that Florida is also highly prone 
to tornadoes, ranking third behind Texas and Kansas with an 
average number of tornadoes per year.
    Now, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, NOAA, and their severe storms laboratory, the 
United States experienced more than 1,300 tornadoes last year, 
which resulted in the tragic deaths of over 100 people.
    The dangers of tornadoes really hit home for me when 
earlier this year a tornado tore through the homes and 
businesses in Ocala, Florida in my district. Now, at the time, 
the National Weather Service radar in Jacksonville was 
unfortunately down for maintenance, meaning that residents were 
given no notice or warning of the incoming storm. This is 
absolutely unacceptable. In response, my team and I have been 
working hard on behalf of my constituents to ensure that this 
never happens again.
    While today's hearing is about the broader topic of 
resilience, I am going to focus my comments on how our 
communities can improve their resilience when it comes to 
natural disasters. Specifically, I would like to talk about two 
incredibly important topics, pre-disaster mitigation activities 
and our Nation's building codes.
    Pre-disaster mitigation activities can include efforts 
conducted by State and local communities, like upgrading 
existing infrastructure to protect from all hazards, elevating 
existing structures in identified flood zones, or investing in 
public awareness programs. These mitigation efforts can also 
take place at an individual level when people install hurricane 
shutters, purchase flood insurance, or clear dead vegetation 
from their property to reduce the risk of wildfire. Regardless 
of whether mitigation efforts are undertaken at the Federal, 
State, local, or individual level, these efforts can help 
ensure that no geographic region of the country is left 
unsupported.
    In addition to pre-disaster mitigation efforts, our 
communities can also build resilience by improving our Nation's 
existing building codes. I am incredibly fortunate to represent 
the University of Florida, which is home to an excellent 
engineering program which has professors whose research focuses 
on sustainable infrastructure and the environment. One such 
professor is Dr. Prevatt, who has dedicated his career to 
learning how to make buildings more resilient. While 
unfortunately he is unable to attend our hearing today, I would 
like to take this opportunity to insert his testimony into the 
record.
    Chairwoman Demings. Without objection.
 Statement of Dr. David O. Prevatt, F.SEI, F.ASCE, Professor of Civil 
      and Coastal Engineering, Engineering School of Sustainable 
          Infrastructure & Environment, University of Florida
                              May 17, 2022
    Chairwoman Val Demings, Ranking Member Kat Cammack, and honorable 
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide 
written testimony on how we can create a more resilient Nation with our 
preparations, response to, and recovery from wind-related disasters.
    My name is David O. Prevatt and I am a professional engineer 
registered in Massachusetts and in Florida and a professor of civil and 
coastal engineering in the School of Sustainable Infrastructure & 
Environment at the University of Florida. I have devoted over 30 years 
to experimental research and field investigations of wind hazards to 
improve the performance of buildings subjected to high wind events and 
how we can build and retrofit structures to make them tornado- and 
hurricane-resilient. I previously testified before the U.S. 
Congressional committee on the topic of reducing the impact of 
windstorms in 2013, and those observations are still relevant today.
    Tornadoes have caused deaths and destruction this spring in 
numerous States, from Minneapolis to South Dakota and Kansas--and 
hurricane season is just beginning. Last year after the deadly and 
destructive Kentucky tornadoes, I wrote in the Washington Post about 
reports published 50 and 125 years ago by civil engineers that gave us 
guidance on how to build and mitigate future tornado damage and loss. 
My remarks submitted today draw on that commentary.
    The engineering reports I referenced followed the Lubbock, Tex., 
tornado that killed 26 in 1970 and the St. Louis, Mo., tornado that 
killed 255 in 1896. Both tornadoes additionally destroyed thousands of 
buildings and other infrastructure, leaving communities facing hard 
choices of how to rebuild and go on. The reports detailed how tornadoes 
cause catastrophic damage to buildings and they recommended changes to 
construction practices to avoid or substantially reduce those losses. 
More important, the reports recommended concrete steps our communities 
can take to design tornado-resilient structures. Steps included raising 
the design wind speed (design loads) and incorporating engineered 
design criteria, such as incorporating a continuous vertical load path 
when building houses--a method that is proven to enhance their 
resistance to strong wind loads.
    Regrettably, we ignored the recommendations, especially those 
identified after the Lubbock tornado, and thus by omission our society 
continues to build the disaster of the future one building at a time. 
Today nearly 50 percent of our residential inventory were constructed 
in the past 50 years with no regard for tornado impacts.
    Had we chosen to follow the recommendations made after these 
tornadoes or after subsequent recommendations made following the 27 
deadly EF5/F5 tornadoes that have occurred since Lubbock, the wide-
spread suffering and loss we continue to witness today would have been 
largely avoidable. As an engineer and a researcher, I am heartbroken 
because we have known what we needed to do for decades.
    I am part of a network of devoted structural engineering 
researchers who study major wind events and how to construct buildings 
that will stand in the face of natural hazards; this group is known as 
the Structural Extreme Events Reconnaissance Network (STEER). Our work 
is funded by the National Science Foundation and over the past 4 years, 
our members have deployed to more than 40 natural hazard events and 
made our resulting reports and data publicly available.
    After the December 2021 Kentucky tornadoes, I pored over the STEER 
reports and read details that are all too familiar. They described a 
place that looks like what I'd expect to find at a bomb site: Trees 
broken midway at the trunks, some twisted around, leaves stripped. 
Houses and buildings that were near the tornado's centerline with roofs 
gone, gable walls fallen outward, garage doors blown in. Most of the 
furnishings are strewn across yards, and what remains inside homes is 
soaked. There's an unnatural quiet, save for the chain saws at work.
    For me, the most painful details in such reports are the telling 
structural elements that allowed the wind to cause such havoc. Toe-
nailed connections between roof trusses and walls that usually fail at 
pitifully low wind speeds. Cut nails pounded through wood 2x4 wall 
plates into concrete slabs that were almost always rusted through at 
the top of the slab--evidence that these connections failed years 
earlier and would provide no effective holding-down strength to the 
houses in the path of a tornado. The elements that resulted in complete 
structural failures could have been easily and inexpensively 
strengthened during construction.
    It is painful because the primary aim of our research is to prevent 
devastation by building tornado-resilient homes and structures that can 
protect people and withstand most tornadoes. In 1897, following the St. 
Louis tornado, engineer Julius Baier observed that the degree of 
structural capacity needed to resist tornadoes would be ``neither 
difficult nor extravagant.''
    In fact, Baier's recommendations bear directly upon this current 
discussion, and I quote:

``In view of these facts [in Baier's 1897 paper] it appears to the 
author [Baier] rational to assume:
``First. That the safety and interests of the community and of the 
owner of the building require a recognition of a wind pressure of at 
least 30 lbs. per square foot against the exposed surface of the 
building, with an additional local provision of 50 lbs. for several 
stories near the top; and that this amount should be safely taken care 
of by some positive and definite provision in the construction of the 
frame.
``Second. That the vast interests at stake, the amount of capital 
invested and the comparatively small additional expense necessary would 
suggest to the owner the desirability of increasing the provision to 40 
lbs. per square foot.
``Third. That the other uncertain elements of safety due to the 
ultimate strength of the material, the inertia of the mass, and the 
bracing effect of walls and partitions, should be recognized only as 
providing against the uncertain and possible higher pressure of the 
wind which may occur.''

    Despite its 19th century English, Baier's engineering guidelines 
are clear and supported by his research. I contend few practicing 
structural engineers today will find any of Baier's recommendations to 
be unreasonable, given our present advanced knowledge of tornadoes and 
what is at stake. In other words, Baier's words are still true, 125 
years later.
    We experience more than 1,200 tornadoes every year in the United 
States, and these wind events kill more people annually than hurricanes 
and earthquakes combined.
    From 1950 through 2011, the average deaths per year in tornadoes 
was 91.6; 50.8 died in hurricanes and 7.5 died in earthquakes. These 
deaths almost always happen inside buildings.
    No one believes all tornado damage can be avoided. But most 
tornadoes--more than 95 percent--have ground-level wind speeds of 135 
miles per hour or less. Researchers from Texas Tech University who 
conducted the post-tornado surveys in Lubbock stated that while best 
estimates suggested maximum wind speeds at ground level were 200 miles 
per hour, most of the damage was caused by winds in the range of 75 to 
125 miles per hour.
                       what we can do: solutions
    With better building construction, we can narrow the width of the 
most catastrophic destruction--the distance away from the tornado's 
centerline--so that homes, while possibly experiencing damage, remain 
occupiable immediately after a tornado. Dr. Anne Cope, chief engineer 
with the Institute of Business and Home Safety, recently concluded that 
with concerted action we can ``narrow the path of tornado damage'' 
cutting through our communities.
    For a house to withstand wind loads, which pull up against the 
building's structure and away from the ground against gravity, they 
must have strong, continuous lines of mechanical connections that tie 
every component, from the roof through the walls, down to the 
foundation.
    The structural elements known to be needed include hurricane ties 
that attach roof trusses to the walls, steel anchor bolts set into 
concrete foundations to secure wall framing to the ground, and a system 
of shear walls and bracing to prevent buildings from being pushed over 
by strong winds. The engineering knowledge exists to incorporate these 
components today.
    But traditional single-family homes, most of which are built to our 
minimum building code provisions, may lack these features, leaving them 
highly vulnerable to being torn apart. Even today, houses, schools, and 
businesses throughout the Midwest are designed to withstand winds only 
at the bottom of the tornado-rating scale.
    The Lubbock tornado did lead to advancements over the past 50 
years, including the development and application of the Fujita scale, 
updated in 2007, to measure storm strength and it accelerated advances 
in weather forecasting, such as expanded use of the Doppler radar 
network. Since 2011, the loss of life in Tuscaloosa, AL, and Joplin, 
MO, has also spurred further engineering research.
    Considerable research on tornadoes has, in the aggregate, reduced 
the loss of life. But the Texas Tech team's recommendations to improve 
building performance were never widely shared with the public, nor 
implemented by policy makers. The New York Times recently reported on 
ways the building industry has opposed stricter building guidelines 
over the years. And so, we have continued to build millions of homes 
similarly to what we have done since the post-World War II housing boom 
of the 1950's, resulting in homes that are unable to withstand the wind 
forces of moderately strong tornadoes.
    The engineering research community continues to advocate for design 
standards that will protect lives and lessen damage and destruction 
from tornadoes, including hardened structural frames, and providing 
storm shelters in our homes, schools, and businesses.
    Over the past decade, the American Society of Civil Engineers 
(ASCE), the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH), the Insurance 
Institute for Business and Home Safety, and the National Storm Shelter 
Association have worked to broadly share research about what we can do 
better--significantly, providing expert testimony to another 
Congressional panel on windstorm damage mitigation efforts. The most 
recent advancement is the publication of tornado design procedures 
included in the ASCE 7-22 design load guide.
    Keith Porter, chief engineer at the Western University Institute 
for Catastrophic Loss Reduction in Toronto, Canada, calculates the cost 
of not doing all we can to build or retrofit structures, so they are 
capable of withstanding these ever-more intense storms:

``Those [US disaster] losses grow 6 percent annually, 10 times faster 
than the population, like a credit card bill when you always buy more 
than you repay every month. [We] need to design buildings that will 
shrink [our] disaster credit card balance.''--Keith Porter

    Now, as the recovery and rebuilding effort continues in Kentucky 
and gets under way in other States affected by the recent tornadoes, it 
is time to draw on these resources and this knowledge.
    The public also has a role in demanding adoption of updated 
standards and the retrofitting of buildings. Individual homeowners can 
research how to strengthen their homes along the lines of what was done 
in Fairhope, AL, where fortified homes experienced little to no damage 
in Hurricane Sally, a Category 2 storm that struck the Gulf Coast of 
Alabama in 2020.
                               conclusion
    Resilience to wind hazards, tornadoes, and hurricanes is about 
protecting people vulnerable to windstorm impacts so they don't suffer 
catastrophic loss of lives and property. Resilience is about 
communities and leaders acting today and into the future to adopt 
appropriate building standards and known technologies that are 
available to protect our lives, reduce residential building damage, and 
create tornado-resilient communities.
    This concludes my written statement. I would be happy to answer any 
questions you have[.]

    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Chairwoman Demings. Dr. Prevatt's 
extensive research, which has included conducting damage 
assessments after a tornado devastated parts of western 
Kentucky last year, has shown that the most catastrophic 
destruction can be minimized when using better building 
construction. In addition to saving lives, improved building 
design can also make smart financial sense.
    A December 2019 report by the National Institute of 
Building Sciences found that designing buildings to meet the 
2018 building code standards, the National Mitigation Benefit 
Cost Ratio is $11 for every $1 invested.
    Now, before I yield back I would be remiss if on the heels 
of National Police Week I didn't briefly touch on the critical 
role that our police and first responders play in communities 
across America, particularly after these devastating storms. In 
our increasingly uncertain world, first responders are being 
called upon to go above and beyond the call of duty every 
single day. That is why it is so important to ensure that our 
first responders have the resources and training they need to 
protect and serve our communities.
    FEMA's preparedness grants, including but not limited to 
the UASI and the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the 
Port Security Grant Program, and the Transit Security Grant 
Program help our first responders do just that. As the Ranking 
Member of this subcommittee, I am proud to support these grant 
programs, as well as other efforts to strengthen our Nation's 
overall emergency preparedness.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for participating in 
the hearing today and I look forward to hearing your thoughts 
on how we can work together to build a more resilient Nation.
    With that, I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Cammack follows:]
                Statement of Ranking Member Kat Cammack
                              May 17, 2022
    Thank you, Chairwoman Demings for holding this important hearing 
today. I'm looking forward to discussing the ways in which we can work 
together to build a more resilient Nation.
    June 1 marks the beginning of the 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season. 
With this date fast approaching, it's important to remember that while 
we can't control the weather, we can take steps to prepare.
    As Floridians, we're all too familiar with the destructive power of 
hurricanes. But what many people don't realize is that Florida is also 
highly prone to tornadoes, ranking third behind Texas and Kansas with 
the average number of tornadoes per year.
    According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
National Severe Storms Laboratory, the United States experienced more 
than 1,300 tornadoes last year, which resulted in the tragic deaths of 
over 100 people.
    The dangers of tornadoes really hit home for me when earlier this 
year, a tornado tore through homes and businesses in my district.
    At the time, the National Weather Service radar in Jacksonville was 
down for maintenance, meaning that residents were given no notice or 
warning of the incoming storm.
    This is absolutely unacceptable.
    In response, my team and I have been working hard on behalf of my 
constituents to ensure that this never happens again.
    While today's hearing is about the broader topic of resilience, I'm 
going to focus my comments on how our communities can improve their 
resilience when it comes to natural disasters.
    Specifically, I'd like to talk about two incredibly important 
topics: Pre-disaster mitigation activities and our Nation's building 
codes.
    Pre-disaster mitigation activities can include efforts conducted by 
State and local communities like upgrading existing infrastructure to 
protect from all-hazards, elevating existing structures in identified 
flood zones, or investing in public awareness programs.
    And these mitigation efforts can also take place at an individual 
level when people install hurricane shutters, purchase flood insurance, 
or clear dead vegetation from their property to reduce the risk of 
wildfire.
    Regardless of whether mitigation efforts are undertaken at the 
Federal, State, local, or individual level, these efforts can help 
ensure that no geographic region of the country is left unsupported.
    In addition to pre-disaster mitigation efforts, our communities can 
also build resilience by improving our Nation's existing building 
codes.
    I am incredibly fortunate to represent the University of Florida, 
which is home to an excellent engineering program which has professors 
whose research focuses on sustainable infrastructure and the 
environment.
    One such professor is Dr. Prevatt who has dedicated his career to 
learning how to make buildings more resilient. While unfortunately Dr. 
Prevatt was unable to attend our hearing today, I would like to take 
this opportunity to insert his testimony into the record.
    Dr. Prevatt's extensive research, which has included conducting 
damage assessments after a tornado devasted parts of western Kentucky 
last year, has shown that the most catastrophic destruction can be 
minimized by using better building construction.
    In addition to saving lives, improved building design also makes 
smart financial sense. A December 2019 report by the National Institute 
of Building Sciences found that by designing buildings to meet 2018 
building code standards, the National mitigation benefit-cost ratio is 
$11 for every $1 invested.
    Before I yield back, I would be remiss if, on the heels of National 
Police Week, I didn't briefly touch on the critical role that our 
police forces and first responders play in communities across America. 
In our increasingly uncertain world, first responders are being called 
upon to go above and beyond the call of duty every single day.
    That's why it is so important to ensure that our first responders 
have the resources and training they need to protect our communities. 
FEMA's preparedness grants, including, but not limited to the Urban 
Area Security Initiative (UASI), the State Homeland Security Grant 
Program, the Port Security Grant Program, and the Transit Security 
Grant Program help our first responders do just that.
    As the Ranking Member of this subcommittee, I am proud to support 
these grant programs, as well as all other efforts to strengthen our 
Nation's overall emergency preparedness.
    I'd like to thank all of our witness for participating in this 
hearing today and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can 
work together to build a more resilient Nation.
    With that, I yield back.

