[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


   THE IMPACTS OF FEMA'S STRATEGIC PLAN ON DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND 
                                RESPONSE

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

                                (118-18)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 17, 2023
                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
             
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
                  
         
     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-614 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023       

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington,             Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  Ranking Member                     Arkansas
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Daniel Webster, Florida
  District of Columbia               Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Brian Babin, Texas
John Garamendi, California           Garret Graves, Louisiana
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiavid Rouzer, North Carolina
Andre Carson, Indiana                Mike Bost, Illinois
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Doug LaMalfa, California
Jared Huffman, California            Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Julia Brownley, California           Brian J. Mast, Florida
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey       Puerto Rico
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Greg Stanton, Arizona,               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
  Vice Ranking Member                Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Colin Z. Allred, Texas                 Vice Chairman
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Lance Gooden, Texas
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Tracey Mann, Kansas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Burgess Owens, Utah
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Chuck Edwards, North Carolina
Patrick Ryan, New York               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska         Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 John James, Michigan
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
                                     Mike Collins, Georgia
                                     Mike Ezell, Mississippi
                                     John S. Duarte, California
                                     Aaron Bean, Florida
                                ------                                7

      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                          Emergency Management

    Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman
Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member   Garret Graves, Louisiana
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
  District of Columbia                 Puerto Rico
Sharice Davids, Kansas,              Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon,
  Vice Ranking Member                  Vice Chairman
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Chuck Edwards, North Carolina
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Anthony D'Esposito, New York
John Garamendi, California           Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                              CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

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

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
  Management, opening statement..................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, 
  opening statement..............................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7

                               WITNESSES

Hon. Erik Hooks, Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency 
  Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, oral 
  statement......................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10
Chris Currie, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Team, U.S. 
  Government Accountability Office, oral statement...............    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of May 5, 2023, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
  from Michael Martin, League of Oregon Cities, Submitted for the 
  Record by Hon. Lori Chavez-DeRemer.............................    24
Submissions for the Record from Hon. Derrick Van Orden:
    Letter of May 15, 2023, to James D. Farley, Jr., President 
      and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company, from 101 
      Members of Congress........................................    29
    Letter of May 9, 2023, to Hon. Derrick Van Orden from the 
      National Association of Farm Broadcasting..................    31

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Hon. Erik Hooks, Deputy Administrator, Federal 
  Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland 
  Security, from:
    Hon. Scott Perry.............................................    49
    Hon. Dina Titus..............................................    55
    Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon................................    62
    Hon. John Garamendi on behalf of Hon. Mark DeSaulnier........    66
Questions to Chris Currie, Director, Homeland Security and 
  Justice Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office, from:
    Hon. Scott Perry.............................................    68
    Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon................................    71

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              May 12, 2023

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``The Impacts of FEMA's 
Strategic Plan on Disaster Preparedness and Response''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, 
and Emergency Management will meet on Wednesday, May 17, 2023, 
at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building 
to receive testimony on ``The Impacts of FEMA's Strategic Plan 
on Disaster Preparedness and Response.'' The hearing will 
examine the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) 
Strategic Plan (2022-2026), its goals, and how it impacts 
FEMA's mission and disaster preparedness and response. At the 
hearing, Members will receive testimony from FEMA and the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO).

                             II. BACKGROUND

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS

    FEMA is the Federal Government's lead agency in preparing 
for, mitigating against, responding to, and recovering from 
disasters and emergencies related to all hazards--whether 
natural or man-made.\1\ FEMA's primary authority in carrying 
out these functions stems from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; P.L. 93-288, 
as amended).\2\ The Stafford Act authorizes three types of 
declarations: (1) major disaster declarations; (2) emergency 
declarations; and (3) fire management grant (FMAG) 
declarations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See FEMA, 2022-2026 FEMA Strategic Plan: Building the FEMA Our 
Nation Needs and Deserves 4-5 (2021), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_2022-2026-strategic-
plan.pdf [hereinafter Strategic Plan].
    \2\ Stafford Act, Pub. L. No. 93-288, 88 Stat. 143.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED MAJOR DISASTER

    When state and local resources are overwhelmed and the 
``disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective 
response is beyond the capabilities of the state and the 
affected local governments,'' \4\ the Governor of the affected 
state may request the President declare a major disaster.\5\ 
FEMA's primary Stafford Act programs for disaster recovery in 
the aftermath of a major disaster are the Public Assistance 
Program and the Individual Assistance Program.\6\ Following a 
major disaster declaration, FEMA also provides Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ FEMA, A Guide to the Disaster Declaration Process and Federal 
Disaster Assistance 1, available at https://www.fema.gov/pdf/rebuild/
recover/dec_proc.pdf.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Public Assistance Program, authorized primarily by 
Sections 406 and 428 of the Stafford Act, reimburses state, 
tribal, and territorial governments as well as certain private 
non-profits for rebuilding damaged public infrastructure.\8\ 
The Public Assistance Program does not provide direct 
assistance to citizens for private property damage. The Federal 
cost-share for Public Assistance is 75 percent but may be 
increased by the President.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See FEMA, Assistance for Governments and Private Non-Profits 
After a Disaster (Feb. 23, 2023), available at https://www.fema.gov/
assistance/public.
    \9\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  5172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Individual Assistance Program is authorized primarily 
by Section 408 of the Stafford Act. The Individual Assistance 
program includes the Individuals and Households Program (IHP), 
Mass Care and Emergency Assistance, the Crisis Counseling 
Assistance and Training Program, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance, Disaster Legal Services, and Disaster Case 
Management. IHP is the primary FEMA program used to assist 
disaster survivors; it includes housing assistance and other 
needs assistance. Housing assistance includes money for repair, 
rental assistance, or ``direct assistance,'' such as the 
provision of temporary housing.\10\ The current limits for IHP 
assistance is $37,900 for housing assistance and $37,900 for 
other needs assistance.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ FEMA, Individuals and Households Program (Feb. 3, 2023), 
available at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/individual/program.
    \11\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  5174
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 404 of the Stafford Act authorizes HMGP which is 
based on a percentage of Public Assistance funding. HMGP 
provides grants to state, tribal, and territorial governments 
to fund mitigation projects that: (1) are cost effective and 
(2) reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, and loss from 
natural hazards.\12\ The purpose of this grant program is to 
fund practical mitigation measures that effectively reduce the 
risk of loss of life and property from future disasters.\13\ 
For example, state, tribal, and territorial governments may use 
their HMGP funds to help families reduce natural disaster risk 
to their homes.\14\ The Federal cost share for HMGP is 75 
percent and the remaining 25 percent can come from a variety of 
sources (i.e., a cash payment from the state or local 
government).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) (Dec. 27, 2022), 
available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE DISASTER RECOVERY REFORM ACT OF 2018 (DRRA)

    On October 5, 2018, the President signed the Disaster 
Recovery Reform Act (DRRA; P.L. 115-254) into law.\16\ DRRA 
addresses the rising costs of disasters in the United States 
and reformed Federal disaster programs to ensure communities 
are better prepared for future hazards such as hurricanes, 
flooding, earthquakes, and wildfires. The intent of this 
legislation was to improve pre-disaster planning and mitigation 
in order to reduce future loss of life and the rising costs of 
disasters through investment. FEMA implemented the key pre-
disaster mitigation provision of DRRA as the Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.\17\ Studies have 
shown for every $1 spent in mitigation, between $4 and $11 is 
saved in avoided disaster recovery costs.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ DRRA, Pub. L. No. 115-254.
    \17\ FEMA, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (Dec. 
1, 2022), available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-
resilient-infrastructure-communities.
    \18\ National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard 
Mitigation Saves 2019 Report (2019), available at https://www.nibs.org/
files/pdfs/NIBS_MMC_MitigationSaves_
2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DRRA also addressed other critical issues such as wildfire 
prevention, eligibility for disaster assistance, and agency 
efficiency and accountability.

                       III. FEMA'S STRATEGIC PLAN

    FEMA's mission is simple--to help people before, during, 
and after disasters.\19\ The 2022-2026 Strategic Plan lists 
three goals for the agency to better achieve their mission: (1) 
Instill equity as a foundation of emergency management, (2) 
Lead whole of community in climate resilience, and (3) Promote 
and sustain a ready FEMA and prepared Nation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Strategic Plan, supra note 1 at 3.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 1: EQUITY

    In its 2021 Executive Order 13985 on ``Advancing Racial 
Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the 
Federal Government,'' the Biden Administration defines equity 
as:

        [T]he consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial 
        treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong 
        to underserved communities that have been denied such 
        treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native 
        American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and 
        other persons of color; members of religious minorities; 
        lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) 
        persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural 
        areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent 
        poverty or inequality.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See Exec. Or. No. 13,985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,009 (2021), available 
at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-30/pdf/2021-
14127.pdf.

    To achieve this goal, FEMA has vowed to ensure its 
employees ``increasingly reflect the diversity of the 
[N]ation.'' \22\ The Agency plans to make their programs more 
accessible through a people first approach, to ensure FEMA 
resources can be accessed by underserved communities.\23\ FEMA 
commits to periodically assess their programs and policies for 
inequities and redirect resources to eliminate any identified 
shortcomings.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Strategic Plan, supra note 1 at 10.
    \23\ Id. at 11.
    \24\ See id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 2: CLIMATE RESILIENCE

    FEMA's Strategic Plan asserts that the number and severity 
of disasters is increasing, and consequently some communities 
are barely able to recover before another disaster strikes.\25\ 
In order to increase climate literacy among the emergency 
management community, FEMA plans to integrate climate science 
into ``policy, programs, partnerships, field operation, and 
training.'' \26\ The Agency also plans to use mitigation grant 
programs to allow communities to mitigate against climate 
change.\27\ Finally, FEMA plans to expand ``the availability 
of, access to, and understanding of future conditions data and 
modeling'' \28\ to empower risk-informed decision making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id. at 14.
    \26\ Id. at 15.
    \27\ Id. at 16.
    \28\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 3: FEMA READINESS

    FEMA's Strategic Plan asserts that an increasing number of 
disasters requires FEMA to need more staff readily deployable 
in advance of disasters.\29\ To do this, FEMA will invest in 
professional development and improve employee retention.\30\ 
Further, as evident with the COVID pandemic, FEMA needs to be 
ready to respond to non-traditional Stafford Act disaster 
categories. The Agency plans to increase their capacity to 
mitigate against critical national capability gaps for all 
disasters.\31\ FEMA also plans to unify coordination and 
delivery of Federal assistance by working with other Federal 
disaster partners to streamline the burdensome process.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Id. at 21.
    \30\ Id. at 22.
    \31\ Id. at 24.
    \32\ Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             IV. CONCLUSION

    The hearing will focus on how FEMA's Strategic Plan for 
2022 to 2026 is informing and impacting how FEMA is leading 
disaster preparedness and response for the Nation for current 
and emerging threats.

                              V. WITNESSES

     LThe Honorable Erik Hooks, Deputy Administrator, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security
     LMr. Chris Currie, Director, Homeland Security and 
Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)

 
   THE IMPACTS OF FEMA'S STRATEGIC PLAN ON DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND 
                                RESPONSE

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2023

                  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 10:03 a.m. in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry 
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to 
declare a recess at any time during today's 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, if Members wish to insert a document into 
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
    The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an 
opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
    CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC 
              BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    Mr. Perry. I want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Erik Hooks, 
the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, and Mr. Chris Currie, the Director of Homeland Security 
and Justice for the United States Government Accountability 
Office, or the GAO, for being here today.
    Thank you for your time.
    I look forward to working closely with Ranking Member 
Titus, who is on her way, on issues critical to this 
subcommittee, including eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in 
our Federal response to disasters.
    Today, we will focus on FEMA's strategic plan for 2022 
through 2026, which is the first strategic plan that 
prioritizes things like equity and climate change over actual 
disaster readiness and response. FEMA's core mission--core 
mission--is to help people before, during, and after disasters. 
The Biden administration is advancing a woke agenda focused on 
diversity and inclusion to the detriment of their core 
missions.
    FEMA issued a request for information in April of 2021 for 
feedback on how the Agency's ``programs, regulations, and 
policies could better advance the goal of equity for all, 
environmental justice, and bolster resilience to the impacts of 
climate change.'' FEMA received 340 comments in response, and 
while they may have generally referenced equity, they were more 
focused on how FEMA could better implement their programs 
through technical assistance and a less burdensome application 
process.
    It is obvious to anyone who is making an honest assessment 
that FEMA is so focused on messaging that they are overlooking 
the real problem: their overly complex and bureaucratic 
process. Americans are also concerned about the role FEMA is 
playing at the southern border at the direction of Department 
of Homeland Security, the direction of Secretary Mayorkas.
    The Homeland Security Act prohibits the diversion of FEMA 
assets, functions, or mission for the continuing use of any 
other DHS organization unless such assignments do not reduce 
the capability of FEMA to performance its missions.
    FEMA clearly has a significant capacity problem, and every 
diversion of resources undermines its ability to perform the 
core missions. GAO confirmed this capacity issue in a report 
released earlier this very month. The report also mentions 
that, in addition to responding to disasters and other 
emergencies, FEMA was also busy assisting with Afghan refugee 
resettlement efforts and providing shelter and emergency 
supplies for unaccompanied children at the southern border.
    The committee has sent multiple letters inquiring about 
FEMA's role at the border, but we have yet to receive 
substantive answers to questions regarding how FEMA's 
deputization by the Secretary has impacted FEMA's ability to 
respond to disasters across the country when their staffing 
level is already low at 65 percent.
    Since the Post-Katrina Act in 2006, there was clear 
direction that FEMA would operate as a distinct entity and 
report directly to the President. Yet it is continuously being 
pulled into other DHS functions, regardless of capability or 
capacity.
    FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program, the EFSP, 
received $114 million in the Supplemental Appropriations for 
Humanitarian Assistance and an additional $800 million 
transferred from United States Customs and Border Protection to 
pay for actions associated with the illegal foreign national 
crisis at the border and beyond. How does FEMA justify 
allocating $332.5 million of that amount to communities to 
support folks who have crossed the border illegally?
    While FEMA regularly states that the number and intensity 
of disasters is steadily increasing, here it is clearly 
diverting resources to things outside of their mission. And I 
suspect, as an aside, that they are going to be coming to 
Congress at some point in the near future saying that they need 
more money to pay for disasters when they are spending the 
money that they have on things other than the disasters.
    Today, I look forward to hearing from FEMA on their 
prioritization, or what I would generally characterize as a 
misprioritization, of equity over disaster readiness, and how 
this harms the American people.
    [Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress 
 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
    Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    Today, we will focus on FEMA's strategic plan for 2022 through 
2026, which is the first strategic plan that prioritizes things like 
equity and climate change over actual disaster readiness and response.
    FEMA's core mission is to help people before, during, and after 
disasters. The Biden Administration is advancing a woke agenda focused 
on diversity and inclusion, to the detriment of their core missions.
    FEMA issued a request for information (RFI) in April of 2021 for 
feedback on how the agency's ``programs, regulations, and policies 
could better advance the goals of equity for all, environmental 
justice, and bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change.''
    FEMA received 340 comments in response, and while they may have 
generally referenced ``equity,'' they were more focused on how FEMA 
could better implement their programs through technical assistance and 
a less burdensome application process.
    It is obvious to anyone who is making an honest assessment that 
FEMA is so focused on messaging that they are overlooking the real 
problem--their overly complex and bureaucratic process. Americans are 
also concerned about the role FEMA is playing at the southern border at 
the direction of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary 
Mayorkas.
    The Homeland Security Act prohibits ``the diversion of FEMA assets, 
functions, or mission for the continuing use of any other DHS 
organization unless such assignments do not reduce the capability of 
FEMA to perform its missions.''
    FEMA clearly has a significant capacity problem, and every 
diversion of resources undermines its ability to perform the core 
missions--GAO confirmed this capacity issue in a report released 
earlier this very month.
    The report also mentions that in addition to responding to 
disasters and other emergencies, FEMA was also busy assisting with the 
Afghan refugee resettlement efforts and providing shelter and emergency 
supplies for unaccompanied children at the southern border.
    The Committee has sent multiple letters inquiring about FEMA's role 
at the border, but we have yet to receive substantive answers to 
questions regarding how FEMA's deputization by the Secretary has 
impacted FEMA's ability to respond to disasters across the country when 
their staffing level is already low at 65 percent.
    Since the Post-Katrina Act in 2006, there was clear direction that 
FEMA would operate as a distinct entity and report directly to the 
President, yet it is continuously being pulled into other DHS functions 
regardless of capability or capacity.
    FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) received $114 
million in the Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance 
(SAHA) and an additional $800 million transferred from United States 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to pay for actions associated with 
the illegal foreign national crisis at the border and beyond. How does 
FEMA justify allocating $332.5 million of that amount to communities to 
support folks who have crossed the border illegally?
    While FEMA regularly states that the number and intensity of 
disasters is steadily increasing, here it is clearly diverting 
resources to things outside of their mission. And I suspect that 
they're going to be coming to Congress at some point in the near future 
saying that they need more money to pay for disasters. They're spending 
the money that they have on things other than the disasters. Today, I 
look forward to hearing from FEMA on their prioritization, or what I 
would generally characterize as mis-prioritization, of equity over 
disaster readiness, and how this harms the American people.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, 
Member Titus, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER, 
  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 
                      EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I 
apologize for being late. We were in a markup in the Committee 
on Homeland Security, which, of course, is tied to what some of 
what FEMA does with the partner agencies.
    I want to thank the witnesses also for joining us as we 
look at how FEMA is going to implement the ``2022-2026 
Strategic Plan.''
    Last year, at the hearing where we addressed the strategic 
plan, this subcommittee heard from witnesses and stakeholders 
about climate change, and that climate change and related 
severe weather events have continued to alter the emergency 
management landscape. Since that hearing, we have certainly 
seen that to be the case. Today's disasters are more frequent, 
they cause more damage, they are more expensive, and they take 
longer to recover from.
    My home State of Nevada has experienced the impacts of this 
new disaster climate. While the West still addresses the impact 
of drought--and this is a decades-long drought--record snowfall 
this year brings with it severe flooding, landslides, and 
mudslides across the West and in Nevada, which has resulted in 
a major disaster declaration at home. I am committed to working 
with our Governor, Governor Lombardo, and FEMA, who is on the 
ground there, until every eligible repair project in the State 
has been completed.
    As FEMA faces these unprecedented challenges, I would 
particularly like to thank our Deputy Administrator Hooks and 
his entire team for rising to the challenges that are fueled by 
climate change. You have supported nationwide disaster response 
and recovery efforts and simultaneously led the Federal effort 
to respond to COVID. That is quite a large order for you to 
have to meet, and we thank you for doing all that on all those 
different fronts.
    But we know that work remains to be done to find solutions 
to how you can administer your assistance programs.
    Natural disasters amplify existing disparities in our 
society, and the GAO has highlighted concerns with FEMA's 
ability to administer its programs more fairly. Time and time 
again, we have seen well-resourced households recover more 
quickly from disasters than poorer ones. If you live in an 
upscale neighborhood and you have the resources to move 
somewhere during the disaster or aftermath, you seem to get 
benefits and recovery efforts more quickly than if you live in 
the poorer neighborhoods.
    That is just not right, that some community members can 
resume normal life after a few weeks or a month or so after a 
disaster, while others are forced to live in substandard 
housing or sleep on the couch of a friend or neighbor for long 
periods while they are waiting for some assistance for 
recovery. Recent reporting is telling us that some of these 
individuals and families never get back after a disaster. They 
are permanently displaced from their communities, and some 
often experience homelessness.
    As a result of these concerns, I introduced the Disaster 
Survivors Fairness Act, which includes a series of reforms 
designed to make Federal disaster aid more easily accessible to 
survivors. It removes barriers to aid by creating a universal 
application for Federal disaster assistance, and it empowers 
the Agency to assess home damage more fairly and more 
accurately post-disaster. We hope that this would ease the 
burden on families applying for assistance from what has been 
most likely the worst days of their lives.
    Deputy Administrator, I thank you and your colleagues again 
for the work you have done to guide FEMA in a positive 
direction, acknowledging and addressing the impacts of climate 
change, prioritizing equity, and investing in mitigation and 
resilience. Those are the kind of catch words that we should 
keep in mind as we look to implement your plan, and I look 
forward to your testimony and Mr. Currie's in hopes that this 
subcommittee can better understand what we can do to help you 
meet the needs of people who face disasters.
    [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress 
from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
        Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for joining 
us today as we discuss FEMA's ongoing efforts to implement the 2022-
2026 Strategic Plan.
    Since last year's Strategic Plan hearing, this Subcommittee has 
heard from witnesses and stakeholders that climate change and the 
related severe weather events have continued to alter the emergency 
management landscape. Today's disasters are more frequent, cause more 
damage, and take longer to recover from.
    Even my home state of Nevada has experienced the impacts of this 
new disaster climate. While the West still addresses the impacts of a 
decades-long drought, record snowfall this year is leading to severe 
flooding, landslides, and mudslides in Nevada, resulting in a major 
disaster declaration. I am committed to working with Governor Lombardo 
and FEMA until every eligible repair project in my state is complete.
    As FEMA faces such unprecedented challenges, I'd particularly like 
to thank our witness, Deputy Administrator Hooks, and the entire Agency 
staff for rising to the challenges fueled by climate change, supporting 
nationwide disaster response and recovery efforts, and simultaneously 
leading the federal effort to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    But work remains to be done to find solutions to improve how FEMA 
administers its assistance programs.
    Natural disasters amplify existing disparities in our society, and 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has highlighted concerns 
with FEMA's ability to administer its programs fairly. Time and time 
again we see well-resourced households recover more quickly after a 
disaster than poorer ones. It is not right that some community members 
can resume normal life a few weeks or months after a disaster while 
others are forced to live in substandard housing or on the couches of 
friends and family for prolonged periods. Recent reporting is telling 
us that some of these individuals and families never get to go back 
home after a disaster. They are permanently displaced from their 
communities or experience homelessness.
    As a result of these concerns, I reintroduced the Disaster Survivor 
Fairness Act which includes a series of reforms designed to make 
federal disaster aid more easily accessible to survivors, and it is my 
hope my bill would also help FEMA adapt to the current disaster 
climate. It removes barriers to aid by creating a universal application 
for federal disaster assistance and empowers the Agency to assess home 
damage more fairly and accurately post-disaster. This should ease the 
burden on families applying for disaster assistance after what might 
have been the worst day of their lives.
    Deputy Administrator, I thank you and your colleagues 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 testimony 
from you and Mr. Currie as it should help this Subcommittee understand 
the challenges the Agency faces this year and develop solutions. Thank 
you.

    Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the ranking member. The Chair 
now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 
Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING 
     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Subcommittee Chair and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member, for calling today's hearing, ``The 
Impacts of FEMA's Strategic Plan on Disaster Preparedness and 
Response.''
    Today, we are here to discuss the challenges FEMA is facing 
and how meeting the goals outlined in the ``2022-2026 Strategic 
Plan'' will enable the Agency to rise to the challenge and 
fulfill its mission. This conversation is critical in an ever-
evolving disaster landscape fueled by climate change. Natural 
disasters continue to become more costly and have greater 
impacts upon communities across the Nation, and Congress must 
ensure FEMA is equipped with the capacity and the resources it 
needs to respond.
    This is also a timely and important discussion for my 
constituents in Washington State's Second Congressional 
District. The devastating flooding in November of 2021 and 
ensuing storms damaged critical infrastructure and more than 
2,000 homes. Almost 1\1/2\ years later, the recovery in Whatcom 
County has been uneven. County officials estimate that still 
100 residents lack permanent housing solutions. Some cannot 
figure out how to apply for assistance, others cannot get 
enough assistance to fully repair their homes, and some just 
seem to be falling through the cracks of multiple Federal, 
State, and local programs.
    That is not acceptable, and I will keep fighting for every 
single person in my district until they have secured permanent 
housing.
    Short- and long-term challenges following a natural 
disaster are not confined to Washington State. The 2017 and 
2018 disaster seasons, the nationwide COVID-19 disaster 
declaration, and last year's deadly hurricane season have all 
signaled the transition to a year-round disaster season, 
seriously straining FEMA staff and resources.
    Last year, Administrator Criswell reported a chilling 
statistic to this subcommittee: 10 years ago, FEMA managed an 
average of 108 disasters a year, but in 2022, that number had 
more than doubled--nearly tripled--to 311 disasters.
    With a more than 50-percent increase in storms and 
disasters in the last 10 years, FEMA's strategic plan is 
crucial.
    I look forward to discussing the progress FEMA has made to 
incorporate climate change projections, to expand capacity, and 
to adapt its programs so survivors receive the quality 
assistance they deserve.
    But reforming FEMA's response and recovery programs is not 
enough.
    FEMA needs a workforce that can rise to this challenge, but 
that requires adequate staffing. The GAO recently found that a 
35-percent staffing gap exists across different positions at 
FEMA.
    I support FEMA's efforts to recruit and retain a diverse 
workforce. FEMA's employees should be a reflection of the 
communities they serve. This won't happen by accident. Ensuring 
a diverse workforce and taking action to attract employees from 
as broad a pool of people as possible in the United States 
won't happen by accident. FEMA needs a plan to do just that.
    Such diversity will improve the Agency's understanding of 
the challenges faced by disaster survivors across the Nation, 
including places like rural Mississippi, northern Alaska, 
Puerto Rico, New York City, and even the Puget Sound, and 
therefore will improve the quality of program delivery.
    Expanding mitigation and resilience efforts must also be at 
the forefront of any conversation regarding the increased 
frequency, intensity, and cost of natural disasters. 
Overwhelming evidence has proven that mitigation is a 
commonsense, cost-effective way to save lives and to save 
property. That is why I strongly support expanding funding and 
access for mitigation and resilience projects.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made great progress in 
making our Nation more resilient by providing $5 billion for 
pre-disaster mitigation programs, yet more needs to be done. 
This includes ensuring pre-disaster mitigation grants are 
accessible to applicants across the country and that projects 
selected for mitigation awards receive those funds in a timely 
manner.
    So, I look forward to discussing how we can work together 
to drive needed reforms inside FEMA so that the FEMA can 
fulfill its goals and its missions. I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to your 
testimony.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Perry and Subcommittee Ranking 
Member Titus for calling today's hearing on ``The Impacts of FEMA's 
Strategic Plan on Disaster Preparedness and Response.''
    Today, we are here to discuss the challenges FEMA is facing and how 
meeting the goals outlined in the 2022-2026 Strategic Plan will enable 
the Agency to rise to the challenge and fulfill its mission.
    This conversation is critical in an ever-evolving disaster 
landscape fueled by climate change. Natural disasters continue to 
become more costly and have greater impacts upon communities across the 
nation.
    Congress must ensure FEMA is equipped with the capacity and 
resources it needs to respond.
    This is also a timely and important discussion for my constituents 
in Washington State's Second Congressional District. Devastating 
flooding in November of 2021 and ensuing storms damaged critical 
infrastructure and more than 2,000 homes.
    Almost a year and a half later, the recovery in Whatcom County has 
been uneven. County officials estimate that 100 residents are still 
lacking permanent housing solutions. Some cannot figure out how to 
apply for assistance, others cannot get enough assistance to fully 
repair their homes, and some seem to just be falling through the cracks 
of multiple federal, state, and local programs.
    This is not acceptable, and I will keep fighting until every single 
survivor in my district has secured permanent housing.
    Short and long-term challenges following a natural disaster are not 
confined to Washington State.
    The 2017 and 2018 disaster seasons, the nationwide COVID-19 
disaster declaration, and last year's deadly hurricane season have 
signaled the transition to a year-round disaster season, seriously 
straining FEMA's staff and resources.
    Last year Administrator Criswell reported a chilling statistic to 
this Subcommittee. Ten years ago, FEMA managed an average of 108 
disasters a year, but in 2022 that number had more than doubled to 311 
disasters.
    With a more than 50 percent increase in storms and disasters in the 
last 10 years, FEMA's Strategic Plan is crucial.
    I look forward to discussing the progress FEMA has made to 
incorporate climate change projections, expand capacity and adapt its 
programs so survivors receive the quality assistance they deserve.
    But reforming FEMA's response and recovery programs is not enough.
    FEMA needs a workforce that can rise to the challenge, but that 
requires adequate staffing. The Government Accountability Office 
recently found that a 35 percent staffing gap exists across different 
positions at FEMA.
    I support FEMA's efforts to recruit and retain a diverse workforce. 
FEMA's employees should be a reflection of the communities that they 
serve. This won't happen by accident. Ensuring a diverse workforce and 
taking action to attract employees from as broad a pool of people as 
possible in the United States won't happen by accident. FEMA needs a 
plan to do just that.
    Such diversity will improve the Agency's understanding of the 
challenges faced by disaster survivors across the nation--including 
places like rural Mississippi, northern Alaska, Puerto Rico, New York 
City and even the Puget Sound--and improve the quality of program 
delivery.
    Expanding mitigation and resilience efforts must also be at the 
forefront of any conversation regarding the increased frequency, 
intensity and cost of natural disasters.
    Overwhelming evidence has proven that mitigation is a commonsense, 
cost-effective way to save lives and property.
    That is why I strongly support expanding funding and access for 
mitigation and resilience projects.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made great progress in making our 
nation more resilient by providing $5 billion for pre-disaster 
mitigation programs.
    Yet, more still needs to be done to ensure our nation's readiness.
    This includes ensuring pre-disaster mitigation grants are 
accessible to applicants across the country and that projects selected 
for mitigation awards receive those funds in a timely manner.
    I look forward to discussing how we can work together to drive 
needed reforms inside FEMA to achieve the Agency's goals and its 
mission.
    Thank you to today's witnesses. I look forward to hearing your 
testimony.

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    I would like to again welcome our witnesses and thank them 
for being here today. Briefly, I would like to take a moment to 
explain our lighting system to our witnesses.
    There are three lights in front of you. Green means go. 
Yellow means you are just about out of time, and red means wrap 
it up, let's get on with it. So, just--we are all operating 
under the same circumstance. We give you a little leeway there, 
but we don't want you to drone on for another 5 or 10 minutes 
after the red light comes on, all right?
    And I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full 
statements be included in the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made a part of the 
record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks 
to 5 minutes.
    With that, Deputy Administrator Hooks, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes for your testimony.

  TESTIMONY OF HON. ERIK HOOKS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 
   EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
  SECURITY; AND CHRIS CURRIE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND 
      JUSTICE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

  TESTIMONY OF HON. ERIK HOOKS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 
   EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                            SECURITY

    Mr. Hooks. Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
join you today. During our time together, I look forward to 
discussing how FEMA's strategic plan continues to guide the 
Agency's disaster response and recovery efforts.
    In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that 
the field of emergency management is at a pivotal moment in its 
history. For example, 10 years ago, FEMA managed an average of 
108 disasters a year; today, that number is 311.
    I can tell you that, from my previous time leading the 
Department of Public Safety in North Carolina, that this 
increase in the operational tempo is being felt across the 
emergency management enterprise. And like many of you, 
Administrator Criswell and I know what disasters mean from the 
State and local perspective. We understand that the challenges 
communities face are unique to them, and that it is FEMA's role 
to meet them where they are.
    Under the leadership of Administrator Criswell, FEMA 
released our current strategic plan in December of 2021 that 
has three crosscutting goals.
    The first goal is to instill equity as a foundation of 
emergency management. We know that there are disparities and 
differences in capacity, and that our programs are sometimes 
not easily accessible to those who need them. That is why FEMA 
is focused on reducing the barriers people face when accessing 
our programs, while also ensuring that all disaster survivors 
receive the assistance for which they qualify under the law.
    For example, we know that some homeowners in rural areas of 
the country have informally inherited their homes over 
generations. To reduce the administrative burden they faced in 
proving this, FEMA now accepts a broader range of ownership and 
occupancy documentation when applying for assistance like DMV 
registration or utility bills. Since FEMA has implemented these 
changes, tens of thousands of homeowners and renters have 
received our help. From families recovering from floods in 
Appalachia or from tornadoes in Mississippi, assistance is now 
flowing to those who would have previously been denied.
    And we have also implemented a new formula for our direct 
housing program based on total square feet rather than a fixed 
amount. This change has made it easier for people with smaller, 
modest homes to become eligible for direct housing. Bottom 
line: our priority is to make sure all survivors get the 
assistance for which they qualify under the law.
    Our second strategic goal is to lead the whole-of-community 
in climate resilience. As climate change continues to deliver 
frequent, intense, and complex impacts, we must apply our 
robust disaster response approach to disaster mitigation. And 
Congress' historic investment in FEMA's mitigation programs has 
indeed helped us become a more resilient Nation.
    Your bipartisan support of the Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities, BRIC, program and the 
appropriation of $6.8 billion in funds to FEMA in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has provided vital 
funding to States, local communities, Tribes, and Territories 
seeking to reduce their risk to disasters and other natural 
hazards.
    Our third strategic goal is to promote and sustain a ready 
FEMA and a prepared Nation. As our Nation's threat landscape 
continues to grow, and disaster seasons are turning into year-
round events, FEMA must expand its approach to Agency readiness 
and to national preparedness.
    As we prepare for the fast-approaching 2023 Atlantic 
hurricane season, FEMA is taking proactive steps to make sure 
that we are well postured to respond. For example, one of those 
steps is to strategically pre-position many more resources 
ahead of hurricanes. This forward-leaning posture helped us in 
Puerto Rico and Florida last year and will remain key to us 
delivering the assistance our Nation needs and deserves.
    Finally, I can confidently say that the FEMA workforce 
demonstrates the very best of America and stands ready to serve 
those who need us most. Administrator Criswell and I are 
committed to supporting them in every possible way, and we ask 
that you continue to join us in those efforts.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [Mr. Hooks' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Erik Hooks, Deputy Administrator, Federal 
   Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to join you today. During 
our time together, I look forward to discussing how FEMA's Strategic 
Plan continues to guide the agency's disaster response and recovery 
efforts.
    In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that the field 
of emergency management is at a pivotal moment in its history. For 
example, ten years ago, FEMA managed an average of 108 disasters a 
year. Today, that number is 311.
    I can tell you that from my previous time leading the Department of 
Public Safety in North Carolina, that this increase in the operational 
tempo is being felt across the emergency management enterprise. And 
like many of you, Administrator Criswell and I know what disasters mean 
from the state and local perspective. We understand that the challenges 
communities face are unique to them, and that it is FEMA's role to meet 
them where they are.
    Under the leadership of Administrator Criswell, FEMA released our 
current Strategic Plan in December of 2021 that has three crosscutting 
goals.
    Our first goal is to instill equity as a foundation of emergency 
management. We know there are disparities and differences in capacity, 
and that our programs are sometimes not easily accessible to those who 
need them. That is why FEMA is focused on reducing the barriers people 
face when accessing our programs, while also ensuring that all disaster 
survivors receive the assistance for which they qualify for under the 
law.
    For example, we know that some homeowners in rural areas of the 
country have informally inherited their homes over generations. To 
reduce the administrative burden they faced in proving this, FEMA now 
accepts a broader range of ownership and occupancy documentation when 
applying for assistance like DMV registration or utility bills. Since 
FEMA implemented these changes, tens of thousands of homeowners and 
renters have received our help. From families recovering from floods in 
Appalachia or from tornadoes in Mississippi, assistance is now flowing 
to those who would have previously been denied. And we've also 
implemented a new formula for our direct housing program based on total 
square feet rather than a fixed amount. This change has made it easier 
for people with smaller, modest homes to become eligible for direct 
housing. Bottomline, our priority is to make sure all survivors get the 
assistance for which they qualify under the law.
    Our second strategic goal is to lead whole of community in climate 
resilience. As climate change continues to deliver frequent, intense, 
and complex impacts, we must apply our robust disaster response 
approach to disaster mitigation. And Congress' historic investment in 
FEMA's mitigation programs has indeed helped us become a more resilient 
nation.
    Your bipartisan support of the Building Resilient Infrastructure 
and Communities (BRIC) program and appropriation of $6.8 billion in 
funds to FEMA in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) has 
provided vital funding to states, local communities, tribes, and 
territories seeking to reduce their risks to disasters and other 
natural hazards.
    Our third strategic goal is to promote and sustain a ready FEMA and 
prepared nation. As our nation's threat landscape continues to grow and 
disaster seasons are turning into year-round events, FEMA must expand 
its approach to agency readiness and to national preparedness.
    As we prepare for the fast-approaching 2023 Atlantic Hurricane 
Season, FEMA is taking proactive steps to make sure we are well 
postured to respond. For example, one of those steps is to 
strategically pre-position many more critical resources ahead of 
hurricanes. This forward leaning posture helped us in Puerto Rico and 
Florida last year and will remain key to us delivering the assistance 
our nation needs and deserves.
    Finally, I can confidently say that the FEMA workforce demonstrates 
the very best of America and stands ready to serve those who need us 
most. Administrator Criswell and I are committed to supporting them in 
every way possible, and we ask that you continue to join us in those 
efforts.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward 
to your questions.

    Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony.
    Next, Mr. Currie, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 
testimony.

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

    Mr. Currie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Titus, 
also Ranking Member Larsen and other members of the 
subcommittee. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here 
today to talk about our work at FEMA.
    I just want to say, first of all, I think in our work and 
our oversight role at GAO, I get to work with the folks at FEMA 
every day, looking at what they do, traveling the country, 
talking to State and local emergency managers, and I have great 
respect for the work they do, the sacrifices they make for the 
country. And I think it is important to say that. I also think 
they have a very good culture of self-improvement and self-
assessment that is important when you are trying to look at how 
to improve the Agency.
    It is also why I think it is really important to honestly 
point to some of the challenges the Agency faces. There has 
never been more pressure on FEMA than there is today. Since 
2015, the Federal Government spent about $400 billion on 
disaster assistance, and FEMA is being asked more and more to 
be involved and to handle increasing national emergencies and 
other events. For example, they just spent over $110 billion on 
the COVID response, which no one ever expected they were going 
to do 5 years ago, and they are being asked to do more and 
more.
    But this also takes a toll on the Agency, and that is why I 
want to start by talking about the workforce and some of our 
work. As you mentioned, we just identified 2 weeks ago that 
FEMA was about 6,000 people short in its disaster workforce. 
They have a goal of about a little over 17,000, and they are 
6,000 short of that goal. And they were very honest about that. 
It is because of burnout, the never-ending disaster season. It 
is tough to hire people. They are competing with other folks, 
just like everyone else is in this country. Things like the 
COVID response really, really took a toll on the Agency. So, it 
is hard to keep up with what they need.
    Without a strong workforce, it is really hard to make the 
improvements that we all think need to be made to some of the 
programs, as you talked about, and that is what I would also 
like to talk about, is some of the programs themselves. What we 
consistently have seen over the years in our work is that FEMA 
programs for disasters and survivors are way too complicated.
    For example, we have talked to survivors and communities 
that there is confusion about eligibility for programs and what 
steps need to be taken. Communities are frustrated by years of 
back-and-forth on complicated infrastructure projects. And I 
think the impact of this is not just frustration, but the 
impact of this is lost opportunity for recovery. It makes it 
very difficult for people to recover when they don't know how 
to navigate complicated programs.
    This also affects communities more that have less 
experience and capacity. These are really complicated programs. 
If you haven't gone through the process before, it is very 
overwhelming. And if you don't have the resources to bring in a 
bunch of support, it is going to be even that much harder.
    I would also like to just talk about disaster recovery as a 
whole in this country. It is too complicated. It is fragmented 
across 30 different Federal agencies, also over 30 different 
congressional committees of jurisdiction. In our work, we visit 
disaster locations, talk to people in your own districts, in 
your communities. And what we hear is very consistent, that all 
of these programs together from the Federal Government make it 
really hard in recovery.
    For example, many of them have different rules and 
requirements. Many of them have paperwork requirements that 
don't work in one program versus another. And they have 
different timeframes, as well. That makes it really hard to 
synchronize these programs for an effective recovery. It also 
makes it really hard to plan projects you want to do maybe like 
mitigation projects that are really complicated if you are 
sitting there trying to navigate whether you can use different 
programs together. So, that is a major area I think needs to be 
fixed if we are going to fix the whole disaster recovery system 
in this country.
    Now, we have made a number of recommendations in this area 
over the years, almost 100 recommendations to FEMA. Many of 
those have been addressed. Many are still open. We also 
identified options that Congress and agencies can take to try 
to streamline these programs.
    For example, as was mentioned by Ms. Titus, creating a 
unified application process so survivors or communities don't 
have to go to all sorts of separate Federal agencies to apply 
for the same types of things. Documentation can be used in 
different programs. You don't have to recreate that over and 
over again. And that is just one option. I know in the Senate 
today--I think the Homeland Security Committee is actually 
voting on a bill that would try to do that, as well.
    So, there are a number of steps that can be taken, but it 
is a huge challenge. And that is why we actually also suggest 
that Congress set up an independent commission to tackle this 
issue, because it cuts across so many different agencies. So, I 
look forward to the conversation today, and I appreciate the 
chance to be here.
    [Mr. Currie's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Chris Currie, Director, Homeland Security and 
          Justice Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office
  FEMA: Opportunities to Strengthen Management and Address Increasing 
                               Challenges
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on the challenges 
facing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the agency's 
strategic plan.
    Each year, natural disasters such as, hurricanes, floods, 
wildfires, and earthquakes affect hundreds of American communities. In 
2022, FEMA reported providing assistance for 57 major disaster and 
emergency declarations, such as Hurricane Ian and Hurricane Fiona, 34 
fire incidents, and awarded approximately $1.7 billing in grants to 
disaster survivors.
    FEMA, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), leads our 
nation's efforts to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover 
from, and mitigate the risk of disasters. In recent years, FEMA has 
faced an unprecedented demand for its services and played an increasing 
role in various disasters and emergencies. For example, FEMA played a 
key role in the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic and also 
assisted in the Afghan refugee resettlement efforts and at the 
southwest border.
    In December 2021, FEMA released the agency's 2022-2026 strategic 
plan outlining three goals designed to address key challenges the 
agency faces.\1\ Specifically the goals were to (1) instill equity as a 
foundation of emergency management, (2) lead the whole of community in 
climate resilience and (3) promote and sustain a ready FEMA and 
prepared nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ FEMA. 2022-2026 FEMA Strategic Plan, Building the FEMA our 
Nation Needs and Deserves, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In February 2023, the FEMA Administrator announced progress in 
addressing the agency's three strategic goals. Specifically, she noted 
agency efforts to simplify the grant application process for 
individuals, expanded access to some mitigation grant programs to 
benefit underserved communities, and the development of toolkits to 
assist individuals, states, territories, local governments and Tribal 
Nations to better respond and recover from disasters.
    While we recognize the difficult job FEMA is tasked with, in recent 
years, we have reported on various mission and management challenges 
the agency faces. My statement today discusses our prior work and 
recommendations related to FEMA's challenges in four key areas: (1) 
workforce management; (2) removing barriers for disaster survivors; (3) 
building resilience to future disasters; and (4) coordination of 
federal assistance. FEMA has made progress in some areas. However, 
there are still opportunities to strengthen the agency and make 
progress towards implementing its strategic goals.
    My statement today is based on products we issued from October 2019 
to May 2023. To perform our prior work, we reviewed and analyzed 
federal law, agency guidance, and other agency documentation. We also 
analyzed data on FEMA's workforce, and disaster assistance programs, 
among others. We interviewed officials from FEMA, and selected federal 
agencies, as well as officials from states, local jurisdictions, and 
territories impacted by disasters. Additionally, we conducted a panel 
discussion with experts. More detailed information on the scope and 
methodology of our prior work can be found in each of the issued 
reports cited throughout this statement.
    We conducted the work on which this statement is based in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
                          Workforce Management
    FEMA has faced challenges related to its workforce, which have 
affected its ability to achieve its mission. Recently, we reported on 
these challenges, specifically related to--(1) hiring processes and 
staffing gaps and (2) discrimination and harassment. We made 
recommendations to address various aspects of these challenges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ GAO, FEMA Disaster Workforce: Actions Needed to Improve Hiring 
Data and Address Staffing Gaps, GAO-23-105663 (Washington, D.C. May 2, 
2023); GAO, FEMA Workforce: Additional Actions Needed to Help Prevent 
and Respond to Discrimination and Harassment, GAO-23-105243 
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 20, 2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hiring processes and staffing gaps. In May 2023, we reported that 
FEMA uses different processes under various statutory authorities to 
hire employees by type such as full-time employees and temporary 
reservists.
    At the beginning of fiscal year 2022, FEMA had approximately 11,400 
disaster employees on board and a staffing goal of 17,670, creating an 
overall staffing gap of approximately 6,200 staff (35 percent) across 
different positions, such as logistics and information technology. 
While FEMA is taking steps to address staffing gaps, such as hiring 
events and use of contractors, we found that it is unclear if these 
efforts are effective.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ FEMA can augment its workforce with technical assistance 
contractors who are specialized contractors hired to perform specific 
responsibilities. Additionally, FEMA sought additional support from 
contractors and other federal agencies to support efforts to increase 
staff and expand recruitment. For example, contractors reviewed 
applicant resumes to support FEMA hiring specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Figure 1: Overall Staffing Gaps for the Federal Emergency Management 
      Agency's (FEMA's) Disaster Workforce, Fiscal Years 2019	2022

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    We recommended that FEMA document plans to monitor and evaluate the 
agency's hiring efforts to address staffing gaps in the disaster 
workforce. Such plans would help FEMA determine how effective hiring 
efforts are at closing staffing gaps and prioritize these efforts 
accordingly. DHS concurred with this recommendation and described 
FEMA's current and planned actions. For example, FEMA described its 
November 2022 recruitment plan to achieve the agency's strategic 
priority of building a more diverse workforce through four cross-agency 
goals. FEMA also described efforts to develop an implementation plan to 
accompany the recruitment plan. The estimated completion date for these 
efforts is September 2023.
    FEMA also reports its time frames for hiring employees, known as 
time-to-hire, on a quarterly basis to DHS. However, we found FEMA has 
challenges calculating and reporting consistent and accurate time 
frames for hiring to DHS. We recommended that FEMA establish and 
document clear and consistent procedures to collect and calculate 
accurate time-to-hire information. DHS concurred with this 
recommendation, stating that FEMA will create a job aid to communicate 
the time-to-hire process and train additional HR professionals to make 
these calculations and ensure consistency. The estimated completion 
date for these efforts is September 2023. Moving forward, we will 
monitor FEMA's implementation of these efforts to determine if they 
address the challenges we have identified.
    Discrimination and harassment. We reported in October 2022 that 
FEMA took action to prevent and respond to discrimination and 
harassment; however, additional actions may enhance FEMA's ability to 
show commitment to improving workplace culture.\4\ For example, FEMA 
made organizational changes and issued or revised policies on 
discrimination and harassment. Further, FEMA created an office to 
investigate harassment allegations, developed response policies and 
issued a Culture Improvement Action Plan.\5\ Though these actions are 
helpful, overall, we found that the outcome of these actions is unclear 
because the agency has not taken steps that would enable it to oversee 
the effectiveness of its efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ GAO, FEMA Workforce: Additional Actions Needed to Help Prevent 
and Respond to Discrimination and Harassment, GAO-23-105243 
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 20, 2022).
    \5\ The Action Plan focuses on six areas of engagement and 
advocacy, training and education, messaging and communications, 
employee resources, performance, and accountability and monitoring and 
assessment. FEMA, Culture Improvement Action Plan, (Washington, D.C.: 
Dec. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Specifically, FEMA addressed some but not all areas of 
noncompliance identified by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
in its 2017 evaluation of FEMA's compliance with regulations and 
management directives on equal employment opportunity programs. In an 
April 2022 review, the commission determined that since its previous 
review, though FEMA corrected three deficiencies, 13 remain, 10 of 
which were categorized as critical. Additionally, we found that FEMA's 
harassment complaint system generally met recommended practices, but 
FEMA does not consistently notify employees who allege harassment 
whether the agency took, or will take, corrective action. Lastly, 
though FEMA has implemented many actions identified in its Culture 
Improvement Action Plan, it has not assessed the effectiveness of its 
efforts.
    In our October 2022 report, we made nine recommendations to FEMA. 
DHS concurred and described planned actions FEMA will take to address 
them. For example, we recommended FEMA implement a control to ensure--
consistent with agency policy--those who allege harassment are notified 
whether corrective action has been or will be taken. FEMA issued a 
standard operating procedure to ensure decision makers notify 
individuals who make allegations of harassment whether corrective 
action has been or will be taken. However, FEMA has not implemented 
this recommendation because while the standard operating procedure 
outlines the decision maker's responsibility, it does not serve as a 
control to ensure officials consistently take action as expected. 
Additionally, FEMA has not addressed the remaining eight 
recommendations and we are monitoring FEMA's efforts to address these 
issues.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Additional recommendations include FEMA should update the 
agency's anti-harassment training, collect data on time frames for keys 
steps in the adjudication process, and DHS should provide an 
opportunity for employees to evaluate its anti-harassment training on a 
reoccurring basis, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Removing Barriers for Disaster Survivors
    Disaster recovery is a complex process with many factors that 
affect individual and community outcomes, including in various 
socioeconomic and demographic groups. Our prior work and 
recommendations discuss a number of challenges that disaster survivors 
face as they apply for FEMA assistance. Specifically, we have reported 
on FEMA's efforts to (1) provide assistance to disaster survivors 
through the individuals and household programs (IHP); and (2) 
strengthen FEMA's housing inspection process.
    Individuals and Households Program. In September 2020, we reported 
that survivors faced numerous challenges obtaining aid and 
understanding the IHP--one of FEMA's Individual Assistance programs 
that provides housing and other needs assistance to individuals 
affected by a major disaster or emergency.\7\ FEMA, state, territory, 
and local officials said that disaster survivors did not understand and 
were frustrated by the requirement that certain survivors first be 
denied a Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loan before 
receiving certain types of IHP assistance. FEMA did not fully explain 
the requirement to survivors and its process for the requirement may 
have prevented many survivors, including low-income applicants who are 
less likely to qualify for an SBA loan, from being considered for 
certain types of assistance.. For instance, we identified tens of 
thousands of potentially low-income IHP applicants who were referred to 
the SBA but did not submit a loan application. As a result, FEMA could 
not consider these applicants for personal property assistance--for 
millions of dollars in verified losses--under its current process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ GAO, Disaster Assistance: Additional Actions Needed to 
Strengthen FEMA's Individuals and Households Program, GAO-20-503 
(Washington, D.C., Sep. 30, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To address these and other challenges relating to the IHP, we made 
14 recommendations, including identifying ways to simplify the IHP 
application process and providing more information to survivors about 
their award, among others. DHS agreed with our recommendations and has 
implemented 11 of these. For example, as of July 2022, FEMA implemented 
a recommendation by providing more information on how FEMA determines 
eligibility in the letter it sends to survivors after they apply for 
assistance (known as a cover letter) and more information about how 
FEMA determined award amounts in decision letters. However, FEMA still 
needs to address the three remaining recommendations which include 
improving the completeness and consistency of its communication of the 
requirement to apply for an SBA disaster loan prior to being considered 
for SBA-dependent other needs assistance.\8\
    Housing inspection process. In October 2022, we reported that FEMA 
has taken actions to improve its housing inspection process since 
2018.\9\ For example, FEMA streamlined its approach in April 2020 for 
estimating damages to homes. Instead of recording itemized damages, 
inspectors estimated the overall damage level of a home based on a 
smaller set of key indicators (e.g., height of floodwater in a home). 
However, we reported that FEMA had not assessed this new approach to 
determine if it accurately estimates damages. We found that mean awards 
were 35 percent lower under the new approach than under the prior 
approach. Additionally, we found that FEMA had not assessed remote 
inspection fraud risks or developed a strategy to mitigate them. To 
address these and other challenges related to the IHP, we made seven 
recommendations including that FEMA assess the accuracy of its damage 
level approach for IHP housing inspections and adjust the model as 
needed. In response, FEMA stated that it will gather and analyze data 
to determine if any updates will be made to the current damage level 
model. The estimated completion date for this effort is June 30, 2023. 
To address fraud risks, FEMA hired a fraud contractor to assess its 
existing fraud controls and approved the creation of a new unit 
dedicated to fraud-related work. DHS anticipates staffing this unit by 
October 31, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Some types of other needs assistance are only provided if an 
individual does not qualify for a disaster loan from SBA, such as 
personal property, transportation assistance and group flood insurance 
policies.
    \9\ GAO, Disaster Assistance: Actions Needed to Strengthen FEMA's 
Housing Inspection Process, GAO-23-104750 (Washington, D.C. Oct. 26, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DHS did not concur with two recommendations, specifically that FEMA 
(1) develop and implement a policy to consistently report on IHP and 
applicants' statuses and (2) take steps to ensure its policies on the 
use of applicants' self-assessments are supported by evidence. Based on 
the evidence provided in the original report, we continue to believe 
that FEMA should implement both recommendations in addition to the 
other five it has not yet addressed.

