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



 
                    FEMA PRIORITIES FOR 2022 AND THE
                        2022	2026 STRATEGIC PLAN

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

                                (117-45)

                             REMOTE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 5, 2022

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
             
             
             
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]             
             


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation
     
     
     
 
                           ______
  
               U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
  49-420 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2022 
  
 
 
     
     
                             
             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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

      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                          Emergency Management

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



                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

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

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
  Buildings, and Emergency Management, opening statement.........     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, 
  opening statement..............................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    29

                               WITNESSES

Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management 
  Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, oral statement...     7
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Statement of the BuildStrong Coalition, Submitted for the Record 
  by Hon. Dina Titus.............................................    29

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator, Federal 
  Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland 
  Security, from:
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................    33
    Hon. Dina Titus..............................................    35
    Hon. Michael Guest...........................................    36
    Hon. John Garamendi..........................................    38
    Hon. Garret Graves...........................................    38
    Hon. Troy A. Carter..........................................    39
    Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon................................    42

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             April 1, 2022

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    FROM:  LSubcommittee Staff
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``FEMA Priorities for 
2022 and the 2022-2026 Strategic Plan''
_______________________________________________________________________


                                PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, 
and Emergency Management will meet on Tuesday, April 5, 2022, 
at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via 
Zoom, to receive testimony from the Honorable Deanne Criswell, 
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
regarding ``FEMA Priorities for 2022 and the 2022-2026 
Strategic Plan.''

                               BACKGROUND

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE SUBCOMMITTEE'S LAST HEARING WITH THE FEMA 
                    ADMINISTRATOR

    The subcommittee last received testimony from Administrator 
Deanne Criswell on June 23, 2021.\1\ There have been many 
notable developments since that hearing, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management. (June 23, 2021). Hearing: FEMA's Priorities for 
FY22 and Beyond: Coordinating Mission, Vision, and Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     LOn August 5, 2021, President Biden approved a 
more than $3.26 billion increase for the Hazard Mitigation 
Grant Program (HMGP) \2\, which was authorized by COVID-19 
major disaster declarations.\3\ The approval makes states 
eligible for HMGP funds with a 75 percent federal share that 
equal 4 percent of their COVID-19 disaster costs.\4\ This one-
time investment represents a 23 percent increase in HMGP 
funding made available for declared disasters since the 
program's inception in 1988; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 5170c.
    \3\ FEMA. (August 5, 2021). Biden Administration Commits Historic 
$3.46 Billion in Hazard Mitigation Funds to Reduce the Effects of 
Climate Change. Available at https://www.fema.gov/press-release/
20210805/biden-administration-commits-historic-346-billion-hazard-
mitigation-funds
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     LOn September 2, 2021, FEMA announced it will now 
accept additional forms of documentation to verify the 
occupancy and ownership requirements of disaster survivors 
seeking Individual Assistance (IA).\6\ The policy change has 
made IA more accessible to underserved communities and 
homeowners that do not have access to a deed or formal proof of 
homeownership.\7\ The agency will also now provide Other Needs 
Assistance (ONA) grants to qualifying homeowners and renters 
that sustained real property damage but did not render their 
home uninhabitable; revise inspection procedures and training 
to better identify and address disaster caused mold; and 
expanded assistance for disaster caused disability; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ FEMA. (September 2, 2021). FEMA Makes Changes to Individual 
Assistance Policies to Advance Equity for Disaster Survivors. Available 
at FEMA Makes Changes to Individual Assistance Policies to Advance 
Equity for Disaster Survivors / FEMA.gov
    \7\ Washington Post. (September 2, 2021). FEMA Changes Policy that 
Kept Thousands of Black Families from Receiving Disaster Aid. Available 
at https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/02/fema-policy-change/
    \8\ FEMA. (September 2, 2021). FEMA Makes Changes to Individual 
Assistance Policies to Advance Equity for Disaster Survivors. Available 
at FEMA Makes Changes to Individual Assistance Policies to Advance 
Equity for Disaster Survivors / FEMA.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     LOn October 1, 2021, FEMA implemented the first 
round of policy updates as part of the agency's Risk Rating 2.0 
initiative, which will reform the National Flood Insurance 
Program (NFIP).\9\ The updated program will offer more 
equitable and risk informed rates that consider climate change 
and the cost to rebuild a structure when calculating flood 
insurance premiums; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ FEMA. (September 24, 2021). FEMA Offers More Equitable Flood 
Insurance Rates Beginning Oct. 1. Available at FEMA Offers More 
Equitable Flood Insurance Rates Beginning Oct. 1 / FEMA.gov
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     LOn October 28, 2021, FEMA created the Climate 
Adaptation Enterprise Steering Group that will focus on 
developing a unified agency approach to address the impacts of 
climate change across all agency programs and operations.\11\ 
This includes continued implementation of the Federal Flood 
Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) for all federal investments; 
and \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ FEMA. (October 28, 2021). FEMA Announces Initial Initiatives 
to Advance Climate Change Resilience. Available at FEMA Announces 
Initial Initiatives to Advance Climate Change Resilience / FEMA.gov
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     LOn March 15, 2022, FEMA's funeral assistance for 
COVID-19 topped $2 billion and supported over 300,000 
applicants.\13\ FEMA also announced the launch of an outreach 
campaign to spread awareness regarding the funeral assistance 
program in communities with high COVID-19 death rates and low 
funeral assistance application rates.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ FEMA. (March 15, 2022). FEMA Tops $2 Billion of COVID-19 
Funeral Assistance, Announces New Campaign to Increase Program 
Awareness. Available at https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20220315/
fema-tops-2-billion-covid-19-funeral-assistance-announces-new-campaign
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEMA'S 2022-2026 STRATEGIC PLAN

    Every four years FEMA publishes a strategic plan to outline 
the agency's vision and identify three goals to address 
challenges. FEMA engaged with a diverse range of stakeholders, 
including Tribes, FEMA employees, and external partners to 
develop the 2022-2026 Strategic Plan.\15\ FEMA collected public 
input through a Climate and Equity Request for Information.\16\ 
Upon review of the feedback, Administrator Criswell identified 
the following goals as FEMA's priorities for 2022-2026.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ FEMA. (December 2021). 2022-2016 FEMA Strategic Plan: Building 
the FEMA our Nation Needs and Deserves. Available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_2022-2026-strategic-
plan.pdf
    \16\ Federal Register. (April 22, 2021). Request for Information on 
FEMA Programs, Regulations, and Policies. Available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/04/22/2021-08444/request-for-
information-on-fema-programs-regulations-and-policies
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 1: INSTILL EQUITY AS A FOUNDATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended) requires 
FEMA assistance to be delivered in an equitable manner without 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 
nationality, sex, age, disability, language accessibility, or 
economic status.\18\ The Strategic Plan recognizes that FEMA's 
programs are not being implemented equitably and asserts that 
the agency will work to achieve equity.\19\ To meet this 
objective, FEMA plans to curate a workforce that reflects the 
nation's diversity, remove barriers to FEMA programs so that 
they can be effectively accessed and leveraged by underserved 
communities, and allocate resources to eliminate disparate 
program outcomes.\20\ FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure 
and Communities (BRIC) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) 
were selected during the interim implementation stage for Biden 
Administration's pilot Justice 40 Initiative, which aims to 
provide at least 40 percent of program benefits to 
disadvantaged communities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  5121 et seq.
    \19\ FEMA. (December 2021). 2022-2016 FEMA Strategic Plan: Building 
the FEMA our Nation Needs and Deserves. Available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_2022-2026-strategic-
plan.pdf
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ FEMA. (August 2021). Where Equity Fits into the BRIC/FMA 
Program Design and Community Resilience. Available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_equity-webinar-final_8-
17-21.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 2: LEAD THE WHOLE COMMUNITY IN CLIMATE RESILIENCE

    Climate change and the increasing frequency and severity of 
natural disasters impacted an already prolonged amount of time 
it takes for communities to recover from a disaster.\22\ FEMA 
plans to make the whole emergency management community more 
climate literate and resilient by building a foundational 
understanding of climate science and climate adaptation 
strategies, developing tools to anticipate climate risk, 
allocating resources informed by future risk estimates, and 
targeting investments to build resilience and enhance 
equity.\23\ The Strategic Plan highlights that building to 
modern hazard resistant codes and standards is also key to 
avoiding future losses.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
``Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Events.'' Available at: 
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.
    \23\ FEMA. (August 2021). Where Equity Fits into the BRIC/FMA 
Program Design and Community Resilience. Available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_equity-webinar-final_8-
17-21.pdf
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Existing grant programs at FEMA help communities adapt to 
climate change and increase resilience including the BRIC 
program, which was allocated $1 billion in funding in 2021, and 
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which received an 
additional $3.46 billion in funding in 2021 due to the major 
disaster declarations issued for COVID-19.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ CRS. (March 23, 2022). Recent Funding Increases for FEMA 
Hazard Mitigation Assistance. Available at https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11733
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 3: PROMOTE AND SUSTAIN A READY FEMA AND PREPARED NATION

    The new frequency and intensity of natural disasters has 
stressed FEMA's workforce.\26\ The change in tempo was marked 
by the 2017 hurricane and wildfire seasons and has kept pace 
due to the nationwide COVID-19 major disaster declaration and 
other major hazard events such as the 2020 wildfire season and 
Hurricane Ida in 2021.\27\ Prior to the 2017 disaster season 
FEMA was managing 26 emergency and major disaster declarations; 
by November 2020 it was managing 166 emergency and major 
disaster declarations.\28\ To meet this challenge, FEMA plans 
to increase capacity at the community level by implementing 
revised training initiatives, recruiting a more diverse FEMA 
workforce, developing a comprehensive readiness framework, and 
improving interagency coordination to streamline the delivery 
of disaster assistance.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ FEMA. (December 2021). 2022-2016 FEMA Strategic Plan: Building 
the FEMA our Nation Needs and Deserves. Available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_2022-2026-strategic-
plan.pdf
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF FEMA STAKEHOLDER PRIORITIES FOR 2022:

    On February 16, 2022, the Committee received testimony from 
emergency management stakeholders and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) during the hearing titled ``FEMA 
priorities for 2022: Stakeholder Perspectives.'' \30\ The 
Committee received testimony from 16 additional stakeholder for 
the hearing record. The testimony provided recommendations to 
FEMA regarding all four phases of emergency management: 
mitigation, planning, response, and recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management. (February 16, 2022). Hearing: FEMA Priorities for 
2022: Stakeholder Perspectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Testimony submitted by the National Emergency Management 
Association (NEMA) underscored that FEMA's programs, policies, 
and response strategies have not kept pace with the heightened 
threat of wildfire exacerbated by climate change and an 
expanding wildland urban interface.\31\ Testimony submitted by 
the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) 
praised FEMA's priorities for the 2022-2026 Strategic plan and 
reiterated the need to consider equity in all FEMA 
programs.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management. (February 16, 2022). Hearing: FEMA Priorities for 
2022: Stakeholder Perspectives. Testimony submitted by Erica Bornemann.
    \32\ Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management. (February 16, 2022). Hearing: FEMA Priorities for 
2022: Stakeholder Perspectives. Testimony submitted by Carolyn 
Harshman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO's testimony identified four areas for improvement 
within FEMA: workforce management, long-term recovery, 
potential barriers to assistance and disparate recovery 
outcomes, and disaster resilience and mitigation.\33\ GAO 
identified these priority areas using evidence it has gathered 
while drafting reports and recommendations during the 2015-2022 
period.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management. (February 16, 2022). Hearing: FEMA Priorities for 
2022: Stakeholder Perspectives. Testimony submitted by Chris Currie.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To improve workforce management, GAO recommends FEMA 
address staffing shortages, implement new training initiatives 
to produce a more qualified workforce, and expand its 
contracting workforce to improve the quality of recovery 
efforts.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO asserted that FEMA's recovery programs are complex and 
slow to provide post-disaster assistance.\36\ To improve 
recovery programs for communities and survivors, GAO recommends 
FEMA reconsider its Public Assistance (PA) reimbursement model, 
which most often requires state, local, Tribal, and territorial 
governments to provide upfront funding for recovery projects 
and seek reimbursement at a later date. This reimbursement 
model is a recovery barrier for communities that lack the 
upfront funds.\37\ Stafford Sec. 428 authorizes FEMA to develop 
alternative procedures for PA for state, local, Tribal, 
territorial, or non-profit applicants and provide upfront 
funding for recovery projects based on a fixed-cost 
estimate.\38\ However, the GAO's testimony reported that 
communities utilizing the alternative procedures authorized by 
Stafford Sec. 428 find the process of developing fixed-cost 
estimates to be difficult and lengthy.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Section 428, Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (Stafford Act P.L. 93-288, as amended)
    \39\ Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management. (February 16, 2022). Hearing: FEMA Priorities for 
2022: Stakeholder Perspectives. Testimony submitted by Chris Currie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO also recommended that FEMA consider equity across all 
its programs by identifying potential disaster recovery access 
barriers and disparate outcomes, prioritizing flood map 
investments for vulnerable populations, and developing 
specialized disaster assistance for older and disabled 
individuals. To address equity challenges in FEMA's IA Program, 
GAO recommends the agency simplify the Individual Housing 
Program (IHP) application process and make it more accessible 
to low-income and vulnerable populations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, to build resilience prior to disaster and reduce 
the need for complex recovery efforts, GAO recommends that FEMA 
update flood maps and flood risk products.\41\ To ensure all 
small, rural, and underserved communities can access hazard 
mitigation grant funds, GAO recommends that FEMA reduce the 
complexity and length of hazard mitigation grant 
applications.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    FEMA has been tested in recent years by COVID-19 and by 
disasters that are becoming more costly and frequent.\43\ The 
FEMA Administrator leads the federal government's crisis 
management agency during a time of overlapping management and 
mission challenges. This hearing provides the subcommittee an 
opportunity to hear directly from Administrator Criswell how 
the administration will achieve the Strategic Plan goals and 
meet these challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
``Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Events.'' Available at: 
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              WITNESS LIST

     LThe Honorable Deanne Criswell, Administrator, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security


                    FEMA PRIORITIES FOR 2022 AND THE
                        2022-2026 STRATEGIC PLAN

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
               Buildings, and Emergency Management,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Dina 
Titus (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present in person: Ms. Titus, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
Webster of Florida, Mr. Massie, Mr. Larsen of Washington, and 
Mr. Graves of Louisiana.
    Members present remotely: Ms. Norton, Ms. Davids of Kansas, 
Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Van Duyne, and Mr. Stanton.
    Ms. Titus. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to 
declare a recess at any time during this hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As a reminder, please keep your microphone muted unless 
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I 
will request that the Member please mute their microphone.
    To insert a document into the record, please have your 
staff email it to [email protected].
    I want to thank our Administrator, Ms. Criswell, for 
joining us today to discuss FEMA's priorities for 2022, and the 
Agency's 2022 through 2026 strategic plan.
    Since you were last here in June of 2021, this subcommittee 
has heard from several panels of witnesses that climate change, 
severe related weather events, and development in high-risk 
areas have changed the emergency management landscape. Today's 
disasters cause more damage, have greater impacts on 
communities, and require more time and money to recover.
    These new challenges to the recovery process make it 
imperative that FEMA cut the redtape within its assistance 
programs and deliver resources to individuals and communities 
in need in a timely fashion and in an equitable way.
    I continue to hear from stakeholders and witnesses that 
bureaucracy is adding inordinate complexity to the recovery 
process. As FEMA processes a record number of project 
worksheets and a multitude of Individual Assistance 
applications, it must become a priority to identify commonsense 
ways to simplify these pipelines.
    Make no mistake, I am impressed by the work that the men 
and women of FEMA have done to rise to the challenge time and 
time again, especially over the past 5 years, as the workforce 
has been stretched to its limits. Now is the time to provide 
reinforcements so that FEMA can meet its present and future 
mission.
    Last month, I introduced bipartisan legislation designed to 
ensure FEMA has the tools it needs to recruit and retain 
qualified workers for its cadre of disaster reservists.
    The GAO and the RAND Corporation have stated that providing 
FEMA's workforce access to adequate protections, training, and 
benefits will enhance the Agency's capabilities and create 
better outcomes for disaster survivors and communities.
    The unprecedented number of emergency and disaster 
declarations and capacity challenges burdening FEMA today must 
also inspire us to make proactive investments that will reduce 
the impact of future disasters and protect our communities. 
Mitigation is a proven way to save lives and property, and it 
is cost effective. I strongly support expanding funding for 
mitigation projects at the local and individual level.
    I hope the House will take a positive step today by passing 
the bipartisan Resilient AMERICA Act, which I was pleased to 
support with Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and 
subcommittee Ranking Member Webster. This legislation will 
boost resources for predisaster mitigation, including 
assistance for communities interested in updating their 
building codes.
    It will also establish a pilot block grant program so that 
States interested in assisting residents in the wilderness-
urban interface can enhance defensible space around their 
property or install fire-resistant building materials.
    Mitigation cannot be effective unless it is fairly 
distributed across all communities. I am concerned about 
stakeholder feedback that FEMA's mitigation assistance programs 
are only reaching the largest and best resourced communities. 
The complexity of the hazard mitigation application process 
makes it nearly impossible for small, disadvantaged, and rural 
communities to successfully access these funds.
    I appreciate your attention to a letter sent by this 
subcommittee's leadership which posed a series of questions 
regarding FEMA's efforts to streamline the hazard mitigation 
grants process. And I hope that implementing reforms to make 
this process more accessible will continue to be a shared 
priority of the committee and the Agency so we move towards 
more equitable recovery programs.
    Administrator, I want to thank you for your work, what you 
have done to guide FEMA in a positive direction by 
acknowledging and addressing the impacts of climate change, 
prioritizing equity, and investing in mitigation and 
resilience. We look forward to your testimony and discussing 
how this committee can work with you to make additional 
progress in supporting disaster survivors in 2022 and beyond.
    [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress 
     from the State of Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic 
        Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    I'd like to thank Administrator Criswell for joining us to discuss 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's priorities for 2022 and the 
Agency's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan.
    Since our last hearing together in June of 2021, this subcommittee 
has heard from several panels of witnesses that climate change, the 
related severe weather events, and development in high-risk areas have 
changed the emergency management landscape.
    Today's disasters cause more damage, have greater impacts on 
communities, and require more time to recover. These new challenges to 
the recovery process make it imperative that FEMA cut the red tape 
within its assistance programs and deliver resources to individuals and 
communities in need.
    I continue to hear from stakeholders and witnesses that bureaucracy 
is adding inordinate complexity to the recovery process. As FEMA 
processes a record number of project worksheets and multitude of 
Individual Assistance applications, it must be a priority to identify 
commonsense ways to simplify these assistance pipelines.
    Make no mistake, I am impressed by the work the women and men at 
FEMA have done to rise to the challenge time and time again, especially 
over the past five years as FEMA's workforce has been stretched to its 
limits. Now is the time to provide reinforcements so that FEMA can meet 
its present mission.
    Last month I introduced bipartisan legislation designed to ensure 
FEMA has the tools it needs to recruit and retain qualified workers for 
its cadre of disaster reservists. The GAO and the RAND corporation have 
stated that providing FEMA's workforce access to adequate protections, 
training, and benefits will enhance the agency's capabilities and 
create better outcomes for disaster survivors and communities.
    The unprecedented number of emergency and disaster declarations and 
capacity challenges burdening FEMA must also inspire us to make 
proactive investments that will reduce the impact of future disasters 
and protect our communities. Mitigation is a proven way to save lives 
and property, and it's cost effective. I strongly support expanding 
funding for mitigation projects at the local and individual level.
    I hope the House will take a positive step today by passing the 
bipartisan Resilient America Act, which I led with Chairman DeFazio, 
Ranking Member Graves, and the Subcommittee's Ranking Member Mr. 
Webster. This legislation will boost resources for pre-disaster 
mitigation including: assistance for communities interested in updating 
their building codes to reflect the latest hazard resistant designs, 
and establishing a pilot block grant program so that states interested 
in assisting residents in the wildland urban interface can enhance 
defensible space around their property or install fire-resistant 
building materials to reduce risks.
    Mitigation cannot be effective unless it is fairly distributed 
across all communities. I am concerned with stakeholder feedback that 
FEMA's mitigation assistance programs are only reaching the largest and 
best-resourced communities. The complexity of the hazard mitigation 
application processes makes it nearly impossible for small, 
disadvantaged, and rural communities to successfully access these 
funds.
    I appreciated your attention to a letter sent by this 
subcommittee's leadership, which posed a series of questions regarding 
FEMA's efforts to streamline the hazard mitigation grants process. I 
hope that implementing reforms to make this process more accessible 
will continue to be a shared priority for Congress and the agency.
    Administrator, I thank you for the work you have done to guide FEMA 
in a positive direction by acknowledging and addressing the impacts of 
climate change, prioritizing equity, and investing in mitigation and 
resilience. I look forward to your testimony and discussing how this 
committee can work with you to make additional progress on supporting 
disaster survivors in 2022 and beyond.

