[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]