     Figure 2: Hurricane Ian Damage to Home in Pine Island, Florida

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Building Resilience to Future Disasters
    We created the Disaster Resilience Framework to serve as a guide 
for analysis of federal actions to facilitate and promote resilience to 
natural disasters.\10\ It is organized around three broad overlapping 
principles and a series of questions that those who provide oversight 
or management of federal efforts can consider when analyzing 
opportunities to enhance their contribution to national disaster 
resilience. Key principles include information, integration and 
incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ GAO, Disaster Resilience Framework: Principles for Analyzing 
Federal Efforts to Facilitate and Promote Resilience to Natural 
Disasters, GAO-20-100SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We have previously reported on the extent to which FEMA programs 
encourage resilience before a disaster and as part of recovery efforts 
following a disaster. We have found that federal and local efforts to 
improve resilience can reduce the effects and costs of future 
disasters. FEMA has made progress in this area by establishing an 
investment strategy to help federal, state, and local officials 
identify, prioritize, and guide federal investments in disaster 
resilience. FEMA published the National Mitigation Investment Strategy 
in August 2019. However, our prior work highlights opportunities to 
improve disaster resilience, which FEMA has taken steps to address. 
Specifically, we reported on FEMA efforts to (1) identify flood hazards 
and (2) improve hazard mitigation:
    Identify flood hazards. We previously reported that FEMA had 
increased its development of flood maps and other flood risk products, 
but the agency faced challenges ensuring they comprehensively reflect 
current and future flood hazards.\11\ For example, its flood risk 
products do not reflect hazards such as heavy rainfall and the best 
available climate science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ GAO, FEMA Flood Maps: Better Planning and Analysis Needed to 
Address Current and Future Flood Hazards, GAO-22-104079 (Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FEMA is addressing some of these challenges, but many may require 
years to address. Also, the agency was operating under an out-of-date 
plan that did not reflect new goals, objectives and timeframes. To 
address challenges in reflecting current and future flood hazards, we 
recommended, among other things, that FEMA update its plan to identify 
program goals, objectives, activities, performance measures and time 
frames for its various efforts. FEMA concurred and, according to 
officials, has updated its ``Risk MAP Multi-Year Plan,'' to include the 
items we identified. We are currently reviewing documentation to assess 
the extent to which FEMA's update meets the intent of our 
recommendation.
    Improving hazard mitigation. In February 2021, we found that state 
and local officials from selected jurisdictions reported challenges 
with FEMA's hazard mitigation grant programs.\12\ Specifically, 
officials we interviewed from 10 of 12 jurisdictions said grant 
application processes were complex and lengthy. To address this, FEMA 
officials augmented guidance and began monitoring application review 
time frames to identify opportunities to streamline the programs. 
However, the agency has not documented plans to do this. In addition, 
officials from eight of the 12 jurisdictions cited challenges with 
applicants' technical capacity to successfully apply for grants. To 
address this, FEMA developed training and guidance, but we found that 
these resources could be difficult for state and local officials to 
locate on different parts of FEMA's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ GAO, Disaster Resilience: FEMA Should Take Additional Steps to 
Streamline Hazard Mitigation Grants and Assess Program Effects, GAO-21-
140 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2, 2021). Hazard mitigation is any 
sustainable action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people 
and property from future disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We recommended that FEMA establish a plan with time frames to 
assess hazard mitigation grant processes to identify and implement 
steps to reduce the complexity of and time required for grant 
applications. DHS concurred with this recommendation and in July 2022 
provided documentation of FEMA's planned steps and timeframes. For 
example, FEMA plans to have a common application portal for its 
programs in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2023. Additionally in May 
2022, officials confirmed that they began revising their grant 
application process. As a result of these actions, FEMA has implemented 
this recommendation.
    To address difficulties in locating application resources, we 
recommended that FEMA create a centralized inventory of hazard 
mitigation resources on the FEMA website. DHS concurred with this 
recommendation and, as of June 2022, FEMA finished re-designing 
portions of its website to centralize guidance and other resources on 
its hazard mitigation programs. The reorganization makes the resources 
easier to find and better positions FEMA to help state and local 
applicants successfully apply for grants for mitigation products that 
enhance disaster resilience. As a result, FEMA has implemented this 
recommendation.
    Additionally, in August 2021, FEMA launched the National Risk Index 
in an effort to help communities support mitigation planning, data-
driven decision making and other actions to create resilient 
communities. This dataset is an online tool to help illustrate the U.S. 
communities most at risk for 18 natural disasters. According to FEMA 
documentation, FEMA designed and built this tool in close collaboration 
with various stakeholders and partners in academia; local, state and 
federal government; and private industry.
         Improving Coordination of Federal Disaster Assistance
    The federal approach is fragmented and no single federal agency or 
congressional committee has responsibility for managing the system as a 
whole. In November 2022, we reported that there are over 30 federal 
agencies and departments involved in disaster recovery and at least 32 
congressional committees with responsibility overseeing federal 
disaster recovery programs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ GAO, Disaster Recovery: Actions Needed to Improve the Federal 
Approach, GAO-23-104956 (Washington, D.C. Nov 15, 2022). This count 
includes full committees only. However, each of the 32 committees may 
also have multiple subcommittees with jurisdiction over disaster 
recovery programs. For example, the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations each have 12 subcommittees that oversee disaster 
recovery programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Figure 3: Recovery Support Functions and the Various Federal Entities 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   Note: According to the National Disaster Recovery Framework, each 
 recovery support function has a designated coordinating agency along 
   with primary agencies and supporting organizations with programs 
    relevant to the functional area. Coordinating Agencies provided 
significant engagement and management for the support function. Primary 
 agencies are designated on the basis of their authorities, resources, 
 and capabilities as well as supporting organizations which may bring 
 relevant subject matter expertise and technical assistances as needed.

    Specifically, we reported on (1) reported challenges managing 
multiple disaster recovery programs and (2) additional options for 
improving the federal approach to disaster recovery.
    Reported challenges managing multiple disaster recovery programs. 
The current federal approach is the product of over 40 years of 
incremental efforts to address emerging issues in disaster recovery 
through legislative reform. These efforts have created a complex system 
of programs that were not always designed to work together effectively. 
State and local officials involved in recovery that we interviewed for 
our November 2022 report noted the importance of the support provided 
by the federal government after disasters, but told us they experienced 
a range of challenges obtaining support. Specifically, they reported 
challenges with navigating multiple disaster recovery programs, 
including: (1) different requirements across FEMA, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Department of Transportation 
(DOT) grant programs; (2) differing time frames across programs; (3) 
multiple federal authorities; and (4) limited data sharing. These 
officials also noted that these challenges could create or exacerbate 
state and local capacity challenges.
    In an effort to increase overall coordination, we recommended that 
FEMA, HUD, and DOT identify and take steps to better manage 
fragmentation between their individual disaster recovery programs and 
other federal programs. We also recommended that FEMA--as administrator 
of several disaster recovery programs--take steps to better manage 
fragmentation across its own programs, which could make the programs 
simpler, more accessible, and more user-friendly and improving the 
effectiveness of its federal disaster recovery efforts. All three 
agencies agreed with the recommendations.
    DHS officials told us that in response to our recommendations, FEMA 
is coordinating with HUD and DOT to identify specific actions they 
could take to address the issues we raised. DHS officials also 
indicated FEMA would examine ways to streamline its disaster assistance 
programs. HUD officials indicated they would consider the options in 
our report as they examine ways to streamline disaster assistance 
across programs. They estimated completing this review by December 
2023. DOT officials agreed with the recommendation, but have not shared 
what specific actions they have taken or are planning. We are 
continuing to monitor agency progress to implement our recommendations.
    The magnitude and significance of the negative effects of the 
current fragmented approach--inefficient use of federal resources and 
slower and less effective recovery from disasters--heighten the need 
for federal agencies to do so. In addition, by identifying and taking 
steps to better manage the negative effects of the fragmented approach, 
agencies could improve service delivery to disaster survivors and 
communities, and improve the effectiveness of recovery efforts.
    Additional options for improving the federal approach. Based on our 
review of relevant literature; interviews with federal, state and local 
officials; and our panel of experts, we identified 11 options to 
improve the federal government's approach to disaster recovery.\14\ A 
consistent theme throughout options includes better coordination among 
federal agencies and programs. For example, options might include 
developing new coordinated efforts to clearly and consistently 
communicate about recovery programs and providing coordinated technical 
assistance throughout disaster recovery, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ GAO-23-104956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reforming the federal government's approach to disaster recovery is 
a policy challenge and requires complex tradeoffs, including 
consideration of the strengths and limitations of the many options. We 
recommended that Congress consider establishing an independent 
commission to recommend reforms to the federal government's approach to 
disaster recovery. By establishing an independent commission to reform 
disaster recovery Congress may identify actions it and federal agencies 
could take to improve the effectiveness of the federal approach. Such 
efforts could reduce the federal government's fiscal exposure; improve 
service delivery to disaster survivors and state and local governments; 
and increase the speed of disaster recovery.
    Thank you Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 
Subcommittee. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 
respond to any questions you may have at this time.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks you for your testimony, and the 
Chair now recognizes himself for some questioning.
    Director Hooks, I am looking at--I think this is your 
publication, if that looks familiar to you, ``FEMA Strategic 
Plan: 2022-2026,'' and I think it is page 8 here, ``Goals and 
Objectives.'' Goal number 1, instill equity as a foundation of 
emergency management; goal number 2, lead whole of community in 
climate resilience; and then goal 3, promote and sustain a 
ready FEMA and prepared Nation.
    Director Hooks, I am not sure what your background is 
beyond emergency management. I took a look at your submittal 
for the record and kind of your background, but it doesn't go 
anything earlier in your life. I know as an Army guy, right, we 
have objectives, right? The big objective, of course, is to win 
the war, win the battle, or what have you. But then there are 
sub-objectives. It might be--we might list an objective like 
``take this hilltop'' or something like that, and that is your 
focus because that is where your energies have to be applied, 
that is where your resources have to be applied.
    But there are other things that are, as we would call them, 
implied tasks: make sure that the tank has fuel; make sure that 
your soldiers get some sleep; make sure that they are prepared 
and trained; make sure that they have the equipment and the 
supplies necessary to engage and be successful. Those are 
implied tasks, but that is not the mission. The mission is to 
win.
    And it concerns me that these are your goals: 1, 2, 3. And 
with all due respect--and we will get into this, Mr. Currie, 
about the FEMA staffing issue--I am not sure, as a person that 
wants to go help out in disaster relief around the country, 
regardless of what that disaster is, that the person that is 
motivated to do that, that is encouraged, that has the cause to 
do that is going to see their first goal as your two first 
goals. They want to go get after helping people in our country 
that are in the perils of a disaster.
    And I would just--I am taking this from the FEMA--yes, 
Wednesday, May 17--well, yes, OK, ``Opportunities to Strengthen 
Management and Address Increasing Challenges'' from Mr. Currie 
here, and this is a chart that is in that report that kind of 
outlines what citizens have to go through to avail themselves 
to FEMA's services [indicating figure 3 of Mr. Currie's 
prepared statement].
    If you just look at housing, which is one of the smaller--
that is this one, right here. If you just look at that, and 
look at all the different things that a citizen has to 
navigate, knowing that there are, I think, 32 Federal agencies 
and 30 different congressional committees--or maybe that is 
backwards; it is 30 and 32, it doesn't matter, it is a lot--it 
seems to me your focus should be on your mission, which is 
getting after disaster and all that other stuff--yes, of 
course, that comes with the program. That is assumed. Those are 
implied tasks. Of course, we expect you to treat everybody with 
the same respect, regardless of where they live, what their 
religion is, what their color is, what their sex--we expect 
that as a matter of course in America. Can you speak to that?
    Are these your goals or--where did you come up with--how 
were these derived?
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 
opportunity to respond to your question.
    First, thank you for your outstanding service to our Nation 
in the military. Just a little bit about my background. I am a 
career law enforcement public safety professional, spending 
over three decades in North Carolina, and served as the 
secretary of public safety. And in that portfolio was not only 
law enforcement, but also emergency management and 
approximately 13,000 National Guard troops. So, my reverence 
for the military certainly remains high.
    I would say that our strategic plan in no way undercuts the 
mission of providing assistance to survivors and also 
supporting the Nation before, during, and after disasters. I 
can draw a parallel real quickly within the time allotted, in 
that, just as, as you well articulated, the mission of our 
military is to win any fight and project force around the 
world, but also there are times where things are emergent, such 
as suicides, that became very much of a primary focus of 
reducing suicides in the military. Those are things that needed 
a particular focus, but they in no way detracted from that 
overall mission. The goals in FEMA, as have been articulated--
and you have pointed that out--in our strategic plan also, I 
believe, lead us on that pathway to executing the mission that 
has been previously described, as well.
    And I would also say that, coming from the perspective 
where I come from, that these goals actually are still tied to 
one of the primary goals that resonate in my head from the 
previous administration, the previous FEMA Administrator, as 
well: to reduce the complexity of FEMA.
    The bottom line is that we are trying to get disaster 
relief to all communities that deserve that relief under the 
law.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks you for your answer, sir, and I 
thank you for your service, as well. I appreciate the 
information.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was talking 
about the inequity of the programs, that some communities that 
are more affluent get them quicker than maybe a rural community 
or a poorer community, I wasn't suggesting that the policy of 
FEMA was to discriminate. I was talking about more systemic 
problems, that these folks may not have the resources, they may 
not have the knowledge, they may not have the assistance in 
filing a grant application. We certainly see that in small 
towns in rural America. So, those are the kinds of things that 
I wanted to address, not just the attitude or values of the 
Agency. I want to be sure I make that clear.
    Also, we have heard the statistic about the increase from 
108 to 311 disasters over the last decade. We know, as I said 
in my opening statement, disasters are more frequent, they 
cause more damage, they are more expensive, and they take 
longer to recover from.
    I want to ask you a question. In a letter recently 
submitted to the House Committee on Appropriations, the 
Department of Homeland Security indicated that the Republicans' 
proposed return to fiscal year 2022 funding levels--going 
backwards--to cut FEMA's funding would mean cutting in half 
your assistance, your grant assistance programs, to help State, 
local, Tribal, and Territorial governments, and the private 
sector. So, instead of moving forward with the increase in 
problems, we want to move backwards, and that would cut that 
ability to assist in half. Would you elaborate on that, Mr. 
Hooks?
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 
Titus. I would say that any reduction to our budget request 
could have significant impacts on our ability to meet our 
mission requirements.
    Specifically, grants are often served as a very much of a 
capacity-building mechanism within our State, local, and Tribal 
communities. Many communities rely on those grants to build 
capacity because they don't otherwise have the funding from 
their own State legislatures or their local communities, 
whether or not that is an intentional decision by those local 
and State governments, or whether they just do not have the 
capacity to extend that. And so, it is very important that the 
funding requests that are made, that are contained within the 
President's budget with respect to FEMA and our ability to 
carry out our mission, are met. And I look forward to working 
with any Member of Congress to address those critical funding 
needs.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. I want to ask you, too, about the 
workforce. We talk about it is hard to recruit, and you get 
burned out, you're sent away from home, you don't know how long 
you are going to be there, it is hard work when you get there.
    Last Congress, we passed the CREW Act, and that was a bill 
that I introduced to try to extend--is it USERRA?--protections 
to FEMA reservists like you have in the National Guard, so 
someone can leave their job knowing that they have it to come 
back to after the disaster is over. Has that been in place long 
enough to tell if it is making a difference, or do we need to 
improve it in any way? Hopefully, it does give people a sense 
of security that may make them more inclined to do this kind of 
very difficult work.
    Mr. Hooks. Again, thank you, Ranking Member Titus. And I 
would like to personally thank you for your leadership in that 
area. You and many others have taken up the mantle, and we do 
believe that we will see a greater return on investment in our 
disaster workforce with protections that are very important.
    Again, I used to be the cabinet lead in North Carolina for 
a number of National Guard soldiers. And knowing that the value 
that reservists bring to a war fight, in that case, domestic 
deployments, is very much the same in FEMA. In fact, our 
reservists are the backbone of our workforce to deploy to 
communities in disaster response.
    And so, it is still a little early in the process, but as 
we work through our staffing levels, improved staffing levels, 
and promote the program with employers, just as we do with the 
National Guard, that there is great value in public service and 
service to communities, we expect great support and a great 
return from that investment of that legislation.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. Do you agree, Mr. Currie?
    Mr. Currie. I agree, anything we can do to try to make it 
easier for these people to be in those positions.
    I think the challenge for FEMA is these are part-time 
positions. So, when you are part-time, you are going to recruit 
people that are willing to take part-time work and sometimes 
don't have full-time careers. So, anything you can do to make 
it more similar to the Guard or the Reserves, and to advertise 
to employers that this is important Federal service, not to 
punish them for leaving for periods of time is a good thing.
    Ms. Titus. OK. Well, thank you very much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the ranking member. The Chair 
now recognizes the vice chair, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I am representing Oregon's Fifth Congressional 
District, so, it is my pleasure to meet both of you as a new 
Member of Congress.
    My team pulled together a couple of data points for me to 
discuss in relation to Oregon as it relates to this hearing, 
and one in particular for the record, Mr. Chairman, a letter 
written from the League of Oregon Cities, dated May 5th, I 
would like to enter that into the record.
    Mr. Perry. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
Letter of May 5, 2023, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency from 
 Michael Martin, League of Oregon Cities, Submitted for the Record by 
                        Hon. Lori Chavez-DeRemer
                                                       May 5, 2023.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