    Ms. Titus. I would now like to welcome our--[discussion off 
the record]--I would like to now welcome our ranking member, 
Mr. Webster, for his opening comments.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chair Titus. I want to 
welcome and thank the Administrator for coming today.
    FEMA has a mission critical to our Nation and my home 
State, Florida. And you, Administrator Criswell, despite being 
in the Department of Homeland Security, are the principal 
advisor to the President when it comes to disasters. The 
congressional review of the response to Hurricane Katrina 
indicated how critical it is for the lead emergency manager, 
not the Secretary of Homeland Security, to advise the 
President. And that experience and knowledge is needed even 
more today.
    In recent years, we have seen the number and cost of 
disasters increase--from hurricanes, flooding, ice storms, 
tornadoes, other things, and wildfires. Ultimately, we all must 
work towards solutions that will lower costs and save lives 
through mitigation and preparation. But we also need to look at 
how declared disasters can be closed out faster so FEMA, State, 
and local resources can focus more quickly on preparing for the 
next disaster.
    The only sub to that is in regard to flooding. In our area, 
the floods don't come for maybe a month or two afterwards, when 
the crest builds. So, we should be fast, but not too fast.
    Building in mitigation has been a bipartisan priority of 
this committee. Studies have proven that every dollar spent, 
invested upfront, can avoid $4 to $11 in disaster damages. 
While the committee has passed legislation that supports this 
goal, it does not help if the funding does not get out the door 
in a timely manner. While I appreciate the importance of many 
of the objectives in FEMA's strategic plan, in order to achieve 
these goals, it is important for us to identify concrete steps 
in streamlining FEMA's processes.
    It seems every time we pass reforms intended to make the 
process more accessible and faster, redtape creeps back in, or 
applicants in one State are told something different than the 
ones in another State. In February, we received testimony from 
various stakeholders and the GAO detailing ongoing challenges 
in FEMA programs. A common theme in much of the feedback 
related to the cumbersome process, inconsistent decisions, and 
confusing communications. Unfortunately, these have been 
persistent issues. We need to work to find solutions, and 
solutions that are sustainable, clear to applicants, and 
consistently applied.
    I look forward to hearing what you have to say about FEMA 
priorities and the strategic plan, and how it can help improve 
our Federal emergency management system.
    [Mr. Webster of Florida's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress 
from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
        Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    Thank you, Chair Titus. I want to welcome and thank Administrator 
Criswell for being here today.
    FEMA has a mission critical to our Nation and my home state of 
Florida. And Administrator Criswell, despite being in the Department of 
Homeland Security, is the principal advisor to the President when it 
comes to disasters. A congressional review of the response to Hurricane 
Katrina indicated how critical it is for the lead emergency manager, 
not the Secretary of Homeland Security, to advise the President. And 
that experience and knowledge is needed even more today.
    In recent years, we have seen the number and costs of disasters 
increase--from hurricanes, flooding, and ice storms to tornados and 
wildfires. Ultimately, we all must work towards solutions that will 
lower those costs and save lives through mitigation and preparation. 
But we also need to look at how declared disasters can be closed out 
faster so FEMA, state, and local resources can focus more quickly on 
preparing for the next disaster.
    Building-in mitigation has been a bipartisan priority of this 
Committee. Studies have proven that with every $1 invested upfront, we 
can avoid $4 to $11 dollars in disaster damages. While the Committee 
has passed legislation that supports this goal, it does not help if 
funding does not get out the door in a timely manner. While I 
appreciate the importance of many of the objectives in FEMA's Strategic 
Plan, in order to achieve those goals, it's important for us to 
identify concrete steps in streamlining FEMA's processes.
    It seems every time we pass reforms intended to make the process 
more accessible and faster, red tape creeps back in or applicants in 
one State are told something different than those in another state. In 
February, we received testimony from various stakeholders and the GAO 
detailing ongoing challenges in FEMA programs. A common theme in much 
of the feedback related to the cumbersome process, inconsistencies in 
decisions, and confusing communication. Unfortunately, these have been 
persistent issues. We need to work to find solutions, and solutions 
that are sustainable, clear to applicants, and consistently applied. I 
look forward to hearing from the Administrator on how FEMA's priorities 
and strategic plan can help improve our federal emergency management 
system.

    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster. I now recognize the 
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Mr. DeFazio.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for holding 
this timely and important hearing, and thanks to Administrator 
Criswell for taking the time to be with us today.
    It's critical that we discuss FEMA's short-term and long-
term plans to meet challenges posed by an evolving disaster 
landscape. Natural disasters have become more frequent, more 
intense, and, of course, more damaging and costly. And they are 
having a greater impact on communities across the Nation. And 
it is critical that FEMA have the capacity to respond to this 
growing challenge.
    And to meet this goal, I believe FEMA needs an expanded 
workforce. We are also working on how we can help with 
reservists who get called up. And we have to be able to be 
certain that your programs are implemented as effectively, 
efficiently, equitably, with as little redtape as possible, but 
protecting against the potential for fraud and abuse.
    My State, my home State, Oregon, we've got great natural 
beauty, but we also have a great risk of natural disasters. 
Flooding, wildfires, the potential for a massive, once-in-350-
to-500-year earthquake at 9 on the Richter scale, which would 
bring tsunamis. And then, of course, we had the unprecedented 
extreme heat events last summer, which caused mortality in 
Portland, the second least air-conditioned city in the country, 
because we never needed it before, and Seattle. We had 
temperatures that were so far above the norm, it couldn't have 
happened--there is a consensus of scientists--without the 
impacts of climate change, and it will happen more frequently.
    So, new challenges for FEMA and things that we need to 
prepare for, as the Chair mentioned, with mitigation in 
advance.
    You have been stretched. And I think the whole committee 
recognizes this. Your workers have done incredible things with, 
in my opinion, inadequate resources. And, we want to hear more 
about your 2022-2026 strategic plan, and how you intend to 
expand your capacity and be able to deal with these disasters 
as they happen.
    I think you have been doing a great job at an Agency which 
did fall into a little bit of neglect during the last 
administration. You have taken us through the pandemic, a whole 
different and new challenge. Hurricane Ida, Kentucky tornadoes, 
while you are reforming programs at the same time, which is 
long overdue.
    I am pleased you have made equity a priority.
    And the Agency continues to seek innovative ways to 
restructure its programs, in particular the issue of 
documentation. I first ran across this as a very significant 
issue in Puerto Rico, when I was on a congressional trip down 
there after the disastrous hurricane, where the courthouses 
were wiped out. People had no way of providing the 
documentation that was initially being demanded, and they were 
all routinely being denied. And we have taken some steps to 
mitigate that, but we need to do better.
    We had a similar instance in southern Oregon with a 
devastating wildfire which wiped out a number of trailer parks, 
similar issues regarding lack of documentation because their 
house trailer was parked in an a trailer park. We have to be 
able to deal with these things. Again, we always have to be 
wary and afraid of the potential for fraud and abuse, but we 
don't have to get to the point where we are disqualifying 
people who should be and are eligible and have gotten lost in 
the bureaucratic quagmire being initially denied, not knowing 
how to re-apply, or what other documentation they might be able 
to provide. And I think you have made some strides there, but I 
think more needs to be done.
    As the Chair mentioned, resilience and mitigation are 
absolutely key. I mean, the cost-benefit ratio is 
extraordinary. And some of these programs--in particular, 
mitigation--are not tremendously accessible to small, rural, 
and disadvantaged communities who lack the expertise of a 
sophisticated management staff. We need to be able to figure 
out ways to help them better, apply and understand what they 
could be eligible for in the wake of disasters or a 
predisaster, in terms of mitigation and planning.
    There is $1.7 billion that could yet be committed for 
predisaster mitigation from the COVID-19 declarations alone, 
and I am hopeful that we will find ways to usefully invest 
those funds.
    Thanks again for being with us today. Thanks again for your 
work at the Agency, your expertise, and I look forward to your 
remarks.
    [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in 
      Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chair Titus, and thank you to Administrator Criswell for 
taking the time to be with us today.
    There is no better time than now to discuss FEMA's short-term and 
long-term plans to meet the challenges posed by an evolving disaster 
landscape. Natural disasters have become more costly and are having 
greater impact upon communities across the nation. It is critical that 
FEMA is equipped with the capacity to respond. To meet this goal, I 
believe FEMA must expand its workforce and ensure its programs are 
implemented as effectively, efficiently, and equitably as possible. 
This mission is critical since the quality of FEMA's programs 
significantly impact disaster survivors' recovery.
    Oregon is home to a lot of natural beauty, and unfortunately, this 
beauty also comes at the price of great risk of natural disasters. My 
constituents are vulnerable to hazards including flooding, wildfires, 
earthquakes, tsunamis, and extreme heat just to name a few, and climate 
change is causing these disasters to impact the state in unprecedented 
ways. In 2020, wildfires damaged more than 5,000 structures and forced 
tens of thousands of Oregonians to evacuate. In 2021, record breaking 
heatwaves in Oregon posed a major health risk to my constituents and 
tragically caused over 90 deaths.
    Unprecedented hazard events have not been confined to Oregon. The 
record-breaking cost of the 2017 and 2018 disaster seasons and the 
nationwide COVID-19 disaster declarations have stretched FEMA to its 
limit. FEMA's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan acknowledges this challenge and 
I look forward to discussing how FEMA intends to expand capacity and 
adapt its programs to ensure disaster survivors receive the quality 
assistance they deserve.
    I am proud of the work FEMA has achieved under your leadership. You 
have guided the agency though a pandemic, responded to complex 
disasters such as Hurricane Ida and the Kentucky tornadoes, while 
simultaneously implementing reforms that make FEMA's programs more 
equitable. It is refreshing that this Administration has made equity a 
priority and that the Agency continues to seek innovative ways to 
restructure its programs.
    I was especially pleased that the agency will now accept additional 
forms of documentation to verify the occupancy and ownership 
requirements of disaster survivors seeking Individual Assistance. This 
policy change has made Individual Assistance more accessible to 
underserved communities and homeowners that may not have access to a 
deed or formal proof of home ownership. However, there is still a lot 
of work remaining to fully incorporate equity into FEMA's programs. I 
fully support these efforts and am open to considering statutory 
changes.
    Reforming FEMA's response and recovery programs is not enough. 
Expanding mitigation and resilience efforts must be at the forefront of 
any conversation regarding the increasing frequency, intensity, and 
cost of natural disasters. Time and again it has been proven that 
mitigation is a commonsense, cost-effective way to save lives and 
property. That's why I strongly support finding ways to increase 
funding for mitigation and resilience projects.
    I echo Chair Titus' remarks that FEMA's mitigation programs must 
become more accessible to small, rural, and disadvantaged communities. 
I would also like to see FEMA use its full authorities to place money 
in the pre-disaster mitigation fund. At present, there's another $1.7 
billion in authority that can be committed to pre-disaster mitigation 
from the COVID-19 declarations alone.
    Thank you again for your time, testimony, and expertise. I look 
forward to continuing our work together to drive needed reforms inside 
FEMA and will work to ensure you have the authorities, resources, and 
direction to achieve your goals and the agency's mission.
    Thank you. I yield back.

    Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would now like to 
welcome our witness today, the Honorable Deanne Criswell, who 
is the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency.
    Thank you for coming and sharing with us your plans for 
FEMA. We all look forward to hearing from you.
    Without objection, our witness' full statement will be 
included in the record.
    Administrator Criswell, you have the floor.

   TESTIMONY OF HON. DEANNE CRISWELL, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 
   EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                            SECURITY