    Chairwoman Demings. I thank the Ranking Member for her 
statement.
    Members are reminded that the committee will operate 
according to the guidelines laid out by the Chairman and 
Ranking Member in their February 3, 2021 colloquy regarding 
remote procedures.
    Without objection, Members not on the subcommittee shall be 
permitted to sit and question the witnesses. Statements may 
also be submitted for the record.
    [The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
                Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
                              May 17, 2022
    Good morning.
    Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the 
devastating violence across our Nation this weekend. My condolences go 
out to the families of the victims in Buffalo, New York and Laguna 
Woods, California.
    These heinous acts of violence and domestic terrorism demonstrate 
the challenges we face as a Nation.
    I would like to thank Chairwoman Demings for holding today's 
hearing on resilience.
    Resilience means being ready and able to withstand a crisis and 
deliver a quick and successful response and recovery to an emergency.
    Resilience means that preparation and adaptation are not an 
afterthought. They are critical parts of the process.
    By planning for the worst and building resilience into our systems 
from the very beginning, we can mitigate damage and suffering.
    Today, we are 2 weeks away from the start of hurricane season.
    Experts are predicting another record year, and if they are correct 
there could be 19 named storms.
    Over the last year alone, people across the Nation have experienced 
the impact of climate change in deadly heat waves, dangerous wildfires, 
and storms, including tornadoes in Kentucky and wide-spread destruction 
from Hurricane Ida, which impacted States from the Gulf Coast to New 
England.
    Unfortunately, these problems are here to stay.
    The threats before us are grave, and natural disasters are not the 
only challenge.
    The rise in homeland threats like domestic terrorism and cyber 
attacks place an added burden on our first responders, local 
governments, and community partners.
    Emergency response systems are incredibly important to the outcome 
of a crisis, and yet they are already under strain.
    The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) helps ensure that local 
law enforcement and first responders have the training and equipment 
they need to protect against terrorist threats.
    I support full and robust funding for the UASI program and other 
DHS grants that ensure first responders have resources to keep our 
communities safe.
    Another key pillar of a resilient Nation is ensuring that everyone, 
not just those with means, is considered included in the disaster 
response, especially those who need it most.
    It is wrong to leave people behind. Sadly, that is what our current 
disaster assistance system does. Often those with wealth and power can 
navigate the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster assistance 
system, while low-income and people of color are left behind.
    With Chairwoman Demings and Senator Elizabeth Warren's support, I 
introduced the ``FEMA Equity Act'' to ensure that no one gets left 
behind by FEMA assistance because of their race or income.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about how integrating 
equity into our conversation is a critical part of resilience.
    To cope with the challenges of tomorrow, we must act strategically 
to build resilience at all levels of government, from small-town 
leadership to our Federal climate goals.
    I look forward to the witnesses' testimony as we work toward 
building a more resilient Nation.

    Chairwoman Demings. I now welcome our panel of witnesses.
    Our first witness is Orlando Chief of Police Orlando Rolon, 
appearing on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. 
Chief Rolon started with the Orlando Police Department in 1992. 
Having previously served with them, I have witnessed his 
extraordinary and outstanding commitment to public service. 
Chief, I want to commend you on a distinguished career and 
congratulate you on your announcement of your retirement of 
last week. Thank you so much for your service to our community. 
I know that the best is still yet to come. Thank you so much 
for being here with us today.
    Our second witness is Commissioner George Dunlap. The 
commissioner serves as chairman of the board of Mecklenburg 
County Commission. He has been a member of the Commission for 
over 10 years and a proud law enforcement veteran for almost 30 
years. Thank you for your service.
    He was previously a member of the board of directors for 
the National Association of County Officials and will be 
representing them today.
    Our third witness is Chris Currie, the director of GAO's 
Homeland Security and Justice Team. Mr. Currie leads GAO's work 
on emergency management, disaster response, and recovery and 
the Department of Homeland Security management and high-risk 
issues. Mr. Currie began his tenure with GAO in 2002.
    Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be 
inserted in the record.
    I now ask each witness to summarize their statement for 5 
minutes, beginning with Chief Rolon.

  STATEMENT OF ORLANDO ROLON, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF ORLANDO