RE: Docket ID # FEMA-2023-0007
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

    Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) intent to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for the implementation of the plan for National 
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)-Endangered Species Act (ESA) Integration 
in Oregon.
    The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) is very concerned the proposed 
action will have adverse and detrimental impacts on municipalities that 
are in a current or future mapped special flood hazard area (SFHA). 
LOC's comments are intended to provide meaningful input and inform the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) about the adverse and 
detrimental effects the proposed action will have on local governments, 
residents, and the business community. The proposed action area will 
have significant adverse and detrimental impacts to a cross section of 
our members: including but not limited to low-income populations, land 
use, zoning, housing, commerce, transportation, community growth, and 
community infrastructure.
    The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed rules 
will push many struggling communities further behind in their efforts 
to secure a stable economic future for their citizens.
    Many of the proposed mitigation or implementation measures 
encouraged in the plan would require local governments to expend 
significant monetary or staff resources to develop new stormwater 
regulations, and design manuals. The League of Oregon Cities has 
identified a $23 billion need in water related infrastructure--and this 
action would likely increase the cost. Without technical or financial 
assistance made available to small and rural jurisdictions that do not 
have the capacity to develop such tools, this would prove to be a 
significant burden. These rules would effectively cause cities to 
reduce or stop providing core services to address the litany of new 
regulations. The rules will make it more costly to build homes, create 
opportunities for business development and effectively scuttle plans 
for development.
    The only options available for local governments would be to 
require applicants to provide this analysis, which could significantly 
increase development costs and times. Additionally, because the final 
reporting tool has not been developed or tested, it is unsure how long 
it will take local government staff to compile and input the required 
information, potentially diverting staff resources from other state-
mandates such as housing.
    The adverse and detrimental effect of the proposed rules would 
delay the 36,000 new housing units a year that Oregon Governor Kotek 
established through executive order 23-04.
    The League of Oregon Cities has serious concerns with the economic 
impact and livability this would have on communities across Oregon. As 
it is currently drafted, the plan will generate substantial financial 
expenditures and draw on already maximized staff capacities--costs that 
will primarily be borne by local governments with limited technical and 
financial assistance from state or federal agencies. The likelihood of 
increased litigation may impact jurisdictions' fiscal capacity and 
increase development costs for property owners.
    Whether these rules are borne by the local government or 
developers, they will result in extreme levels of cost increases that 
will drive Oregon's housing affordability well beyond the current 
state-wide crisis. It will also impact Oregon and Washington's ability 
to replace the I-5 Bridge that is of national significance and a key 
transportation facility critical to interstate commerce, regional and 
local mobility, and national security.
    We are requesting you withdraw the current proposal due to these 
adverse and detrimental impacts mentioned and re-draft rules that are 
consistent with community objectives, create opportunities for future 
development, and allow for flexibility at the state and local level to 
meet the intended outcomes.
            Sincerely,
                                            Michael Martin,
                                           League of Oregon Cities.

    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. So, in regards to Deputy Administrator 
Hooks, constituents and communities in Oregon's Fifth 
Congressional District have brought to my attention concerns 
about proposed changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. 
The League of Oregon Cities submitted comments to FEMA on May 
5th, the letter I was referring to, about FEMA's work on an 
environmental impact statement for implementation of the 
National Flood Insurance Program. Specifically, these are 
concerns about the municipalities in current and future special 
flood hazard areas. Here are some of the comments from the 
letter:
    ``The proposed action area will have significant adverse 
and detrimental impacts to a cross-section of our members: 
including but not limited to low-income populations, land use, 
zoning, housing, commerce, transportation, community growth, 
and community infrastructure.
    ``The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the 
proposed rules will push many struggling communities further 
behind in their efforts to secure a stable economic future for 
their citizens.''
    So, additionally, the League mentions that around $23 
billion in water infrastructure is already needed, and these 
proposed rules would place more burdens on our communities. The 
League states that the rules could delay 36,000 new housing 
units a year, which were directed by executive order of the 
Governor of the State of Oregon.
    Moreover, the letter states that the rules would ``also 
impact Oregon and Washington's ability to replace the I-5 
Bridge that is of national significance and a key 
transportation facility critical to interstate commerce, 
regional and local mobility, and national security.''
    So, Mr. Hooks, as FEMA develops new standards for the NFIP, 
will FEMA take into account the concerns expressed by local 
stakeholders?
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you, Congresswoman. I certainly recognize 
the value and the concerns that you bring to the table with 
those. And some of these certainly ring pertinent with me with 
the I-5 Bridge and some other things that you have brought up 
before us.
    Pernicious and repetitive----
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. Specifically the 
housing units, 36,000 housing units.
    Mr. Hooks [continuing]. Pernicious and repetitive flooding 
is indeed a problem all across this country, and it impacts 
communities in various different ways. We do engage with 
stakeholders on a much more regular basis over the last few 
years to address those community needs out there, and we will 
continue to do so based on any particular concerns that you may 
have from your region.
    And I am more than willing to have our staff, both at 
headquarters and our regional staff, to sit down and discuss 
with any member of your team or any member of the State and 
local delegation that has additional concerns with that as we 
work through the challenges because, as I stated in my opening 
segment, that we recognize that weather events impact 
communities differently, and how we approach the recovery of 
those may impact them differently, as well. And so, I look 
forward to learning more about the specific circumstances, and 
I look forward to being engaged with you on that.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you. I am going to switch 
directions just a little bit because of what we have been 
seeing on TV. I took a tour to the border, Arizona and Texas, 
and I wanted to ask a few questions in regards to what we are 
experiencing today.
    FEMA's current mission on the southwest border, does FEMA 
have the funding and personnel to carry out this mission?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, ma'am. FEMA is not a border control or 
border patrol agency. We are a part of the flagship agency 
within the Department of Homeland Security. The major equity or 
focus that FEMA has at the border has been congressionally 
directed, in that we are administering the funding for 
humanitarian relief, and that is through our Shelter and 
Services Program, which is currently under development.
    There was legislation passed that a certain amount of money 
was transferred from CBP for FEMA to administer the program, 
and that is our major role.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Well, my time is expired. I hope my 
colleagues will continue to ask some line of questioning in 
regards to this. So, thank you for your time.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the gentlelady and now recognize the 
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Deputy Administrator Hooks, your region 10 folks' response 
in Whatcom has been great. It is just a lot of work left to do 
because it hit a fairly small community, a fairly poor set of 
communities, a fairly rural set of communities, and it is just 
taking quite a bit of work to get through there. But your 
region 10 folks have been responsive. In fact, they have just 
hosted a tabletop exercise for my staff and for some others 
that we brought in so that we could understand who the players 
were in the event of something happening in the future, doing a 
little bit of pre-mitigation work ourselves in preparation.
    So, I wanted to ask a question, though, about what 
Administrator Criswell said to the Appropriations Committee in 
April that the Disaster Relief Fund is expected to run out of 
funds in July. And since learning that in June, FEMA expects to 
only provide funding for immediate needs so the Agency can save 
what little money remains in the Disaster Relief Fund. And 
those are pretty troubling projections. And so, can you provide 
an overview of the consequences if FEMA has to implement this 
Immediate Needs Funding?
    And then why, in your view, Congress needs to get off the 
dime and supply the DRF with supplemental funding--my words, 
not yours.
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you, Ranking Member Larsen, and thank you 
for your leadership in the ongoing recovery district. I have 
received the information from the region on how well those 
engagements have gone out there.
    FEMA has been provided significant money in its history in 
our DRF, but we are at a moment in time that the expenditures 
have outpaced the amount of funding that is in the DRF. We are 
now projecting that we may be able to stretch that until maybe 
August timeframe before the DRF would run out of funding. And 
so, coming into the summer, if we have to go to immediate and 
those critical needs funding, what that would ultimately do 
will focus our efforts in FEMA on just lifesaving, life-
sustaining endeavors, which are extremely important as the 
priority, but that will delay mitigation and some of the 
recovery efforts, as well.
    So, we may have to utilize the money that has been set 
aside for the BRIC program to cover immediate needs for those 
lifesaving needs around the country. So, it is really critical 
that we get that funding stream up to where it needs to be with 
additional appropriations.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Is this related to the year-round 
disaster season issue that you have testified to?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, that has been related to the OPTEMPO that 
we have seen. It is also related to the amount of COVID bills 
that are coming in.
    And one of--that does remind me--one of the other impacts 
that could be delayed is reimbursement to hospitals around the 
Nation for their COVID expenses, too. Those could be delayed if 
we are lacking funding coming into the summer, sir.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. I don't have a question--I 
have one more question, but I don't have a question on the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program. But I have been at 
facilities in a few cities in Texas who are using those 
dollars. And in my view, it is a very effective use of those 
dollars to ensure those migrants aren't on the streets of these 
cities, but actually are getting in touch with their sponsors, 
getting the help they need so they can get and move on to where 
their sponsors are in the country.
    And so, to the extent that the EFSP is being used and being 
used well, it is providing relief to those cities to allow them 
to do their part, and to get these folks who are migrants to 
get the places they need to get to, as we want them to.
    You mentioned BRIC. Investments in mitigation certainly 
help our communities deal with the impacts of natural 
disasters. One dollar in mitigation pre-disaster can yield up 
to $13 in savings. So, the BRIC program is extremely helpful. 
It has been 3 years since we made the first round of selections 
for BRIC, and we have done two more rounds. Do you have some 
lessons for us, other than it is so successful that we might 
use it to backfill a different program because it is being 
overused? Do you have some lessons on the BRIC program for us?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, sir. It is my belief that the BRIC program 
can be very transformative to communities. But what it requires 
is not just FEMA working in that mission space. What it 
requires are State and local communities being well versed into 
all of the Federal programs, so that they can learn to sequence 
and combine dollars to build more resilient communities.
    The idea of BRIC is not only to just rebuild after a 
disaster, but it is to mitigate against future disasters, 
therefore making us a more resilient Nation. And also--and this 
phrase has been said by the President many times--to build back 
better, and that does make us a more resilient Nation.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. I appreciate that, and it seems 
to fit your goal 2.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentleman, Mr. Van Orden.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually want to 
do a couple of followups on Chairman Perry's questions.
    Mr. Hooks, in your professional opinion, does a hurricane, 
tornado, earthquake, or flood care if an American is Black, 
Latino, indigenous, Asian, or Pacific Islander, another person 
of color, members of a religious minority, lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, transgender, or queer, or a person with a disability, 
or a person living in a rural area, or a person who is 
otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or 
inequality?
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you for the question as I understood it, 
because it was a long list there that was provided----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. It is from your priorities, 
sir.
    Mr. Hooks. OK.
    Mr. Van Orden. I didn't write that list, you did.
    Mr. Hooks. OK, all right. I am sorry, I just wasn't----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. I did not write that list, 
you did. That is your number-one priority.
    Mr. Hooks. All right----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. OK. So, with that list in 
mind, are your programs available to a middle-class Caucasian 
living in a city?
    Mr. Hooks. Absolutely. My reference was just my inability 
to hear you, sir, not----
    Mr. Van Orden [interposing]. OK.
    Mr. Hooks [continuing]. Not taking any issue with----
    Mr. Van Orden [interposing]. OK.
    Mr. Hooks [continuing]. What you said.
    Mr. Van Orden. All right. I've got to tell you, this, man. 
Hey, listen.
    Mr. Hooks. OK.
    Mr. Van Orden. Those two questions are intentionally 
absurd, as I think your priorities are with your strategic 
plan.
    Mr. Hooks. All right.
    Mr. Van Orden. And this is why. The Homeland Security Act 
of 2002 states very clearly that FEMA's mission is ``to reduce 
the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all 
hazards by leading and supporting the Nation in a 
comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program.'' So, 
that is your charter from the Department of Homeland Security, 
and yet your third priority is making sure FEMA is ready to go. 
Your first priority is to have this list of folks here, and 
apparently they are supposed to take precedence over other 
people.
    Now, I am sure that you are not implying by putting this 
list that you have baked some type of discriminatory practices 
into your Agency. What I am telling you is this: If an average 
person were to pick this up, that is their immediate 
assumption. So, I really believe that you need to rethink your 
priorities and how they are listed.
    I would like to move on to something else. Mr. Chairman, 
with your permission, I would like to have two letters entered 
into the record. One is from us going to the president and 
chief executive officer of the Ford Motor Company referencing 
AM radios.
    Mr. Perry. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
 Letter of May 15, 2023, to James D. Farley, Jr., President and Chief 
 Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company, from 101 Members of Congress, 
           Submitted for the Record by Hon. Derrick Van Orden
                     Congress of the United States,
                                      Washington, DC 20515,
                                                      May 15, 2023.
James D. Farley, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Ford Motor Company, One American Road, Dearborn, MI 48126.
    Dear Mr. Farley,
    We write to you to express our concern about reports that your 
company removed, or plans to remove, broadcast AM radio receivers from 
current and future vehicles. As the backbone of the Emergency Alert 
System (EAS), AM radio serves a vital role in our nation's emergency 
communications infrastructure.
    AM radio has more than 45 million listeners each month, and our 
constituents rely heavily on it for emergency alerts and local news, 
information, and weather.\1\ In the case of natural disasters--
tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and other local emergencies--AM radio is 
a lifeline. It provides early warning, up-to-the-minute local 
information needed to survive when these disasters strike, and ongoing, 
life-saving information in their aftermath when the danger is often the 
greatest.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Nielsen
    \2\ Integrated Public Alert & Warning System, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, available at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-
managers/practitioners/integrated-public-alert-warning-system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), over 
75 radio stations, most of which operate on the AM band and cover at 
least 90% of the U.S. population, are equipped with backup 
communications equipment and generators that allow them to continue 
broadcasting information to the public during and after an 
emergency.\3\ Most importantly, AM radio is free to all Americans, not 
requiring a subscription or a broadband connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Ryan Felton, Electric Vehicles Need AM Radio, Former Emergency 
Officials Argue, The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 2023), available at 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-vehicles-need-am-radio-former-
emergency-officials-argue-9e69e297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For rural Americans, the importance of having access to AM radio in 
their car or truck is particularly important. When Internet 
connectivity and cell phone service is limited or unavailable, these 
residents do not have as many options to access emergency information 
as those living in more densely populated areas. AM radio stations are 
often our constituents' ``go to'' source for information in times of 
crisis. We cannot deprive them of that free, life-saving resource.
    Due to your announcement, we request that you answer the following 
questions, in writing, by May 26, 2023:
    1.  Please provide a list of all vehicle models from which your 
company has removed AM radio receivers and the rationale for removing 
them.
    2.  Please provide a list of all vehicle models from which your 
company is planning to remove AM radio receivers. In each case, please 
specify the model year in which AM radio receivers will be removed and 
the rationale for removing them.
    3.  Please provide a list of all vehicle models that will continue 
to have AM radio receivers.
    4.  Has your company evaluated whether current technology is 
available that is capable of addressing signal interference from 
electric vehicles (EVs) to the AM radio receivers?
      a.  If so, what technology can be used to address signal 
interference from EVs?
      b.  What is the estimated dollar amount per vehicle to mitigate 
interference to AM radio receivers?
      c.  What steps has your company taken to avoid removing AM radio 
receivers from EVs? If your company has taken no steps, please explain 
why.
    5.  Please provide the details and the value of all federal loan, 
grant, and tax incentives your company has received in the last 15 
years.
      a.  Can these government subsidies offset the cost to mitigate 
interference to AM radio receivers?
    6.  Does your company plan to charge its customers for 
subscription-like access to free AM/FM radio in any vehicles?
    7.  Is this part of a broader effort by your company to have 
services in your vehicles dependent on a subscription, as has been 
highlighted in recent reports? \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/11/10/
how-the-subscription-business-model-could-change-the-automotive-
industry/?sh=389c42e956ff