    Ms. Criswell. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair 
Titus, Ranking Member Webster, and members of the subcommittee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    The field of emergency management is at a pivotal moment. 
We are seeing tremendous change in the landscape of risk and in 
our professional roles.
    While our mission has not changed, our operating 
environment has: 10 years ago, we managed an average of 108 
disasters a year; today, we are managing 311. That includes the 
ongoing response to COVID-19.
    The changing climate is the biggest crisis that is facing 
our Nation. It is making natural disasters more frequent, more 
intense, and more destructive. And this pattern will continue 
for the foreseeable future. And at the same time, structural 
inequities in our society are compounding the impacts of 
disasters for our historically underserved communities. The 
2022-2026 FEMA strategic plan identifies three ambitious goals 
that we must achieve to address these challenges.
    First, we must instill equity as a foundation of emergency 
management. It is important to recognize disasters affect 
individuals and communities differently. We must commit 
ourselves to reducing barriers to access and commit to 
developing equitable outcomes for all survivors. We must put 
people first and reduce the burdens to individuals and 
communities by making our programs simpler, more accessible, 
and more user friendly.
    We have already made important changes to the way we 
provide assistance to make this true. For instance, some 
homeowners had difficulty proving they owned their homes if 
their property had been handed down informally through the 
years. We expanded the types of ownership documentation that we 
can accept, like receipts for major repairs or improvements, 
court documents, public officials' letters, mobile park 
letters, and even self-certification for mobile homes and 
travel trailers as a last resort.
    In addition, FEMA has changed the way we calculate the 
threshold for property loss to qualify for our direct housing 
program, such as a trailer or a mobile home. The change 
resulted in more than 1,400 families receiving assistance who 
would not have been considered for direct housing in the past. 
That means 1,400 families with a roof over their head, a bed to 
sleep in, and a stove to cook with.
    These are just a few examples of where our ``people first'' 
approach has made a difference, but we can and will do more.
    We also know that the more our workforce resembles the 
Nation we serve, the better we will be at serving our Nation. 
This is why our strategic plan focuses our recruiting efforts 
to reach individuals from underrepresented communities, 
including through partnering with organizations like 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other 
minority-serving institutions. Our goal is to create hiring 
pipelines from these institutions into the field of emergency 
management, opening new opportunities for underrepresented 
communities who may not see themselves reflected in today's 
workforce.
    As you know, FEMA is not just a response and recovery 
Agency. One of my highest priorities is to focus equally on 
what we can do on the front end before a disaster. This is why 
our second strategic goal is to lead the whole of community in 
climate resilience.
    We must recognize that we are facing a climate crisis. FEMA 
can educate not only our own staff, but also the Nation, about 
the impacts of our changing climate. We must integrate future 
conditions into our planning efforts. We must think bigger 
about how we approach mitigation and shift our projects to 
those with communitywide impact. And, as with disaster relief, 
we must eliminate barriers to underserved communities, the 
barriers they face to receive mitigation assistance.
    I would like to thank Congress for passing the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This legislation 
provides significant funding to establish revolving loan funds 
under the STORM Act, as well as for FEMA's other hazard 
mitigation assistance grant programs. These investments will 
only grow in importance as climate change continues to alter 
the landscape of risk facing emergency managers across our 
country.
    I am also committed to making sure FEMA's workforce is well 
equipped to advise our partners on the best ways to build 
climate-resilient communities. I am directing a new 
collaborative steering group comprised of FEMA leadership to 
begin a multiyear initiative to incorporate the dynamics of a 
changing climate into relevant training, planning, grant 
eligibility, and exercises as appropriate. FEMA program offices 
and the U.S. Fire Administration will also collaborate to 
strengthen the capability of emergency management partners to 
advance these critical issues within their pre- and post-
disaster work.
    Our third strategic goal is to promote and sustain a ready 
FEMA and a prepared Nation. The increase in frequency, 
severity, and complexity of disasters has heightened demands on 
FEMA's workforce and on the first responder workforces across 
our Nation. To rise to this challenge, FEMA must expand its 
approach to Agency readiness and to national preparedness. We 
need a better understanding of the value and skill set 
emergency managers bring to bear.
    We also need to standardize emergency management career 
paths, and FEMA's educational institutions are going to lead 
that effort, making training available to emergency managers 
anywhere they are at any time in their careers.
    And FEMA is improving its ability to meet the increasingly 
complex missions beyond the typical Stafford Act emergencies 
and disasters. I want to thank Congress for including funding 
in the recent omnibus for a non-Stafford Incident Management 
Assistance Team.
    We are also bolstering the support staff who enable our 
Stafford Act disaster workforce to better meet the challenges 
of the year-long operational tempo. This includes procurement 
specialists who allow us to actually mobilize assistance, 
computer specialists who facilitate data and information 
sharing, those who ensure civil rights are protected in all 
activities, and the personnel necessary to train the workforce, 
manage operations, and focus on employee wellness.
    Since I last appeared before this subcommittee in June of 
last year, FEMA has been tested on many fronts, and our people 
have risen to the occasion. As we look ahead, the FEMA 
strategic plan is ambitious, but it is equal to the challenges 
we face.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify today.
    [Ms. Criswell's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator, Federal 
   Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    Chair Titus, Ranking Member Webster, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the 
2022-2026 FEMA Strategic Plan, and our ongoing efforts to fundamentally 
reshape and strengthen FEMA's abilities to help people before, during, 
and after disasters.
    The field of emergency management is at a pivotal moment. We are 
seeing tremendous change in the landscape of risk and in our 
professional roles. While our mission has not changed, our operating 
environment has. Ten years ago, we managed an average of 108 disasters 
a year. Today, we are managing 311--including the ongoing response to 
the COVID-19 pandemic. The most recent report from the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is very clear that physical 
changes in our climate--heat, cold, rain, drought, snow, wind, coastal 
flooding, and more--are irreversible over hundreds to thousands of 
years.
    The changing climate is the biggest crisis facing our nation. It is 
making natural disasters more frequent, more intense, and more 
destructive, and this pattern will continue for the foreseeable future. 
At the same time, structural inequities in our society are compounding 
the impacts of disasters for historically underserved communities. Left 
unaddressed, these twin challenges pose unacceptable risks to the 
nation.
    The 2022-2026 FEMA Strategic Plan identifies three ambitious goals 
we must achieve to address these challenges.
    First, we must instill equity as a foundation of emergency 
management. It is important we recognize disasters affect individuals 
and communities differently. We must commit ourselves to reducing 
barriers to access and commit to delivering equitable outcomes for all 
survivors. Disaster survivors have already experienced their worst day, 
and we must ensure our policies and programs meet them where they are 
and provide support and nothing less. Systems which create barriers and 
result in inequitable outcomes serve no one, especially in times of 
crisis. We must put people first and reduce the burdens to individuals 
and communities by making our programs simpler, more accessible, and 
more user-friendly.
    We have already made important changes to the way we provide 
assistance to make this true. For instance, some homeowners had 
difficulty proving they owned their homes if their property had been 
handed down informally through the years. We took action by expanding 
the types of ownership documentation we can accept, including documents 
like receipts for major repairs or improvements, court documents, 
public officials' letters, mobile home park letters, and even applicant 
self-certification for mobile homes and travel trailers as a last 
resort. In addition, FEMA has changed the way we calculate the 
threshold for property losses to qualify for our Direct Housing program 
(such as a trailer or mobile home). Our goal--ensure equitable damage 
evaluations regardless of the amount of damage to the home. Changing 
the calculation of the threshold from a fixed dollar floor of $17,000 
to a simpler $12 per square foot, resulted in more than 1,400 families 
receiving assistance who would not have been considered for direct 
housing in the past. That means 1,400 families with a roof over their 
head, beds to sleep in, and a stove to cook with. This change 
especially made a difference for survivors with lower value homes. 
These are a few examples of where our people first approach has made a 
difference. But we can do more. We will do more.
    We also know, the more our workforce resembles the nation we serve, 
the better we will be at serving our nation. Which is why our Strategic 
Plan focuses our recruiting efforts to reach individuals from 
underrepresented communities, including through partnering with 
organizations like Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) 
and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium of Tribal Colleges 
and Universities and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). Our 
goal is to create hiring pipelines from these institutions into the 
field of emergency management, opening new opportunities for 
underrepresented communities who may not see themselves reflected in 
today's workforce, and as a result, may have been dissuaded from 
joining the emergency management profession.
    As you know, FEMA is not just a response and recovery agency. One 
of my highest priorities is to focus equally on what we can do on the 
front end, before a disaster--as this is often as important, if not 
more important than what we do when a disaster strikes.
    Which is why our second strategic goal is to lead whole of 
community in climate resilience. We must recognize we are facing a 
climate crisis. FEMA can educate not only our own staff, but also the 
nation about the impacts our changing climate poses, and how this will 
influence the work we do as emergency managers. We must integrate 
future conditions into our planning efforts. We must think bigger about 
how we approach mitigation and shift our projects to those with 
community-wide impact, and, as with disaster relief, we must eliminate 
barriers underserved communities face to receive mitigation assistance.
    I would like to thank Congress for working with the Biden-Harris 
Administration to provide FEMA with additional resources to reduce the 
impact of climate change by passing the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act. This legislation provides significant funding to establish 
revolving loan funds under the STORM Act, as well as for FEMA's other 
Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs. These investments will 
only grow in importance as climate change continues to alter the 
landscape of risk facing emergency managers across the country. Which 
is why we've made resources available, such as new Direct Technical 
Assistance, for local communities to provide support for both project 
and application-specific needs, as well as community-wide resilience 
needs.
    I am also committed to making sure FEMA's workforce is well-
equipped to advise our partners on the best ways to build climate 
resilient communities. I am directing a new collaborative steering 
group comprised of leadership from FEMA's program offices to begin a 
multi-year initiative to incorporate the dynamics of a changing climate 
into relevant training, planning, grant eligibility, and exercises, as 
appropriate. FEMA program offices and the U.S. Fire Administration will 
also collaborate to strengthen the capability of state, local, 
territorial, and tribal nation partners to advance these critical 
issues within their pre- and post-disaster work. I believe a more 
climate literate workforce which considers the impacts of future risks 
in disaster planning and understands how the natural world, in 
conjunction with our current systems, can help or burden survivors, 
will position FEMA to truly lead the way on hazard mitigation and 
resilience.
    Our third strategic goal is to promote and sustain a ready FEMA and 
prepared nation. The increase in frequency, severity, and complexity of 
disasters has heightened demands on FEMA's workforce and on the first 
responder workforces in every state, tribal nation, county, and city in 
the nation which comprise the broader emergency management community.
    To rise to this challenge, FEMA must expand its approach to agency 
readiness and to national preparedness. We will accomplish this in the 
following ways. First, we need a better understanding of the value and 
skill set emergency managers bring to bear, in other words, a clear 
standard definition of the competencies, required to become a qualified 
emergency manager.
    Second, like other professions, emergency management must 
standardize its career paths, and FEMA's educational institutions will 
lead the effort to advance the emergency management profession by 
supporting curricula for comprehensive emergency management training, 
education, and professional development for our partners across the 
nation by making training available to emergency managers anywhere they 
are, at any time in their careers. We are modernizing their operational 
design so the nation's federal, state, local, territorial, tribal 
nation, non-governmental organization, and private sector emergency 
managers can meet the risks posed by increasing hazards, and obtain the 
training required to become certified within the National Qualification 
System.
    Third, FEMA is improving our ability to meet the increasing number 
of current and emergent threats requiring federal support. As FEMA is 
uniquely positioned to provide incident management and coordination 
support for increasingly complex missions beyond typical Stafford Act 
emergencies and disasters, we are envisioning, planning, and preparing 
for incidents which do not fall into common disaster categories. I want 
to thank Congress for including funding in the recent Omnibus for a 
non-Stafford Incident Management Assistance Team (IMAT). Having this 
capability will help us more rapidly and effectively provide incident 
management support for these emerging threats.
    We are also in the process of looking at the architecture of our 
Stafford Act disaster workforce to better meet the challenges of the 
yearlong operational tempo which is our new reality. As FEMA's incident 
management and incident support workforce continues to grow, we are 
prioritizing the growth of the support workforce which enables them, 
such as the procurement specialists needed to execute the contracts and 
mission assignments, which allows us to actually mobilize assistance; 
the computer specialist who facilitate data and information sharing 
within FEMA's IT infrastructure; those who ensure civil rights are 
protected in all activities; and the personnel necessary to train the 
workforce, manage operations, and the experts who focus on employee 
wellness.
    The last group is so critical. Dealing with an unrelenting pace of 
a year-round cycle of disasters and crisis takes its toll on the FEMA 
team. To be ready for the next disaster, whenever it comes, we must 
look out for the physical, emotional and mental health of our people. 
We are looking at our existing flexibilities to ensure that our people 
can rest and reset, and take care of themselves and their families. We 
cannot do what we do without our people. Since I last appeared before 
this Subcommittee in June of last year, FEMA has been tested on many 
fronts, and our people have risen to the occasion. Their adaptability, 
dedication, and willingness to do the hard work is unquestionable and 
unbelievable.
    In closing, the 2022-2026 FEMA Strategic Plan is ambitious, but it 
is equal to the challenges we face. I look forward to all we will 
accomplish together as we continue to build a more ready and resilient 
nation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 
your questions.