    Chief Rolon. Chairwoman Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, 
and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
the opportunity to participate in today's hearing. It is an 
honor to testify before you for the second time this Congress.
    Chairwoman Demings. Chief, excuse me, is your microphone 
on----
    Chief Rolon. Yes, ma'am.
    Chairwoman Demings. OK. All right. Just--thank you.
    Chief Rolon. You are welcome.
    FEMA grants play a critical role in building resilient 
communities. For these grants to be as effective as possible, 
there must be robust stakeholder engagement. While FEMA has 
prioritized local enforcement engagement since I last testified 
on critical issues like grant carve-outs and changes to the 
risk formula, engagement is still limited. FEMA would benefit 
from instituting a more formal process for soliciting local law 
enforcement input.
    Each year UASI and State and Homeland Security grant 
program recipients must dedicate a certain portion of their 
funding to National priority areas and law enforcement 
terrorism prevention activities, or LETPA. While National 
priority areas can help ensure limited grant funding is used to 
address the most significant threats, they must develop a 
consultation with key stakeholders to ensure they do not 
inadvertently jeopardize funding for core capabilities.
    Loopholes in LETPA may also impact the amount of grant 
funding available for law enforcement. While the MCAA is 
pleased to see FEMA raised the LETPA requirements to 30 percent 
for fiscal year 2022, Congress must do more to strengthen LETPA 
and ensure those funds end up in the hands of local law 
enforcement.
    UASI and State Homeland Security grant recipients often 
engage in year's-long planning where predictability is key. The 
need for additional transparency in how allocations are 
determined is much needed. While grantees are allowed to review 
and comment on their risk profiles, they cannot see the 
specific data used to calculate their risk. Considering these 
challenges, FEMA should let personnel from each jurisdiction, 
with the appropriate clearances, see the specific data used to 
formulate a risk profile.
    FEMA must also ensure the risk methodology captures all 
relevant factors. The city of Orlando is a top tourist 
destination, which represents a unique set of challenges when 
it comes to assessing risk. This year FEMA added a new data 
element to account for areas of visitor to resident ratios. It 
is great to see FEMA continue to tweak the formula to ensure it 
adequately captures the risk to tourist destinations.
    Effective public safety communications play an essential 
role in building resilient communities. Unfortunately, several 
events over the past few years made it abundantly clear that 
there is still work to do to harden these systems.
    Outdated technology and infrastructure, as well as wireless 
carriers, outages, can test resiliency for public safety 
communication systems. These challenges impact both members of 
the public, calling for assistance, and law enforcement 
officers responding to these emergencies.
    Cybersecurity is another threat that must be addressed. As 
law enforcement relies more and more on technology systems to 
carry out its mission, cyber attacks can have catastrophic 
effects.
    Upgrading current 9-1-1 structures to updated next 
generation 9-1-1 systems will be critical to further enhancing 
resiliency. Next generation 9-1-1 has countless benefits, but 
overall this upgrade will enable faster and more efficient 
emergency responses, as well as making first responders in the 
community they serve safer. Recent estimates place cost of 
Nation-wide next generation 9-1-1 at $15 billion. While funding 
9-1-1 operation is traditionally a State and local burden or 
function, next generation 9-1-1 will require Federal investment 
to help avoid duplicating many of the challenges with current 
9-1-1 systems, such as a lack of interoperability for those 
systems. While Congress has many priorities, it must provide 
resources for next generation 9-1-1 because these systems are 
critical infrastructure in every community.
    Local law enforcement agencies have continued to work 
tirelessly to better merge their public safety and disaster 
response and preparedness responsibilities. In Orlando, we work 
hand-in-hand with the city's office of emergency management. 
Many agencies also offer specialized training and have 
specialized units within emergency response and preparedness 
responsibilities. Local and Federal partnerships are also 
critical as they help bring additional resources and expertise 
to any disaster response. Local and Federal officials' first 
interaction shouldn't be during a crisis and therefore Congress 
must continue to ensure Federal agencies engage with their 
local counterparts and ensure critical grant programs, like the 
ones discussed today, are fully funded.
    I will actually close by thanking the subcommittee for its 
continued focus on ensuring local law enforcement has the 
resources and tools it needs to prepare for to respond to 
disasters. This support is critical, especially as the threat 
picture becomes more complex.
    I look forward to any questions the committee may have.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Chief Rolon follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Orlando Rolon
                              May 17, 2022
                              introduction
    Chairwoman Demings . . . Ranking Member Cammack . . . and 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the 
opportunity to participate in today's hearing. I appear before you 
today as the chief of police in Orlando, Florida. It is also my 
privilege to testify on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association 
(MCCA), a professional organization of law enforcement executives 
representing the largest cities in the United States and Canada. I 
currently serve as a member of the MCCA's Executive Board. It's an 
honor to testify before the subcommittee for the second time this 
Congress.
    I'd like to begin by noting the subcommittee's continued focus on 
issues impacting local law enforcement. The importance of your 
commitment to ensuring law enforcement has the resources and tools it 
needs to prepare for and respond to both natural and manmade disasters 
cannot be understated, especially as the threats facing the homeland 
become more complex.
    The focus of today's hearing is building resilient communities. My 
testimony will provide a local law enforcement perspective on FEMA 
preparedness grants and public safety communications, two integral 
elements for building resilience. I'll also discuss the role of local 
law enforcement in disaster response and how stakeholders from multiple 
levels of government can work together to increase resiliency Nation-
wide.
                        fema preparedness grants
    The resources FEMA grants provide play a critical role in building 
resilient communities. More specifically, these grant programs bolster 
law enforcement's ability to prevent and respond to a variety of public 
safety threats, including both terrorist attacks and natural disasters. 
The Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), which includes the Urban 
Area Security Initiative (UASI) and State Homeland Security Grant 
Program (SHSP), and the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) 
are particularly valuable for local law enforcement. However, FEMA can 
make a few changes to improve the efficacy of these preparedness grant 
programs.
Stakeholder Engagement
    While FEMA is an essential partner for local law enforcement in 
building resilience, there is room for improvement with respect to 
stakeholder engagement. Providing local law enforcement and other key 
stakeholders with the opportunity to ensure their voices are reflected 
in the policy making process will help ensure transparency in grant 
directives and guidance. Working with stakeholders ahead of time will 
also help mitigate situations where a FEMA policy change forces 
grantees to make last-minute pivots in their planning processes, which 
can inhibit their ability to allocate resources efficiently.
    Since I last testified on this topic, Secretary Mayorkas and FEMA 
leadership have made stakeholder engagement a priority. For example, 
FEMA and the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement recently held a 
call to solicit feedback on grant programs and processes with the MCCA 
and other law enforcement associations. FEMA also held another call to 
brief stakeholders on the recently released Notice of Funding 
Opportunity for fiscal year 2022 grants.
    Despite these improvements, engagement with the MCCA and local law 
enforcement on some of the most critical topics, such as National 
Priority Areas and changes to FEMA's risk formula, is still haphazard 
and limited. This is concerning, given that nearly every UASI 
jurisdiction is an MCCA member. The MCCA understands that the delayed 
fiscal year 2022 appropriations cycle required FEMA to develop the 
fiscal year 2022 grant guidance on an abbreviated schedule, which may 
have limited the opportunities for robust stakeholder engagement. 
Nevertheless, FEMA would benefit from instituting a more formal process 
for soliciting local law enforcement input on preparedness grants, as 
stakeholder engagement challenges have persisted for years.
National Priority Areas and LETPA
    To receive their full allocation of FEMA preparedness grant funds, 
grantees must dedicate a certain percentage of funds to projects that 
meet the criteria outlined in the statute or the grant program's Notice 
of Funding Opportunity. The two most prominent carveouts for UASI and 
SHSP are the National Priority Areas and the Law Enforcement Terrorism 
Prevention Activities (LETPA).
    National Priority Areas are a relatively new concept. FEMA first 
began requiring grantees to use a portion of their UASI and SHSP funds 
to address National Priority Areas in fiscal year 2020. There certainly 
is value in establishing National Priority Areas as it helps ensure 
that limited grant funding is used to help address the most significant 
threats facing the country. However, FEMA must develop these priorities 
in consultation with key stakeholders to ensure they reflect the needs 
of grantees and do not inadvertently jeopardize funding for core 
capabilities and competencies. Grantees were required to spend 30 
percent of their total funds on National Priority Areas projects last 
year. As a result, the amount of discretionary funding for local law 
enforcement in some jurisdictions for projects that did not meet these 
criteria was limited. While grantees still must dedicate 30 percent of 
their award to National Priority Area projects in fiscal year 2022, 
FEMA has provided some additional flexibility that may help mitigate 
this issue.
    LETPA was originally a stand-alone grant program designed to help 
bolster law enforcement's capabilities to prevent and respond to 
terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, this program was weakened over the 
years, and it no longer receives its own appropriation. Instead, HSGP 
grantees must now dedicate at least 25 percent of their award to LETPA. 
The change from a grant program to a grant carveout impacted the amount 
of funding available for local law enforcement. For example, the LETPA 
requirement can be met using either UASI or SHSP funds, and National 
Priority Area projects also count toward the LETPA requirement. 
Therefore, grantees can meet the LETPA requirement while only providing 
a limited amount of LEPTA-designated funding directly to local law 
enforcement.
    Despite these challenges, LETPA still provides significant value. 
For example, one MCCA member uses this specific carveout to help fund 
its fusion center and Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear 
Explosive (CBRNE) teams. FEMA's fiscal year 2022 Notice of Funding 
Opportunity recognizes the importance of LETPA, raising the carveout to 
30 percent, a 5 percent increase over the minimum amount required by 
statute. While this is a welcome first step, Congress should take 
additional action to strengthen LETPA. Ideally, Congress would restore 
LETPA to a stand-alone, independently-funded grant program. If it is 
unwilling to do so, it should, at a minimum, close the loopholes 
described above, which must include requiring grantees to pass through 
a portion of LETPA-dedicated funding to local law enforcement.
Risk Methodology Predictability
    It is not uncommon for projects funded by FEMA preparedness grants 
to be multi-year efforts. As a result, grantees often engage in years-
long planning processes and for these efforts to succeed, there must be 
predictability and integrity in the risk calculation and funding 
allocation process FEMA uses each year.
    There is a need to inject additional transparency into the risk 
validation process that is used to determine funding allocations for 
UASI and SHSP. While States, territories, and UASI-eligible 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) can review and comment on their 
risk profiles, there is a lack of detailed information. For example, 
while the risk profile explains how each element of the profile is 
calculated and notes the sources used, grantees cannot see the specific 
data utilized. Therefore, it is challenging to provide substantive 
feedback, confirm the calculations are accurate, or raise other 
concerns. For example, after a historical data call, one MCCA member 
learned that several of their critical infrastructure assets had been 
omitted, resulting in the MSA's risk being miscalculated.
    To address these challenges, FEMA should let personnel from each 
jurisdiction, with the appropriate clearances, see the specific data 
used to formulate the risk profile. This will help increase 
transparency, improve FEMA and stakeholder engagement, provide another 
opportunity for State and local threat information to be incorporated, 
and ensure the risk to communities is being calculated accurately. No 
one knows the security needs of the community better than local law 
enforcement.
    Orlando and several other MCCA members that receive UASI grants are 
unique in that the number of annual visitors is significantly greater 
than the local population. The sheer number of tourists in these 
jurisdictions, coupled with the fact that many of them are visiting 
soft targets--such as Orlando's many theme parks--represents a 
substantial risk that should be accounted for in FEMA's risk 
methodology. Until recently, tourism-related metrics, such as special 
events and daily visitors, were not included. Once these factors were 
incorporated, several prominent tourist destinations rightly saw 
significant increases in their UASI funding allocations. FEMA added a 
new data element to its fiscal year 2022 risk methodology to account 
for MSAs' visitor-to-resident ratio. It's great to see that FEMA 
continues to review and update its risk formula as necessary to ensure 
it appropriately weights the unique needs of tourist destinations.
    Finally, once a UASI or SHSP project is approved, FEMA must 
disburse the necessary resources expeditiously. Several MCCA members 
have expressed concern about navigating FEMA's bureaucracy. Things 
become even more complicated when grantees are trying to fund a project 
that requires additional levels of approval from FEMA, such as 
acquiring controlled equipment, or repurpose their grant funds after a 
disaster occurs in their jurisdiction. The failure to disburse funds 
promptly is detrimental to homeland security as it inhibits recipients 
from mitigating risks as efficiently as possible. Furthermore, it can 
also cause challenges as grantees work to coordinate project delivery 
with other stakeholders.
    As mentioned earlier, many FEMA grant-funded projects are multi-
year efforts. If a grantee were to experience a substantial decrease in 
funding or lose their UASI-eligibility, it could put vital capabilities 
at risk and undermine resiliency. Given some of the unpredictability in 
FEMA's current risk methodology, Congress has taken action to mitigate 
the impact on jurisdictions that lose UASI funding. Last fall, 
Chairwoman Demings introduced H.R. 5615, the Homeland Security 
Capabilities Preservation Act, which requires FEMA to develop a plan to 
make funding available to jurisdictions that lose UASI eligibility and 
need assistance to preserve UASI-funded capabilities. These additional 
resources will provide these jurisdictions with additional time to 
transition these capabilities to alternative funding streams. This bill 
passed the House in March, and the MCCA strongly encourages the Senate 
to pass it as soon as possible.
Emergency Management Performance Grant
    The continued effectiveness of FEMA's Emergency Management 
Performance Grant (EMPG) will be critical as communities continue to 
build resilience. EMPG supports State and local emergency management 
agencies and programs, and this funding remains the backbone of many 
local emergency management programs. The funding allocations for EMPG 
are based primarily on population. In fiscal year 2021, Florida 
received roughly $16.5 million. In addition, Florida received an 
additional $4.7 million in EMPG funding through the American Rescue 
Plan.
    EMPG includes a 50 percent local match requirement, which helps 
create a shared responsibility for preparedness among local, State, and 
Federal agencies. Although not perfect, EMPG provides enough 
flexibility so State and local programs can effectively utilize it to 
address a range of emergency management priorities. For example, here 
in Florida, EMPG funding supports personnel, equipment, planning, 
training, and exercise activities across the State. Congress and FEMA 
must maintain this flexibility regarding the eligible uses of funds. 
Furthermore, Congress should consider increasing the appropriation for 
EMPG to reflect the ever-increasing responsibilities of agencies 
involved in emergency management.
                      public safety communications
    Effective public safety communications play an essential role in 
building resilient communities. They are critical in coordinating and 
executing the public safety response to a wide variety of threats. 
While public safety communications have steadily improved over the 
years, several issues still need to be addressed as expeditiously as 
possible.
Resiliency
    Emergency communications, such as 9-1-1 calls, are one of the 
primary methods through which members of the public let police, 
firefighters, EMS, and other first responders know they need help. As 
such, the systems used to receive and manage these communications must 
be resilient and able to withstand all manner of threats, whether they 
be natural or man-made. Unfortunately, several events over the past few 
years made it abundantly clear that there is still work to do to harden 
and make communications systems as resilient as possible.
    In June 2022, cell carrier outages impacted 9-1-1 services here in 
Orlando. Similar situations have affected other communities throughout 
the country with disturbing regularity. The dangers of these outages 
are clear. An individual in an emergency may not know an alternative 
number to dial or be able to find one until it's too late. It also 
complicates law enforcement's response, as agencies need to identify 
and triage emergencies from other calls that also utilize non-emergency 
lines.
    Outdated technology is another issue that must be addressed when it 
comes to building resilience. The situation in New Orleans following 
Hurricane Ida is one example that highlights this challenge. It was 
widely reported that the 9-1-1 center in New Orleans was off-line for 
approximately 13 hours following the hurricane. This outage, which was 
attributed to outdated technology, was particularly devastating 
considering the sheer number of people who needed assistance during 
this time. Many communities across the United States still rely on 
landline technology to deliver 9-1-1 calls, which can be especially 
susceptible to some of the consequences of natural disasters. The move 
to Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1), which is discussed in greater 
detail later in this testimony, would help alleviate this issue. These 
systems deliver requests for assistance via IP-based technology, making 
it easier to reroute calls to another 9-1-1 center if the initial 9-1-1 
center experiences an outage.
    Cyber attacks are another threat that can test the resiliency of 
public safety communications systems. Over the past decade, public 
safety agencies, including many MCCA members, have experienced 
increased ransomware, denial of service, and other cyber attacks. As 
law enforcement and other public safety agencies rely more and more on 
technology systems to carry out their missions, these attacks can have 
catastrophic effects. Agencies can be especially vulnerable if their 
technology systems are outdated or their personnel are not adequately 
trained to mitigate cyber threats. These challenges can be exacerbated 
by public safety agencies' connections with more extensive municipal 
networks, which may be less secure and provide an alternative vector 
for attacks.
    Public safety must continue to work tirelessly to mitigate cyber 
threats. One of the best defenses is to ensure that agency personnel 
are well-educated and -trained on good ``cyber hygiene.'' Congress can 
also take a few steps to help local governments defend themselves 
against cyber attacks. First, Congress must ensure the grant programs 
that help build local cyber capacity, such as the Homeland Security 
Grant Program, are fully funded. Congress should also continue to 
provide agencies such as DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
Security Agency (CISA) with the authorities and resources needed to 
continue programs and efforts designed to help local government 
agencies prevent and respond to cyber attacks.
Next Generation 9-1-1
    9-1-1 systems are critical infrastructure in every community. From 
a young age, it is ingrained in us to dial those numbers if we ever 
find ourselves in an emergency. Millions of Americans every year depend 
on these systems to dispatch help in their time of need. Most people 
are surprised to learn that 9-1-1 systems throughout the country are 
often underfunded and technologically inadequate. Many 9-1-1 systems 
throughout the country rely on decades-old landline technology--things 
like copper wires and conventional switches. One could reasonably argue 
that the smartphones we all carry in our pockets are more advanced and 
have more capabilities than some of the 9-1-1 systems public safety 
agencies currently operate.
    Upgrading current 9-1-1 systems to next-generation ones will be 
critical to further enhancing resiliency. This upgrade will enable 
faster and more efficient emergency responses, make first responders 
and the communities they serve safer, and allow law enforcement and 
public safety professionals to better meet the needs and expectations 
of the tech-enabled, 21st Century American public. NG 9-1-1 will enable 
dispatch centers to receive a variety of multimedia and other rich data 
from callers and seamlessly share it with first responders in the 
field. The benefits of this capability are endless. For example, live 
videos of a crime scene could help law enforcement identify where a 
suspect is located more quickly. Photos from a burning building can 
assist firefighters with determining what rescue equipment is needed. 
Health information sent from a smartphone or smartwatch can assist EMS 
and hospitals with preparing treatments before a patient is in their 
care. Utilizing advanced data is just one of NG 9-1-1's many benefits. 
Simply put, upgrading to NG 
9-1-1 will save lives.
    To help raise awareness and advocate for NG 9-1-1, approximately 2 
years ago, the MCCA helped found the Public Safety Next Generation 9-1-
1 Coalition. The Coalition consists of the leadership of many of 
America's major law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical 
services, labor unions, and public safety communications associations. 
The goal of the Coalition is to work with Congress and other key 
stakeholders to ensure the right policies are in place and secure the 
requisite resources to bring about a Nation-wide upgrade of existing 9-
1-1 systems to next-generation systems. As part of its efforts, the 
Coalition established a set of first principles. These principles must 
be incorporated into any NG 9-1-1 upgrade to ensure public safety 
professionals and the communities we serve can realize the full 
benefits of this technology. The Coalition's first principles are:
   NG 9-1-1 should be technologically and competitively neutral 
        and use commonly-accepted standards that do not lead to 
        proprietary solutions that hamper interoperability, make mutual 
        aid between agencies less effective, limit choices, or increase 
        costs.
   Development of program requirements, grant guidance, 
        application criteria, and rules regarding NG 9-1-1 grants 
        should be guided by an advisory board of public safety 
        practitioners and 9-1-1 professionals.
   NG 9-1-1 must be fully funded to ensure it is deployed 
        throughout the country in an effective, innovative, and secure 
        manner and to enable NG 9-1-1 implementation training Nation-
        wide.
   The process for allocating funds to localities should be 
        efficient, Federal overhead costs should be minimized, and 
        grant conditions should not be onerous or extraneous and should 
        be targeted to achieve important objectives including 
        interoperability and sustainability.
   Cybersecurity of NG 9-1-1 systems should be a primary 
        consideration.
   Incentives for increased efficiency of NG 9-1-1 functions, 
        including through shared technology and regional collaboration, 
        should be included.
    While all the Coalition's first principles are important, there 
will always be challenges with resiliency until interoperability issues 
are fully addressed. A lack of interoperability is one of the most 
significant flaws with current 9-1-1 systems, as 9-1-1 centers cannot 
quickly transfer calls to other centers. Instead, public safety 
communications professionals typically need to facilitate the transfer 
manually. As a result, the individual calling for help often needs to 
tell their story again to the dispatcher at the new center. Every 
second counts when responding to an emergency, and the delays created 
by a lack of interoperability can be the difference between life and 
death.
    Roughly 80 percent of 9-1-1 calls are now made from cell phones. In 
many instances, the 9-1-1 center that receives the call is based on the 
location of the cell tower that processed the call. It should be noted 
that while wireless carriers and device manufacturers have developed 
and implemented features to route calls based on the device's actual 
location, it is not always possible to direct calls via this method. 
MCCA member agencies typically border multiple jurisdictions, which 
complicates the challenges related to interoperability. MCCA members 
can provide numerous examples of calls for service in their cities, 
especially near jurisdictional boundaries, being routed to 9-1-1 
centers in neighboring areas. For example, one member located near the 
State line has indicated that emergency calls are sometimes routed to a 
9-1-1 center in another State.
    The upgrade from landline to IP-based technology, known as ESInets, 
is the backbone of an NG 9-1-1 upgrade. This is an important step, but 
is not enough on its own to solve interoperability issues. As 9-1-1 
systems are upgraded to NG 9-1-1, these new systems must be 
technologically and competitively neutral. NG 9-1-1 systems also must 
use commonly-accepted standards and cannot rely on proprietary 
solutions. A failure to do so risks producing a situation that shares 
many of the challenges public safety agencies are currently 
experiencing with land mobile radios, where achieving interoperability 
requires developing and implementing expensive workarounds.
    Traditionally, 9-1-1 operations are a State and local function. 
Unfortunately, this has created a situation of ``haves and have nots,'' 
where 9-1-1 system capabilities vary dramatically between States and 
communities. Given the immense public safety value, we must ensure that 
all of America, from the largest cities to the most rural counties, can 
upgrade to NG 9-1-1 systems as soon as possible. It will be tough to 
execute this upgrade Nation-wide without investing Federal resources. 
The cost of this upgrade goes well beyond the infrastructure and 
technology NG 
9-1-1 systems need to operate. There are also costs associated with 
other critical components, such as training dispatchers and other 
personnel on these new systems and implementing vital cybersecurity 
measures to ensure the systems cannot be taken off-line by malicious 
actors.
    Federal assistance for NG 9-1-1 systems must be sufficient enough 
to address all aspects of the upgrade. Otherwise, it may further cement 
the status quo of ``haves and have nots.'' It may also inhibit public 
safety from addressing all existing challenges with current 9-1-1 
systems or fully capitalizing on the new capabilities NG 9-1-1 systems 
provide. Recent estimates put the cost of a Nation-wide NG 9-1-1 
upgrade at approximately $15 billion. While this is a large sum, 
especially in the current fiscal environment, Congress should strongly 
consider providing this funding given the benefits NG 9-1-1 systems 
offer.
FirstNet Reauthorization
    No matter how much a community does to prepare, the reality is that 
there will always be emergencies. For a community to be resilient, the 
local public safety apparatus must be able to respond to these 
incidents quickly and effectively. As stated earlier, successful public 
safety responses require effective communications. To help address 
public safety communications challenges, in 2012, Congress passed 
legislation creating the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), 
which is responsible for providing a National broadband communications 
network that promotes interoperability between first responders. The 
MCCA was an original supporter of this legislation and has continued to 
support FirstNet's efforts to strengthen the National network.
    While the network is deployed via a public-private partnership, the 
FirstNet Authority is ultimately responsible for oversight and 
management. However, FirstNet's authorization sunsets in 2027, and no 
other entity is currently identified in the statute to take over these 
responsibilities. If Congress fails to act before FirstNet's authority 
lapses, it will place network operations and improvements at risk, and 
could result in public safety users losing access, according to a 
recent GAO report. This cannot be allowed to happen, especially as 
communities across the country contend with various public safety 
threats, including violent crime, extreme weather, and other 
emergencies.
    Earlier this year, Chairwoman Demings and Representative Fletcher 
introduced H.R. 6768. This legislation would eliminate the sunset 
provision, thereby ensuring FirstNet's authority will not lapse. More 
importantly, this permanent reauthorization will allow FirstNet to 
continue its work to enhance the communications technology and 
infrastructure first responders rely on, which in turn help communities 
Nation-wide build resiliency. The MCCA has endorsed H.R. 6768 and 
encourages Congress to advance it as soon as possible.
           local law enforcement's role in disaster response
    Local law enforcement is on the front lines of responding to any 
emergency, whether it be a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or 
global pandemic. During these incidents, close collaboration between 
public safety partners at every level of government, the community, and 
other stakeholders is of paramount importance. Resilient communities 
rely on these relationships to prepare for, respond to, and recover 
from disasters as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Changing Roles
    Historically, local law enforcement's role in disaster response has 
focused on upholding public safety by protecting people and property. 
While that is still a primary focus, over the years, the disaster 
response-related responsibilities of many local law enforcement 
agencies have grown to adjust to the changing landscape and added 
risks. Disaster response has become a shared responsibility, and 
effective responses require multiple skill sets. First responders can 
no longer operate in silos and must work as one unit to ensure the 
safety of the community. As such, law enforcement now frequently 
assists with disaster response activities traditionally considered the 
purview of other public safety entities. These duties can range from 
search-and-rescue missions, to evacuating residents, to assisting with 
medical treatment and distributing supplies to displaced members of the 
community.
    In recent years, local law enforcement agencies have continued to 
work tirelessly to better merge their public safety and disaster 
response and preparedness responsibilities. Law enforcement works 
closely with State and local emergency management offices and other 
stakeholders to develop, coordinate, and practice emergency response 
plans. Many agencies also provide or help facilitate specialized 
training, such as incident management training. Other departments, 
including many MCCA member agencies, have stood up homeland security, 
emergency services, and other specialized divisions. These units are 
often responsible for emergency and disaster preparedness and response.
Federal-Local Partnerships
    Local jurisdictions often look to the Federal Government for 
assistance when disaster strikes. While MCCA members enjoy strong 
working relationships with their Federal partners, disaster response 
requires a whole-of-government approach, so other local government 
entities must also engage with their Federal counterparts. Establishing 
these relationships in advance provides numerous benefits. Local and 
Federal officials' first interaction shouldn't be during a crisis. 
Through its oversight efforts, Congress must continue to ensure Federal 
agencies engage with their local counterparts and that mechanisms for 
promoting this collaboration are adequately funded.
    The Federal Government can also provide additional resources and 
expertise to aid local jurisdictions in preparing for and responding to 
disasters. FEMA preparedness grants are perhaps the most well-known 
example. There is no doubt that Congress must continue to ensure these 
programs are fully funded.
    The 1033 Program is another example that demonstrates how the 
Federal Government can assist localities with disaster response. The 
1033 Program, managed by the Defense Logistics Agency, allows the 
Department of Defense to transfer surplus equipment to local law 
enforcement agencies, thereby providing access to critical equipment 
that may otherwise be cost-prohibitive. Local law enforcement agencies 
have used this equipment to respond to a range of public safety 
threats, including natural disasters, terrorist attacks, active 
shooters, and other emergencies.
    Due to a common misconception that the 1033 Program is used to 
militarize the police, there have been several recent attempts to 
eliminate or significantly restrict the program. The reality is that 
the 1033 Program provides a wide variety of equipment, including 
equipment with disaster response applications, such as emergency tents 
and generators. Even some of the more military-style equipment is 
frequently used for disaster response. For example, one MCCA member 
used an MRAP vehicle obtained via the 1033 Program to perform high-
water rescues during a hurricane. Given some of the concerns that 
opponents of the 1033 Program have raised, the MCCA welcomes 
incorporating additional oversight and accountability measures. 
However, eliminating or significantly restricting the program would be 
detrimental to both public safety and community resiliency.
                               conclusion
    While there are many things outside of our control during a 
disaster or emergency, the one thing we can control is our level of 
preparedness. One of the best ways to prepare for future disasters is 
to build resilient communities. This will require an investment of 
resources, the deployment of new technology, and a few policy changes 
and pieces of legislation. No one entity can do everything on its own, 
so stakeholders at every level of government must continue to 
collaborate. The MCCA stands ready to continue to work closely with 
this subcommittee to advance our shared goal of building resilient 
communities.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today's 
hearing. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