    We urge you to maintain AM radio receivers in all vehicles and 
prioritize consumers and public safety. We appreciate your prompt 
attention to this letter.
            Sincerely,
Robert E. Latta,
  Member of Congress.
Greg Pence,
  Member of Congress.
Gus M. Bilirakis,
  Member of Congress.
Neal P. Dunn, M.D.,
  Member of Congress.
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter,
  Member of Congress.
Jeff Duncan,
  Member of Congress.
August Pfluger,
  Member of Congress.
Dan Crenshaw,
  Member of Congress.
Richard Hudson,
  Member of Congress.
Don Bacon,
  Member of Congress.
Tim Walberg,
  Member of Congress.
Ann McLane Kuster,
  Member of Congress.
Garret Graves,
  Member of Congress.
Troy Balderson,
  Member of Congress.
Kat Cammack,
  Member of Congress.
Kelly Armstrong,
  Member of Congress.
Nicholas A. Langworthy,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Ezell,
  Member of Congress.
Aaron Bean,
  Member of Congress.
Tom Tiffany,
  Member of Congress.
Jefferson Van Drew,
  Member of Congress.
Tom Cole,
  Member of Congress.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks, M.D.,
  Member of Congress.
Bill Johnson,
  Member of Congress.
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,
  Member of Congress.
Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S.,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Johnson,
  Member of Congress.
Glenn Grothman,
  Member of Congress.
Chris Pappas,
  Member of Congress.
Abigail Davis Spanberger,
  Member of Congress.
Tim Burchett,
  Member of Congress.
Warren Davidson,
  Member of Congress.
Andy Biggs,
  Member of Congress.
Elise M. Stefanik,
  Member of Congress.
Dusty Johnson,
  Member of Congress.
Anthony D'Esposito,
  Member of Congress.
Daniel Webster,
  Member of Congress.
Rudy Yakym III,
  Member of Congress.
Christopher H. Smith,
  Member of Congress.
Bryan Steil,
  Member of Congress.
Mark E. Amodei,
  Member of Congress.
Debbie Dingell,
  Member of Congress.
Thomas H. Kean, Jr.,
  Member of Congress.
Sharice L. Davids,
  Member of Congress.
Brad Finstad,
  Member of Congress.
Wesley Hunt,
  Member of Congress.
Randy K. Weber, Sr.,
  Member of Congress.
Carlos A. Gimenez,
  Member of Congress.
Ben Cline,
  Member of Congress.
Randy Feenstra,
  Member of Congress.
Lizzie Fletcher,
  Member of Congress.
Rick W. Allen,
  Member of Congress.
David G. Valadao,
  Member of Congress.
Betty McCollum,
  Member of Congress.
Dina Titus,
  Member of Congress.
Laurel M. Lee,
  Member of Congress.
Harriet M. Hageman,
  Member of Congress.
Brad R. Wenstrup, D.P.M.,
  Member of Congress.
Troy E. Nehls,
  Member of Congress.
Chellie Pingree,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Bost,
  Member of Congress.
Ed Case,
  Member of Congress.
Joe Courtney,
  Member of Congress.
Max L. Miller,
  Member of Congress.
Teresa Leger Fernandez,
  Member of Congress.
Sam Graves,
  Member of Congress.
Mark Pocan,
  Member of Congress.
Clay Higgins,
  Member of Congress.
Seth Magaziner,
  Member of Congress.
Cliff Bentz,
  Member of Congress.
C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger,
  Member of Congress.
Harold Rogers,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Flood,
  Member of Congress.
Debbie Lesko,
  Member of Congress.
Bruce Westerman,
  Member of Congress.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez,
  Member of Congress.
Mark Alford,
  Member of Congress.
Glenn Ivey,
  Member of Congress.
Stephanie Bice,
  Member of Congress.
  
Eric Burlison,
  Member of Congress.
Larry Bucshon, M.D.,
  Member of Congress.
Michelle Fischbach,
  Member of Congress.
Andy Barr,
  Member of Congress.
Pete Stauber,
  Member of Congress.
Bob Good,
  Member of Congress.
Deborah K. Ross,
  Member of Congress.
Mike Carey,
  Member of Congress.
Scott Fitzgerald,
  Member of Congress.
Susie Lee,
  Member of Congress.
Claudia Tenney,
  Member of Congress.
Michael R. Turner,
  Member of Congress.
Frank D. Lucas,
  Member of Congress.
Kim Schrier, M.D.,
  Member of Congress.
John R. Moolenaar,
  Member of Congress.
Jason Smith,
  Member of Congress.
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
  Member of Congress.
Derrick Van Orden,
  Member of Congress.
Eric Sorensen,
  Member of Congress.
Earl Blumenauer,
  Member of Congress.
James Comer,
  Member of Congress.
Tony Cardenas,
  Member of Congress.

    Mr. Van Orden. And one from the National Association of 
Farm Broadcasting referencing AM radios.
    Mr. Perry. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
  Letter of May 9, 2023, to Hon. Derrick Van Orden from the National 
  Association of Farm Broadcasting, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
                           Derrick Van Orden
         National Association of Farm Broadcasting,
                                    1100 Platte Falls Road,
                                       Platte City, Missouri 64079,
                                                       May 9, 2023.
    Dear Representative Van Orden,
    We are writing you today as the Board of Directors of the National 
Association of Farm Broadcasting (NAFB) on behalf of agricultural and 
rural broadcast stations and networks across America. Founded in 1944, 
NAFB is dedicated to serving the interests of the agricultural 
community. Farm broadcasters provide an invaluable service to producers 
and the agricultural community in rural America. Through this letter, 
we hope to express NAFB members' overwhelming support of broadcast 
radio and to cast a spotlight on the actions some automakers are taking 
to remove radio from their vehicles--especially AM radio.
    In rural America, AM radio is critical for those without reliable 
cellular or broadband access. Farmers in the field and on rural 
roadways, not connected to cellular or broadband, also turn to AM radio 
for the latest weather updates, crop reports, local information, and 
entertainment. For farmers and ranchers, radio continues to be the 
primary source of daily agricultural news for listeners throughout the 
year. In fact, on average, ag radio consumers are listening for at 
least one hour on a typical weekday; more than 76% listen to the radio 
for agriculture markets, news, weather, and other information more than 
five days a week. Listeners to ag radio consistently rate their farm 
broadcasters high in credibility, accuracy, and timeliness for 
information.
    Rural areas across the country are subject to extreme weather 
conditions such as tornados, flooding, droughts, wildfires, and 
hurricanes. When these extreme weather events occur and both the power 
and cell service are out, AM radio becomes a literal lifeline for rural 
Americans. As the backbone of the Emergency Alert System, the car radio 
often is the only way for people to get information, sometimes for days 
at a time.
    As the professional trade association representing the interests of 
farm broadcasters, the agricultural community, and rural America, we 
are deeply concerned about the action some automakers have taken to 
remove AM radio from their vehicles. Of the top 20 automakers producing 
vehicles in the United States, eight of them have already removed AM 
broadcast from their electric vehicles, undermining the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) system for delivering critical 
public safety information to the public. One major automaker, Ford, has 
already announced its intent to remove AM radio from their entire fleet 
of non-commercial vehicles beginning in 2024.
    We ask you help us convey to auto manufacturers the importance of 
AM broadcast radio to America's farmers and Americans living in rural 
communities across the United States. Removing AM radio from vehicles 
will put into serious jeopardy an important lifeline and source of 
information to rural America, not just during times of emergency events 
but every single day.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to 
working with you to urge auto manufacturers to keep this vital service 
as part of their vehicles.
            Sincerely,
            2023 NAFB Board of Directors.

Joe Gill,
  KASM Radio, Albany, Minnesota.
KC Sheperd,
  Radio Oklahoma Ag Network, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Carah Hart,
  Brownfield Ag News, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Brent Adams,
  Rural Strong Media, Charlestown, Indiana.
Jeff Nalley,
  Cromwell Ag Radio Network, Utica, Kentucky.
Augie Aga,
  Northern Ag Network, Billings, Montana.
Gardner Hatch,
  Woodruff, Cottage Grove, Minnesota.
Amy Biehl-Owens,
  KRVN Rural Radio Network, Lexington, Nebraska.
Shannon Yokley,
  Missouri Wines, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Anita Vanderwert,
  Brownfield Ag News, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Delaney Howell,
  Agricultural News Daily, Rhodes, Iowa.
Tom Brand,
  National Association of Farm Broadcasting, Platte City, Missouri.

                                                         Attachment
                    Preserving AM Radio in Vehicles

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From FDR's fireside chats to global conflicts and once-in-a-generation disasters, AM radio has transported
 millions of listeners to the front lines of history and has for more than a century. Local stations have been
 the source of entertainment and connection to our communities. And, perhaps most importantly, when tragedy
 strikes, AM radio serves as the backbone of the Emergency Alert System, informing Americans of impending danger
 and directing people to safety. With its unique ability to reach a wide geographic area, AM broadcasting offers
 many Americans struggling with poor, or non-existent cellular and broadband coverage a chance to stay
 connected. The car often is the only source of power and news for many in times of emergency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               The Issue
    As auto brands introduce more electric vehicles (EVs) into the 
market to meet growing consumer and clean energy demands, the 
availability of AM radio is declining or being eliminated altogether. 
This is due to electromagnetic interference causing static and limited 
coverage with AM radio in EVs. Despite well-known mitigation solutions, 
some automakers have stopped putting AM radios in their dashboards. 
Among them so far are Audi, BMW, Porsche, Tesla, Volvo, Volkswagen, and 
Ford.
              AM Radio Essential for Critical Emergencies
    AM radio is one of the critical ways federal, state, and local 
officials communicate with the public during natural disasters and 
other emergencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
stated the success of the national public warning system hinges on the 
use of AM radio due to the distances its signal carries and its 
resiliency during catastrophic events. Although many automakers 
suggested other communication tools like internet radio could replace 
broadcast AM radio, in an emergency, drivers might not have access to 
the internet and could miss important safety informationand updates.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AM radio serves a vital role in our nation's emergency infrastructure as the backbone of the Emergency Alert
 System. When the power goes out and cell networks are down, the car radio often is the only way for people to
 get information, sometimes for days at a time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Importance of AM Radio to the Ag Community and Rural Areas Remains High
    Radio is the most used source of daily agribusiness information. 
Farmers and ranchers depend on AM radio to obtain information about 
topics such as weather, markets, ag news, ag commentary, and local 
events. AM radio is especially critical in areas where reliable 
broadband has yet to be deployed as well as in areas where FM signals 
don't extend. AM radio gives a larger coverage area and is often the 
only stable form of communication for rural areas.
  AM Radio Matters to All Communities, Is Still Valued by Automotive 
                               Consumers
    There are more than 4,470 licensed AM stations across the country. 
Of those, 1,500+ provide agriculture programming. It is clear AM radio 
plays a vital role in connecting communities with stations that serve 
these audiences with niche and in-language programming. Urban and 
suburban residents rely on AM radio for news, weather, sports, and 
more. Consumers still desire AM in-car listening. Thirty-three percent 
of new car buyers say AM radio is a very important feature in a 
vehicle--higher than dedicated Wi-Fi (31 percent), SiriusXM satellite 
radio (27 percent), and personal assistants such as Google Assistant or 
Amazon Alexa.
   Third-Party Research Proves Radio Importance to Farmers, Ranchers
    In 2021, the National Association of Farm Broadcasting (NAFB) 
partnered with Aimpoint Research to execute a nationwide, year-long 
tracking study of approximately 800 farmers across four waves 
(quarters) throughout the year who listen to ag radio programming.
    Ag Radio Listeners Most Often Listen to AM and FM Radio for Ag 
                              Information

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Listeners report receiving a variety of topical information from ag 
radio; however, they are primarily listening to/for agricultural 
markets, commodity prices, weather, and local/regional ag news.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those farmers and ranchers who listen to ag radio, it continues to be the primary source of daily ag news
 for its listeners throughout the year. Listeners most often are listening to AM and FM radio.
 
On average, ag radio consumers are listening for at least one hour on a typical weekday.
 