    Ms. Titus. Thank you very much for being here, 
Administrator.
    We will now move on to Member questions. Each Member will 
be recognized for 5 minutes, and I will start by recognizing 
Chairman DeFazio.
    Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    Madam Administrator, I am noting that we haven't made a lot 
of progress on implementing a national set of reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to get the National Flood Insurance 
Program into compliance with the Endangered Species Act. This 
is particularly problematic because of litigation filed and 
settled under the Obama administration.
    Washington State has one set of standards, and then, with 
further litigation, Oregon is expected to adopt a much more 
extreme and unique set of standards. And there is also 
potential for litigation in Florida and elsewhere, ending up 
with a nationwide patchwork disqualifying people from access to 
Federal flood insurance in ways that are not reasonable. We 
need a Federal standard.
    Just quickly, an example, when I looked at the potential 
impacts of the so-called settlement for Oregon, I held a press 
conference in front of the Coos Bay World newspaper, which is 
about 8 blocks from the 101 Highway, which then, on the other 
side is Coos Bay, and that is considered critical salmon 
habitat. And any redevelopment of that area would be prohibited 
from having Federal flood insurance. What kind of progress are 
we making on this? What kind of timeline do you have to get 
this in place, to have a nationwide standard for the whole 
country?
    Ms. Criswell. Chair DeFazio, thank you for raising this 
very important issue. I know that this is incredibly important 
to you in Oregon, but especially as we look at the way we are 
going to implement projects across the country. And there are a 
lot of unique challenges that you are specifically experiencing 
in Oregon.
    I know that my team has been continuing to work on this 
issue. I believe that they have briefed your staff recently on 
some of the progress that has been made. But I am happy to 
follow up with my team and to meet with your staff to see 
exactly where we are at in this process.
    Mr. DeFazio. Yes, because many of our cities and counties 
are about to go through a very expensive process to revise 
their mandated State land-use plans in order to be in 
compliance. Once they begin that process, I mean, they are 
going to be spending money and resources they could better use 
elsewhere if suddenly we are going to be looking at a new 
national standard, versus the unique standard that has been 
established for Oregon. So, I would appreciate that.
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, sir.
    Mr. DeFazio. And then the other question is--and this may 
be something that the committee needs to address in conjunction 
with you--the current post-disaster assistance model requires 
survivors to file applications with multiple agencies. And 
then, if you have filed over here and you get assistance there, 
and then you file over here you are disqualified. And then 
sometimes over here they want the money back. And over here you 
could have--it gets incredibly complicated. And I know it 
involves SBA and HUD.
    Are we looking at memorandums of understanding, or any way 
to streamline this in the future?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, absolutely, sir. The work that we do in 
coordination with SBA and HUD is incredibly important to help 
survivors, especially as they are beginning to go through the 
process and try to get back on their feet. I know that it is 
frustrating for them to have to put information into several 
different applications.
    What we have been doing here recently is--and I think we 
are getting closer to this goal--is that we have been working 
on ways to share our data better across the platforms. So, the 
information that they put in with one application, say with 
FEMA, then would transfer automatically over to SBA or HUD.
    I think the data-sharing piece is one of our biggest 
challenges that we are facing right now, and rightly so, with 
all the privacy concerns that are out there. And we are making 
steps to get closer on that. And it is--certainly happy to 
provide any followup information on the specifics of where we 
are.
    Mr. DeFazio. OK. And if the committee needs to be helpful 
with those other committees of jurisdiction here, I am certain 
that the chair would be willing to hear from the Agency on any 
assistance you need, as would I, and I am sure would other 
members of the committee.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. Yes. As a matter of fact, I have been 
talking to some people from the industry who would like to put 
together a roundtable, which would be a more informal way for 
them to have input, for you to address some of these issues, 
and for the committee to be there in less structured, kind of 
5-minute intervals. So, we are working on setting that up. So, 
we will certainly keep you posted.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will now recognize Mr. Webster 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chair.
    Administrator Criswell, the GAO has highlighted that the 
significant percentage of FEMA workforce deployed is not 
properly trained. Well, the people who work for FEMA joined 
FEMA to help other people. And if they don't know how, it is 
going to be pretty hard to carry out their duties. Can you give 
just some examples or steps you are taking to make sure that 
the FEMA workforce is properly trained?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, absolutely, Ranking Member. The GAO 
report came out with three recommendations, and we concurred 
with all three of those recommendations.
    The workforce, again, it was one of my priorities as I was 
going through the confirmation process, and it has been 
embedded into our strategic plan going forward. The women and 
the men that work here at FEMA, they are some of the best in 
the business. And you are right, they are passionate about what 
they do, because they do get to help people before, during, and 
after disasters.
    And we have taken steps in regards to the three 
recommendations. In fact, I think we closed out the first two, 
or I have asked to close out the first two recommendations in 
that GAO report.
    Specifically to the one regarding the training, we have 
implemented new ways to encourage our reservist workforce to 
accomplish the training during their off-duty hours, in 
addition to the times when they are deployed. And we have also 
implemented a new reservist--let me look up here--the reservist 
performance management directive, so we can help track the 
level of training and the level of performance that our 
reservists are accomplishing on their disasters to better 
identify any gaps and areas that we still need to improve, and 
things that we may need to put in place to continue to help our 
employees get the level of training that they need to perform 
their jobs.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. So, do you have also trouble 
finding people to join up with the workforce?
    Ms. Criswell. Recruitment and retention is one of the 
things that--again, one of our biggest priorities. I think our 
focus right now, sir, is focusing on recruiting a diverse 
workforce, as I mentioned in my opening statement, reaching out 
to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other 
institutions to help build that workforce.
    I think, as we go through--and I would like to thank 
Congress, specifically Chair Titus and Congressman Katko, for 
introducing legislation that mirrors what the Senate has put 
forth that would give FEMA reservist USERRA protections. I 
think having that type of protection going forward is going to 
be transformational in how we can recruit our workforce, and 
really build the level of expertise to meet the growing 
challenges.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. So, consistency and coordination 
across Federal disaster assistance programs has been an ongoing 
issue. Some stakeholders have proposed a universal application 
for all disaster programs. What are your thoughts on that kind 
of solution, so that if you ask one State and another State it 
would be the same advice, same procedure, same stepping stone?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, again, sir, I think absolutely. If we 
can find ways to help create more of a single type of 
application, it is only going to make it easier for individuals 
to access the assistance that is available to them during 
disasters.
    Again, I think we are making some progress in that stance. 
Right now, working on our ability to share data, I think, is 
going to be the biggest step forward. So, at least, if they are 
entering information in one platform, it gets transferred 
automatically over into another platform.
    But we are going to continue to push on how we can bring 
the different application processes together to make it simpler 
and easier on the individuals that are applying for assistance.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Does it go across also--like, does 
it bridge different kinds of disasters? Like, there are 
hurricanes, there are also floods, there are also wildfires. Is 
there some commonality there also?
    Ms. Criswell. I think, if I am understanding your question 
correctly, if an individual experiences a type of disaster--and 
we are talking about individuals--then as they go into FEMA's 
system to apply for assistance, it doesn't depend. It doesn't 
matter what type of disaster they are trying to recover from. 
The same information is out there. And then again, working with 
HUD and SBA to try to share that data better so they can more 
easily transition through their recovery programs, as well.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you so much. I yield back, 
Chair.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
    I so appreciate you, Administrator, for mentioning our 
bill, Mr. Katko's and my bill about creating this reserve 
force. We are really pushing hard to get that through, and I 
think it will make a difference.
    I will follow up on a question by the chairman about the 
patchwork for floods. There are 10 different regions, and we 
always hear that there is inconsistency in the decisionmaking 
from one region to another. It is not just about flood 
insurance. I wonder if you are planning to have some strict 
guidance so people who are working in one area on these issues 
will know the expectations, and they will be the same as those 
working on another. And that also helps with the equity issue 
that we think is so important.
    Can you discuss how you are moving towards perhaps greater 
consistency within the Agency?
    Ms. Criswell. Absolutely, Chair Titus. I think I have heard 
that same thing. I have been to many different States during 
disaster response this last year, but also to follow up on some 
of the recovery operations that are happening around the 
country from previous years. And I have heard the same thing 
many times about needing consistency in how we do things.
    I think it needs to be a balance. Where I am focused, I 
think consistency is incredibly important. But I also don't 
want to lose the flexibility to be able to recognize that every 
State, every jurisdiction is going to experience disasters 
differently. And we want to be able to deliver our services 
equitably and without being restricted to a one-size-fits-all 
approach. And so, as we work to try to find that balance, I am 
going to keep both of those in the front of my mind as 
priorities of making sure we are interpreting policy 
consistently, but also having enough room for flexibility that 
we recognize every community experiences a disaster differently 
and has different needs.
    Ms. Titus. Well, I appreciate that. We know Las Vegas is 
not like any other place, so we want to keep some flexibility. 
But having that consistency, I think, is important.
    Going back to the equity question, we often see that people 
who have fewer resources, it is harder for them to apply or 
know where to go or how to get the assistance. Same thing for 
communities. Some small communities don't have a planner. They 
don't have the money to put into a grant writer, so they are 
less likely to get assistance. Can you talk about how you want 
to make that a more just and equitable system when you have 
those differences in resources?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, I can talk about that, Chair Titus, on 
two respects, right?
    So, first, on the individual side, we did make a lot of 
changes to our internal policies last year going into hurricane 
season to better allow individuals that are having trouble 
navigating our system to be more eligible for assistance. And 
so, we made changes to, again, the way we accept documentation, 
which resulted in 42,000 homeowners being eligible for disaster 
assistance from us that we would have previously denied in the 
past.
    I think making these simple policy changes that we did last 
year has made a tremendous difference. And we are looking at 
any other long-term legislative or regulatory changes that we 
may also need to do going forward to continue to build on that 
equity within the delivery of our Individual Assistance 
programs.
    On the second part of your question, when we talk about 
delivery of our grants and our other programs to communities, 
specifically I think about our BRIC program, the Building 
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. I think I 
heard in some of the opening comments about the difficulty in 
communities to apply for even our grants because of the 
requirements and the bureaucracy that come with that.
    And so, what we did was, we are offering with that program 
directed technical assistance that is really designed to reach 
out to these smaller, more rural communities that don't 
necessarily have the capacity. Now, if a jurisdiction can hire 
a consultant to apply, then they don't need our technical 
assistance. It is those communities that we know need our 
assistance the most, but have the hardest time applying for our 
assistance.
    The first year, we only had 12 jurisdictions ask us for 
this direct technical assistance, but we did a lot of outreach 
last year to try to encourage more jurisdictions that we knew 
needed help that had repeated disasters apply. We had over 70 
communities apply for this assistance going into this round of 
grants, which just really shows your point, that we have 
communities that need this type of help, but they don't have 
necessarily the capacity to navigate our grant process.
    We are going to continue to work on that and how we can 
better use the data we have to identify the communities that 
need our help the most, and figure out ways to help them get to 
that information or that resource.
    Ms. Titus. Well, that is good news. If there is any way we 
can help you do that, please let us know.
    Just real briefly on the BRIC program, as I understand it, 
the wildfire suppression is not covered by the BRIC program. It 
is not eligible. Is there something we need to do to help you 
have that authority, or do you already have it? Because this is 
such a serious problem in the West.
    Ms. Criswell. If I am understanding your question 
correctly, so, wildfire suppression would be a response 
activity. And we have programs through our Fire Management 
Assistance Grant that can help reimburse communities for some 
of their response activities.
    When we talk about BRIC, it is for mitigation, and it is 
eligible, fire mitigation is an eligible program under BRIC. 
But there are some distinctions between whether that is 
mitigation on State and local lands versus Federal lands. And 
it would not be eligible for Federal lands, only for State and 
local lands.
    Ms. Titus. OK, I think we need to look at that. Well, thank 
you very much.
    I think we have now Mr. Graves.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Administrator, thank you for being here today, for joining 
us. And I want to thank you for coming down to Louisiana in the 
aftermath of Hurricane Ida. We spent some time together in St. 
John Parish, and I really appreciate you doing that.
    And I also want to tell you that I appreciate the comments 
you made a little while ago about lowering--what did you say, 
eliminating barriers to access for assistance. I think it is 
critically important, and it is something that needs to be 
addressed.
    I have got some concerns that I want to discuss with you, 
though, related to Risk Rating 2.0. So, I listened to you talk 
about underserved communities, marginalized communities. And 
under Risk Rating 2.0, that--I want to make note, these massive 
changes did not go through Congress. They did not explicitly go 
through Congress. This dates back to the Obama administration 
who shelved it, the Trump administration shelved it, and now 
the Biden administration has chosen to move forward.
    One example, we had a house in Larose, Louisiana, preferred 
risk, $572 a year was their rate. There was a clarification 
because they were going to make their policy effective 
September 30th. They actually had to move it to making it 
effective October 8th, roughly a week later. And the rate went 
from $572 to $5,531. We have got other examples where folks 
have gone from $560 preferred risk policy to $7,000, $8,000 and 
$9,000 a year.
    I am having a lot of trouble understanding how you can be 
talking about equity and addressing marginalized or underserved 
communities whenever FEMA is thrusting--administratively--is 
thrusting these types of actions on our constituents. Could you 
please respond?
    Ms. Criswell. Absolutely, Congressman Graves. So, Risk 
Rating 2.0 really is about equity. And in our previous version 
of our NFIP program, every homeowner had the same level of 
premium and the same level of increase, regardless of what 
their risk was to their property.
    What Risk Rating 2.0 does, for me, is a couple of things. 
From the equity side, Risk Rating 2.0 now takes into account 
your unique, specific risk. And so, you are only paying for the 
risk that your property has. And so, it is specific to that. 
And individuals that have homes that are in lower risk areas 
are not subsidizing homes that are in higher risk areas.
    But I think what is more important about Risk Rating 2.0 is 
that now homeowners truly understand what their risk is, which 
means that they have a better idea of how they can plan to 
protect their family. Now they know that they are actually at a 
higher risk, or in a higher risk area, and can take appropriate 
measures to prepare for that.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Madam Administrator, I want to be 
really clear. I totally agree with you in conveying risk to 
property owners, but let's go through a few things.
    Number one, when these folks built their property, in most 
cases they built it at the FEMA base flood elevation. They 
complied with FEMA standards. This isn't a car or table that 
you just move. This is a house. You can't move a house. Or, as 
you are aware, using ICC funds limited to $30,000, it is not 
near enough to actually elevate homes.
    Number two, you are talking about charging people for risk. 
In my home State of Louisiana, we have lost 2,000 square miles 
of our coast, 2,000. That is like the State of Rhode Island 
being wiped off the map. That is not because of the actions of 
our constituents. It is largely the responsibility or actions 
of the Federal Government that have done that.
    Similarly, we are draining parts of Canada, New York, 
Montana, and others. One of the largest watersheds in the 
world, they are sending us more water--again, not things we can 
control, yet you are charging our constituents for it.
    First Street Foundation did an analysis looking at the 
rates under Risk Rating 2.0. They found in their analysis that 
the State of Louisiana was the only State that was actually 
overcharged, that Risk Rating 2.0 overcharges Louisiana. We 
asked your front office for an explanation of that. We asked 
for it before our April 1st meeting, and they failed to provide 
us a response. I want to ask if you could please get us that 
information.
    Lastly, Administrator, look, I know you have got a heck of 
a job, and I heard you rattling off statistics about the number 
of disasters. This whole thing about coming in and trying to 
address inequities, look, the Wall Street Journal yesterday, 
President Xi of China, he has abandoned their common prosperity 
initiative because he is concerned about the actual impacts.
    We have got to make sure we are moving forward on a merit-
based approach, those that have the greatest impacts are being 
addressed. And I am very concerned about the lack of 
transparency in terms of how this is going to be done, if it is 
going to distort impacts or distort winners and losers here. I 
would ask for clarity on how that is going to be administered 
by FEMA, moving forward.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this important 
hearing.
    Administrator Criswell, FEMA lists its goals, strategic 
plan, for the next 4 years. And on that plan is to create a 
workforce that reflects the Nation's diversity. Could you 
please elaborate on FEMA's plan to partner with Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving 
institutions to establish a hiring pipeline in the field of 
emergency management?
    I am a Member representing a district with two HBCUs, so I 
appreciate this effort, and would be interested in sharing the 
details with my constituents.
    Ms. Criswell. Absolutely, ma'am. Yes, I think one of the 
most important things that we can do is build a workforce that 
is representative of the communities that we serve.
    I have seen, just by having conversation with our employees 
as we were developing our strategic plan, as well as we have 
been revising some of our programs to include even our 
preparedness messaging, the importance of having individuals 
here within our workforce be able to speak on behalf of the 
different cultures across our country. So, our primary goal is 
to make sure that we are building that workforce that 
represents those communities.
    We have started an initiative to reach out to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and other minority institutions 
to try to build that workforce. We have done a great job in the 
last year of creating a better, diverse workforce as it regards 
to gender over the last year. Much of my leadership team are 
now women, which is exciting.
    But we do have some work to go in building a culturally 
diverse workforce, and initiatives like reaching out to the 
HBCUs is one of our first steps to try to achieve that goal.
    Ms. Norton. When disasters strike close to home, it is the 
local communities that are impacted and are most ready to 
serve. What efforts have been made to recruit and train a 
diverse workforce pulled straight from local communities?
    Ms. Criswell. I think that is a fantastic point, because 
many of the employees that I have talked to came to FEMA 
because they were a disaster survivor. And so, what we have is, 
when we do have an incident, an event that happens, we have an 
aggressive local hire program that we set targets for hiring 
people from within the communities.
    I think it does a couple of things, right? It, one, brings 
people into our workforce that know their communities best, but 
it also helps us build a workforce of the future that then 
knows what it is like to be that disaster survivor and can help 
us continue to change and evolve our programs to meet their 
needs.
    And so, our local hire program has been one of our best 
tools to increase the number of employees we have that are 
supporting the actual communities that have been impacted.
    Ms. Norton. Well, I will be looking very closely at that 
local hiring here, in the District of Columbia.
    The New York Times, in June 2021, reported that White 
disaster victims received more from FEMA than people of color, 
even when the amount of damage to their homes and properties is 
the same. Could you explain why this occurred?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, I have read that report, and I have read 
other articles that have the same claims. And what we have 
found is that we have made our policies very difficult, I 
think, for those individuals that need our assistance the most. 
That is one of the reasons that we made some changes to our 
policies ahead of hurricane season last year by changing the 
type of documentation that we accept for both homeowners, as 
well as renters, which has accounted for close to 100,000 
additional individuals being eligible for FEMA assistance that 
in the past we would have denied.
    But we have also, and I think maybe even more specific to 
your question, we used to have a set threshold for individuals 
to be eligible for our direct housing program, and it 
inadvertently discriminated against people that have lower 
incomes or lower value homes. And so, one of the other changes 
that we made was moving from a set threshold to a price per 
square foot. So, regardless of the home's value, everybody had 
an equal opportunity to be able to be eligible for our program. 
And that resulted in an additional 2,700 families being 
eligible for direct housing after Hurricane Ida.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I see my time is expired.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Massie.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    In 2011 and 2012, I was a county executive in a rural 
county, and we had been struck by floods, flooding, before I 
came into office and when I came into office. And when I came 
into office, we were still trying to get the disaster relief 
from the previous event, from before I was elected to that 
office. And then, when we had an event, it was understood that 
help from FEMA would be months, if not years, away in this 
process.
    And I contrast that with these folks from the USDA--and I 
am sorry I don't know the exact name of these programs--but 
they came in at the speed of need and looked at the disaster 
and said, ``OK, we are going to authorize this, and we will 
reimburse you as soon as we can.'' These were, literally, roads 
and bridges that had been washed away, and people needed to get 
to work, school buses needed to go on these roads. And again, 
it is a small rural county budget, where you don't--if you had 
the resources to fix it immediately, you wouldn't need FEMA. 
But we didn't have those resources.
    So, that was always something that was frustrating. And I 
wondered why the USDA, under a much smaller program, was able 
to come in and do these things in a matter of days, whereas 
FEMA was going to take months and years. And I am sure things 
have improved somewhat since then. But can you talk about how 
you might be able to coordinate, or how you have coordinated, 
or will coordinate with other agencies to increase the speed?
    I know you have trouble recruiting the people that will go 
and do this assistance, but maybe those people already exist in 
other agencies.
    Ms. Criswell. Congressman Massie, I can't speak 
specifically to what you are talking about with USDA. I am 
happy to have my team get back with your staff to find out 
exactly which specific program you are referencing. But there 
are different authorities and different jurisdictions that 
Federal agencies have responsibility for.
    Some of our projects are very complex when we are going in, 
and it may seem like a simple project to repair a road, but it 
could be a very complicated project that has environmental 
reviews. And so, we do work closely with the communities to 
make sure that we are understanding what it is that they want 
to do and they need to do.
    We also have the ability to do expedited project worksheets 
for some of the costs that they incurred early on, so we can 
help get them back on that road to recovery quicker.
    There are some other mechanisms that we can use to work 
with communities to help them through this process because I do 
understand, I was a local emergency manager in Aurora, 
Colorado, and sometimes those resources are [inaudible] readily 
available upfront. I mean, so, we do have teams that can work 
with communities to better understand what their cash flow 
needs are, and how we can assist them in getting these projects 
off the ground.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you very much. Yes, just understand that 
for small rural communities, $200,000 provided within a week of 
the disaster is sometimes worth $2 million that is provided a 
year later, after the work has already been done and the county 
has already had to put the money out. So, thank you for being 
sensitive to that. We need help at the speed of need.
    Another question that I have is the private sector employs 
modern technology to more accurately and, in a timely fashion, 
assess damages after an event, after a hurricane or a tornado 
or something like that. And a small sampling of FEMA 
assessments following Hurricane Michael indicated that the 
private-sector method was more accurate in assessing damage. 
Has FEMA explored testing new technologies to speed up the 
process?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, absolutely. I think that one of the 
things that we have actually learned through the last 2 years 
with COVID-19 is our ability to do some of the things that we 
would normally do in person using technology more. And we are 
continuing to gather the information of where we were able to 
improve the delivery of our assistance. In some cases, it 
wasn't as effective. And we want to be able to use this 
technology, though, to help us advance the way that we are 
making these damage estimates going forward.
    We have always used things like GIS to help us get a better 
picture of what the overall extent of the damage is, and that 
has really helped us get the declarations declared faster.
    I think we do have work to do, and am happy to partner with 
and get information about the specific private-sector 
methodologies that you referenced that can help us continue to 
improve how we are also doing that.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. Napolitano.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Chairman Titus.
    And Honorable Criswell, I have several questions. I might 
have to submit them for the record.
    But first of all, in your strategic plan, diversifying the 
workforce or recruiting from minority-serving institutions, you 
don't list the Hispanic-serving institutions. Because there is 
quite a gap sometimes in getting information in the language 
people understand. And as was said before, sometimes they are 
not able to navigate the whole process.
    I am concerned also about the GAO report on high turnover 
and staff declining employment due to burnout. What mental 
health services does FEMA provide to its member workforce who 
are responding to repeated climate disasters?
    Has there been an effort to recruit in the communities that 
are experiencing repeated disasters, such as community colleges 
and local technical schools? And that is the number-one 
question.
    Number two, the second goal of FEMA's strategic plan is to 
make communities more climate resilient. What recommendations 
does FEMA have for communities facing greater intensity of 
natural disasters?
    What agency do you work with to be able to provide 
information also in coordinating, sharing information, such as 
SBA and other agencies?
    And what recommendation do you have for policy changes that 
this committee might take into consideration?
    And I understand one of my communities had flood damage 
from the mud runoff from a mountain after a fire, yet they 
didn't qualify because they had to be declared a Federal 
disaster. Is there something they can apply for within the 
Federal Government?
    Ms. Criswell. Congresswoman Napolitano, on the workforce 
side of things, thank you for bringing up the observation 
regarding Hispanic institutions. We are working across all of 
the different minority-serving institutions, as well, as part 
of our recruitment campaign to try to reach out to this next 
generation of emergency managers. I think that we have many 
different aspects that we are trying to engage in, in order to 
build that diverse workforce.
    And one of the things that I think is really important that 
we are doing is through our FEMA employee resource groups. I 
mean, we have 10 different employee resource groups that 
represent a variety of different cultures across our Agency, 
and they have been great advocates in helping us in our 
recruitment efforts to try and----
    Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. Ms. Criswell?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Napolitano. I have a little time left, so I want to be 
sure that I focus in on whether--like in California, for the 
fire, are you recruiting California institutions? And which 
ones, so I can work with them to make sure that information 
about recruitment is in their hands.
    Ms. Criswell. I would be happy to have my team follow up 
with your staff on the specific institutions that we have been 
working with, so----
    Mrs. Napolitano [interposing]. Great, thank you.
    Ms. Criswell [continuing]. You can help us in that 
recruitment effort. And thank you very much for that.
    On the climate resilience side--and I am sorry, could you 
repeat the question, the second question that you had?
    Mrs. Napolitano. What recommendations does FEMA have for 
the communities facing greater frequency, and how are you 
working with other agencies to share information to make the 
barriers lower for people who can't navigate, or don't navigate 
the system well?
    Ms. Criswell. So, I think the amount of funding that we 
have been able to put in last year to hazard mitigation, close 
to $5 billion between the BRIC program and our HMGP program, is 
really going to be instrumental in our ability to reduce the 
impacts that we are seeing from disasters across the country.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Such as what? What would you focus on? The 
fires, the floods, the hurricanes?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, I think it depends on each specific 
community, right? It is eligible for any of those activities.
    And so, for example, in California, California received one 
of the highest rated projects for wildfire mitigation under our 
BRIC program. They also have funding under our HMGP program 
that can be used for any of the other types of hazards that 
they have.
    And so, we are partnering with agencies like NASA and NOAA 
to help better get data that is specific for jurisdictions to 
use to understand what their risk is, so they can use that 
knowledge to build the type of applications to better utilize 
this funding to have more of a communitywide impact on their 
specific risks.
    Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Pardon me, but what about the mental 
health process delivery to your employees?
    Ms. Criswell. An incredibly important topic. The mental 
health and well-being of our workforce has been one of my 
primary considerations.
    We just came off of responding to 2 years of COVID-19, 
along with many other disasters. And my team, they are 
strained, right? They have been doing some hard work and 
helping people during their worst times. And so, we are always 
very concerned about their mental health and well-being.
    We have put some programs in place here, and we have 
resources that are available. And one of the things that I have 
gotten the most feedback on from our employees is that we 
pushed out to everybody's mobile devices the Headspace app, so 
they could have a resource and a tool that was available to 
them any time that they needed it to just kind of take that 
mental break.
    But that is just one of many different things that we have 
been doing here through--we have counselors that are here, 
psychologists that are here to help individuals, and we do 
webinars to really make sure that we are putting that mental 
health first and foremost for our employees.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, but sometimes they don't realize they 
need help.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Van Duyne.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much.
    And thank you very much, Administrator Criswell, for being 
here.
    I have yet to encounter a racist natural disaster, but it 
seems to be what some of my colleagues here today are 
suggesting. There are legitimate victims of natural disasters, 
and I would hope that that would be where our focus is, and not 
on those manufactured victims by identity politics. I am very 
confused about what is happening here today.
    I worked for HUD for 2\1/2\ years, and I worked at a time 
during Hurricane Harvey, representing Texas, and great States 
like Louisiana, through their hardships.
    And there are some wonderful people at FEMA. Your RA, 
region 6 RA, Tony Robinson, is phenomenal. He can tell you 
firsthand about some of the experiences that we have had 
working with people.
    We are trying to give them streamlined help, going through 
some of the worst experiences in their lifetime, and making 
sure that they get the help that they need when they need it, 
and that the other departments are working hand in glove, like 
FEMA and HUD.
    One of the most experienced people that I talked to during 
this time was Representative Garret Graves from Louisiana. And 
that is who I am going to yield the balance of my time to, 
Representative Graves.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Van Duyne, and I 
want to thank you for your work with HUD.
    Administrator, Congresswoman Van Duyne brings up a really 
good point. She brought up the fact that FEMA and HUD and 
disasters are not--they don't discriminate in any way, shape, 
or form. Yet under FEMA's policies, under FMA and under BRIC, 
the Flood Management Assistance and the BRIC program through 
the predisaster mitigation dollars, the programs are 
participating in the White House Justice40 initiative, which I 
will make note, again, was not something that Congress ever 
passed. And under that program, a minimum of 40 percent of the 
funds are going to go toward communities that are, 
``disadvantaged.''
    Look, we represent Cajun folks. We represent Tribal 
communities, folks that have been disadvantaged by the Federal 
Government. There is no transparency in how these funds are 
going to be distributed, none. And I just want to know what we 
need to be telling our folks at home. Are they going to be 
discriminated against through this Justice40 initiative?
    Ms. Criswell. I think that it is a really important topic 
that we need to have a conversation about. When I talk about 
underserved communities, I am talking about any community 
across this country that we have seen that has been 
disproportionately impacted by disasters. I have seen a number 
of those communities in Louisiana. I have seen a number of 
those communities in Texas.
    Our goal with all of our programs is to make sure that we 
are working really closely with our State directors to better 
identify the communities within their States, because they know 
their communities best, to help them apply for the assistance 
that is available.
    Because we are talking about small communities. I am 
talking about rural communities in the Midwest that have staffs 
of one or two people that just don't have the capacity to apply 
and navigate the bureaucracy that we have to get the type of 
resources that are available.
    So, I am committed----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. So, I mean, but 
what about communities in south Louisiana, in Texas, in 
Florida, in New York, in New Jersey, in North Carolina and 
other places that, in my opinion, are being discriminated 
against by FEMA through Risk Rating 2.0 by the huge surge in 
their flood insurance rates?
    Are those people going to get a disproportionate amount of 
assistance from FEMA to help to make these communities safer 
whenever the vulnerability they are experiencing has nothing to 
do with anything they have done?
    Ms. Criswell. Yes, the numbers that we are showing right 
now, as Risk Rating 2.0 has just been rolled out, is that 90 
percent of the individuals had either a reduction or the same 
level of increase that they would have had under the previous 
program. In the previous program, everybody would have had an 
increase.
    But we do understand that there are some parts of the 
program and there are some individuals that are going to see 
much larger increases in this. And that is why there are two 
things that we are working with, right? One is that nobody will 
see an increase of more than 18 percent per year. But two, we 
are working with Congress on an affordability plan, because we 
do recognize that there are individuals that are going to have 
a hard time with this.
    We completely support the Affordability Act to make sure 
that everybody has equitable access to the insurance premiums 
that----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. But Madam 
Administrator, what is happening under Risk Rating 2.0 is you 
are charging people for ``increased risk'' that FEMA has 
identified that these people had nothing to do with. They built 
their home in compliance with standards.
    The solution here is actually to build better flood 
protection. That is the solution in every State, not to go out 
there and charge these people unaffordable rates.
    I want to make one last point. You have your climate--I am 
sorry.
    Ms. Titus. Sorry.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Ms. Titus. OK, thank you. I just can't sit here and have 
someone say we are making up racist disasters. I have to 
respond to that.
    You heard Ms. Norton quoting a New York Times article that 
White communities were much more likely to get an extra amount 
of Individual Assistance funds than Black communities. I mean, 
the figures are there. This is not something you are making up. 
Underprivileged communities are those that often are in the 
most disaster-prone areas, whether it comes to flood, or air 
pollution, or these heat zones. This is evidence out there in 
the statistics. This is not something this committee is making 
up to try to have some racist policy to benefit some groups 
over others. We are trying to do away with that, and have a 
more equitable policy. So, those kinds of, just, throwaway 
remarks are just--you just--you have got to--there is no 
evidence for that, and we are just not going to let it stand.
    Now we will recognize Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the 
opportunity to join the subcommittee here today. Administrator 
Criswell, welcome.
    The city of Maricopa in my home State of Arizona is growing 
at an exponential rate. At incorporation in 2003, the city had 
only 1,500 residents. Today, it has nearly 70,000, and is 
averaging nearly 150 residential housing permits per month.
    The city had been working with the Corps of Engineers on a 
regional flood control solution, but it became too costly, and 
would have required the city to remove a 1-mile swath of land 
from development. Instead, the city proposes to build a project 
that will protect residents and businesses from flooding 
without hindering its growth.
    The city submitted its first set of plans to FEMA in 
February for review, and I, along with every Member of the 
Arizona congressional delegation, sent you a letter requesting 
an expedited review. How can FEMA expedite consideration of 
this important project to ensure that the city is able to get 
the flood protection it needs?
    Ms. Criswell. Congressman Stanton, thank you very much for 
that. We have received your letter regarding this map revision. 
It is currently under review. I did check with my team recently 
on the status of that. We do expect a response in the next 40 
days or so on what the next steps are going to be as we work 
with the city of Maricopa on what they need to do next.
    Mr. Stanton. I appreciate that. We are anxiously awaiting 
that response. This actually is not in my district, but it is 
important to all of Maricopa County. So, myself and all of the 
Arizona delegation anxiously await your response.
    When migrant families arrive at our southern border, the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Government turn 
to local communities to deliver humanitarian assistance 
necessary to meet their needs. From shelter to food to 
clothing, local NGOs provide these essential services.
    One way that NGOs are able to provide this assistance is 
through FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program. Now, in many 
Arizona communities, those NGOs are not large entities. They 
are small churches and small nonprofits with limited staff and 
minimal resources.
    The fiscal year 2022 funding bill includes $150 million for 
the Emergency Food and Shelter Program to specifically provide 
shelter and other services to families and individuals 
encountered by the Department. How does FEMA ensure the notice 
of funding opportunity for these resources reaches all 
potential eligible applicants, including small nonprofits like 
those in Arizona?
    Ms. Criswell. Thank you, Congressman. The Emergency Food 
and Shelter Program is an incredibly valuable resource for this 
humanitarian mission, and we do have $150 million that is 
available to go to nonprofits to help with this mission.
    This program is a grant that is funded by FEMA, and it is 
given to a board. And that board makes the decisions on how 
that information or how that funding is distributed. I would be 
happy to get back to you and your team with some specifics on 
how they do their outreach when the funding is available.
    Mr. Stanton. We would very much like that followup.
    What opportunities exist to increase local NGO awareness of 
these resources and provide expanded support to ensure that 
they are able to apply for these funds?
    Ms. Criswell. I think that we have many programs that we 
can tap into to help increase that.
    First, our Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood 
Partnerships has done a lot of outreach to nonprofits to help 
them understand the many programs that are available to them, 
in addition to this one.
    So, we can continue to work with your staff if there is 
something specific that we are not reaching. Like, if there is 
a specific example where we haven't been able to get to those 
communities, I would like to know that so then we can work on 
our outreach and engagement plan to ensure we are getting this 
information out to all of those that could utilize some of 
these resources.
    Mr. Stanton. That is very much appreciated. We will look 
forward to that followup, and having a deeper conversation 
about some of the smaller organizations in Arizona that need 
these resources, because they provide essential services to 
communities in need.
    With that, I yield back.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Stanton.
    Well, that concludes the questions that we have. I am at 
the end of the hearing.
    But Mr. Webster, do you have any final remarks?
    Mr. Webster of Florida. I don't, thank you.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you so much, Administrator. We very 
much appreciate your being here. We have got some answers and 
some additional questions that we would like to follow through 
with.
    I also want to thank you and FEMA for all their help during 
COVID. I know they were really on the front lines in Nevada, 
and I am sure in other places, too.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witness provides answers to 
any of the questions that may be submitted to her in writing.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or the witness to be included in the 
record of today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And Administrator, I hope you will put somebody on your 
team with our office, so we can talk further about having that 
roundtable, which I think would be very valuable in getting 
some people from the industry there, many of whom are former 
FEMA employees, as well. So, we look forward to working with 
you on that.
    And the committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress 
     from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chair Titus, and thank you to Administrator Criswell for 
being here today.
    On a bipartisan basis, this committee has worked to improve FEMA 
and the federal government's emergency management system.
    Unfortunately, what we continue to see on the ground is a slow and 
confusing process of rebuilding after a disaster.
    For example, despite the work we have done to ensure there is more 
support for investment in mitigation, communities in my district are 
still seeing a significant amount of red tape when they try to build-in 
mitigation.
    It helps no one when communities must spend significant resources 
to figure out how to fill out FEMA paperwork and navigate the process.
    They certainly should not find it this difficult to build-in 
mitigation--a priority we all support.
    That is why I introduced bipartisan bills, including the Preventing 
Disaster Revictimization Act and the SPEED Recovery Act, to help 
individuals and communities cut through the red tape in FEMA 
assistance.
    I look forward to hearing from Administrator Criswell today on 
these and other issues.
    Thank you, Chair Titus. I yield back.