    Chairwoman Demings. Thank you, chief, for your testimony.
    I now recognize Commissioner Dunlap to summarize his 
statement for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF GEORGE DUNLAP, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY 
       COMMISSIONERS, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. Dunlap. Chair Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, and 
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for having 
me here today.
    My name is George Dunlap and I have the privilege of 
serving as chairman of the Board of County Commissioners in 
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. I am also representing the 
National Association of Counties.
    Counties are on the front line of defense before and after 
disaster strikes. Following a disaster, local elected officials 
and emergency managers are first on the scene and play a key 
role in recovery and rebuilding efforts so our residents can 
return to their lives as quickly as possible. As major owners 
and operators of public infrastructure, counties are uniquely 
positioned to mitigate the impacts of disasters. America's 
3,069 counties, parishes, and boroughs own 44 percent of public 
roads, 38 percent of the National bridge inventory, and over 
900 hospitals, and directly support a third of the Nation's 
airports.
    I am here today to underscore the county role in 
strengthening our Nation's resilience against all types of 
disasters and to discuss how we can best work together to meet 
the challenges of today and the demands of the future.
    First, improving our Nation's resilience is only possible 
by giving communities the tools to address the unique issues 
facing their jurisdiction. Disaster response, recovery, and 
mitigation starts local and it ends local. However, our efforts 
would not be possible without the support from Federal programs 
that assist in identifying and mitigating future threats. Once 
such program that many large urban areas, like Mecklenburg 
County, rely on is FEMA's Urban Area Security Initiative, 
better know UASI. UASI funding is critical to ensuring high-
density urban areas have the resources necessary to mitigate 
and respond to acts of terrorism. However, funding is not 
guaranteed each year.
    In 2019 Mecklenburg County did not receive funding, leaving 
our ability to proactively address and response to possible 
threats dramatically diminished. Counties appreciate bipartisan 
efforts, such as their Homeland Security Capability 
Preservation Act, which would ensure continued funding and 
resources to areas that have previously received UASI funding, 
but have fallen off due to program changes.
    Second, removing the barriers to funding and resources for 
underserved and disadvantaged communities is critical. 
Requiring the completion of complex and burdensome paperwork by 
communities who are unfamiliar with the process during the most 
stressful times of their life, can significantly impede 
progress when it is most needed.
    Populations that feel the biggest impact are often our 
underserved and disadvantaged communities who lack the 
resources and the capacity to complete applications and meet 
critical deadlines. Implementing plain language into 
applications and identifying resources available to assist 
applicants is paramount to approving the overall resilience of 
the Nation.
    Counties are supportive of recently-introduced FEMA Equity 
Act, which would seek to address inequities in access to 
Federal disaster assistance programs and reduce barriers to 
recovery and response resources.
    Finally, counties understand that improving our Nation's 
resilience relies on a strong Federal, State, and local 
partnership. Counties are not merely stakeholders in this 
conversation, rather we are part of a Federal, State, and local 
partnership of governments that together share the 
responsibility of protecting our Nation and its residents from 
all types of disasters. While disasters are inherently local, 
counties rely on our State and Federal partners for critical 
disaster recovery tools, like funding, human capital, and 
technical assistance. Rebuilding our communities and making 
them more resilient is only possible with the support of our 
Federal and State partners.
    In conclusion, counties stand ready to work side-by-side 
with you to improve our Nation's resilience and ensure the 
health, well-being, and safety of our citizens.
    Chair Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, again, thank you for 
the invitation to discuss this critical issue on behalf of 
America's counties.
    This concludes my testimony and I am happy to take your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dunlap follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of George Dunlap
                              May 17, 2022
                              introduction
    Chair Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, and distinguished Members of 
the subcommittee, on behalf of the National Association of Counties 
(NACo), thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the important 
role counties play in making our Nation more resilient.
    My name is George Dunlap, and I serve as the chairman of the board 
in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and as vice chair of the justice 
and public safety policy steering committee and large urban county 
caucus at NACo.
    NACo is the only national organization that represents county 
governments in the United States, including Alaska's boroughs and 
Louisiana's parishes. Founded in 1935, NACo assists America's 3,069 
counties in pursuing excellence in public service to produce healthy, 
vibrant, safe, and resilient communities.
    As part of NACo's mission, the justice and public safety policy 
steering committee works to strengthen county resiliency by advocating 
for Federal policies and programs that help county leaders identify and 
manage risk and allow counties to become more flexible and responsive 
to disasters. Through sustainable practices and infrastructure, 
counties become better prepared to address these issues in a manner 
that can minimize the impact on our residents and businesses.
    My home of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is home to over 1.1 
million residents to whom we provide critical services, including 
public safety and emergency services, public housing, health and human 
services, transportation and more. We predominantly rely on local 
property taxes to ensure our many responsibilities are met; however, 
due to constraints on local revenues that are enforced at the State 
level, a strong intergovernmental partnership is critical as we work to 
meet the challenges of today and plan for the future.
    Abutting the South Carolina border, Mecklenburg County stretches 
over 500 square miles in southwest North Carolina with a large urban 
center in the city of Charlotte surrounded by smaller, more rural 
communities. All of America's counties are highly diverse and vary 
immensely in geography and natural resources, social and political 
systems, cultural, economic and structural circumstances, public health 
and environmental responsibilities. Of the Nation's 3,069 counties, 
approximately 70 percent are considered rural with populations of less 
than 50,000, and 50 percent of these counties have populations below 
25,000. At the same time, there are more than 120 major urban counties, 
where essential services are provided locally to more than 130 million 
county residents each day.
    Paramount among other critical county responsibilities is the role 
of counties in community preparedness. Counties are on the front lines 
of defense before and after disasters strike. While State statutes and 
organizational structures vary, local emergency management 
responsibilities are most commonly vested in county governments. 
Following a disaster, local elected officials and emergency managers 
are often the first on the scene and play a key role in the 
coordination of local emergency management efforts. Other key county 
staff involved in pre- and post-disaster efforts include local police, 
sheriffs, firefighters, 9-1-1 call center staff, public health 
officials, and public records and code inspectors. In the aftermath of 
disasters, we coordinate clean-up, recovery, and rebuilding efforts so 
our residents can return to their lives as quickly as possible.
    Furthermore, because counties are major owners of public 
infrastructure, we are also uniquely positioned to mitigate the impacts 
of disasters before they occur. Collectively, we own 44 percent of 
public road miles, 38 percent of the National Bridge Inventory, 960 
hospitals, more than 2,500 jails, over 650 nursing homes and directly 
support a third of the Nation's airports and public transit systems. We 
also own and maintain a wide variety of public safety infrastructure, 
including roadside ditches, flood control channels, stormwater culverts 
and pipes and other infrastructure used to funnel water away from low-
lying roads, properties, and businesses. Counties provide extensive 
outreach and education to residents on water quality and stormwater 
impacts prior to and following disasters, and we work to reduce water 
pollution, adopt setbacks for land use plans and are responsible for 
water recharge areas, green infrastructure, and water conservation 
programs.
    Over the past 20 years, natural and man-made disasters have 
increased in frequency, severity, and cost. On average, 24 percent of 
counties have experienced at least one disaster in each of the last 3 
years. Last year, 965 counties experienced at least one Federally-
declared major disaster, 590 counties had at least one emergency 
declaration and 850 counties had at least one disaster declaration. 
During 2021, the Nation experienced 20 separate billion-dollar 
disasters, which totaled approximately $145 billion in damages.
    Counties are not merely stakeholders in this conversation. Rather, 
we are a part of the Federal-State-local partnership of governments 
that together share the responsibility of protecting our Nation and its 
residents from both natural and man-made disasters. Like the Federal 
Government, counties are entrusted by taxpayers to provide a variety of 
important services to their residents, and we stand ready to work with 
our intergovernmental counterparts to improve community resiliency and 
mitigate the impacts of future disasters. To this end, counties offer 
the following considerations:
   Ensuring Federal programs provide communities with the tools 
        and flexibility necessary to address issues specific to their 
        jurisdiction is paramount to improving our Nation's overall 
        resilience.
   Federal policy makers must remove barriers to funding and 
        resources for underserved and disadvantaged communities by 
        providing adequate technical assistance and decreasing 
        paperwork.
   County officials are effective stewards of Federal 
        investments, and a strong intergovernmental partnership is 
        needed to meet the entirety of our public sector 
        responsibilities.
    Ensuring Federal programs provide communities with the tools and 
flexibility necessary to address issues specific to their jurisdiction 
is paramount to improving our Nation's overall resilience.
    Disaster response, recovery, and mitigation starts local and ends 
local. Counties are currently tackling one of the largest cumulative 
recovery efforts our Nation has ever experienced in the COVID-19 
pandemic, while simultaneously continuing to meet our daily 
responsibilities around ensuring our communities remain safe and 
resilient to the next pandemic or disaster. While we are doing our part 
at the local level, effective resilience improvements would not be 
possible without the continued support from the Federal Government who 
administers programs that provide vital resources to support assessing 
potential future threats. Ensuring these programs remain flexible and 
accessible is vital to increasing the resilience of our Nation as each 
jurisdiction must have the authority to make decisions unique to the 
challenges being faced.
    One such program that large urban areas like Mecklenburg County 
rely on is the Federal Emergency Management Agency Urban Area Security 
Initiative (UASI) program. UASI assists high-threat, high-density urban 
areas in building and sustaining the capabilities necessary to prevent, 
protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of 
terrorism. Funding provided by UASI is critical to ensuring the 
Nation's most populous areas can protect both critical infrastructure 
and our residents during high-profile and mass gathering events. 
However, because UASI eligibility is based on an annual threat 
vulnerability formula that is used to determine the number of UASI 
jurisdictions, future funding through the program is not guaranteed.
    For example, the UASI jurisdiction of Charlotte, North Carolina--
which encompasses Mecklenburg County--went unfunded in 2019. As a 
result of this loss in funding, our jurisdiction was not able to fund 
planned purchases of anti-terrorism equipment for law enforcement, bomb 
squad equipment, and communications equipment. Given that the Charlotte 
area holds major public events almost weekly, and with the 2020 
Republican National Convention having been scheduled for that August, 
our ability to proactively address and respond to known threats and 
hazards was dramatically diminished.
    The uncertainty in UASI funding from UASI has left many counties in 
similar circumstances to Mecklenburg County. NACo was encouraged to see 
that the number of UASI jurisdictions increased from 31 in fiscal year 
2021 to 36 in fiscal year 2022 in the recent notice of funding 
opportunity that was released last week but remain concerned that 
future funding for these areas is not guaranteed. To address these 
concerns, NACo strongly supports Chairwoman Demings and Representative 
Bacon's Homeland Security Capabilities Preservation Act (H.R. 5615). 
This critical piece of legislation would provide jurisdictions who were 
in receipt of UASI funds in previous fiscal years with resources and 
assistance to continue projects previously initiated by this funding 
and ensure counties have the ability to continue to address threats 
specific to their areas.
Federal policymakers must remove barriers to funding and resources for 
        underserved and disadvantaged communities by providing adequate 
        technical assistance and decreasing paperwork.
    Unfortunately, bureaucratic red tape follows a disaster. For 
example, requiring the completion of complex and overly burdensome 
paperwork by communities who may be entirely unfamiliar with system 
protocols and who are attempting to undertake these processes during 
the most stressful times of their lives can significantly impede 
progress when it is needed most. Populations that feel the biggest 
impact are often our underserved and disadvantaged communities where 
resources and capacity to complete applications and meet critical 
deadlines can be severely exacerbated.
    Ensuring no communities are left behind in the bid to recover 
requires reexamining current procedures for applying for Federal 
funding. Implementing plain language into applications, providing clear 
time lines and identifying resources available to assist applicants 
during the process are paramount to improving the resiliency of our 
communities. Excessive paperwork and lack of clarity can be 
particularly difficult for jurisdictions who may be under-resourced or 
dealing with co-occurring disasters, as we saw with many parts of the 
country throughout the last 2 years during the pandemic.
    Counties appreciate initiatives from FEMA, such as the streamlined 
application process developed for COVID-19 Public Assistance funding 
and the Direct Technical Assistance (DTA) offered to communities who 
are interested in applying for the Building Resilient Infrastructure 
and Communities (BRIC) program. While these are worthwhile endeavors, 
safeguarding equal access for all communities remains a concern. Many 
of these FEMA program areas are understaffed and face other challenges 
that can result in delayed response times and the degradation of the 
overall assistance being offered.
    Therefore, counties are supportive of the recently-introduced FEMA 
Equity Act (H.R. 7668/S. 4159) from Chairman Bennie Thompson and 
Senator Elizabeth Warren, which would seek to address inequities in 
access to Federal disaster assistance programs and reduce barriers to 
vital recovery and response resources. This legislation is a critical 
first step in ensuring communities who have habitually been left out of 
the disaster recovery process are able to equitably access funding to 
rebuild and mitigate against future disasters.
County officials are effective stewards of Federal investments, and a 
        strong intergovernmental partnership is needed to meet the 
        entirety of our public-sector responsibilities.
    Counties across the country are working daily to address the needs 
of our residents and make decisions that drive the success of our 
jurisdictions. While we are doing our part at the local level, 45 
States limit the ability of counties to raise revenue in various ways, 
making the intergovernmental partnership vital to meeting our public-
sector responsibilities. Only 29 States authorize counties to collect 
sales taxes, but almost always under various restrictions. 26 States 
impose a sales tax limit and 19 require voter approval. For western 
counties, who are at great risk of flooding and wildfires, State 
restrictions on local revenues can be even more impactful, as much of 
the land within western county boundaries is considered Federal land, 
thus removing the ability of a county to levy property taxes.
    While disasters are inherently local, counties rely on our State 
and Federal partners for critical disaster recovery tools, like funding 
assistance, human capital, and technical assistance. Without proper 
Federal and State support, county recovery and mitigation efforts may 
lack the full capabilities necessary to rebuild our communities and 
make them more resilient against future disasters. In an environment 
where counties have limited financial flexibility, a strong 
intergovernmental partnership is crucial to community recovery and key 
to the success of future mitigation efforts.
    With that in mind, counties call on Congress to consider the State, 
Local, Tribal, and Territorial Fiscal Recovery, Infrastructure, and 
Disaster Relief Flexibility Act (H.R. 5735/S. 3011), introduced by 
Representative Dusty Johnson and Senators John Cornyn and Alex Padilla. 
This critical legislation would allow for counties to allocate up to 
$10 million in funding received from the State and Local Fiscal 
Recovery Fund--included in the American Rescue Plan Act--for eligible 
transportation projects and disaster relief. This added flexibility 
would allow for counties to invest in our Nation's recovery on the 
ground, based on local priorities, circumstances, and needs.
                               conclusion
    Counties are on the front lines of the pre- and post-disaster 
efforts, and without proper Federal assistance, recovery and mitigation 
efforts may lack the full support necessary to rebuild our communities 
and return to normal the lives of our residents.
    Chair Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, and distinguished Members of 
the subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me to testify here 
today.
    Counties stand ready to work side-by-side with our Federal and 
State partners to make our communities more resilient and ensure the 
health, well-being, and safety of our citizens.

    Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, commissioner, for 
your testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Currie to summarize his 
statement for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF CHRIS P. CURRIE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND 
      JUSTICE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Mr. Currie. Thank you, Chairwoman Demings and Ranking 
Member Cammack. Can you hear me OK?
    Chairwoman Demings. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Currie. Excellent. Really appreciate the opportunity to 
be here today to discuss National resilience.
    Making our communities and infrastructure more resilient is 
one of the few solutions we have to address the growing number 
of risks that we face. While preventing bad things from 
happening is critical, we can't prevent everything. There are 
just too many threats.
    In my mind, resilience is really about being proactive 
today to address the future threats. It is very optimistic, 
because we can actually do something to address these things 
that we are all scared of.
    Federal, State, and local entities face threats from 
cybersecurity, extreme weather, domestic terrorism, crime, 
pandemics, and many other things. For example, since 2005 the 
Federal Government has spent almost $600 billion in response to 
various disasters. It spent trillions in response to COVID-19 
and DHS alone has spent over $60 billion--or almost $60 billion 
to State and local governments since 9/11 to better prepare for 
terrorism and other threats.
    Today I just want to highlight some of our recent work in 
the area of preparedness and resilience.
    First, since 9/11 we have been assessing DHS and FEMA's 
efforts to assess National capabilities and target grants to 
address any gaps. FEMA works with local jurisdictions to help 
assess their gaps and target grant funds toward 32 unique 
capability areas. These grants have built critical State and 
local capabilities that would not be possible without them. For 
example, FEMA assessment data show that years of investment 
have built high levels of capability in law enforcement and 
emergency services response, as well as interoperable 
communication, for example. This is no surprise because Federal 
preparedness grants have been spent most in these areas.
    However, we found a number of capability gaps still exist. 
Assessments over numerous years consistently identify gaps in 
important areas like recovery, post-disaster housing, 
cybersecurity, and supply chain security, which, by the way, 
all of these things are things we have seen pop up in recent 
events, like COVID-19.
    These are critical gaps that are consistent weaknesses in 
these real-life scenarios. These are also areas where grants 
have been least invested. That is just what the data show. 
While important to maintaining existing capabilities, we 
recommended FEMA decide what resources and efforts are needed 
to close these gaps. They agreed with this and are working to 
better align funding with these major capability gaps.
    Another key area I want to discuss is infrastructure. The 
Federal Government, through FEMA and other agencies, and the 
recent infrastructure bill, for example, spent billions of 
dollars to build and rebuild damaged infrastructure. This is a 
tremendous opportunity to incorporate resilience throughout the 
country to future damage. Recently, Congress, this committee, 
and agencies have recognized this and are diverting more 
dollars to pre-disaster mitigation programs, like FEMA's BRIC 
program.
    This is a great step, but we found there are still 
challenges in State and local abilities to effectively use 
existing resilience programs. You heard this is Mr. Dunlap's 
opening statement and Congressman Higgins'. You know we 
recently found that State and local officials consistently 
identify challenges with these grant programs. They include 
complicated and lengthy application processes and the need for 
incredibly technical capacity that many communities just don't 
have. Since resilience projects typically require a lot of 
resources and expertise, these challenges serve as a 
disincentive sometimes to communities, particularly those that 
are disadvantaged or lack resources. This is what our work has 
shown over the years. For example, it has been a consistent 
challenge in Tribal communities that don't have the manpower 
and the resources. So we recommended several improvements to 
streamline and try to improve these programs.
    Last, I just want to talk about what I think is one of the 
biggest challenges and obstacles to resilience. Resilience is a 
very broad term and a very lofty goal. I don't see it as an end 
state, I think it is a continuous process. This can sometimes 
make it really hard to achieve and to measure it. To help 
tackle this, GAO issued a disaster resilience framework a 
couple of years ago to provide Government leaders and those 
that analyze Government programs with a way to assess all 
programs and identify opportunities to better incorporate 
resilience. I can going to some of those principles a little 
bit more during the hearing.
    But this completes my prepared statement and I really look 
forward to discussing this issue.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Currie follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Chris P. Currie
                              May 17, 2022
                             gao highlights
    Highlights of GAO-22-106046, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, Committee on Homeland 
Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study
    Each year, disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires affect 
hundreds of American communities. The Federal Government provides 
billions of dollars to individuals and communities that have suffered 
damages. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, extreme 
weather events are projected to become more frequent and intense in 
parts of the United States as a result of changes in the climate. 
Investments in disaster resilience can reduce the overall impact of 
future disasters and costs.
    This testimony discusses GAO reports issued from 2015 through 2021 
on disaster preparedness and resilience. This includes FEMA's National 
Preparedness System and associated grants; hazard mitigation grant 
programs; and GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework for identifying 
opportunities to enhance resilience. The statement also describes 
actions taken to address GAO's prior recommendations through March 
2022.
    For the prior work, GAO reviewed relevant documents, including 
agency policies, strategic plans, and other reports. GAO also 
interviewed Federal and State officials, and a range of relevant 
stakeholders. For recommendation updates, GAO reviewed agency 
documentation.
What GAO Recommends
    GAO has made recommendations in prior reports to address issues 
discussed in this statement. FEMA has taken steps to address some of 
these recommendations, and GAO continues to monitor agency progress in 
implementing them.
  disaster resilience.--opportunities to improve national preparedness
What GAO Found
    GAO has evaluated Federal efforts to strengthen National 
preparedness and resilience and identified opportunities for 
improvement in several key areas:
   FEMA Efforts to Strengthen National Preparedness.--The 
        Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--the lead agency for 
        disaster preparedness, response, and recovery--assesses the 
        Nation's emergency management capabilities and provides grants 
        to help State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments 
        address capability gaps. In May 2020, GAO found that FEMA and 
        jurisdictions have identified emergency management capability 
        gaps in key areas such and recovery and mitigation. GAO 
        recommended that FEMA determine steps needed to address these 
        capability gaps. FEMA agreed and plans to develop an investment 
        strategy that aligns resources with capability gaps.
   FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.--In February 2021, 
        GAO found that State and local officials faced challenges with 
        FEMA's hazard mitigation grant programs. Specifically, 
        officials GAO interviewed from 10 of 12 selected jurisdictions 
        said grant application processes were complex and lengthy. This 
        could discourage investment in projects that would enhance 
        disaster resilience. FEMA officials said they intended to 
        identify opportunities to streamline, but did not have a plan 
        for doing so. GAO recommended that FEMA develop such a plan. 
        FEMA agreed and is in the process of doing so.
   Identifying Opportunities to Enhance Disaster Resilience.--
        In October 2019, GAO issued a framework to guide analysis of 
        Federal actions to promote resilience to natural disasters and 
        changes in the climate. For example, the framework can help 
        identify options to address Government-wide challenges that are 
        of a scale and scope not addressed by existing programs.
        