Ag radio listeners consistently rate their farm broadcasters high in credibility, accuracy, and timeliness of
 information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you.
    Mr. Hooks, AM radio has about 45 million listeners each 
month, and my constituents rely on this for emergency alerts, 
local news and information, and weather. In the case of natural 
disasters, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and other local 
emergencies, AM radio is our lifeline in the rural community. 
And according to FEMA, 75 radio stations, most of which operate 
in the AM band and cover at least 90 percent of the U.S. 
population, are equipped with backup communications equipment 
and generators that allow them to continue broadcasting 
information to the public during and after an emergency. Most 
importantly, AM radio is free to all Americans, not requiring a 
subscription or a broadband connection.
    So, Mr. Hooks, in your professional opinion, is the 
apparent move from the civilian commercial manufacturing 
sector, move away from AM radios going to affect your ability 
to communicate in an effective manner to the vast majority of 
the American population in the case of an emergency?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, sir. Thank you for that important question, 
and it actually relates a little bit back to the equity 
question, which is the consistent and systematic, fair, just, 
and impartial treatment of all individuals.
    And with that in mind, the use of AM radio is critically 
important to our ability for emergency managers and first 
responders in local communities to commit to inform and advise 
their communities to where the danger is coming from, how do we 
evacuate, and how to stay out of harm's way. And so, I fully 
support the recommendations that are moving forward to support 
the continued use of AM radio. That is a tremendous format by 
which we reach millions of Americans in times of need, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. Well, thank you, Mr. Hooks. I am going to 
have my folks send this letter over to your office so you can 
review this, and I would appreciate your direct support on 
these types of initiatives.
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Van Orden. Very well. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 
recognizes Representative Davids.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you 
for our witnesses being here today.
    And Deputy Administrator Hooks, I do want to extend a 
special thank you to you and all the employees at FEMA. I know 
the work that you all do is really, really important, and it 
helps the folks who are impacted by the disasters that we have 
been talking about today. It is very, very important service, 
so, thank you for that.
    And my question is really for either witness that wants to 
share an opinion on this, but I am definitely particularly 
interested in hearing from Deputy Administrator Hooks on this.
    I represent a district in Kansas that has--we have our fair 
share of experiences with natural disasters, like tornadoes and 
flooding and that sort of thing. And like the rest of the 
country, we saw a pretty big fallout from COVID. During the 
course of the pandemic, there were a lot of systemic 
vulnerabilities that we saw.
    One of the things that ended up happening in the Third 
Congressional District is a company that has experience making 
PPE, Dentek, in my district, sought to pivot to making N95 
masks to help backfill the national stockpile needs that we 
saw. But they had been previously priced out of the market. 
Through a lot of effort and some limited support that the 
Federal Government was able to provide, they were able to 
retool and expand to produce some of those critical supplies 
immediately and to be able to do that domestically.
    I know in 2018--this was referenced earlier--U.S. hospitals 
faced widespread shortages of IV bags in the wake of Hurricane 
Maria which damaged and temporarily shut down several Puerto 
Rico factories that were the manufacturers of those bags. So, 
when tragedy hits, our first priority is, obviously, the safety 
of people and the provision of emergency services, which is 
exactly what you all do. But there are also so many examples of 
ways that we need to maintain infrastructure supply chains that 
are critical for addressing those needs.
    I am right now in the early stages of drafting a bill that 
I hope I will be able to introduce soon to empower the Economic 
Development Administration, which is also under the purview of 
this subcommittee, to stand up a pilot program that would help 
make grants available in the wake of these kinds of disasters 
for production of those supply chains that are impacted for 
critical resources and that sort of thing.
    You started to talk a little bit about the interagency 
working, and working with communities, but I am particularly 
interested in the coordination of those wraparound services 
that exist as part of FEMA's strategic plan, specifically in 
the readiness goal that you all have laid out. Can you talk a 
little bit about that interagency coordination that takes place 
before, during, and in the aftermath of one of these disasters?
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you for the question, and I would say that 
FEMA looks forward to working with you and your staff and any 
of the committee staff on any initiatives that would drive us 
forward to being a more resilient Nation.
    It is critically important that FEMA work on--and there are 
sometimes very few of these blue sky days across the 
interagency--to figure out where all of the authorities lie, 
and how we can best leverage the authorities not just within 
FEMA, but across all sectors of the Federal Government to 
support our local communities.
    We learned a lot of lessons during COVID-19, and some of 
them some very hard lessons, as well. And one of those was that 
the supply chain could be greatly, greatly impacted by a 
worldwide pandemic and other issues that we could think 
through, as well. And I know that while I was serving in North 
Carolina, just as many other States, the critical need for PPE 
came to the forefront as it was brought to us by health 
officials and hospitals, as well. And so, every State ended up 
trying to buy up as much as they can, and we were competing 
against each other, and sometimes that created great 
difficulty.
    So, there are a lot of lessons learned about how we can 
coordinate and how we can utilize PPE and other resources and 
shared resources in a degraded environment, so to speak, or 
which supply chains are limited.
    Also, we are always looking--and part of our readiness, 
both for our employees and into communities--to educate about 
mental health, about those services that are available within 
FEMA for our own employees to support their own mental health, 
because sometimes they will carry the burden of those disaster 
survivors that they are working to serve.
    And then also, as part of our community readiness, we 
challenge communities as well as educate communities not only 
to the things that they need to have to respond to a disaster 
event, but to recognize the real impacts of those events, as 
well. So, it is important to engage health and human services 
and mental health agencies to get those response needs out to 
disaster survivors.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you so much. And we will follow 
up with additional questions about the lessons learned.
    And I yield back, Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the Representative. I turn now to 
Representative Edwards.
    Mr. Edwards. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to our 
witnesses for being here today.
    A situation that my district has faced is that in August 
2021, Tropical Storm Fred devastated western North Carolina, 
particularly a very small, rural mountain community--it happens 
to be my hometown--destroying homes, washing away an entire 
season's worth of crops, and closing businesses for days and 
weeks at a time. The effects of that storm are still today 
plaguing communities in this district, like Haywood County, 
who, on top of disaster response, is now fighting to mitigate 
the impacts of their community's economic closing of a paper 
mill back at home.
    And in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Fred, citizens of 
western North Carolina who applied for FEMA funds complained to 
me that the process was overly complicated. They had to have 
access to a computer. Now, mind you, many of them didn't have 
homes, or electricity, or access to internet, which are 
luxuries that are not available in the aftermath of a disaster. 
They had to seek out FEMA, and then FEMA provided checks for, 
in many cases, unfair assessments. One resident was provided 
just $312 from FEMA to repair more than $10,000 in home damage.
    So, my first question, Mr. Hooks, is do you think $312 in 
disaster assistance for a $10,000 repair is fair?
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you, Congressman Edwards. And sir----
    Mr. Edwards [interrupting]. I can't hear.
    Mr. Hooks. I am sorry. Thank you, Congressman Edwards, and 
thank you for the question.
    I would say, overall, to your specific question, if there 
are needs that far exceed what FEMA is going to provide, there 
needs to be a larger discussion. FEMA recovery funds are meant 
to jumpstart a recovery. They typically are not, through 
congressional authorization, designed to make a person whole, 
unfortunately. And I have lived this and lived this right there 
in North Carolina.
    But if there are any particular cases that you have in your 
community where the amount of reimbursement has not met the 
needs, those need to be important and tough conversations that 
need to be had both at the State level--and I am very familiar 
with your Emergency Management Director Will Ray, as his 
predecessor, Mike Sprayberry, and I both served in the State of 
North Carolina and with Will prior to me retiring from the 
State.
    And so, we look to impact communities, and we look to hear 
where disaster recovery falls short. And so, again, Federal 
funds by congressional appropriation and direction are not 
meant to fully make them whole, and that is why there needs to 
be great commitments in the local community and in State 
legislatures. And I did find that, during my time there, that 
there were supportive individuals both in the executive branch 
of the Governor's office as well as in the legislature who 
focused on disaster relief. But any particular concerns with 
constituencies, would be willing to work with you.
    Mr. Edwards. OK, thank you. So that I can get in my next 
question, Mr. Hooks, can you tell us what steps might FEMA be 
taking to help the application process as I described a while 
ago, where so many folks in my district had difficulty making 
application, without electricity and internet or even a place 
to store a computer?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, sir, a very important question. And that is 
where, at the beginning of my testimony, where I talked about 
while--equity actually drives our response. Because there is a 
recognition that many communities, rural communities, don't 
have broadband. Some people don't even have access to the 
internet or computer at the time of disaster.
    And so, in order to meet those individuals where they are 
at the times of disaster, both FEMA and the local responders, 
EMS--not just EMS, but local emergency management and State 
emergency management need to be out in communities.
    What FEMA is doing in our forward-leaning posture is going 
out into those communities, holding townhalls, and registering 
people through our own paper process and through our own 
computers that may not have access to those resources. And we 
are moving forward, and I believe smartly, in doing so into 
this hurricane season.
    We saw the benefit of that. I saw the benefit of that 
directly in Florida when I went down after Hurricane Ian to get 
out in those communities, meeting people in their homes, in 
their churches, in their communities because there is a false 
assumption if anybody believes that people can just get online 
and register for the programs. And we are endeavoring to reduce 
the complexity of those programs, as well.
    Mr. Edwards. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hooks.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon [presiding]. Thank you. Now for her 5 
minutes, Ms. Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you.
    Deputy Administrator Hooks, one of the stated goals of 
FEMA's ``2022-2026 Strategic Plan'' is to, and I am quoting, 
``instill equity as a foundation of emergency management,'' so 
that no person or community gets left behind. As of last year, 
FEMA did not collect data on racial demographics when assessing 
potential barriers to accessing disaster relief. Because FEMA 
does not collect this data, the GAO cannot fully analyze the 
potential racially disparate allocation of FEMA assistance.
    So, sir, may I ask you, does FEMA have plans to collect 
information on racial demographics going forward?
    Mr. Hooks. Well, thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
    FEMA does collect information, but that is strictly 
collected on a voluntary basis. We collect and analyze 
demographic data based on protected characteristics that are 
listed within the Stafford Act. So, we do not go outside of our 
authorities that are enumerated in the Stafford Act.
    And so, while we are endeavoring to instill equity as a 
foundation of emergency management, those focus on communities 
that often have a lack of capacity. And ultimately, our goal is 
to provide a consistent, fair, just, and impartial treatment to 
all individuals as we pursue equity as a part of our strategic 
goal.
    Ms. Norton. So, you collect it on a voluntary basis. Can 
you collect it more rigorously than that?
    Mr. Hooks. It is collected in accordance and analyzed 
within the confines of the Stafford Act itself. And they are 
enumerated in the Stafford Act. Under the Stafford Act, and 
particularly in section 308, we are charged with administering 
our programs in an equitable manner, and this is one of our 
highest priorities. We are not operating outside the authority 
that is within the Stafford Act, and this is an important 
aspect of the work that we are doing. Therefore, the goal of 
equity is a pillar of our work moving forward and will remain.
    Ms. Norton. Well, with the average number of climate 
disasters on the rise, it becomes important to invest before a 
disaster in resilient infrastructure that can withstand 
disasters. However, many disadvantaged communities often lack 
the staffing, resources, and expertise to sufficiently address 
complex application requirements for pre-disaster mitigation 
grants.
    So, Mr. Hooks, has FEMA considered allowing nonprofits to 
submit applications for pre-disaster mitigation projects that 
benefit underserved communities which they are permitted to do 
for post-disaster mitigation projects?
    Mr. Hooks. Ma'am, the programs that are prescribed under 
law for us require us to go through certain avenues, and those 
are through the local governments that are established. So, 
that could be the State administrative agent--I happened to 
serve in that capacity in North Carolina, prior to coming to 
FEMA. So, those hazard mitigation funds, they have to flow 
through that State administrative agent, based on the direction 
that we have from Congress.
    I do hear the need. And so, one of the things that we can 
do, even within the structures of those environments, is that 
we can draw a greater nexus by bringing State administrative 
agents, emergency managers, and nonprofit organizations to the 
table for those discussions as to how those hazard mitigation 
projects could potentially unfold to benefit those underserved 
communities, and to build capacity in those communities.
    Ms. Norton. Well, I see my time is expired.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Ms. Norton. Now, with his 5 
minutes, Mr. Ezell.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Deputy Administrator Hooks, you mentioned that one of your 
goals is to create equity through FEMA's strategic plan. Well, 
BRIC's application requirements and scoring criteria appear to 
create the opposite for my district. For example, the 25-
percent local match requirements are already too burdensome for 
many communities in south Mississippi, yet BRIC applicants 
receive extra points for providing a 30-percent match. To me, 
it seems like this rewards communities that have more access, 
more resources.
    Can you explain what work FEMA has done to balance equity 
with the BRIC program weighting in its strategic plan?
    Mr. Hooks. Well, yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
    One of the larger discussions that we must continue to have 
is not only with those local communities, but how the State 
views those local communities as well, because the money from 
BRIC would flow through the State of Mississippi as those 
project plans are developed. And every State is different. 
There are some States that cover the full cost share, there are 
some States that do not. And so, that lends itself to a greater 
discussion at the State and local level as to which projects 
could be funded under BRIC.
    One of the ways that we believe that we can advance the 
capacity for local communities to participate in all of our 
programs is through direct technical assistance to either local 
communities or through the State to sit down, to discuss, to 
learn about the threat hazards in a particular community, to 
learn about what are potential mitigation projects, and to help 
them have a pathway to development to developing those 
projects.
    We can't design those individual projects for them, 
because--I won't say unfortunately, but the way it is designed 
is a competitive grant process that is always going to be 
oversubscribed. But we can provide them some of the basics 
through webinars, seminars, and meeting individuals in their 
community to help build that capacity, and we can do that 
through direct technical assistance on individual programs.
    We also endeavor to do that through our FEMA integration 
teams, which are FEMA employees that are situated within the 
State that can go out along with those State emergency 
management directors and their programs to meet with local 
communities, understand their hazards, and address their 
mitigation response.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you. I also want to address some 
complaints that I received from my communities regarding FEMA 
delaying reimbursements.
    As you know, Mississippi's electric cooperatives and local 
officials depend on FEMA's Public Assistance program to help 
restore power after natural disasters such as hurricanes. Given 
the complaints from stakeholders, can you comment on the issue 
of delayed reimbursements?
    Mr. Hooks. Well, I would say generally that I recognize 
that disaster assistance never comes fast enough, both for 
individuals that have suffered through storms and natural 
disasters and for communities trying to recover from them. And 
so, we are endeavoring to work specifically with those 
stakeholders and those communities to expedite disaster 
assistance where we have, again recognizing that the Federal 
Government programs are generally complex.
    And so, to help them navigate through them, we have adopted 
a more forward-leaning posture of providing direct technical 
assistance to that, but--and I say that as no excuse for any 
delays, because we all feel that across the emergency 
management enterprise, and we want to be able to get those 
congressionally appropriated dollars out to those communities 
and to those localities that deserve that assistance under the 
law.
    Mr. Ezell. They are very complex. And when you are without 
power, and water, and ice, and things such as that, and life is 
miserable, sometimes, we need to do better. All of us need to 
do better.
    But I will tell you, there is so much redtape when it comes 
to getting our money back, or getting things done that that 
could be easily done. Some of this redtape needs to be removed. 
And I would ask that you would do your due diligence in helping 
us, especially in south Mississippi, where we are rural, and we 
need help sometimes in a--like I say, when you are out of 
water, when you are out of opportunity there, we need your 
help.
    Mr. Hooks. Yes.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    Madam Chairman, I yield back.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you to the gentleman. This time, 
we are going to have Mrs. Napolitano for her 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Deputy Administrator Hooks and Mr. Currie, I represent arid 
eastern Los Angeles County with major flood control systems 
along the San Gabriel River with multiple miles of flood 
control channels. Our region is arid and normally dry, and most 
of our residents forget they do live in a flood-prone region. 
This winter of very heavy storms has been managed very well, 
and we have not had any major flooding. But a historic storm 
could flood parts of southern California.
    How does FEMA educate and inform constituents such as mine 
that live in arid regions of possible flood risks, their flood 
zone information, and how to obtain flood insurance? Which 
media do you use?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Congresswoman, and 
certainly recognize that, because of the impacts of fire in 
your district and in other places around the country, that 
debris, ash, and fire can form mudflows, and flooding is also a 
pernicious threat to those communities, as well.
    One of the things that we certainly can do is to hold 
additional meetings, seminars, and opportunities for engagement 
not only with the State at that level, but within local 
communities. And so, we really need to consider even more 
leaning forward into how we can support those communities by 
holding those meetings where we can hold listening sessions, 
too, because I think there is great value in listening, too, 
and also educating those communities.
    We have had hundreds of engagements around the country 
around what the flood risks are for individuals, and how to 
protect against those things, and discussions around the 
importance and the value of insurance----
    Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. What media do you use? What 
media do you use to get the word across?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, they come across in a number of ways. 
Sometimes they are in-person meetings. I think those will 
increase as we are coming through the pandemic. There are also 
webinars and workshops and trainings that are available to 
communities.
    And one of the things that I believe that we are and should 
be is a learning and growing agency. And so, we should be 
taking input back from not just those States, but those local 
communities as to how we can reach them more directly. Not 
bypassing the State, because they are an integral part of 
disaster relief and they have to take the lead in those 
mitigation dollars that flow through their State.
    Mrs. Napolitano. We have 3 councils of government that 
encompass 87 of the L.A. County cities that meet together, and 
I would offer that you meet with them, because that covers all 
those cities, and they would be able to get the information to 
the cities direct, without having to go to each city 
individually.
    Also, Mr. Currie?
    Mr. Currie. Yes. The flooding situation in southern 
California, by the way, I think is a perfect example of an 
unexpected event, a flooding when people never expected to have 
flooding. So, it is also a community that has not been prepared 
for this type of event. They were more prepared for earthquakes 
and droughts and things like this.
    So, I think I agree with you, it is very important that 
FEMA work with them on pre-disaster mitigation and planning, 
too, especially now that they know that is a risk, and maybe a 
possibility through the BRIC program and things like that of 
how we can divert some of those floodwaters in the future, now 
that we know it is a risk.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Well, the communities have done very well 
for themselves. They have managed to avoid any heavy damage. 
But there is certain concern about the debris basins.
    Also, in your testimony, Mr. Hooks, the average number of 
disasters FEMA manages has increased. But how can you speak on 
the mental health of your staff? How often do you treat them 
for the burnout? Because last time I heard FEMA talk, you had a 
problem with your membership, going to another one right after 
an event, didn't want to travel.
    Mr. Hooks. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Again, our operational 
tempo at FEMA is extremely high. And so, the most valuable 
commodity that FEMA has is the staff. And those just aren't 
words. And so, we have to make greater investments. And as we 
recognize that May is Mental Health Awareness Month, it is an 
opportunity for us to double down and focus on the mental 
health of our public safety professionals, which FEMA employees 
are a part of that.
    And so, again, they take on oftentimes the heavy burdens 
that communities face after----
    Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. But what services does FEMA 
offer them?
    Mr. Hooks. Through our employees, we offer webinars, 
workshops, and trainings. We are having those not just this 
month, but those are ongoing. We are growing our ability to 
support our personnel through our mission support functions.
    We have brought on a psychologist who leads a team of--a 
support----
    Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. One psychologist?
    Mr. Hooks. We have a psychologist at this point, but the 
ability to contract with other professionals to support that 
endeavor, and that is a way of growing our movement forward to 
support our own workforce.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I will talk to you later. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. At this 
time we are going to have Mr. D'Esposito for 5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 
both for attending today's hearing.
    I have spent my adult life in emergency management, serving 
as a 23-year member of the Island Park Fire Department, serving 
as chief there from 2009 to 2016. I am also a retired NYPD 
detective, and now have the honor to serve on the Homeland 
Security Committee as chair of the Emergency Management and 
Technology Subcommittee.
    The DHS plays a near and dear role in the hearts of New 
Yorkers and many of the communities that I represent, from 9/11 
recovery to the hard-working inspectors at our ports to, 
obviously, disaster mitigation. I was the incident commander in 
Island Park, which was one of the hardest hit communities 
probably in New York, during Sandy. And I know emergency 
management and structural resiliency are family table issues 
for many Long Islanders.
    Mr. Hook, the ever-expanding scope of FEMA has directly led 
to the hemorrhaging of taxpayer dollars in order to bear the 
burden of Biden's humanitarian crisis at our borders, both the 
southern and northern. What is the administration's plan to 
address the financial challenges that jeopardize FEMA's 
strategic plan?
    Mr. Hooks. Well, sir, as I testified earlier today, that 
the role that FEMA has in supporting on the southwest border is 
one of setting up and administering the Shelter and Services 
Program that was congressionally directed for $800 million to 
be moved from the CBP budget to set up that program so that 
that money is dispersed to localities and nonprofit 
organizations for humanitarian relief.
    As far as our numbers, the number of individuals that have 
supported operations has actually been really small. And so, I 
would say to you that, across the many myriad of challenges 
that we face in emergency management and homeland security--and 
thank you for your great service in the past, and as you 
continue to serve in this new capacity--that the state of FEMA 
is strong, and that we are ready to support the Nation.
    There is no doubt that we have challenges before us, and 
they are brought to bear because of the various threats that 
our Nation faces, the operational tempo and the number of 
weather events that we have, and then also just the lack of 
availability of a qualified workforce to draw upon. And so, we 
are working in all of those areas to support the Nation.
    And I am still heartened by the commitment of those 
individuals that do serve and, as you know, they don't get to 
go home when everybody else goes home, that that commitment 
will continue.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you. As the Disaster Relief Fund 
continues to dwindle to inadequate levels, what is the plan to 
protect vulnerable coastal communities like Long Island?
    Mr. Hooks. Well, that is one of the reasons that I 
believe--very strongly--that we need to constantly monitor the 
use of the Disaster Relief Fund. We are projecting a shortfall 
coming by the end of the summer.
    And so, that is why we are working within the 
administration, and will be working with Members of Congress 
for any funding requests that need to be met so that we can 
meet the mission across the Nation, and that includes flooding 
and other issues that you may face in your district.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you, because that mission is 
important, because people's lives and livelihoods depend on it.
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, absolutely. I believe that our greatest 
mission is the preservation and sustainment of life, and you 
are absolutely correct.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    Mr. Currie, as the GAO reported, there is deadweight within 
FEMA that hinders the Agency's success, which ultimately harms 
the American people and those that are in need. Do you believe 
that expanding the scope of FEMA's oversight to include 
humanitarian relief to those who tried to illegally cross our 
borders has put the American people and those in need of FEMA's 
original mission at a disadvantage?
    Mr. Currie. Sir, I mean, what we have looked at is the 
ever-expanding scope of FEMA's mission, not just at the border, 
but as was mentioned, settling Afghan refugees and the COVID 
pandemic. It is having a huge toll on the Agency. They are 
6,000 people short in their disaster workforce, and they are 
having trouble keeping a lot of the people they already have.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. D'Esposito. Now I am 
going to do my 5 minutes. I know I will be doing more than 
that, but I will surely put some of those questions on the 
record.
    First of all, thank you for being with us today. And coming 
from the island of Puerto Rico, where we did have Hurricanes 
Irma and Maria and a lot of flooding during the last years, we 
are still in the recovery process. And I want to say thank you 
to the FEMA, HUD, and all emergency personnel that are still on 
the island dealing with many of those issues.
    I know the chairman actually did some questions, and one of 
those was regarding the report from the Government 
Accountability Office about all the agencies that need filled 
in forms even before some assistance can be given. And he 
showed page 11 of that report today. And one of my questions 
would be, should Congress specifically legislate that the 
Federal level institute a one-stop-shop disaster recovery 
model, so that all the information is gathered once and shared 
widely with the agencies?
    Mr. Hooks. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. I am a 
firm believer that the more the interagency can work together 
to reduce the complexity of response and recovery to disaster, 
it is going to benefit our communities, ultimately save lives, 
and then lead to a more robust and quicker recovery.
    We are right now working with HUD and other agencies about 
the response and immediate recovery actions. And so, the more 
we can reduce complexity--and there are challenges with that--
--
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon [interrupting]. So, the answer is yes.
    Mr. Hooks. It may be a little bit more nuanced than just 
yes for a one-stop-shop, every recovery agency, or something 
like that. So, that is why I add a few qualifiers around it, 
but trying to be responsive to your question.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. One thing that we always 
ask about very anxiously by my municipalities, NGO, 
constituents, local agencies back home is the possibility of 
approved funding having to be forgone or being taken away. So, 
my question would be, are there any FEMA funds for Puerto Rico 
at this time at risk of being lost or repurposed due to the 
deadline expirations, budgetary clawbacks, noncompletion of 
stages of work that was programmed, or other reason for the 
rest of 2023 or 2024?
    Mr. Hooks. We are working extremely well, I believe, with 
Puerto Rico in a number of ways.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Is it yes or no?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes or no to which part, Madam?
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Of any money that can be forgone or 
clawed back or repurposed?
    Mr. Hooks. From?
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Because any deadline is not being 
completed. Of course, we are talking about a lot of funding in 
different areas. I will be happy to provide you with time so we 
can have a breakdown, or a chart, or a spreadsheet of such 
funds on how much may be forgone or be taken away.
    Mr. Hooks. Right. Based on the information that I have 
before me, if we are referring to the shortfalls that we see in 
the Disaster Relief Fund for 2023, we are not looking at 
clawbacks for them. What we are looking for is to fully fund 
the Disaster Relief Fund so that we do not have delays in some 
of those mitigation and recovery efforts.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. The reason I ask that question is 
because I know the Government of Puerto Rico is asking for 
extending waivers for the use of mitigation funds and Federal 
funds in many of those areas. And I don't want to see the 
Government of Puerto Rico returning a lot of this funding 
because it is not being used, or because they are not 
fulfilling any deadline that has been imposed by any Federal 
agency. So, the answer is no?
    Mr. Hooks. I clearly understand a little bit more, clearly 
understand what you are getting at. The timeframe by which you 
describe it, I am not quite sure--I do not see any----
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon [interrupting]. Let's do something----
    Mr. Hooks [continuing]. Immediate clawback of money from 
Puerto Rico.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Let's do something. If there is 
something in 2023 or 2024 that could be forgone, or there is a 
deadline for the use of the funds, and the case of not using 
them is going to return the funds to the U.S. Government, can 
you make that list and submit it to the committee?
    Mr. Hooks. What I can do, ma'am, is that I can make sure 
that staff work with you and the Government of Puerto Rico on 
any particular concerns of any money being clawed back due to 
lack of execution.
    We recognize that waivers and extensions have been granted. 
A lot of that has been because of supply chain, which we have 
talked about earlier in this committee, and just building 
capacity across the Nation to address those recovery efforts.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. And that includes inflation, and some 
projects that were estimated with some amount of funds are 
now--the projects are going to be needing more funds, and you 
don't have it. So, that can be included there.
    Mr. Hooks. It could, ma'am.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. OK. I know my time has expired, but I 
will submit some questions for the record.
    I now will allow Mr. Rouzer for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the 
panel being here today.
    In North Carolina, we have experienced our fair share of 
hurricanes over the years. If you can describe just for the 
record--if you would take a minute and just describe, let's say 
a hurricane is barreling down on the coast of North Carolina, 
you do preparatory work, et cetera. Talk about that process 
real quick, if you can, for about a minute. And let's assume 
that you have the money that you need in the Disaster Relief 
Fund.
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, thank you, Congressman Rouzer, and 
certainly good to see you, and I recognize the fact that you 
are here and have served out there in the EOC at North Carolina 
when we have faced that exact circumstance.
    Both FEMA and States that have experience in dealing with 
those response modes want to be forward-leaning in the response 
to those hurricane events that come down. So, there are 
notifications that need to be made, so, that is where it comes 
back to some of the earlier testimony of the importance of 
being able to notify the citizens across a broad array of 
communication systems, to include AM radio.
    That--we also advise--advance advisories out there as to 
whether or not there are recommendations for evacuation, and 
how to--and the supplies and things that you need in the 
immediate aftermath of the storm.
    Assets are pre-positioned. Both State, local, and Federal 
assets are pre-positioned just outside of where we believe the 
landing area may be for those hurricanes, and then immediately 
upon the impact, and when it is safe to do so, you will see 
first responders going into those communities, as well.
    One of the things that we are doing even more so now in 
FEMA is that we are encouraging people to go ahead, whether 
they believe they have insurance or their insurance is not 
going to cover that, is to have teams on the ground, not only 
for commodities and supplies that will flow and are often 
delivered by military and first responder personnel and State 
emergency management, but also FEMA personnel on the ground, 
too, to as soon as possible get people registered for 
Individual Assistance and to work with those communities.
    We are also leveraging technology in a more forward-leaning 
posture, as well. The use of GIS spatial technology allows us 
to use technology to do damage assessments much quicker. 
Hopefully, in terms of damage, in a matter of days versus 
weeks, and that will help jumpstart the recovery.
    Mr. Rouzer. Yes. If I can cut you right there, because I've 
got about 2:05 left, and I want to get all this in. FEMA does, 
in my opinion, a very, very good job upfront in terms of 
response and saving lives.
    I can tell you from my personal experience, one of my 
frustrations as a Member of Congress is, a hurricane comes 
through, you have all this damage, you know what your needs 
are, Congress passes an appropriations bill, we put in a 
significant amount of money for the CDBG-DR program, Disaster 
Recovery program, and then it takes 3 or 4 or 5 years for any 
money to go out the door. And in the meantime, another Member 
of Congress has had a storm in their district, and they take 
all my money. Well, we know how that works.
    So, I have got a bill to help correct this. It is the 
Natural Disaster Recovery Program Act. And basically what it 
does--forget everything anybody knows about CDBG-DR--it puts in 
place a true block grant facilitated through FEMA, where you 
take the unmet need that--Congress appropriates 50 percent of 
the money upfront that goes to the States. If that is used 
appropriately, and that is verified by an audit by the State, 
whether it is a State auditor or whoever, reports it back to 
the appropriations committees and the committees of 
authorization, and that checks out, then they get the other 50 
percent.
    It is immediate, rather than all this finger-pointing 
between the State and the Federal Government about, oh, you've 
got to have this work plan, et cetera, it has got to be 
approved at HUD, you have all kinds of miscommunication, and it 
just takes forever. I have victims from Hurricane Florence who 
still have no recovery help.
    And so, anyhow, personally, I think simple is better. 
Simple is easy to implement. Simple is easy to enforce. Do you 
have any thoughts on that?
    Mr. Hooks. Yes, sir. I am an advocate of breaking down the 
complexity of the programs in the Federal Government. Having 
that experience coming from your home State, as well, I have 
actually lived through some of the frustrations of the 
immediate recovery response, transitioning over to Community 
Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery funding, as well, and 
having to navigate all of those.
    And I would offer our staff to work with your staff and any 
member of the committee here on how we can move forward smartly 
to reduce the complexity of accessing programs in the Federal 
Government and also being good stewards of the taxpayers' 
dollars.
    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you. I really appreciate both of you 
being here today.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, 
witnesses.
    Are there any further questions from any members of the 
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today, and I 
would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony 
today.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided 
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 
writing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record 
of today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