                                 
  Statement of the BuildStrong Coalition, Submitted for the Record by
                            Hon. Dina Titus
    Thank you for the opportunity for the BuildStrong Coalition to 
submit a statement for the record for the Subcommittee's hearing, 
``FEMA Priorities for 2022 and the 2022-2026 Strategic Plan'' focusing 
on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) priorities for the 
upcoming year as well as for the strategic plan years 2022-2026. 
Chairman Titus and Ranking Member Webster are to be commended for 
leading the subcommittee in prioritizing the need for disaster 
mitigation and resilience investments as a core component of the 
national conversation on resilient infrastructure and communities. This 
committee's leadership on the Resilient Assistance Mitigation for 
Environmentally Resilient Infrastructure and Construction by Americans 
(AMERICA) Act (H.R.5689), which overwhelmingly passed the House by a 
vote of 383-41 on April 5, 2022, was a major step in having this much-
needed legislation enacted into law. This significant piece of 
legislation will facilitate historical resources and incentives to help 
American communities invest in cost-effective, risk reducing disaster 
mitigation efforts that will help make our nation more resilient. Smart 
investments in lifeline infrastructure and community resilience are the 
best way to address the threat of worsening disasters. The BuildStrong 
Coalition is honored to continue our role to drive the focus on laws, 
policies, and programs that aid in the creation of a disaster resilient 
nation. We remain ready to continue this work and are prepared to serve 
as a resource to advance your commitment to enhancing our country's 
resilience profile.
    The BuildStrong Coalition, formed in 2011 to respond to an 
increasing number of severe disasters, is made up of a diverse group of 
members representing firefighters, emergency responders, emergency 
managers, insurers, engineers, architects, contractors, and 
manufacturers, as well as consumer organizations, code specialists, and 
many others committed to building a more disaster resilient nation. The 
BuildStrong Coalition has been a partner with Congress's work to 
investigate causes of, and devise the solutions to, the rising costs 
and impacts of disasters in the U.S. over the past decade. We have been 
honored to present witnesses and participants in hearings, roundtables, 
and briefings to identify opportunities for policy changes that promote 
mitigation and the smart investment of federal resources to address our 
country's increasing number of severe and costly weather events, 
including informing several key provisions of this Subcommittee's 
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) (P.L. 115-254) and we will 
continue to work with your colleagues in the Senate on the Resilient 
AMERICA Act to ensure its passage into law.
    In our statement for the previous hearing on stakeholder 
perspectives held in February, we outlined critical policy 
recommendations and principles that are supported by data and science 
that should be included in FEMA's community resilience priorities for 
the year. These priorities included: securing more resources for 
mitigation, increasing the resiliency of the nation's lifeline 
infrastructure, including power and electric grids, facilitating the 
creation of resilient homes and communities through strong building 
codes, easing the administrative burden of the BRIC program, and 
increasing technical resources and building the capacity and capability 
to identify risks. The BuildStrong Coalition was delighted to hear the 
FEMA Administrator emphasize the importance of these priorities 
throughout her testimony.
    Relevant to the committee's April 5 hearing, we'd like to highlight 
some of these key priorities:
 Driving Resilient Homes and Communities through Strong Building Codes
    Individuals and communities are kept safe in times of disasters 
through the strength of their homes. This is particularly prevalent as 
we learn lessons from COVID-19 and begin to understand how to increase 
resilience to wildfires. Disaster-resilient and sustainable 
construction and the use of stronger building codes have been proven to 
save lives, reduce the damage of natural disasters, and protect the 
environment. Unfortunately, only a handful of states have adopted the 
most modern building codes, and many lack the resources to adequately 
implement codes. To help correct this paradigm at the federal level 
involves creating incentives that encourage state and local governments 
to adopt modern building codes, while simultaneously equipping 
communities with the tools and resources needed to carry out meaningful 
enforcement regimes. Through the BRIC program, some states without a 
statewide adoption of building codes have a hard time being competitive 
for funding to do code development or code enforcement projects when 
having a statewide building code is part of the funding point scoring 
system and in line with the intent of Congress and DRRA.
    The President's 2023 Budget Request for FEMA includes a request for 
``funding and personnel to continue the implementation of a Federal and 
National Building Codes Strategy to advance the adoption of disaster-
resistant building codes at the State and local level.'' This will 
place a Building Codes Specialist in every Region to better work with 
State, Local, Tribal, and Territory (SLTT) and other external partners. 
The BuildStrong Coalition is supportive of a Federal and National 
Building Codes Strategy and would like to see FEMA work closer with 
external partners to explore ways to utilize volunteers and/or 
nonprofits to offer ways to provide additional technical assistance and 
building code enforcement resources to communities, specifically more 
vulnerable communities.
    It is important to note that the Resilient AMERICA Act would assist 
FEMA in their strategic priority of increasing building code adoption 
and assist with the Federal and National Building Codes Strategy. If 
passed into law, Resilient AMERICA would set aside no less than 10% in 
BRIC (Stafford Sec. 203) to fund the adoption and enforcement of the 
latest consensus-based building codes and standards. Eligible 
activities will also include training of code-enforcement officials. 
The adoption and enforcement of the latest building codes is one of the 
most impactful steps in bolstering community resilience.
   Easing Administrative Burdens for the BRIC Program and Increasing 
                          Technical Resources
    The BuildStrong Coalition was also pleased to hear Administrator 
Criswell address a consistent criticism of the BRIC program that we 
have heard repeatedly: that its dollars are going to wealthier areas 
with better access to resources to pay for tools like consultants and 
technical information/capabilities to build out application packets 
that are, naturally, more competitive. Theoretically, localities that 
are most in need of funding for mitigation are largely those that do 
not have the reserves to spend on outside resources for applications.
    FEMA currently provides BRIC technical assistance for up to twenty 
low-income communities.\1\ We were delighted to hear that FEMA is 
working to increase the number of communities that technical assistance 
is being provided. The BuildStrong Coalition will continue to monitor 
how FEMA is addressing this concern and we will continue to explore 
ways that we can offer increased technical assistance to their 
stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ BRIC Direct Technical Assistance (fema.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BuildStrong Coalition and its members stand ready to partner 
with the committee as it drives mitigation and resilience against 
disaster and climate impacts. The compelling arguments for these policy 
changes are grounded in overwhelming science and evidence. We are 
excited to join congressional leaders like you as we identify 
opportunities for policy changes that promote disaster resilience and 
the smart investment of federal resources to address our country's 
vulnerable infrastructure and the increasing number of severe and 
costly weather events. Together, we can help save the lives and homes 
of our citizens.



                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


     Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Hon. Deanne Criswell, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of 
                           Homeland Security

    Question 1. What progress has FEMA made to help other federal 
agencies implement the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and 
achieve greater disaster resilience within their programs?
    Answer. As co-lead of the Flood Resilience Interagency Working 
Group, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides 
indispensable leadership to Executive Branch efforts to implement the 
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). These efforts include 
support to align federal grant requirements, programs, and data tools 
to ensure successful implementation of the FFRMS and associated 
floodplain management regulations. Given the importance of building 
resilience for the entire nation and reducing federal investment 
exposure to increasing flood risk, FEMA has begun implementing the 
FFRMS to the full extent its current regulatory authorities allow. FEMA 
shares both its partial and full implementation approaches with Federal 
Agency partners, promoting faster, more consistent, and more effective 
implementation across the Federal Government. FEMA's floodplain maps 
and technical expertise are the foundation of the FFRMS, and FEMA has 
launched an initiative to develop future flood conditions data and 
mapping products that will provide actionable information necessary to 
fully implement the three FFRMS approaches described in Executive Order 
13690: Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a 
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input (i.e., 
Climate-Informed Science Approach, 0.2-Percent-Annual-Chance Flood 
Approach, and Freeboard Value Approach). FEMA, together with the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are working on the 
development of a decision support tool that integrates FEMA mapping 
products and will assist Federal and non-Federal partners in 
determining whether their actions are subject to the FFRMS 
requirements. Additionally, FEMA provides technical assistance and 
training through consultation to other federal agencies on Executive 
Order 11988: Floodplain Management, as amended by Executive Order 
13690.

    Question 2. The current post-disaster assistance model often 
requires survivors to file applications with multiple federal agencies. 
Has FEMA worked with SBA and HUD to develop a universal application for 
assistance, so survivors aren't bounced back and forth between 
agencies?
    Answer. FEMA has discussed a universal application with the U.S. 
Small Business Administration (SBA) and U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD), as well as other federal agencies, and plans 
on continuing these discussions, which will help FEMA better understand 
the SBA and HUD application processes and plan for integrating them 
with FEMA's process. In addition, we continue to work with both SBA and 
HUD on additional ways that we can share data to support survivors' 
needs and streamline the application experience. FEMA is currently 
working to streamline its own registration intake process to simplify 
the experience for survivors.