        
    Chairwoman Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, and Members of the 
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our past work on 
Federal efforts to better prepare for future disasters and create a 
more resilient Nation.
    Each year, disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires, 
affect hundreds of American communities. In response, the Federal 
Government provides billions of dollars to communities who have 
suffered damages to help them rebuild infrastructure and make it more 
resilient to future damages.
    According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, certain 
extreme weather events are projected to become more frequent and 
intense in parts of the United States as a result of changes in the 
climate.\1\ The rising number of natural disasters and increasing 
reliance on Federal assistance by those in affected communities is a 
key source of Federal fiscal exposure. Since 2005, Federal funding for 
disaster assistance has totaled at least $593 billion, which consists 
of obligations for disaster assistance from 2005 through 2014 totaling 
about $278 billion \2\ and select appropriations for disaster 
assistance from 2015 through 2021 totaling $315 billion.\3\ As a 
result, we have included ``Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal 
Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks'' on our list of high-
risk Federal program areas since 2013.\4\ Moreover, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--the agency that coordinates 
disaster preparedness, response, and recovery support at the National 
level--reports that since 2002 it has provided over $54 billion in 
preparedness grants intended to enhance various capabilities, including 
those related to disaster resilience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The U.S. Global Change Research Program is a research 
coordinating body that spans 13 Federal agencies. See U.S. Global 
Change Research Program, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United 
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: 
2018).
    \2\ See GAO, Federal Disaster Assistance: Federal Departments and 
Agencies Obligated at Least $277.6 Billion During Fiscal Years 2005 
through 2014, GAO-16-797 (Washington, DC: Sept. 22, 2016).
    \3\ This total includes $240 billion in select supplemental 
appropriations to Federal agencies for disaster assistance and 
approximately $75 billion in annual appropriations to the Disaster 
Relief Fund for fiscal years 2015 through 2021. It does not include 
other annual appropriations to Federal agencies for disaster 
assistance. Of the supplemental appropriations, $97 billion was 
included in supplemental appropriations acts that were enacted 
primarily in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    \4\ GAO, High-Risk Series: Dedicated Leadership Needed to Address 
Limited Progress in Most High-Risk Areas, GAO-21-119SP (Washington, DC: 
March 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Investments in disaster resilience are a promising avenue to 
address the Federal fiscal exposure because such investments offer the 
opportunity to reduce the overall impact of future disasters. For 
example, in 2018 we reported that elevating homes and strengthening 
building codes in Texas and Florida prevented greater damages during 
the 2017 hurricane season.\5\ In addition, the National Institute of 
Building Sciences concluded that disaster resilience investments can 
save from $3 to $11 per dollar invested, depending on the circumstances 
and type of hazard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ GAO, 2017 Hurricanes and Wildfires: Initial Observations on the 
Federal Response and Key Recovery Challenges, GAO-18-472 (Washington, 
DC: Sept. 4, 2018).
    \6\ Multihazard Mitigation Council, a council of the National 
Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 
Interim Report (Washington, DC: December 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to FEMA, individuals and communities, the private and 
nonprofit sectors, faith-based organizations, Tribes, and all levels of 
government must work together to achieve the National Preparedness 
Goal. The Goal is for: ``A secure and resilient Nation with the 
capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect 
against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards 
that pose the greatest risk.''\7\ To support this goal, FEMA provides 
various grant programs that support many communities' preparedness, 
response, recovery, and disaster resilience efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ The White House released Presidential Policy Directive 8 on 
National Preparedness in March 2011. It directed the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to design a National preparedness system to address 
the threats posing the greatest risk to the security of the Nation and 
issue various policy and planning documents designed to strengthen 
National preparedness. Additionally, it required the Secretary to 
develop a National Preparedness Goal that identifies the core 
capabilities necessary to achieve preparedness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony today discusses key findings from products we issued 
from 2015 through 2021 on: (1) FEMA's National Preparedness System and 
Homeland Security Grants, (2) FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Programs, and 
(3) GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework for identifying opportunities 
to enhance climate resilience. To conduct our prior work, we reviewed 
relevant documents, including agency policies, strategic plans, and 
other reports, such as FEMA's Summary of Stakeholder Feedback and the 
U.S. Global Change Research Program's Fourth National Climate 
Assessment reports.\8\ We also interviewed Federal and State officials, 
and a range of relevant stakeholders. More information on our scope and 
methodology can be found in each of the reports cited throughout this 
statement. In addition, after the issuance of our reports and through 
March 2022, we contacted officials at the Department of Homeland 
Security to obtain updated information and documentation, as 
appropriate, on the status of the recommendations we made in our prior 
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ FEMA, Summary of Stakeholder Feedback: Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities (Washington, DC: Mar. 2020), and U.S. 
Global Change Research Program, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the 
United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, vol. 2 (Washington, 
DC: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We conducted the work on which this statement is based in 
accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
the national preparedness system and fema grants have helped strengthen 
                     capabilities, but gaps remain
    We have reported that FEMA uses the National Preparedness System to 
help assess the Nation's emergency management capabilities.\9\ 
Specifically, the National Preparedness System is designed to help 
communities measure and assess distinct emergency management 
capabilities (``core capabilities''). Capabilities fall in five mission 
areas: (1) Prevention--preventing imminent acts of terrorism; (2) 
protection--protecting citizens and assets; (3) mitigation--mitigating 
the loss of life and property; (4) response--responding quickly to save 
lives; and (5) recovery--timely restoration of infrastructure and 
housing; among other things. In the mitigation mission area, for 
example, the core capabilities include community resilience; long-term 
vulnerability reduction; risk and disaster resilience assessment; and 
threats and hazard identification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ GAO, National Preparedness: Additional Actions Needed to 
Address Gaps in the Nation's Emergency Management Capabilities, GAO-20-
297 (Washington, DC: May 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We further reported that FEMA has used the National Preparedness 
System to help prioritize its preparedness grants to help State, local, 
Tribal, and territorial communities address gaps in their emergency 
management capabilities. FEMA has traditionally provided three primary 
preparedness grants that jurisdictions can use to strengthen the core 
capabilities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Two of the three grants, the State Homeland Security Grant 
Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative, were established after 
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As established by Federal 
law, these grants are intended to help States and localities prevent, 
prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. 6 
U.S.C.  604, 605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   State Homeland Security Grant Program.--Helps support 
        States' implementation of homeland security strategies to 
        address the identified planning, organization, equipment, 
        training, and exercise needs at the State and local levels. For 
        fiscal year 2022, the total funding available to all 50 States, 
        the District of Columbia, and 5 territories is $415 million.
   Urban Area Security Initiative.--Provides Federal assistance 
        to address the unique needs of high-threat, high-density urban 
        areas, and assists the areas in building a capacity to prevent, 
        prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. 
        For fiscal year 2022, the total funding available to the 31 
        urban areas is $615 million.
   Emergency Management Performance Grant.--Provides Federal 
        assistance to States to assist State, local, and Tribal 
        governments in preparing for all hazards. In fiscal year 2022, 
        the total funding available to States, local governments, and 
        Tribes is $405 million.
    Since 2012, the Department of Homeland Security has annually 
produced a National Preparedness Report, which assesses progress toward 
the National Preparedness Goal of achieving a secure and resilient 
Nation. A key element of the National Preparedness Report is that it 
evaluates and measures: (1) The extent to which jurisdictions have 
strengthened their core capabilities and (2) which capabilities have 
the largest gaps. We previously found that according to National 
Preparedness Reports since calendar year 2012, States and territories 
generally have rated their capabilities within the prevention and 
response mission areas, as well as their cross-cutting capabilities--
which involve all five mission areas--as having the highest 
preparedness levels. We also reported that by contrast, States and 
territories generally have rated their capabilities in the recovery and 
protection mission areas as having lower preparedness levels. These 
lower preparedness ratings showed little to no improvement from 2013 to 
2017.
    From 2013 to 2018, jurisdictions have directed about 87 percent 
(about $7.3 billion) of their FEMA preparedness grants to the highest-
rated mission areas--cross-cutting, prevention, and response. They 
directed 13 percent (about $1.1 billion) to the lowest-rated mission 
areas--mitigation, protection, and recovery. (See fig. 1.)


    FEMA has encouraged jurisdictions to invest future preparedness 
grants to strengthen their capabilities that have lower preparedness 
ratings and to address emerging threats, such as cybersecurity. 
However, at the time of our review, FEMA officials told us their 
efforts to help jurisdictions enhance their capabilities, including the 
distribution of existing preparedness grants, would likely not be 
sufficient to address the capability gaps that have been identified by 
jurisdictions.
    In May 2020, we recommended that FEMA--following the completion of 
the 2021 National Preparedness Report--determine what steps are needed 
to address the Nation's emergency management capability gaps across all 
levels of government and inform key stakeholders, such as the Office of 
Management and Budget and Congress, about what level of resources would 
be necessary to address the known gaps. FEMA agreed with our 
recommendation, published the National Preparedness Report in December 
2021, and plans to complete review of the National risk and capability 
assessment in June 2022.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 requires that FEMA 
submit a report to relevant Congressional committees every 6 months on 
its progress in completing a National preparedness assessment of 
capability gaps at each level of government based on tiered, 
capability-specific performance objectives. FEMA developed the National 
Risk and Capability Assessment, a suite of preparedness assessments 
that measure risk and capability across the Nation in a standardized 
and coordinated way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, FEMA plans to develop a preparedness investment strategy, 
which is to establish priorities that align resources with the 
capability gaps. In 2020, FEMA established National response and 
recovery capability targets. These targets represent estimates of the 
capabilities required to manage the Nation's realistic worst-case 
scenarios, using standardized language. According to FEMA, the National 
response and recovery capability targets are to include those that were 
most stressed by the COVID-19 pandemic; as well as those which would be 
most stressed by hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. FEMA plans to 
identify the Federal resources and capabilities needed to address the 
National gaps by the end of 2022. These steps, if implemented 
effectively, should address the intent of our May 2020 recommendation.
 fema encourages disaster resilience through hazard mitigation grants, 
               but jurisdictions have reported challenges
    One way to save lives and reduce future risk to people and property 
from extreme weather events and other natural disasters is to enhance 
disaster resilience through investment in hazard mitigation. Hazard 
mitigation projects can include acquiring and demolishing properties in 
floodplains, seismic retrofits to reduce earthquake damage, and 
removing flammable vegetation around residential areas at risk of 
wildfires. Figure 2 shows additional examples of hazard mitigation 
projects. FEMA serves as the primary source of Federal grant funding 
for State, local, Tribal, and territorial investments in hazard 
mitigation to prevent future damage.


    Through fiscal year 2019, FEMA administered four grant programs to 
provide funding to States, territories, Federally-recognized Tribes, 
and local communities for hazard mitigation planning, projects, and 
management costs. The four programs are Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
(replaced with the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities 
program in fiscal year 2020), Flood Mitigation Assistance, Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program, and Public Assistance.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ In response to the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, FEMA 
replaced the Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program with the Building 
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program in fiscal year 2020. 
See 42 U.S.C.  5133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In February 2021, we found that State and local officials from 
selected jurisdictions reported challenges with these hazard mitigation 
grant programs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ GAO, Disaster Resilience: FEMA Should Take Additional Steps to 
Streamline Hazard Mitigation Grants and Assess Program Effects, GAO-21-
140 (Washington, DC: Feb. 2, 2021). In addition to the three 
recommendations included here, we also made three additional 
recommendations that FEMA agreed with and is in the process of 
addressing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Length and complexity of application processes.--Officials 
        we interviewed from 10 of 12 selected State and local 
        jurisdictions we met with said grant application processes were 
        complex and lengthy. For example, some officials stated that 
        the applications were cumbersome, required excessive 
        documentation, that different programs used different grants 
        systems, and that the applications went through multiple rounds 
        of review with different reviewers. In February 2021, we 
        recommended that FEMA establish a plan to assess hazard 
        mitigation grant processes to identify and implement steps to 
        reduce the complexity of and time required for grant 
        applications. FEMA agreed with this recommendation. As of March 
        2022, FEMA officials stated it had several on-going efforts to 
        address the recommendation, such as drafting strategic plans 
        and road maps meant to reduce complexity, but it had not yet 
        fully developed these plans.
   Technical capacity needed to successfully apply for 
        grants.--Technical capacity--having access to the technical 
        skills needed to successfully apply for hazard mitigation 
        grants--was cited as a challenge by officials from 8 of the 12 
        State and local jurisdictions we interviewed. We reported that 
        some communities could hire contractors or leverage technical 
        expertise of staff to develop and manage grant applications. 
        However, other communities did not have technical staff, such 
        as engineers, and lack dedicated grant managers or funding to 
        hire contractors to develop hazard mitigation projects and 
        grant applications. To address this, FEMA developed training 
        and guidance, but we found that these resources were listed on 
        different parts of FEMA's website, which could be difficult for 
        State and local officials to locate. We recommended that FEMA 
        create a centralized inventory of hazard mitigation resources 
        on its website. FEMA agreed with this recommendation and, as of 
        March 2022, FEMA officials stated they were in the process of 
        updating FEMA's web pages and guidance.
   Challenges with benefit-cost analyses.--FEMA-funded 
        mitigation activities are required to be cost-effective, and 
        FEMA generally requires applicants to conduct a benefit-cost 
        analysis to demonstrate that the estimated benefits of a 
        project exceed the costs.\14\ Officials from all 12 State and 
        local jurisdictions we met with said that the benefit-cost 
        analysis for hazard mitigation grants was a challenge due, in 
        part, to the amount of resources and data needed. For example, 
        some of the officials said that project benefits, such as lost 
        revenue avoided, can be difficult to calculate and may require 
        hundreds of pages of data or technical project information to 
        support. FEMA has taken some steps to make it easier for 
        applicants to complete benefit-cost analyses, including 
        developing pre-calculated benefits that allow prospective 
        applicants to forego performing a detailed benefit-cost 
        analysis for certain project types. Several stakeholders agreed 
        that the pre-calculated benefits had helped. FEMA officials 
        said they would like to develop pre-calculated benefits for 
        additional project types such as electrical infrastructure and 
        telecommunications but they did not have a plan to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See 42 U.S.C.  4104c(c)(2)(A), 5133(f)(1), 5170c(a); 44 
C.F.R.  206.226(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We recommended that FEMA establish a plan with time frames to 
develop pre-calculated benefits for additional project types, where 
appropriate. FEMA agreed, and in January 2022, FEMA provided 
documentation showing that it had developed an additional pre-
calculated benefit for hospital generators, updated the acquisition and 
elevation pre-calculated benefit, and established a plan with time 
frames to develop pre-calculated benefits for additional project types. 
As a result of these actions, FEMA is better positioned to simplify the 
mitigation grant application process while ensuring mitigation 
investments are cost-effective.
gao's disaster resilience framework identifies opportunities to enhance 
                           climate resilience
    We have previously reported that the Federal Government has 
primarily funded disaster resilience projects in the aftermath of 
disasters--when damages have already occurred and opportunities to 
pursue future risk reduction may conflict with the desire for the 
immediate restoration of critical infrastructure.\15\ In October 2019, 
we issued the Disaster Resilience Framework to serve as a guide for 
analysis of Federal actions to facilitate and promote resilience to 
natural disasters and changes in the climate.\16\ According to the 
framework, investments in disaster resilience are a promising avenue to 
address Federal fiscal exposure because such investments offer the 
opportunity to reduce the overall impact of disasters. Users of the 
Disaster Resilience Framework can consider its principles and questions 
to analyze any type of existing Federal effort, identify gaps in 
existing Federal efforts, or consider the Federal role. Specifically, 
this framework can be used to identify opportunities to address gaps in 
Federal efforts by, for example, supporting identification of options 
to address Government-wide challenges that are of a scale and scope not 
addressed by existing programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ See GAO, Disaster Resilience Framework: Principles for 
Analyzing Federal Efforts to Facilitate and Promote Resilience to 
Natural Disasters, GAO-20-100SP (Washington, DC: Oct. 23, 2019) and, 
for example, GAO, Hurricane Sandy: An Investment Strategy Could Help 
the Federal Government Enhance National Resilience for Future 
Disasters, GAO-15-515 (Washington, DC: July 30, 2015).
    \16\ GAO-20-100SP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The framework is organized around three guiding principles--
information, integration, and incentives--and a series of questions 
that can help identify opportunities to enhance Federal efforts to 
promote disaster resilience. (See fig. 3.) These principles can be 
applied to any Federal effort to help Federal agencies and policy 
makers consider what kinds of actions to take if they seek to promote 
and facilitate disaster risk reduction.