    Question 3. How does FEMA ensure accurate and timely cost estimates 
are utilized in Section 428 proceedings?
    Answer. FEMA ensures accurate and timely cost estimates are 
developed or validated for Public Assistance (PA) Applicants during the 
project formulation process, which includes adherence to deadlines, 
applying technical expertise from subject matter experts, utilizing 
industry standard resources and other sources of cost data, and 
utilizing internal tools designed to facilitate efficient and effective 
project formulation.
    During the grant or project formulation phase of the PA grant 
lifecycle, FEMA either validates an Applicant-provided cost estimate or 
develops a cost estimate when the Applicant does not provide one. 
FEMA's process for developing and validating cost estimates is the same 
for projects formulated under both standard procedures and Alternative 
Procedures for Permanent Work under Section 428 of The Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act Stafford Act, as 
described in FEMA's Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG) 
and other published PA policies, guidance, and fact sheets.
Deadlines
    Applicants have up to 18 months from the disaster declaration date 
to accept a Fixed Cost Estimate (FCE) for a project. Furthermore, once 
FEMA transmits the offer of a FCE, the Grantee and Applicant have a 
combined total of 30 calendar days from the date of FEMA's transmittal 
to accept the offer, not to exceed the 18-month deadline. Projects 
without an accepted FCE by the 30-day and 18-month deadlines revert to 
standard procedures, instead of using Alternative Procedures for 
Permanent Work.
    Although the overall deadline for Applicants to accept a FCE is 18 
months, FEMA averages 20 days to develop or validate the FCE at a PA 
Consolidated Resource Center (CRC).
Technical Expertise
    FEMA utilizes the technical expertise of professionally licensed 
engineers and architects, qualified cost estimators, construction 
managers, and staff with other areas of expertise as needed to develop 
and validate cost estimates. Additionally, FEMA's project formulation 
process requires that FEMA reviews all projects with Applicants to 
ensure a project is accurate, including the Scope of Work and the 
developed or validated cost estimate.
Cost Data
    When developing a cost estimate, FEMA utilizes published unit costs 
from national cost estimating databases. In applying this method, FEMA 
confirms that the cost publication is current and for large permanent 
work projects, prepares the cost estimate using the Cost Estimating 
Format, a uniform methodology for determining the cost of eligible 
permanent work for large projects, and the appropriate locality 
adjustment factor. This published cost data may come from:
      Industry standard construction cost estimating resources: 
When appropriate local data cannot be developed or obtained, FEMA uses 
industry standard construction cost estimating resources to prepare an 
estimate against which to evaluate the reasonableness of the 
Applicant's actual costs. These cost estimating resources include, but 
are not limited to, RSMeans, BNi Costbooks, Marshall and Swift, and 
Sweet's Unit Cost Guide, all of which are widely accepted in the 
construction industry and available for nationwide use.
      Federal, State, or Territorial unit costs: When industry 
standard construction cost estimating resources do not provide work 
items that are appropriate or applicable to the construction activities 
required to complete the project, FEMA considers local cost data from 
other Federal, State, or Territorial agencies responsible for 
construction of similar facilities in or near the locality.
      FEMA Cost Codes: FEMA maintains a database of regional 
and national unit prices (cost codes). FEMA cost codes may be used when 
a cost is not found in other published cost data resources or if the 
FEMA cost codes are otherwise more applicable than other published 
costs, such as for force account equipment.
Internal Tools
    When validating an Applicant-provided cost estimate, FEMA utilizes 
internal tools designed to facilitate efficient and effective project 
formulation, including checklists. Specifically, FEMA evaluates an 
Applicant-provided cost estimate for reasonableness based on the 
criteria in the PAPPG, Chapter 6.I. Reasonable Costs using a checklist 
described in Appendix L: Validation of Applicant Provided Cost 
Estimates. If FEMA determines any of the costs to be unreasonable based 
on its evaluation, FEMA may disallow all or part of the costs by 
adjusting eligible funding to an amount it determines to be reasonable. 
When determining the reasonable amount, FEMA may use the least-cost 
alternative, the lowest bid received by the Applicant, or the pricing 
of another Applicant's properly procured and selected contractor.

    Question 4. Utilization of Section 428 implies that the recipient 
accepts a fixed-cost estimate, but FEMA and GAO have both attributed 
delays to the process of determining, validating, and establishing 
consensus on fixed-cost estimates. Given the aim of expediting and 
increasing flexibility of public assistance, how does FEMA intend to 
incorporate Congressional intent into its guidance?
    Answer. In the immediate term, FEMA has taken action to simplify 
the grant development process particularly for large, complex projects 
that are candidates for Section 428. These improvements include 
deploying technical staff to work directly with Applicants earlier in 
the process and ensuring that FEMA field senior leadership has final 
approval on significant eligibility decisions. In addition, the PA 
Division is assessing its program, the CRCs, and the PA National 
Delivery Model to evaluate the impact on applicants and identify short, 
medium, and long-term recommendations for change that improve 
effectiveness and offer the maximum level of efficiency and support to 
FEMA partners. The assessment is considering effectiveness of remote 
personnel to support disaster needs, documentation requirements, and 
program progress against established metrics. The PA Assessment team is 
not specifically scoped to consider fixed-cost estimates under Section 
428, but the Team will be exploring the issue related to delay in the 
Section 428 process as an element of understanding root causes and 
guiding development of recommendations toward streamlining the PA 
process. Based on the findings, FEMA can incorporate it into our 
guidance.

Questions from Hon. Dina Titus to Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator, 
   Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland 
                                Security

    Question 1. The 221,000-acre Caldor Fire caused tremendous 
environmental damage to the Lake Tahoe Region and threatened 
communities within the Basin. Post fire assessments show that fuel 
reduction treatments and water infrastructure improvements 
significantly helped mitigate the wildfire's impact in the Basin.
    I understand that under the BRIC program, projects to help 
municipal water infrastructure improve firefighting capacity to 
mitigate a wildfire are not eligible for assistance. This includes the 
installation of high-capacity water storage tanks, accelerated 
replacement of undersized waterlines, and new fire hydrant 
installation, all of which played a significant role in mitigating the 
Caldor Fire.
    1.a.  Why aren't proven water infrastructure projects for fire 
suppression eligible for hazard mitigation assistance through FEMA?
    1.b.  Does FEMA need additional authorities from Congress to allow 
these projects to receive funding?
    Answer to 1.a. & 1.b. The activities noted above are important fire 
suppression functions in a community; however, these activities are not 
long-term risk reduction measures as it relates to hazard mitigation.
    FEMA has determined improving fire suppression capabilities is not 
an eligible hazard mitigation activity because it does not directly 
address the occurrence or severity of wildfires, but rather only 
improves response capabilities. Other FEMA programs are better suited 
to provide assistance for wildfire preparedness and response 
capabilities, such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and 
the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program.
    Specifically, hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action 
taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from 
natural hazards and their effects. This definition distinguishes 
actions that have a long-term impact from those that are more closely 
associated with immediate preparedness, response, and recovery 
activities.
    Hazard mitigation is the only phase of emergency management 
specifically dedicated to breaking the cycle of damage, reconstruction, 
and repeated damage. Accordingly, States, territories, federally-
recognized tribes, and local communities are encouraged to take 
advantage of funding that Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs 
provide in both the pre- and post-disaster timelines.

    Question 2. I understand that FEMA's disaster temporary housing 
repair program was recently discontinued. This program allowed repairs 
to damaged homes so storm survivors could shelter in place. During the 
2021 hurricane season, the lack of housing resources resulting from 
this discontinuation became problematic according to stakeholders I 
have spoken with.
    Does FEMA plan to launch another disaster housing program, perhaps 
one that provides greater flexibility for state and local governments 
to oversee the relevant FEMA funds? We saw during last hurricane season 
that not having a plan pre-disaster was problematic.
    Answer. FEMA does not have plans to re-authorize the Sheltering and 
Temporary Essential Power (STEP) pilot program under Section 403 of the 
Stafford Act. After piloting the STEP program in disasters, FEMA 
analyzed the accomplishments of the STEP pilot program and found that 
it could not be implemented effectively within FEMA's statutory 
authorities. Also, the costs to implement the program were significant 
compared to the useful life and durability of the repairs provided to 
disaster survivors. FEMA's analysis determined the STEP pilot program:
      Failed to address immediate threats to life and property 
due to the extended time it took to identify properties and complete 
temporary repairs; and
      Failed to address the need for sheltering, as actual 
repair timeframes did not relieve the pressure on congregate 
sheltering.

    This determination does not mean that FEMA does not recognize 
direct repair activities may provide significant promise as a part of a 
comprehensive strategy for housing recovery efforts following future 
major disasters like Hurricane Ida, particularly when implemented by 
state and local governments that have taken measures to scope and 
prepare for implementing a housing repair program.
    Section 403 of the Stafford Act limits direct repairs to only those 
that would make a home livable as a shelter and Section 408 places a 
very restrictive legal standard for FEMA to approve Permanent Housing 
Construction (PHC). It requires FEMA to demonstrate that no alternative 
housing resources, including temporary housing, are available. It then 
requires FEMA to complete a business analysis that compares and 
contrasts temporary housing against PHC, permitting PHC only where it 
is practicable compared to temporary housing in terms of availability, 
cost, and time. Despite these restrictions, Section 408 is a more 
appropriate authority for providing repairs to owner-occupied 
residences to assist displaced disaster survivors than Section 403 
FEMA's authority to award grants to states under the Disaster Recovery 
Reform Act (DRRA) pilot program expired on October 5, 2020. FEMA 
remains committed to partnering with states to collaboratively explore 
innovative solutions to improve how we deliver vital post-disaster 
sheltering options and housing solutions following major disasters.

      Questions from Hon. Michael Guest to Hon. Deanne Criswell, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of 
                           Homeland Security

    Question 1. Congress provides FEMA with supplemental appropriations 
for disaster mitigation, but the recognized needs exceed federal 
assistance. With respect to floodplain buyouts, recent research 
concludes there is a growing urban-rural divide in terms of FEMA-funded 
efforts. According to the University of North Carolina, for every 
dollar in flood-related damages, highly urbanized areas receive 
approximately $0.54 in mitigation funds, while rural areas receive 
approximately $0.11.
    1.a.  Why are rural areas so underserved? What role does local 
government capacity play in rural areas versus larger urban areas in 
terms of accessing FEMA's mitigation programs?
    1.b.  Since rural areas are underserved by FEMA's mitigation 
programs, and local government capacity may impact these discrepancies, 
what would be FEMA's feedback regarding public-private partnerships in 
these rural areas to accelerate recovery and mitigation activities, 
like floodplain buyouts?
    Answer to 1.a. & 1.b. We would need to review the University of 
North Carolina study to have a better understanding of precisely what 
parameters were under consideration. On the face of it, one would 
expect to see relatively higher amounts of funding in urban versus 
rural areas because of the higher concentration and greater numbers of 
structures and infrastructure as compared to rural areas. At its most 
basic level, mitigation is designed to reduce risk to people and 
property (including structures and infrastructure) so it follows that 
funding would be relatively higher in urban areas.
    We do recognize that local capability and capacity play a large 
role in determining who ultimately receives funding from our mitigation 
grant programs. To that end we have been in a continuous improvement 
process to increase and enhance local capability and capacity while 
also distributing grant funding in a more equitable manner. Recent 
directives such as Executive Order 13985--Advancing Racial Equity and 
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government and 
the Justice40 Initiative, provide an overarching framework for how we 
will administer mitigation grants going forward.
    The different grants under FEMA's HMA program, including Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities (BRIC), and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), have varying 
amounts of control over funding priorities. Under HMGP and HMGP Post 
Fire, recipients determine their own priorities, but under BRIC and 
FMA, the priorities are set by FEMA through the annual Notice of 
Funding Opportunity (NOFO). Applicants under all programs set their 
mitigation priorities using their FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan 
as a guide, which helps to inform project development and submission.
    Floods are the most common natural hazards in the United States. As 
such, over the last 30 years, HMA grant programs have provided 
approximately $3.47 billion in Federal funding to acquire and demolish 
over 50,000 properties. This is a significant investment in the 
mitigation of flood-prone structures--eliminating the potential for any 
future damage or loss of life on the associated parcels. Acquisition 
projects have proven to be an effective means to immediately increase 
community flood resiliency. While property acquisition is the most 
common project type under HMA grant programs, there is a variety of 
other eligible project types that also mitigate flood-related damages 
and accelerate community recovery. These include, but are not limited 
to, elevations, relocations, floodproofing of structures, and localized 
flood risk reduction projects (e.g., retention/detention basins, 
floodwalls, weirs, etc.). A priority of HMA is to ensure adequate 
alternatives so communities can select the most appropriate project 
type for its citizens.
    BRIC and FMA are competitive grant programs where projects are 
evaluated against the qualitative and technical criteria outlined in 
each respective NOFO. BRIC and FMA have both revised their evaluation 
criteria for future annual grant cycles to help underserved communities 
that have been historically more vulnerable to natural hazards and 
disproportionally affected by the impacts of climate change. Under 
BRIC, applicants that are deemed ``Economically Disadvantaged Rural 
Communities'' are eligible for up to a 90 percent federal cost share--
significantly higher than the standard 75 percent. The Swift Current 
Initiative seeks to substantially speed up the award of FMA funding 
after a flooding event and reduce the complexity of the application 
process. The goal of FMA Swift Current is to obligate flood mitigation 
dollars for NFIP-insured repetitive loss, severe repetitive loss, and 
substantially damaged properties as quickly and equitably as possible 
after a disaster event. In the first year of this initiative, FEMA is 
making Swift Current funds available in four states across four FEMA 
regions from which FEMA will be provided learning opportunities to 
inform any future iterations of Swift Current.
    By law, HMGP is a non-competitive program with funding tied to a 
specific state, territory or tribe that receives a major disaster 
declaration. Pursuant to regulation the entity receiving the major 
disaster declaration establishes the priorities for the funding and 
FEMA has limited influence over the types of projects each applicant 
prioritizes for federal funding. This places a significant amount of 
responsibility on states, locals, tribes, and territories (SLTTs) to 
prioritize investments that benefit socially vulnerable populations in 
underserved communities. The DRRA increased the amount of HMGP 
management costs from 4.89 percent of the total HMGP award to 15 
percent whereby 10 percent is designated to the recipient and 5 percent 
to the subrecipients. This funding is 100 percent federal funding, 
there is no non-federal cost share. This additional funding is for 
management costs and is instrumental to subrecipients as it reduces the 
financial burden grant development and oversight puts on underserved 
communities. For all awarded HMA grants, costs related to the 
development of the application prior to the date of the final approval 
are identified as pre-award costs and may be eligible for 
reimbursement. Pre-award costs may also contribute to the required non-
federal cost share of the award, further assisting financially strained 
communities.
    HMGP's strategic plan addresses issues of equity and program 
delivery to underserved communities. The stated goals of the strategic 
plan are to (1) improve program accessibility and enable equitable 
outcomes, (2) strategically influence mitigation actions and outcomes, 
(3) reduce complexity of the program and enhance state, local, tribal, 
and territorial capability and capacity, and (4) improve internal 
coordination, capability, and capacity to enhance program effectiveness 
and efficiency. Another focus of this equity initiative is exploring 
opportunities to partner with private non-profit organizations (PNPs), 
charitable foundations, and the private sector to assist sub-applicants 
with navigating the grants lifecycle and/ or providing funding to meet 
local cost share requirements. Partnering with PNPs and/or the private 
sector, could be especially beneficial for rural communities. These 
organizations may lend their regional and programmatic expertise to 
communities that do not have experience applying for HMA funding nor 
the capability to apply for, implement and successfully closeout 
mitigation grants. Additionally, these outside organizations or members 
of the private sector could help local communities to meet the 25 
percent non-federal cost share. A variety of outside organizations have 
expressed interest in partnering with FEMA to achieve this goal. FEMA 
is currently exploring the possibilities for forming these partnerships 
within the current structure of our regulations and statutory 
authorities.

      Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Hon. Deanne Criswell, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of 
                           Homeland Security

    Question 1. Section 70913 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act (Public Law 117-58) requires the head of each Federal agency to 
catalog all federal financial assistance programs administered by the 
agency, review existing domestic content preferences, and identify all 
``deficient programs'' that do not meet the Buy America policy in the 
bill. Yet, despite a January 14th deadline, to my knowledge the 
Department of Homeland Security has not submitted this required report. 
Has FEMA or DHS completed this report, as is required by BABA/IIJA?
    Answer. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-22-
11 ``Initial Implementation Guidance on Application of Buy America 
Preference in Federal Financial Infrastructure Programs for 
Infrastructure,'' issued April 18, 2022, provided the necessary clarity 
on the definition of ``infrastructure project,'' which was needed to 
complete the catalog of federal financial assistance programs. FEMA is 
working with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to identify 
the FEMA grant programs that are subject to the Build America Buy 
America Act (BABAA) requirements. Once the grant programs have been 
identified, DHS will produce the report for all DHS grant programs.

    Question 2. Full implementation of Section 70913 will occur on May 
14 and this Subcommittee will be keeping a close eye on FEMA's efforts 
to comply with the new law. In addition to the identification of 
``deficient programs,'' I would like to know what specific efforts FEMA 
is undertaking to prepare for BABA implementation across the many 
federal financial assistance infrastructure programs it administers?
    Question 3. Pre-disaster mitigation programs for infrastructure 
hardening provided by FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities (BRIC) program and mitigation measures authorized FEMA's 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) are well suited for the 
application of these Buy America requirements. Unlike post-disaster 
response and recovery spending, pre-disaster projects are undertaken in 
non-emergency contexts, in which more careful and long-term planning 
are feasible. Thus, they are planned and constructed in the same manner 
as traditional infrastructure projects, and the urgency associated with 
post-disaster efforts is absent. Can you please detail how FEMA will be 
implementing BABA for pre-disaster projects?
    Answer to 2 & 3. OMB issued Memorandum M-22-11 on April 18, 2022 
which provides, ``Initial Implementation Guidance on Application of Buy 
America Preference in Federal Financial Assistance Programs for 
Infrastructure.'' FEMA and DHS are currently developing plans to 
implement the Buy America requirements in line with the BABAA and OMB 
M-22-11.

       Question from Hon. Garret Graves to Hon. Deanne Criswell, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of 
                           Homeland Security

    Question 1. Communities and industry partnerships play an essential 
role in emergency management, supplementing federal and state agencies 
in times of emergency. Today, I wanted to highlight one of those 
partners--Lamar Advertising, based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
    In December 2020, FEMA announced an agreement with Lamar to fully 
integrate Lamar's digital billboards, nationwide, with IPAWS. With 
digital billboards across 43 states, Lamar is well positioned to help 
FEMA and state agencies in any type of disaster event.
    Digital billboards provide an opportunity to message the public in 
real-time and to reach mass audiences quickly and effectively. Lamar's 
operations center in Baton Rouge can instantly coordinate their digital 
billboards with alerting authorities to display information in affected 
geographic regions.
    Do you agree that these industry partnerships are valuable in our 
collective disaster response, and could you please give me an update on 
how FEMA is utilizing the arrangement with Lamar?
    Answer. Yes, establishing public private partnerships are an 
important tool to assist emergency management in protecting property 
and saving lives. The relationship we have established with Lamar 
Advertising is just one example of how this partnership enhances public 
safety information and elicits public response. Lamar plays generic, 
creative (or paid advertisements) on a regular rotation. If a Wireless 
Emergency Alert (WEA) is detected for its location, the billboard may 
display the WEA content (depending on available/vacant ad space), 
within its rotation cycle for a total of 30 minutes. Capable billboards 
monitor the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) every 
minute for applicable alerts based upon location and event type. In the 
past two months alone, Lamar has displayed WEAs distributed by FEMA 
nearly 141,000 times on its nationwide network of more than 4,000 
digital billboards. Note: The arrangement between IPAWS and Lamar to 
display IPAWS WEA alerts on Lamar billboards is non-exclusive. Neither 
FEMA nor IPAWS endorses any non-government entities, organizations, or 
services.

      Questions from Hon. Troy A. Carter to Hon. Deanne Criswell, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of 
                           Homeland Security

    Question 1. Administrator Criswell, one of the key aspects of FEMAs 
2022 plan is ``Instilling Equity as a Foundation of Emergency 
Management'' as you know Risk Rating 2.0 went into full effect last 
Friday, April 1 despite significant concerns that low- and moderate-
income communities would be priced out of their homes. Do you find it 
acceptable or equitable for people's premiums to rise to unaffordable 
rates that threaten homeowners to choose between forgoing coverage 
completely or being priced out of their homes?
    Question 2. Last week, I sent a letter asking for a delay in the 
implementation of premium increases for existing policy holders under 
Risk Rating 2.0. What is FEMA doing to address the serious concerns 
around affordability of flood insurance coverage for lower income 
renters and homeowners under Risk Rating 2.0?
    Answer to 1 & 2. FEMA recognizes and continues to share your 
concerns about flood insurance affordability for many families. 
Affordability was a concern under the legacy rating system, and 
affordability is a concern under Risk Rating 2.0 (RR 2.0). Currently, 
FEMA does not have the statutory authority to consider affordability in 
setting rates; however, the Administration has proposed to Congress an 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Targeted Means-
Tested Assistance program to help low-and moderate-income households 
obtain and maintain flood insurance. Such an affordability program 
would offer a graduated discount that would scale the benefit to the 
policyholder's income. Access to affordable flood insurance would 
enable eligible households to obtain financial protection and recover 
more quickly and more fully from flood disasters. Expanding NFIP 
insurance coverage among historically underserved households would also 
contribute to climate resilience by facilitating access to flood 
mitigation grants and other resources that require flood insurance as a 
condition of eligibility. FEMA look forward to working with Congress on 
developing the authorities needed to implement an affordability program 
for NFIP.
    FEMA implemented phase 2 of RR 2.0 on April 1, 2022, with all 
existing policyholders renewing into the new methodology. As of June 1, 
2022, over 600,000 policyholders have renewed into RR 2.0, and more 
than 20 percent of those policyholders are paying less than they did 
under the old methodology. Under the legacy rating system, no 
policyholders would have received premium decreases and instead would 
be subject to rate increases for an indefinite time.

    Question 3. With the increasing frequency and severity of flood 
disasters and sea level rise accelerating, which of the issues that 
FEMA raised in the RFI are the highest priority for proposing new 
implementing regulations? To put it another way, of the issues raised 
in the RFI, which would have the greatest benefit to increasing the 
resiliency of the nation and the 22,000+ communities who participate in 
the National Flood Insurance Program?
    Answer. On October 12, 2021, FEMA issued a Request for Information 
(RFI) on the NFIP Floodplain Management Standards for Land Management 
and Use, and an Assessment of the Program's Impact on Threatened and 
Endangered Species and Their Habitats. As part of the RFI, a series of 
questions were asked to solicit feedback from the public and 
stakeholders.
    After the comment period closed on January 27, 2022, FEMA compiled, 
analyzed, and summarized all 430 RFI comments received. We received 369 
written responses on the eRulemaking portal, 12 additional FEMA and/or 
other Federal agency written responses, and 49 verbal responses. Some 
responses were one page/one comment, others were 60+ pages and 1,000s 
of comments. One of the responses received included a spreadsheet with 
13,000 commenters (people)--there were 42 unique comments in that 
batch.
    So, the 369 written responses received through the eRulemaking 
portal, plus the 12 written responses, equals 381 written responses. 
Adding the 49 verbal responses to the 381 written responses, we have a 
sum of 430 total responses.
    FEMA is currently conducting internal working sessions to review 
comments and inform decisions about potential changes. Below is a 
graphic of the process. Comments similar to this inquiry were received 
during the RFI. The agency is working on assessing those comments to 
understand how to best align the NFIP with our continued understanding 
of risk.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Question 4. Another issue that FEMA raised in the RFI relates to 
including future conditions like sea level rise, extreme weather 
events, etc. on flood maps. My understanding is that Biggert-Waters, 
which was passed in 2012, directed FEMA to include future conditions in 
flood maps. How many flood maps has FEMA approved and been adopted by 
communities that include future conditions? How many do not?
    Answer. The bill directed the Technical Mapping Advisory Council 
(TMAC) to provide a report on future conditions mapping and for FEMA to 
incorporate the report recommendations into the mapping program.
    The initial Future Conditions recommendations to FEMA were made in 
2015. They were updated in 2016, and again updated in the latest 2021 
TMAC report, which has not been published in its final form.
    The TMAC recommendations focused on developing map layers and 
advisory products that provided information for decision making. The 
TMAC recommended incorporating actionable climate scenarios related to 
Relative Sea Level Rise, long-term coastal erosion, impacts to waves 
(notably on the Pacific Coast and Great Lakes), and land-use change. 
The TMAC also noted a need for consistent methodology and guidance to 
integrate future conditions analysis into the FEMA coastal flood 
studies and a need to more comprehensively calculate and communicate 
the uncertainty in the scenarios.
    The TMAC also recommended providing future conditions flood risk 
products and information for riverine areas that include the impacts of 
land use change, erosion, and climate change as actionable science 
becomes available. They noted that efforts to incorporate climate 
change impacts into FEMA flood risk products and information should be 
based on standardized scenarios defined by authoritative sources of 
climate information. Where possible, FEMA should incorporate riverine 
erosion hazard areas.
    A focus of the TMAC recommendations is to ensure that future 
conditions data and information is framed such that it communicates 
flood risk messages in a way that more accurately reflect future 
hazards and are understandable and actionable by stakeholders.
    Below is a summary of FEMA future conditions pilots and relevant 
findings.
FEMA Sea Level Rise (SLR) Advisory Map Proof of Concept Study, Puerto 
        Rico (2010)
    FEMA used a 1.3 ft SLR scenario including wave analysis to evaluate 
methods for developing SLR advisory data to supplement the Flood 
Insurance Study.
SLR Pilot Study, Future Conditions Analysis and Mapping, San Francisco 
        County, CA (2016)
    Evaluated feasibility of incorporating SLR and shoreline change 
into analysis and mapping along dune bluff and armored Pacific coast 
shorelines.
Advisory SLR Study: Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, FL (2018)
    Evaluated two SLR scenarios and tested a number of ways to 
incorporate SLR superposition via modeling and superposition.
Region 1 Long Term Erosion study (2017-2020)
    Mapped forecasted erosion over multiple time and SLR scenarios and 
maps areas at risk due to future erosion. It included both sandy 
shoreline and bluffs. A total of 1000 miles across all states in Region 
1 were mapped, and the work included outreach meetings and webinars 
with the communities. A web portal is also available. FEMA Region I 
Coastal Erosion Hazard Map (arcgis.com)
    FEMA has a small number of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) 
showing future conditions information. However, most of these were 
initiated before the reform bill. The existing FEMA policy was to allow 
depiction of future conditions based on expected changes to land use 
rather than climate change. The ability to show this information on the 
FIRM is tied to local land use regulation, and the information shown on 
the FIRM separately from the regulatory Special Flood Hazard Areas 
(SFHAs) and Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) determinations. This approach 
has significantly limited its implementation.
    A key strategy for FEMA is to expand sharing of flood hazard and 
flood risk information outside of the regulatory context of the FIRMs. 
There is a substantial regulatory framework around the production and 
publication of the FIRMs because of the impacts of the regulatory SFHAs 
and BFEs on communities and property owners. The regulatory framework 
adds significant cost and time to producing the FIRMs in order to 
appropriately protect the rights of communities and property owners. 
Further, too much non-regulatory information added to the FIRMs may 
cause confusion for users and result in costly mistakes in regulatory 
compliance.
    Based on FEMA's Risk MAP strategy for increased non-regulatory data 
sharing and the TMAC recommendations for FEMA to publish future 
conditions as an advisory rather than regulatory product, FEMA intends 
to make climate based future conditions information available as non-
regulatory products separate from the FIRMs.
    Over the past several years FEMA has been working with the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers and others to develop a methodology and 
modeling framework that improves analysis of current flood conditions 
and allows FEMA to create science based future conditions products. 
FEMA is initiating production of these products in Fiscal Year (FY) 
2022. FEMA expects these data to be available for the entire East Coast 
and Gulf Coast by 2025. These new analyses build on the updated coastal 
flood hazard analyses that Risk MAP has been producing over the past 10 
years and extend them to support credible, science based future flood 
conditions products. FEMA is also developing an inland modeling 
framework that will allow for similar future conditions products to be 
created for inland areas where actionable data is available.

    Question 5. The survivors of Hurricanes Laura and Delta have 
experienced more frequent and more impactful natural disasters, 
including a severe winter storm and a major flood event in May 2021. 
Recently, FEMA issued a notice regarding monthly rent payments for 
these survivors that are recipients of the Direct Housing Mission for 
Survivors of Hurricanes Laura and Delta. Why has FEMA decided to 
collect rent when funding for these survivors is not set to be in the 
hands of these communities for several months?
    Answer. The Stafford Act authorizes FEMA to provide Temporary 
Housing Units (THUs) at no cost to survivors for up to 18-months after 
a declared disaster. The period of assistance for THUs in Louisiana was 
set to end on February 28, 2022, for FEMA-4559-DR-LA, but at the 
request of the state of Louisiana, FEMA extended the period until 
October 31, 2022, for FEMA-4559-DR-LA and FEMA-4570-DR-LA. FEMA's 
policy, established in the Individual Assistance Policy and Program 
Guide (IAPPG), is to charge rent for each month any occupant remains in 
a THU during a direct housing extension period. Collecting rent is an 
important means of ensuring THU occupants have financial incentives to 
achieve permanent housing at the earliest possible time after receiving 
temporary housing at no cost during the initial 18-month period of 
assistance. This process is designed to ensure FEMA does not impose an 
undue hardship on disaster survivors by reducing the amount of rent 
based on each household's financial ability. FEMA authorized a 
streamlined process for the survivors of Hurricanes Laura and Delta 
that ensures economically disadvantaged households receive the greatest 
amount of financial relief, while reducing the documentation burden for 
all occupants.
    FEMA calculates each occupant's monthly rent by applying the HUD 
Fair Market Rent (FMR) based on the number of bedrooms in the THU and 
the THU location for the FY in which Direct Housing Assistance is 
extended. Any occupant who is unable to pay the FMR rate may appeal and 
request a lower rent amount based on their financial ability within 60 
days of receiving FEMA's notice of the requirement to pay monthly rent.
    The streamlined process implemented for DR-4559 and DR-4570 
provides the opportunity for survivors to work with FEMA to proactively 
provide documentation of their post-disaster income without the need to 
appeal. Households whose post-disaster income is less than, or equal 
to, the HUD Very Low-Income Limit qualify for a fully reduced rent 
amount of $50 per month without having to provide additional 
documentation including pre- or post-disaster housing costs.
    Households whose income is above the HUD Very Low-Income Limit will 
only be required to submit documentation of post-disaster income and 
housing costs to calculate their ability to pay rent and determine the 
amount of rent that will be charged. FEMA will continue to actively 
work with the State of Louisiana to assist each THU occupant in 
identifying options, accessing additional financial resources available 
from Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery, and 
overcoming obstacles to obtain permanent housing.

 Questions from Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon to Hon. Deanne Criswell, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of 
                           Homeland Security

    Question 1. Are there any FEMA funds obligated or allocated to 
Puerto Rico at any risk of being clawed back or of being lost because 
the work is not done? If so, we would require specifics of which are 
most time critical.
    Answer. Projects must be completed within the given regulatory 
deadlines and any associated project extensions. Any de-obligations of 
unspent funds would be tied to the closeout process, which includes a 
final reconciliation of costs. Timelines for projects are discussed on 
page 196 of PAPPG, v4; while timelines for submittal of projects are 
discussed on page 200.
    FEMA recognizes the unique challenges in Puerto Rico and continues 
to work with the Government of Puerto Rico and FEMA's Central Office of 
Recovery, Resiliency and Reconstruction (COR3) to support time 
extensions and other requests related to documentation. These practices 
help mitigate the risk of de-obligation and are key to moving recovery 
forward in a timely and successful manner. The Commonwealth has 
demonstrated progress in its recovery projects, which is an important 
factor in determining extensions. Each request is considered on a case-
by-case basis. Likewise, FEMA provides ongoing guidance on project 
periods of performance to avoid potential de-obligations and help 
ensure the recovery is successful.
    To validate recovery progress, FEMA is currently conducting site 
visits to projects that are under construction across the island. 
Reimbursement metrics established by COR3 through its Cash Management 
and Payment policies are closely monitored to mitigate risk to 
obligations and project completion.

Small Projects:
    Question 2. Mayors in towns in Puerto Rico bring up a need for 
enabling communities to attend to immediate needs for so-called ``small 
projects'' that can be managed through simplified procedures. Today 
that is a project under $124,000 which with rising costs is now too 
easily exceeded.
    Does the agency support HR 5641, the SPEED Recovery Act, recently 
passed in the House, that increases to $1 million the threshold for 
eligibility for assistance for what qualifies as a small project under 
the Stafford Act?
    Answer. The Administration has not yet taken a position on H.R. 
5641; however, on August 3, 2022, Administrator Deanne Criswell 
announced the agency is moving forward in reducing the administrative 
burden on government entities and nonprofit organizations receiving 
FEMA financial grants following a disaster. In the Spring 2022 Unified 
Agenda FEMA provided notice of its intent to issue a regulation in 
2022, ``Amendment to the Public Assistance Program's Simplified 
Procedures Large Project Threshold'', to update the monetary threshold 
for small projects. FEMA has implemented a regulatory change to 
increase the small project maximum for the agency's Public Assistance 
program to $1 million. FEMA intends that the new threshold will ensure 
FEMA and recipients can more efficiently process Public Assistance 
Project Worksheets, and an eligibility policy is forthcoming this year.

Power Grid:
    Question 3. FEMA has allocated $9.5 billion in Federal Funding for 
the rebuilding and upgrading of the Puerto Rico Electric Grid, and is 
working with the Department of Energy in the PR100 study to determine 
the best way to achieve 100% renewables goal.
    Until that happens, we must secure reliable power for homes and 
industries NOW. Factions in the Island have demanded that FEMA deny 
funding to anything that is not distributed renewables, or even that 
Congress should command that.
    3.a.  Is it wise to micromanage this from DC, or should that be 
subject to Puerto Rico's resources plan, and following the science?
    Answer. FEMA obligates Federal funding in compliance with Stafford 
Act authority, and accordingly, it is the responsibility of the 
Applicant to determine how those funds will be used--here, within the 
parameters set forth in the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority's 
(PREPA) Integrated Resource Plan. As such, this matter is best managed 
by Puerto Rico resource representatives, who have the necessary 
expertise and firsthand knowledge on the issue.
    In coordination with the Government of Puerto Rico and PREPA, 
FEMA's intent is to go beyond simply replacing the power grid. 
Transforming Puerto Rico's fragile electric system is the most 
significant multi-year project in the island's modern history. An 
undertaking of this magnitude takes time. As of June 3, FEMA has 
approved funding for more than half of the FEMA Accelerated Awards 
Strategy energy projects with scopes of work in its queue--a strong 
indicator of progress. While the Agency recognizes the sense of 
urgency, the people of Puerto Rico deserve a robust power grid that is 
well planned, designed and executed. FEMA has assigned Public 
Assistance. Hazard Mitigation and Environmental and Historic 
Preservation subject matter experts to fully dedicate their knowledge 
to energy projects. As of June 6, 2022, FEMA has fully complied with 
the agreed schedule to approve projects as submitted by the Applicant.
    FEMA remains committed to supporting Puerto Rico's recovery through 
equitable, sustainable, and resilient solutions, working closely with 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to maximize the flexibility of FEMA 
funding, including the ability to pursue renewable energy resources, in 
accordance with President Biden's Executive Order 14008, Tackling the 
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. The agency also works with the 
Commonwealth help support the island's goals for energy grid recovery 
and transformation, by encouraging communities to develop plans that 
address long-term risks, such as climate change, and promote resilience 
through hazard-resistant design to achieve risk reduction.
    FEMA also coordinates with the COR3 to maximize the application of 
Section 20601 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123). This 
authority allows FEMA to provide restoration assistance to restore 
disaster-damaged facilities to an industry standard, without regard to 
pre-disaster condition--a flexibility that includes the ability to 
pursue renewable energy resources. In addition, FEMA is currently 
working with the U.S. Department of Energy and seven of its national 
laboratories to evaluate scenarios and pathways to meet Puerto Rico's 
renewable energy targets.

    3.b.  We just experienced a massive outage in Puerto Rico due to 
failure of a transmission system component that was 10 years beyond 
design life. The FEMA funding includes over $8 billion for rebuilding 
the transmission and distribution grid announced over a year ago but we 
still do not have a clear vision of what happens when. One of the 
apparent factors in the slow action is a high hesitancy to act without 
absolute certainty of FEMA approval.
Is there anything FEMA can do to help accelerate this process?
    Answer. FEMA is in a constant forward-leaning engagement with the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and continues to provide a historic level 
of support to the Applicant, both financially and in the form of 
technical guidance. While FEMA's stewardship of federal funds does 
require an approval process timeline, the agency is also continuously 
supporting the Commonwealth in the navigation of this process.
    For example, through continuous interaction and communication with 
the PREPA FEMA is able to clarify documentation requirements and 
conditions to help avoid delays and ensure project formulation 
processes can move forward. In addition, FEMA is taking proactive steps 
to help expedite the recovery. A nearly $600 million project for the 
purchasing of materials and equipment that are considered ``long-lead 
items'' was recently approved. Since these items take longer than usual 
to arrive on the island, the goal is to have the materials in Puerto 
Rico so that construction can begin as soon as additional projects are 
approved.
    FEMA has assigned Public Assistance Hazard Mitigation and 
Environmental and Historic Preservation subject matter experts to fully 
dedicate their knowledge to energy projects. As of June 6, 2022 FEMA 
has fully complied with the agreed schedule to approve projects as 
submitted by the Applicant. FEMA Project Delivery Managers (PDMGs) 
communicate with PREPA representatives daily to address any concerns 
and pending issues. During weekly meetings between FEMA leadership in 
Puerto Rico, COR3 and PREPA, priorities are aligned, and recurring 
matters are identified and properly managed. It is FEMA's priority to 
ensure all parties are provided with the tools to accelerate project 
development while complying with the Agency's Environmental and 
Historic Preservation (EHP) requirements.