    Information.--We have found that accessing information that is 
authoritative and understandable can help decision makers identify 
current and future disaster and climate-related risks. Moreover, 
natural and climate disaster risk information that is accurate, 
comprehensive, and produced or endorsed by an authoritative source can 
help decision makers better assess their risk. However, this has 
historically been a challenge. For example, in November 2015, we 
reported that the climate information needs of Federal, State, local, 
and private-sector decision makers were not being fully met. In 
addition, the Federal Government's own climate data--composed of 
observational records from satellites and weather stations and 
projections from climate models--were fragmented across individual 
agencies that use the information in different ways to meet their 
missions.\17\ We recommended that the Executive Office of the President 
direct a Federal entity to develop a set of authoritative climate 
change projections and observations and create a National climate 
information system with defined roles for Federal agencies and non-
Federal entities. As of April 2022, the Office has not yet taken action 
to implement these recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ GAO, Climate Information: A National System Could Help 
Federal, State, Local, and Private-Sector Decision Makers Use Climate 
Information, GAO-16-37 (Washington, DC: Nov. 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Integration.--In addition, we have found that integrated analysis 
and planning can help decision makers take coherent and coordinated 
actions to promote disaster and climate-related resilience. For 
example, in October 2019 we reported that no Federal agency, 
interagency collaborative effort, or other organizational arrangement 
had been established to implement a strategic approach to climate 
resilience investment that included periodically identifying and 
prioritizing projects.\18\ Such an approach could supplement individual 
agency climate resilience efforts and help target Federal resources 
toward high-priority projects. We recommended that Congress consider 
establishing a Federal organizational arrangement to periodically 
identify and prioritize climate resilience projects for Federal 
investment. As of April 2022, such a Federal organizational arrangement 
has not yet been established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ GAO, Climate Resilience: A Strategic Investment Approach for 
High-Priority Projects Could Help Target Federal Resources, GAO-20-127 
(Washington, DC: Oct. 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Incentives.--We have also found that incentives can lower the costs 
or increase the benefits of disaster and climate resilience efforts. 
Because much of the Nation's infrastructure is not owned and operated 
by the Federal Government, many resilience-related decisions ultimately 
are made by non-Federal actors, and those decision makers can face 
competing priorities. Incentives, such as conditions attached to 
available Federal funding, can help promote investments in disaster 
risk reduction and encourage disaster resilience decision making for 
infrastructure. An example of this is requiring building codes and 
standards based on the best available information for infrastructure 
that is built or repaired with Federal funds. As we reported in 
November 2016, design standards, building codes, and voluntary 
certifications play a role in ensuring the resilience of Federal and 
non-Federal infrastructure to the effects of natural disasters and 
extreme weather.\19\ We recommended a Government-wide approach in which 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology convenes an on-going 
Government-wide effort to provide forward-looking climate information 
to standards organizations. In January 2021, the Institute held a 
workshop aimed at connecting the U.S. building codes and standards 
development communities with agencies and organizations collecting and 
disseminating climate change information. However, as of February 2022, 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology had not yet taken 
action to implement this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ GAO, Climate Change: Improved Federal Coordination Could 
Facilitate Use of Forward-Looking Climate Information in Design 
Standards, Building Codes, and Certifications, GAO-17-3 (Washington, 
DC: Nov. 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairwoman Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, and Members of the 
subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

    Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Currie, for your 
testimony. Thank you to all of our witnesses for your 
statements today.
    I will remind the subcommittee that we will each have 5 
minutes to question the panel.
    I will now recognize myself for questions.
    The Homeland Security Capabilities Reservation Act 
recognizes the importance of preserving capabilities achieved 
with UASI and would task FEMA with surveying current and former 
UASI jurisdictions to see if their capabilities were in fact 
impacted by the loss of UASI funding.
    Chief Rolon and Commission Dunlap, Orlando, Florida and 
Charlotte, North Carolina have been on and off and then on 
again the UASI list. Could you share how this inconsistency has 
impacted your ability to build security capabilities and move 
us closer to that resilient kind of response or capability?
    Chief.
    Chief Rolon. So for Orlando, to be honest with you, we feel 
good where we are today, but it has never been--it has not 
always been this way. The fact that we have been playing catch-
up for many years I think is the most disturbing part of that 
process that has resulted in us not getting the funding needed 
to better serve not only the citizens of Orlando, but the 
millions of visitors that come to visit our area on any given 
year.
    So with that said, yes, progress is being made. But to be 
honest with you, we are still trying to catch up where we 
should be.
    Chairwoman Demings. Commissioner Dunlap.
    Mr. Dunlap. Well, in Mecklenburg County we were unable to 
maintain some of the projects that were initiated during 9/11. 
That severely impacted our ability to protect our citizens and 
to make sure that these threats were removed.
    So the other thing to consider with Mecklenburg County is 
that while we are majority urban, there are six other townships 
within the Mecklenburg County that are more rural. As a result 
of the way the funding is allocated, we are penalized because 
we don't count those people who are rural. So that as well has 
had an adverse effect on Mecklenburg County.
    Chairwoman Demings. Commissioner, as you well know, the 
FEMA Equity Act is--the whole purpose is to try to make the 
process easier, if you will, for those in underserved areas, 
including rural and urban areas. What we are trying to do is 
make sure that when disaster strikes no zip code is left 
behind.
    So could you just elaborate a little further about some of 
the challenges that those underserved communities have and how 
we can better work together?
    Mr. Dunlap. Well, one of the things I have outlined is the 
fact that some of these communities don't have the resources 
necessary to make application. The amount of money that they 
spend in order to apply when in fact they may not be accepted 
causes a tremendous burden on some of these communities. The 
communities that are most adversely affected are the 
disadvantaged communities, as you have already stated. So it 
would be helpful if programs like that would consider maybe a 
different funding level or a different way to allocate 
resources to people who need it most but may not have the 
necessary tools to make application.
    Chairwoman Demings. Mr. Currie, you also talked about the 
growing number of risks and the challenges of the complicated 
lengthy application process. You mentioned the BRIC program as 
well. Could you also talk about some of the solutions as you 
see them to better be able to serve some of our most 
underserved communities?
    Mr. Currie. Yes, ma'am. I think it is two big things.
    First of all, we reported on this last year, these programs 
were not designed to target individual communities based on 
vulnerability or social index and they don't gather the data or 
the metrics to identify how the programs affect those 
communities versus others.
    So first step is, and we have recommended this, they need 
to do a better job. Not just FEMA, but other Federal agencies 
too that provide disaster relief in collecting this data so 
they can figure out how to do this better.
    The second piece really gets to this complexity. 
Congressman Higgins said this. You know, he has dealt with this 
a lot in Louisiana. You know, these disaster--it is hard enough 
to rebuild infrastructure the way it was before the disaster, 
but disaster resilience and to build it back better requires a 
certain level of technical complexity and expertise and, 
frankly, a lot of contract support that certain communities 
cannot afford or they don't have the staff to manage those 
projects.
    So I think we also have to reduce the complexity and figure 
out how to get--you know, build the technical capacity of these 
communities, or get them the help in that area they need.
    Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much.
    At this time I recognize the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. 
Cammack, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Demings.
    I am going to jump right into it with Chief Rolon.
    In your testimony you briefly touched on the 1033 program, 
which allows the DoD to transfer surplus equipment to local law 
enforcement agencies--it is a great example of how Federal 
Government can assist localities with disaster response. 
Specifically, there have been questions about how law 
enforcement is able to get their hands on 1033 equipment, but 
say first responders are not able to. Would it be beneficial to 
widen the program and make it more accessible for all first 
responders on the ground? Can you talk about some of the 
importance of the 1033 program as it relates to local law 
enforcement agencies?
    Chief Rolon. You know, there is a lot of debate about the 
program. Obviously, we don't need tanks on our streets that are 
being give to us through some type of funding from assets that 
are available. But I think there is an opportunity for us to 
offset some of the expenses that we have for some of the 
equipment that we must have for officers to be able to perform 
their tasks. The Pulse incident was a perfect example. Some 
people did not like the idea of armored vehicles being part of 
some police departments. The armored vehicles that we had were 
critical in our response to Pulse.
    So with that said, I think that a properly-run 1033 program 
does have its benefits, not only for the law enforcement 
officers that are being tasked with tackling some of those 
unforeseen or unimaginable situations, but also as a way to 
better manage the funding, the limited funding that we in law 
enforcement and public safety in general are facing across the 
Nation.
    Mrs. Cammack. Would you be open to first responders, say in 
the fire service, being able to access some of the equipment 
under the 1033 program that they currently are not able to?
    Chief Rolon. Yes. We would be open to the idea of exploring 
what equipment is available that we could easily transfer to 
our public safety personnel. Absolutely. I think we need to do 
a better job though of explaining how the program works and 
what the benefits are so that we can make sure that the public 
is informed.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. Thank you, chief.
    Now, for Mr. Currie--and I will forgive the University of 
Georgia diploma behind you, seeing as how I represent the Gator 
Nation--FEMA published the National Mitigation Investment 
Strategy in August 2019. Now, this was meant to be a single 
National strategy for advancing mitigation investment to reduce 
the risks posed by natural hazards and increasing the Nation's 
resilience to natural hazards.
    So two parts here. If you are familiar with the Strategy, 
do you feel that the Strategy addresses enough aspects of 
mitigation? The second part being do you feel that the document 
is being widely embraced?
    And go Gators.
    Mr. Currie. Thank you for the question. I was wondering if 
you were going to see that in the background. I was thinking 
about----
    Mrs. Cammack. Hard to miss.
    Mr. Currie. OK. Thanks for the question.
    So, first of all, I think--and we actually in 2016 or--no, 
2015, when we issued a report after Hurricane Sandy, we had 
recommended that FEMA develop the National Mitigation 
Investment Strategy because we just didn't think there was 
enough strategic foresight and planning being put into how all 
the Federal disaster funding could better be used for 
resilience. So I agree that the Strategy was a great first 
step, however, it was just a strategy on paper.
    Since that time I have been really pleased to see that with 
the building of the BRIC program and actually putting more 
Federal funds into pre-disaster mitigation, we are actually 
able to use that funding to target things that are identified 
in that Strategy, whereas before most of the dollars came after 
a disaster and they obviously went to the jurisdiction that was 
hit, which means you couldn't use it in places that weren't 
hit.
    So I think the Strategy is great, but I think the 
additional funding and the marrying up of those two things is 
really critical.
    Now, the last piece is actually now that these programs are 
in place, is seeing where they are going and how they are being 
used and what the benefit is. You know, we are just about there 
where we can assess that after a year or two of implementation.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. I appreciate it.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Demings. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 
Higgins, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    It is intriguing to me, Mr. Dunlap, a couple of things that 
you said regarding accessing Federal monies in recovery. Does 
your county have a grant writer or a grant writing service you 
employ? Professionals?
    Mr. Dunlap. Mecklenburg County is privileged to have those 
capabilities.
    Mr. Higgins. OK. So in your role representing counties 
across the country and communicating with your peers, how would 
you identify--how good are the counties doing regarding 
employing--recognizing the need to employ a well-trained and 
certified, highly-capable grant writer as a permanent employee 
of the county or as a contracted service? How aware are 
counties of just how valuable that position is to fill?
    Mr. Dunlap. Well, you know, the needs of counties are 
vastly different when you consider the fact that we have over 
3,000 counties, parishes, and boroughs. So while one county 
might have the necessary resources to be able to do that, other 
counties may not. So it is important to us that----
    Mr. Higgins. Do counties recognize the return on that 
investment?
    Mr. Dunlap. Oh, absolutely.
    Mr. Higgins. I mean everything is--it is easy to be cool 
when everything is cool, you know, but when you are trying to 
recover from a storm and you are looking at major devastation 
and incredible expense, you know, all of the sudden, you know, 
the balance between the annual pay and retention of a qualified 
professional grant writer becomes minuscule in comparison to 
the potential reward of--and ability to recover for that 
government entity. This is one of the things that I am running 
into across the ten parishes that I serve, is that incredible 
disparity between--from one government entity to the next 
regarding the recognition of the need for a professional grant 
writer. It is an incredibly wise investment, and yet there is--
in some areas there is sort of a tendency to not make that 
decision and that investment. Those communities are languishing 
in recovery as compared to those who have made that investment.
    So I am just wondering what your assessment is there. What 
can you advise this committee regarding--perhaps we could look 
at redirecting the appropriated funds toward the government 
entities to help with the employment of professional grant 
writers to help navigate through this thing.
    Mr. Dunlap. I think helping to fund grant writers would 
certainly be beneficial to particularly those communities that 
are disadvantaged and don't have the necessary resources to do 
that. But one thing I can assure you of is that the communities 
that prepare would not be able to do so without the partnership 
between the Federal Government and our State government.
    Mr. Higgins. Roger that.
    Just, you know, navigating through the complexities is 
clearly a large problem. We have--you know, not to get into the 
weeds of it, but we had a storm a few years ago in Louisiana, 
not in my district, but a tremendous amount of money was 
appropriated in American treasure to recover from that storm. 
This was--we are talking about 6 years ago. Call it a billion 
dollars--just use round monies--and that money was appropriated 
at the Federal level, it was delivered to the State treasury, 
and as we sit right now over 60 percent of that money is still 
in the State treasuries. We can't quite get that money 
delivered to the people that need it. What stands in the way is 
this bizarre combination of Federal and State bureaucracy that 
we have got to find a way to break through.
    Perhaps we have another round of questioning, Madam Chair. 
My time is expired.
    But this is an important discussion for us to engage in and 
certainly it is bipartisan, so.
    I thank the madam.
    Chairwoman Demings. The gentleman yields back. We are 
hoping, Mr. Higgins, to have a second round for those Members 
who would like to.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Iowa, Ms. 
Miller-Meeks, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chair Demings, and thank you 
Ranking Member Cammack. Thank you for our witnesses.
    So I am in Iowa's second Congressional district, which 
houses the Des Moines River, the Cedar River, the Iowa River, 
the Wapsipinicon River, the Skunk River, and then the mighty 
Mississippi. So we are very used to floods. As part of that--
and it is very possible that this project began with some of 
the grants that we are talking about--but at the University of 
Iowa we have a flood center that was set up after the 2008 
flood, which was devastating to our area. So an engineer at the 
University of Iowa actually developed sensors with radio 
detection. So on all of these major rivers they have placed 
sensors on the bridges to detect levels of the water rise. So 
effective has this been in preparedness and in early detection 
that we are now teaching others throughout the country. We just 
had a delegation from Texas that was up to the University of 
Iowa flood center in order to help with that, and the 
University of Iowa flood center is one of 13 universities that 
are part of the Cooperative Institute for Research to Operators 
and Hydrology. There are 13 universities of which we are a part 
and it is housed at the University of Alabama Huntsville.
    So it seems to me that as we are speaking about resiliency 
and preparedness, that this would be one of those things, early 
detection. Granted, FEMA is dealing with not just floods or 
natural disasters, but cybersecurity, which was mentioned as 
well and all of the other parts of disasters that may befall us 
as a country.
    So I guess this question is for Mr. Currie. When we are 
talking about resiliency and preparedness, FEMA reports that 
since 2002 it has provided over $54 billion in preparedness 
grants. How do we measure the effectiveness or impact of these 
grants? Such as I mentioned about the Iowa flood center, 
something that is very effective and is now being taught and 
trained and replicated across the country, which would make 
that an effective program. These grants are intended to 
strengthen the capabilities of State and local grant recipients 
to prevent, protect, mitigate against, respond to, and recover 
from terrorist attacks and other disasters. So how are we 
measuring progress in community preparedness and resilience?
    Mr. Currie. Thank you for the question. That is a great 
question, because we have been looking at this since 9/11. In 
the early days, frankly, after 9/11 when these grants were 
going out, there wasn't a lot of measurement. Over time that 
has gotten a lot better and FEMA actually has a pretty 
elaborate process it uses to work with States and local 
communities to do annual risk assessments which are supposed to 
identify basically the areas where the community is the 
strongest and the areas where it is the weakest or where there 
are gaps. Then that is supposed to feed into the actual 
preparedness grants that are given to the communities.
    So, you know, what that picture looks like right now is 
where there have been the most investments, not surprisingly, 
the capabilities are the greatest. So things like interoperable 
radios, law enforcement coordination and communication. There 
has been a lot of investment in counterterrorism and law 
enforcement.
    Speaking of flooding, the weakest areas in the National 
preparedness report cut across those resilience and recovery 
areas. So things like post-disaster housing, economic recovery, 
things that are aligned more with, you know, the effects of a 
natural disaster on a community. So, you know, we have been 
trying to point that out to let Congress and the agencies know 
that if you want to increase resilience in those areas, that, 
you know, more funding is probably going to have to be 
dedicated to those areas.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. That sort-of I think is in alignment with 
the question Representative Higgins was asking, so that 
information will be helpful.
    Thank you so much and thank you to our witnesses for their 
testimony.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairwoman Demings. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garbarino from New York for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Garbarino. Thank you, Chairwoman, thank you to the 
Ranking Member for having this hearing, and to the witnesses 
for appearing today.
    I want to start with Mr. Dunlap.
    I understand that FEMA is working closely with CISA to 
implement the new $1 billion State and local cybersecurity 
grant program. I was proud to join with Chairwoman Clarke in 
getting legislation signed into law. This program is imperative 
to increasing resilience in our communities, especially in 
light of recent heightened cyber threats from Russia and other 
foreign adversaries.
    Do you believe officials at the State and local level, at 
the county level, have the personnel and expertise necessary to 
appropriately leverage these new funds?
    Mr. Dunlap. Well, that is an interesting question. I would 
hope that they would have the necessary people to do that, but 
understanding that cyber attacks are very difficult to control, 
you know. Being from Mecklenburg County, we were the victim of 
a ransomware. So when you consider the fact that ransomware 
prohibits the county from operating for weeks, thereby causing 
us not to be able to provide the necessary resources to our 
citizens, the hope is that if we don't have the people 
necessary that resources will be made available so that we can 
assure that we have the proper people to conduct those kinds of 
things.
    Mr. Garbarino. So it would be very helpful to the counties, 
you think, that might not have the staff to leverage these 
funds through this grant program, it would be helpful to have 
the staff at CISA coordinate with FEMA, who oversees these 
funds, and make sure that the money is appropriately used, is 
used as best as it can be. So if we could get CISA team members 
to help out, that would be--would that be helpful?
    Mr. Dunlap. Sure it would. Another thing that would be 
helpful, if funding went directly to the counties. What I have 
learned is that when funding comes to the State, I think the 
State takes as much as 20 percent off the top, which reduces 
the amount of monies that the counties have to spend to address 
their cyber attacks or other disasters and things of that 
nature.
    Mr. Garbarino. I saw that when I was in the State 
legislature in New York. I saw our Governor used to do that all 
the time to the local counties.
    Thank you very much for that answer.
    Moving over, Mr. Rolon, you mentioned in your testimony 
that FEMA would benefit from creating a more formal process for 
soliciting law enforcement input on preparedness grants. Many 
of my constituents are still dealing with the aftermath of 
September 11, many of my communities on Long Island are still 
rebuilding from Hurricane Sandy. This year I led the Fiscal 
Year 2023 New York Bipartisan Delegation letter to the 
Appropriations Committee requesting robust funding for FEMA 
State and local grants to provide much-needed resilience 
funding to mitigate physical and natural risks. As Congress 
continues to provide robust funding to FEMA for these 
preparedness grants, how can we also ensure that FEMA is 
appropriately soliciting law enforcement input?
    Chief Rolon. That is the No. 1 concern or complaint from 
many law enforcement entities, that unfortunately that vetting 
process to get the most accurate information from those 
affected the most is not there yet. You know, some comments 
were made about--you have--Representative Higgins mentioned 
that you have--have you invested in the proper staff to manage 
the grants or solicit for grants, obviously prepare the 
paperwork needed to get the funding. I would suggest that maybe 
the option should be that a FEMA subject-matter expert be sent 
to the agency, like the Orlando Police Department, will gladly 
set up an office space for them to have them in-house so that 
when we have these questions, when we go through these 
processes, we have them there providing us the guidance that is 
much-needed for the entities that need these funding approvals 
or submittals to be done accurately from the start. It 
shouldn't be what we have today, which is even when you ask for 
information, it is very limited, the feedback that you get or 
the guidance that you get because the information is so 
guarded.
    So, again, for us I think the challenge has always been not 
knowing exactly what the data is that is used to process these 
requests and often times it puzzles us whenever something is 
rejected as a result of the feedback that we get after the 
fact.
    Mr. Garbarino. Thank you, chief. I am out of time, but I 
would like to follow up with you some more on this to get some 
more specifics.
    Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Demings. The gentleman yields back.
    We are going to engage in a second round of questions. So 
if you would like to, that option will be available. We thank 
our witnesses for their indulgence.
    I will begin with myself.
    Chief Rolon and Commissioner Dunlap, the COVID-19 pandemic 
has presented unprecedented challenges for everybody--medical 
personnel, first responders, law enforcement, and other 
emergency personnel. Could you talk just a little bit about how 
COVID-19 impacted your operations and what were the lessons 
learned that we can utilize moving forward?
    Chief.
    Chief Rolon. Our biggest challenge was initially sending 
our personnel to the unknown, knowing that it was literally 
taking lives across--you know, all over the world, yet we had 
no idea what we were dealing with. That was the first 
challenge. Probably that resulted in us identifying the fact 
that we needed people who could work with our officers to 
mentally prepare them to deal with that unknown. The mental 
wellness of our officers is key for us to perform and deliver 
our services. So right off the bat, when a situation like that 
arises, maybe we need to do a better job of identifying how it 
is that we can coach or support our officers when we send them 
out there.
    The supply needs initially. Obviously, not having some of 
the protective materials or gear that our officers needed, that 
posed a challenge also for our personnel. But we quickly 
adapted to the situation, as we always do, and we were able to 
overcome the challenges. But I think the toll that it took on 
some of our officers, having to go out there and deal with the 
unknown, we are still feeling those today.
    Chairwoman Demings. Thank you, chief.
    Commissioner.
    Mr. Dunlap. [Audio malfunction]--challenging to many of the 
operations in Mecklenburg County. One of the things that we 
learned was that it was important that we become more flexible 
because we were oftentimes making decisions on the fly. In 
addition to that, we understand the critical importance of 
communication in times of disaster. So we need--as you 
mentioned in your opening statement, the need for upgraded most 
technological communications systems would be very beneficial 
in that regard.
    The other thing I will say to you is that we still have an 
issue of trust with Government. When the community makes a 
health decision, there is still this resistance to follow that 
because people simply don't trust Government. But I will say 
this, had it not been for the American Rescue Plan and the 
CARES Act funding, Mecklenburg County would not have been able 
to weather the storm when it comes to the impact of COVID-19.
    Chairwoman Demings. Thank you, commissioner.
    Mr. Currie, do you have any follow-up that you would like 
to include about lessons learned from the pandemic and how we 
can do better as a Nation?
    Mr. Currie. Thank you, ma'am.
    There are so many lessons learned from COVID-19. Let me 
just talk about one thing we have looked at that pertains to 
this committee and emergency management.
    We issued a report last year and we went back and all of 
the Federal exercises and plans that were done and developed in 
the years prior to COVID, going back many years, and what we 
identified was numerous interagency exercises between FEMA and 
the Department of Defense and HHS and others that were done on 
a very similar scenario to Covid. It identified a number of 
gaps, lessons learned, and after-actions that needed to be 
taken. In many cases the actions and the gaps were never 
closed, were never followed up on. Part of that is because 
accountability for closing those gaps really didn't exist. 
These agencies can't really tell each other what to do. Without 
instruction to do so coming from somewhere else, they weren't 
closed.
    So many of these things were eerily linked to COVID. You 
know, supply chain challenges, Federal interagency decision-
making questions about who was in charge.
    So one of my biggest broadest takeaways is that when we do 
these exercises and these after-action reports after events or 
real-world events, that we actually close the gaps. It sounds 
simple, but it is something that is critical.
    Chairwoman Demings. Thank you, Mr. Currie.
    Very quickly, too, how can the Nation improve its 
resilience to better protect against and recover from cyber 
attacks?
    Mr. Currie. Well, I think the good news on this is that 
Congress has, again, sort-of like mitigation, they have 
dedicated more and more funding. DHS has a new program similar 
to the ones we have talked about today that CISA gives out to 
State and local governments for cybersecurity. FEMA 
preparedness grants can also be used for cybersecurity. So I 
think it is just a matter of emphasis and measurement, you 
know. Now that these programs are out there, you know, we need 
to look at how they are being used across the country, are they 
effective, are they being targeted to the right places in the 
State and local governments, and what impact are they having.
    Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so very much.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins from Louisiana for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Currie, regarding our need to modernize our grid, and 
the utilities, and those utilities corridors across the country 
that provide our electricity and our water, gas, to communities 
and citizens everywhere, from sea to shining sea, this is a 
woven map of hundreds of entities working together in the 
effort to provide a seamless grid to the citizens of America. I 
would like to ask you today, sir, in the scope of today's 
hearing, where that modernization and hardening of our grid and 
our utilities corridor, where it intersects with the monies 
that we have invested as a Nation, through FEMA programs and 
others, for recovery after disasters, it is common to hear 
folks say, you know, why don't you build back--when you are 
rebuilding after a storm or after a natural disaster anywhere, 
hurricane, fire, earthquake, whatever, why don't you rebuild 
with greater resiliency and modernization? Well, the answer is 
you have to get it back up fast.
    So obviously the need to build resiliency and strength and 
modernization into our grid is very real, but the time to do 
that is not when you are trying to recover your community after 
a storm.
    So, Mr. Currie, in your honest opinion, sir, do you believe 
that American treasure should be repurposed and directed toward 
communities that are willing to invest in hardening and 
modernizing their grid, whereby we as Nation could grow toward 
resiliency during a storm and a natural disaster for recovery?
    Mr. Currie. Yes, sir. I think all communities want that, 
but you laid out the challenge really well. It is kind-of hard 
to justify to citizens and local official that, you know, you 
are going to spend years burying power lines and the grid is 
going to be down. I mean if power is not back up really quickly 
after a disaster, then bad things happen.
    Mr. Higgins. Oh, it goes from bad to worse. I mean you have 
to get your utilities restored. That is job one in order for 
the community to respond and begin to recover and rebuild. You 
have got to have utilities restored.
    So the time to make the investment--gradually. We can do it 
as a Nation, but county by county, community by community, 
municipality by municipality, those government entities have to 
make the sober decision to invest in modernization and 
hardening of their own utilities grid.
    So personally I think that the answers are before us, but 
we have to be courageous enough to shift our investment from, 
you know, panicked recovery to a stable investment of a more 
resilient grid.
    In my remaining minute, Mr. Currie, would you please 
expound upon that idea? How could we do that as a Congress? I 
don't support spending more money. I think we are $31 trillion 
in debt, enough is enough. But we have been pouring money into 
programs that have a tendency to retain that treasure and not 
deliver it to the people. I just cited the example in my own 
State, $1 billion delivered to the State----
    Mr. Currie. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. You know, $600 million still in 
State coffers, not delivered. Maybe never will be.
    So what do you think, Mr. Currie, what can we do as a 
Nation to be stronger and more resilient without wasting 
American treasure?
    Mr. Currie. Well, sir, I mean there are avenues to get the 
power back up right away and funding streams to get the power 
back running. But, as you said, there is billions of dollars 
for long-term recovery. Great examples in Puerto Rico. So FEMA 
obligated over $10 billion in the last couple of years to 
rebuild the grid more resiliently. Very, very little of that 
money has actually been spent.
    So that money is there, it is going to be spent for the 
next decade or more. I think the challenge gets back to what 
you have laid out. It is the complexity of these programs and 
having them go between the Federal, State, local level, and 
then in the case of power grids, often times, you know, public 
or private utilities. So you have four to five levels of 
process and frankly it gets caught up in the complexity of that 
process and that is why these things take so long.
    Mr. Higgins. Agreed.
    Madam Chair, my time has expired. But thank you for today's 
hearing and I thank our panelists and witnesses.
    Chairwoman Demings. The gentleman yields back.
    With that I also want to thank our witnesses for their 
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions.
    The Members of the subcommittee may have additional 
questions for the witnesses and we ask that you respond 
expeditiously in writing to those questions.
    The Chair reminds Members that the committee record will 
remain open for 10 business days.
    Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]