Payments and Chargebacks:
    Question 4. When FEMA makes a mistake in granting aid, and reverts 
the decision then requires the grant to be given back, how do we deal 
with a victim who is unable to pay back, when they may have already 
spent the aid to rebuild? Mr. Graves and I are supporting H.R. 539, 
pending in the Senate, to prevent that.
    What steps is FEMA taking to ensure that decisions on approval of 
both public and individual assistance is done both promptly and 
accurately?
    Answer. FEMA takes several steps to ensure Individual Assistance 
(IA) eligibility decisions are prompt and accurate. Most decisions are 
made through an automated system based on information provided by the 
applicant and damages observed during a FEMA damage assessment of the 
applicant's home. These payments are based on automated business rules 
and are consistent and timely.
    Complex cases and certain types of assistance may require 
applicants to submit documentation that is manually reviewed by FEMA 
staff. FEMA personnel receive training and have constant access to 
guidance to accurately and consistently process applications for 
assistance. In addition, FEMA utilizes a platform to provide necessary 
updates and clarifications across all IA staff daily.
    As part of FEMA's continuous improvement posture, the Agency 
implements a full quality-control feedback loop with FEMA staff and 
contracted personnel. This process is used to promptly identify and 
remediate processing trends and errors as they are identified through 
routine analysis and quality oversight. As trends are identified, 
information is communicated to processing staff through notification 
updates, instructional videos, and group and one-on-one coaching 
sessions to mitigate further errors.
    FEMA also works to minimize the burden on the applicant in 
instances when FEMA identifies an error or improper payment. Per FEMA's 
Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guide (IAPPG) and FEMA 
Instruction 116-1-2: Individuals and Households Program Recoupment, 
FEMA is not required to initiate recoupment actions for debts less than 
$250, unless a significant enforcement principle is at stake. Once a 
potential debt is identified, FEMA notifies the applicant of the 
potential debt and provides them the opportunity to appeal with 
additional documentation or information. If the applicant does not 
appeal or FEMA is not able to cancel the potential debt based on 
information received, the applicant is provided various options for 
recoupment including the ability to establish a payment plan, request a 
compromise, or request a waiver of the debt. 42 U.S.C. 5174a authorizes 
FEMA to waive payments made in error under specific circumstances. FEMA 
must review debt waivers based on the individual circumstances and may 
waive the debt when:
      The covered assistance was distributed based on FEMA 
error.
      There was no fault on behalf of the debtor.
      The collection of the debt would be against equity and 
good conscience.
      There is no indication that the debt involves fraud, the 
presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation by the debtor or 
any party having an interest in the claim.

    Question 5. As mentioned before, there is a perception in Puerto 
Rico recovery that different parties move slowly out of not daring to 
act without absolute certainty that FEMA approves and will not change a 
decision. Puerto Rico created a Central Office of Recovery, Resiliency 
and Reconstruction as a single point for handling FEMA Public 
Assistance claims.
    5.a.  What has been FEMA's experience working with COR3? With 
communicating with community and municipal stakeholders?
    5.b.  Can FEMA tell us how does the Puerto Rico situation compare 
to others in terms of frequency of changes or reversals of decisions, 
including appeals of denials?
    Answer to 5.a. & 5.b. FEMA's experience with COR3 has improved over 
time. Given multiple changes in FEMA and COR3 leadership during the 
last few years, establishing an effective working relationship was 
challenging. With permanent leadership from Puerto Rico and living on-
island now at the FEMA Puerto Rico level and at COR3, a more stable 
communications structure has been put in place over the last 18 months. 
Today, roles and responsibilities are better defined, and priorities 
are aligned to help move recovery forward.
    As the recipient of all FEMA funding, COR3 works directly with all 
sub-applicants, which helps maintain uniformity in guidance and 
messaging as well as consistency in implementing procedures, time 
extensions, and other requests. COR3 serves as an important link to 
hundreds of government agencies and nonprofits by channeling any 
emerging issues to FEMA.
    FEMA leadership holds meetings with mayors that may have recurring 
issues or particularly challenging projects. PDMGs, are assigned to 
municipalities and work closely with mayors and other municipal 
officials to make sure their projects meet all eligibility criteria. In 
addition, through FEMA's Intergovernmental Affairs specialists, mayors 
and communities have open lines of communication for any additional 
support or technical guidance they may need.
    FEMA considers each project from each jurisdiction independently 
and provides careful consideration on the project scope and what is 
allowable within FEMA's policy and regulations. Thus, comparing 
instances of jurisdiction reversals fails to consider the individual 
circumstances inherent when reviewing each project. Further, looking 
only at reversals ignores the overall number and rate of approvals that 
would not be subject to an appeal. FEMA is supporting and has supported 
Puerto Rico through thousands of approved projects with billions in 
associated funding to facilitate the Commonwealth's recovery. 
Nevertheless, when comparing Puerto Rico's appeals to other 
jurisdictions, FEMA's initial review indicates they are comparable in 
the number of appeals and their relative reversal rates.
GAO Reports:
    Question 6. In a report on recovery efforts in Puerto Rico of May 
2021, GAO made two recommendations:
      That FEMA should, in coordination with the Government of 
Puerto Rico and other federal agencies, identify and assess risks to 
the remainder of the recovery, including internal and external factors 
such as capacity to carry out projects. For example, taking into 
consideration if we have the resources to start and finish projects 
within a time limit or if more time is needed.
      That FEMA should identify potential actions to manage 
risks to the remainder of Puerto Rico's recovery and continuously 
monitor risks.
    6.a.  What has been done to follow up on these recommendations?
    6.b.  Is there any way we can help the Agency succeed on this task?
    Answer to 6.a. & 6.b. FEMA designed a 3-phase process to identify 
and assess risk to the remainder of Puerto Rico's recovery. Phase-1 
focused on a) internal environmental scanning to align to Agency risk 
framework, b) analysis of internal program delivery operational risks, 
and c) risk profiling to include a full risk assessment and development 
of proposed mitigation measures. Phase-2 will focus on a) prioritizing 
risks based on probability of adverse impact on recovery outcomes while 
managing competing requirements, and b) developing joint and achievable 
risk mitigation measures in collaboration with the COR3; the latter has 
presented to FEMA a set of risks related to program delivery, grants 
management and project execution. Phase-3 will focus on a) establishing 
the regional risk management governance structure to support this 
oversight and b) implementing the risk management plan as a Caribbean 
Pilot to ensure Puerto Rico recovery outcomes are achieved.
    On May 31, 2022, FEMA Region 2 held a discussion with the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit team to clarify their 
recommendations for audit GAO 21-264 Puerto Rico and to provide 
responses to same. The highlights of that discussion are presented 
below:
    Our approach to developing a risk management plan and later 
implement it as a Caribbean Pilot is based on guidance from the 
Agency's Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework issued by the 
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). The Acting DHS Deputy 
Secretary has asked, by memo dated April 29, 2019, that each Component 
make a commitment to continue to train and develop an ERM capability. 
The ERM Framework is recommended by the Risk Management and Compliance 
Office, OCFO, and describes a recommended end-state for an effective 
and efficient FEMA ERM capability. At all organizational levels, FEMA's 
ERM objectives are to:
      Increase the likelihood of success in achieving FEMA's 
mission and objectives.
      Support FEMA leadership through transparency and insight 
into risks that could impact the ability to execute FEMA's mission.
      Quickly identify both current and emerging risks and 
develop plans to respond to risks, as well as to take advantage of 
opportunities.
      Improve the understanding of interactions and 
relationships between risks.
      Establish clear accountability and ownership of risk.
      Expand the capacity for continuous monitoring and 
reporting of risk across the Agency.
      Develop a common language (risk lexicon) and consistent 
approach to organize risk management activities and inform decision-
making across the Agency.

                          Figure 1.\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \\ Editor's note: Figure 1 was not included in the response 
to the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As stated above, the Region designed its risk management planning 
efforts on FEMA's ERM prescribed objectives, as laid out in Figure 
1.\\ Since then, however, the timeline for achieving these 
objectives has changed based on competing priorities across the FEMA 
domains. In addition, the Region's risk management planning efforts 
coincided with FEMA's new strategic plan and annual planning guidance, 
which have since informed the remaining phases of this effort. Within 
the next phases, FEMA will consolidate objectives already achieved and 
reassess and realign those that require further collaboration with 
internal and external stakeholders. The risk management planning 
effort's realignment will be executed as follows:
      Phase I--Analyze operational risks, develop risk profile, 
and propose mitigation measures in the context of the Agency's new 
strategic plan, its annual planning guidance and COR3 identified risks 
to recovery as they relate to program delivery, grants management and 
project execution.
      Phase II--Prioritize risks based on impact to recovery 
outcomes, and by September 30, 2022, develop joint mitigation measures 
in collaboration with COR3 and other stakeholders. Finalize risk 
management Plan by December 2022.
      Phase III--Establish the regional risk governance 
structure, implement the regional risk management plan as a Caribbean 
Pilot focused on achieving Irma/Maria recovery outcomes, and 
continuously monitor risk management activities to ensure implemented 
risk management options achieve stated goals and objectives. Meeting 
these objectives will include but not be limited to:
        Identifying and finalizing resources for ERM delivery.
        Submitting finalized Risk Assessment Report to GAO (by 
December 2022)
        Implementing risk mitigation measures in collaboration 
with COR3
        Training staff to establish a risk management culture 
while providing standardized tools to use in managing risks and sharing 
risk information.
        Focusing tactical activities on metrics and milestones 
for recovery operational and project execution success.

    Continued Collaboration: In 2021 and 2022, Regional Administrators 
(RAs) have met with the PR Governor, his executive leadership, as well 
as his Authorized Representative. The focus of discussions has been on 
setting priorities for the Puerto Rico recovery. While not yet fully 
integrated into the Region's risk management plan, several risk factors 
identified early on during the planning efforts have thus far been 
mitigated across FEMA domains through joint solutions that have since 
positively impacted the largest projects obligated. The commonwealth 
has made a significant commitment to execute on over 2,000 PA projects 
by end of the Calendar Year.
      As part of the risk governance structure, the Puerto Rico 
Joint Recovery Office FEMA Officials are the daily point of contact 
with the Commonwealth on updates, management alerts and trends on 
recovery.
      The RA conducts the monthly FEMA Caribbean Executive 
Steering Committee that brings together SES leadership and decision 
makers from Office of Response and Recovery, PA, Federal Insurance and 
Mitigation Administration FIMA, Hazard Mitigation, EHP, OCC, OCFO, and 
Grants Program Directorate to discuss the status of recovery efforts 
and key issues
      LUMA and PREPA, with responsibility for the power 
infrastructure, have each provided the region with a five (5) year 
outlook plan, identifying estimated construction start dates and 
timelines for all projects.
      In August 2021, FEMA's Validate As You Go Tiger Team 
conducted an assessment of the Commonwealth's internal controls for 
payment and cash management through a sampling of executed financial 
transactions. The results indicated that the Commonwealth still needs 
to remediate issues around compliance with regulations and the document 
completeness associated with handling transactions.

    As a consequence of the results described above, FEMA conducted 
grants management and financial compliance training for both the 
Recipient and sub-recipients.
    Additionally, over the past six (6) months, the Grants Division in 
collaboration with the Recovery and Mitigation Divisions and the 
Commonwealth has conducted several trainings and technical assistance 
efforts to over 48 municipalities on grants management and effective 
project execution to mitigate risks to inappropriate use of financial 
assistance and reduce project delivery delays.
    Next Steps: With newly appointed executive leadership in place, the 
Region is better positioned to define success metrics and evaluate 
those against current and future risks. This 3rd quarter, the Region 
will focus on working with COR3 and other stakeholders to first 
reconcile mitigated risks and further prioritize those remaining risks 
and mitigation strategies to project execution. Thereafter, FEMA in 
collaboration with COR3 will finalize the risk management plan to be 
implemented and monitored throughout Puerto Rico's recovery

    Question 7. FEMA's Strategic Plan notes that the future disaster 
environment will not resemble that of the past, or even what is 
experienced today. To build long-term resilience, communities must 
understand their future risk--and have the resources and capacity to 
reduce that risk. Accurate cost data specific to facilities and 
infrastructure can support effective work planning and budgeting. 
Importantly, data must reflect current, dynamic market conditions which 
are often driven by the commercial construction market--including 
modifications for local building conventions and material logistics 
costs.
    7.a.  Does FEMA rely on its Cost Estimating Format in its Hazard 
Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program?
    7.b.  Should FEMA use objective, real-time cost data to use as a 
basis for pre-disaster mitigation and resilience construction efforts?
    Answer to 7.a. & 7.b. FEMA does generally use objective, real-time 
cost data as a basis for pre-disaster mitigation (PDM) and resilience 
construction efforts. HMA non disaster and disaster grant programs such 
as HMGP, BRIC, FMA, and PDM use a technical review process to evaluate 
cost effectiveness and cost reasonableness.
    HMA does not require its applicants to use the Cost Estimating 
Format as is done in Public Assistance. For HMA programs, applicants 
and subapplicants normally generate their own cost estimates in an 
Excel spreadsheet template as part of a grant application process. 
Subapplicants and their subject matter experts generate estimates based 
on their knowledge of local construction and materials costs. The HMA 
technical review teams use RS Means and similar national cost 
estimating guides; and use FEMA Building Science data to review budgets 
and determine reasonable costs. The RS Means updates cost data each 
quarter and includes Key Materials and City Cost Index data. The HMA 
technical review teams also consider, for example, increased 
transportation costs associated with Hawaii or Puerto Rico; and 
increased costs driven by shortened building seasons in northern states 
like Wisconsin and Minnesota.
    The applicant and subapplicant budgets generally reflect current 
and dynamic market conditions. 2 CFR 200.404(c) defines reasonable 
costs ``as market prices for comparable goods or services for the 
geographic area.'' Applicants and sub applicants can also account for 
local market fluctuations through contingency costs as described in 2 
CFR 200.433(a). HMA grant awards are based on allowable estimated costs 
established in a grant application budget.
    Large scale disasters, however, often cause disruptions in local 
building costs well past the large-scale disaster event. In practice 
sustained scarce skilled labor and long-term material supply issues are 
not always immediately reflected in RSMeans or FEMA Building Science 
Data.

Other Procedural Issues:
    Question 8. A complaint we have received is that there are times 
when denials of assistance are caused by some incomplete documentation 
at an early stage of the process, but that is not notified until after 
the denial.
    How can we update processes so that when there are necessary 
documents missing, they are requested it immediately, instead of 
waiting until late in the process?
    Answer. In the grant, or project, formulation phase of the FEMA's 
PA grant lifecycle, FEMA requires applicants to submit information and 
documentation to substantiate the eligibility of a project, to include 
the eligibility of the facility, work, and costs claimed. It is the 
applicant's responsibility to provide information and documentation to 
support its request for federal assistance through the PA program. If 
the Applicant does not provide sufficient documentation to support its 
claim as eligible, FEMA cannot provide PA funding for the work.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG), pages 63-64
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FEMA's PA program is designed to continuously improve in order to 
achieve the best possible recovery outcomes for applicants. Recently, 
FEMA has made process adjustments to deploy liaisons from the 
Consolidated Resource Centers to field operations to ensure that field 
staff and Applicants have a complete understanding of the process and 
the documentation necessary to substantiate claims. In addition, FEMA 
is in the process of assessing the PA program with the objective of 
simplifying Applicants' experience with the program. FEMA works closely 
with stakeholders across state, tribal, territorial, and local 
organizations to improve FEMA's grant development process. Examples 
include updates to the Grants Manager/Grants Portal online system as 
well as PA knowledge tools, such as tutorial videos and guides, to 
better clarify to applicants what specific information and 
documentation FEMA requires from them. FEMA is also committed to 
ensuring communication with applicants throughout the grant development 
process is continuous, clear, and transparent to achieve shared goals 
of positive recovery outcomes for disaster-impacted communities.
    With respect to FEMA's IA, Individuals and Households Program 
(IHP), FEMA and applicants communicate by phone through FEMA's IHP 
Disaster Assistance Helpline, email, online through 
www.disasterassistance.gov, or letters sent through the U.S. Postal 
Service. If the applicant requires communication in an alternative 
format, such as letters in large print or braille, or they need 
assistance understanding any form of FEMA communication, they may 
contact FEMA's IHP Disaster Assistance Helpline or visit a Disaster 
Recovery Center. All FEMA letters sent to applicants are written in 
plain language. Most FEMA letters are automated and issued immediately 
following the completion of a FEMA application and after the completion 
of a FEMA home inspection.
    Two types of FEMA letters assist applicants with notifications on 
whether documentation is missing in their file for FEMA to make further 
eligibility determinations:
    Decision Notifications: Informs the applicant of decisions made on 
the types of assistance FEMA has determined they are eligible and/or 
ineligible to receive, the reasons an applicant is ineligible for the 
applicable types of assistance, and an explanation of the appeals 
process to include what documents they may submit to appeal the 
decision or amount of assistance received.
    Requests for Information: If FEMA requires more information to 
process an applicant's request, an applicant may receive a letter 
specifically stating what information is needed, as well as document 
descriptions or examples of what can be submitted to satisfy the 
information request.
      FEMA works to identify any missing information as soon as 
possible and will alert the applicant so they can provide the necessary 
documentation. However, some processes are manual, and FEMA cannot 
identify the documents missing until staff have manually reviewed the 
applicant's case. Immediately following these reviews, staff will 
attempt to contact the applicant by phone to explain what type of 
documentation is missing and will send a letter identifying the 
documentation needed in order to be considered for that specific form 
of assistance. A note is also made in the applicant's case file so that 
if the applicant calls back to FEMA's IHP Disaster Assistance Helpline, 
any staff can clarify the documentation missing.
      FEMA recently made several equity-related changes for 
disasters declared after August 23, 2021, that do slightly delay the 
process of informing applicants that they must submit documentation to 
provide proof of occupancy or ownership of their disaster-impacted 
primary residence. However, FEMA uses the time to take additional steps 
to verify occupancy and ownership to minimize the number of applicants 
that must submit documentation.
      FEMA now issues inspections for applicants pending 
verifications for occupancy and/or ownership to provide additional 
support to them in an effort to verify these requirements at the time 
of inspection. Inspectors may view documentation the applicant has on 
hand or conduct outreach to landlords, utility companies, and other 
entities to confirm occupancy and ownership.
      Before requesting documents from applicants, FEMA also 
reviews historical disaster assistance data to verify occupancy 
(disaster data within the past two years) and ownership (all previous 
disaster data) for the same damaged dwelling address.

    When neither of these methods are successful, FEMA provides a 
denial letter to the applicant, notifying them that they must submit 
documentation to prove their occupancy or ownership of their disaster-
impacted primary residence. FEMA also prioritizes outreach efforts by 
FEMA caseworkers to contact applicants that continue to be ineligible 
due to occupancy or ownership verification to assist them with 
navigating the document submission process.