                               Appendix

                              ----------                              


      Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Hon. Erik Hooks, Deputy 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of 
                           Homeland Security

    Question 1. We understand that there is currently a proposal by the 
National Security Council (NSC) to consolidate federal disaster 
recovery efforts within a new federal entity.
    Question 1.a. Is this accurate? What was the decision-making 
process behind this proposal?
    Question 1.b. What is FEMA's position on this proposal? How will 
this proposal affect the structure of FEMA?
    Question 1.c. When will the Committee be briefed on this proposal?
    Answer to 1.a.-1.c. The White House/National Security Council (NSC) 
is running a policy process to identify and assess opportunities to 
improve Federal Government support to communities rebuilding from a 
disaster. FEMA is engaging in this process, as are a number of other 
agencies. The discussions are pre-decisional and internal to the 
Administration.

    Question 2. The Homeland Security Act very clearly prohibits the 
diversion of FEMA assets, functions, or mission for use by the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unless such assignments do not 
reduce the capability of FEMA, yet the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) has highlighted that workforce challenges have affected FEMA's 
ability to achieve its mission. Together, this leads to the conclusion 
that any diversion of FEMA personnel will impact FEMA's mission.
    Question 2.a. How are FEMA's activities at the border impacting 
FEMA's ability to carry out its core mission?
    Question 2.b. Who has and is directing FEMA to engage in missions 
related to the border crisis?
    Question 2.c. How has the termination of Title 42 on May 11, 2023, 
changed FEMA's mission at the border? Are new missions being discussed 
for FEMA related to the border?
    Question 2.d. Where is the funding coming from for FEMA's missions 
related to the border?
    Question 2.e. Has FEMA pushed back at all when directed to engage 
in these border missions?
    Question 2.f. If FEMA was not in DHS, would these assignments be 
given to FEMA?
    Answer to 2.a.-2.f. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, 
Congress directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to transfer 
$800 million to FEMA to support sheltering and related services 
provided by non-Federal entities to families and individuals 
encountered and released by CBP; and permitted FEMA to deliver up to 
$785 million of this amount through the Emergency Food and Shelter 
Program (EFSP). The Joint Explanatory Statement to the 2023 
appropriation expresses Congressional intent that FEMA and CBP 
establish a new Shelter and Services Program (SSP) with at least a 
portion of the $800 million transferred to the new program.
    The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 authorized the creation 
of a new U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program, the 
Shelter and Services Program (SSP), to support these communities and 
directed the transfer of $800 million to FEMA to support sheltering and 
related services provided by non-federal entities to noncitizen 
migrants. The Joint Explanatory Statement to the 2023 appropriation 
expressed Congressional intent that FEMA and CBP establish a new 
Shelter and Services Program (SSP), with at least a portion of the $800 
million transfer. The Consolidated Appropriations Act also authorized 
the use of a portion of that funding for the existing Emergency Food 
and Shelter Program-Humanitarian (EFSP-H) until the SSP was 
established. DHS directed that $350 million of the $800 million be 
transferred to FEMA for the EFSP-H. This is in addition to $75 million 
used for the EFSP-H during the December 2022 Continuing Resolution.
    On June 12, 2023, FEMA announced that SSP made federal funds 
available to eligible recipients and subrecipients for costs associated 
with providing shelter and other eligible services to noncitizen 
migrants within 45 days of their release from by the DHS.

    Question 3. In a report issued earlier this year, the DHS Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) found that there were numerous instances where 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) funding recipients misused 
grant funding. The OIG indicated this occurred because FEMA did not 
provide sufficient oversight and relied on local boards and fiscal 
agents to enforce the funding and application guidance.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ DHS, OIG, OIG-23-20, FEMA Should Increase Oversight To Prevent 
Misuse of Humanitarian Relief Funds (Mar. 28, 2023) available at 
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2023-03/OIG-23-20-
Mar23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 3.a. How is FEMA working to fix this problem?
    Question 3.b. How does FEMA vet nonprofits and other organizations 
that apply for and receive funding under the EFSP?
    Question 3.c. What is FEMA doing to ensure the core mission of the 
EFSP, to assist American homeless persons, is not being ignored in 
favor of utilizing EFSP funds for migrants at the southern border?
    Answer to 3.a.-3.c. The EFSP National Board is the sole recipient 
from FEMA of all funding appropriated to the EFSP grant program. 
Consistent with 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  11331(d) and 11346, the National 
Board, not FEMA, establishes the program's policies, procedures, and 
guidelines, including those pertaining to the dissemination of 
subgrants. The National Board and its Fiscal Agent, United Way 
Worldwide (UWW), provide technical assistance to both funded 
organizations and organizations that may be interested in participating 
in the program. FEMA provides policy guidance, monitoring and 
oversight, federal coordination, legal counsel, and staff assistance, 
as needed, to the EFSP National Board.
    Since 2019, the EFSP National Board has provided funding through 
the Emergency Food and Shelter Program for humanitarian relief (EFSP-H) 
to eligible nonprofit, faith-based, and governmental organizations for 
food, shelter, and other supportive services provided to families and 
individuals encountered by DHS under a separate and specific 
appropriation. A total of $715 million for EFSP-H was awarded by FEMA 
to the EFSP National Board since 2019. The mission to provide 
humanitarian relief support is in addition to FEMA's EFSP core mission 
of assisting local nonprofit and governmental organizations helping 
those experiencing or at risk of experiencing hunger and homelessness.
    Provision of services to families and individuals encountered by 
DHS through EFSP-H has not impacted the EFSP core mission and both 
missions are being performed concurrently. The National Board issued 
separate guidance for the two missions and even though a local social 
service organization may receive subawards under both humanitarian 
relief and hunger and homelessness, they are separate subawards, and 
each is subject to unique mission requirements.
    In response to the report from the DHS Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG) that was issued earlier this year, FEMA has undertaken 
efforts to increase both the breadth and effectiveness of monitoring 
EFSP grant funds awarded to the EFSP National Board for both missions. 
Among these are the following:
      Develop or update written policies, standard operating 
procedures, timelines, job aids, and other operational tools outlining 
FEMA's roles, responsibilities, and procedures for strengthening 
support and monitoring of the EFSP.
      To improve the timely delivery, thoroughness, and 
accountability of program data and reporting, FEMA is collaborating 
with the EFSP National Board's Fiscal Agent and Secretariat, UWW, as it 
modernizes the EFSP database system. The modernization will greatly 
improve the ability of the National Board (and FEMA) to use EFSP data 
to assess performance, deliver funds, and track program participation 
and accountability during each phase or fiscal year (FY) of funding.
      More detailed quarterly performance progress reports are 
being required by FEMA from the EFSP National Board and by the National 
Board from its subrecipients that mirror the reporting requirements set 
forth in annual Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and in Notice of 
Award Letter documents.

    To ensure subrecipients do not misuse EFSP-H funding by providing 
services to ineligible families and individuals, the following changes 
were made for the most recent application period:
      The EFSP National Board Guidance requires local recipient 
organizations (LROs) to maintain documentation for a period of 3 years 
after their applications were approved and payment released.
      The Guidance clearly defines ``DHS Encounter'' to mean an 
interaction with DHS that results in a non-citizen receiving an Alien 
Identification Number (A-Number).
      The EFSP National Board, with technical assistance from 
FEMA, developed an EFSP-H Advanced Funding Request Template that 
included several questions about how the LRO will ensure services are 
being provided to individuals and families encountered by DHS.

    The 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act directed the establishment 
of a new SSP under development by FEMA in coordination with CBP to 
support CBP in effectively managing noncitizen processing and 
preventing overcrowding of short term CBP holding facilities. Once the 
SSP launches, EFSP-H will sunset.
    Eligibility and completeness reviews will be completed by FEMA 
designated staff on all SSP applications to ensure compliance with the 
criteria listed in the NOFO. As a lesson learned from EFSP-H, FEMA now 
requires SSP applicants to submit A-Numbers or evidence of DHS 
processing (e.g., I-94, I-385, I-860, I-862) for noncitizen migrants to 
mitigate misuse of funds. If A-Numbers or evidence of DHS processing is 
not readily available, then names, corresponding DHS release dates of 
those served, and corresponding service dates must be provided. In 
addition, designated program staff will review the criteria below to 
ensure:
      All required documentation as listed in the SSP NOFO was 
provided;
      Activities proposed are only those identified as 
allowable in the NOFO;
      The applicant demonstrates their capacity, either 
directly or through a partnership, to provide each SSP allowable 
activity proposed for funding;
      Proposed deliverables are consistent with the objectives 
and priorities of the SSP;
      Project timelines are realistic, attainable, and conform 
to the performance period of the SSP;
      Proposed costs are allowable, reasonable, and cost-
effective in relation to proposed activities; and
      The applicant possesses the capacity to manage a federal 
award consistent with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and 
conditions of the federal award.

    FEMA's post-award activities will include monitoring and oversight 
of SSP recipients. FEMA will periodically monitor recipients to ensure 
administrative processes, policies and procedures, budgets, and other 
related award criteria meet Federal and FEMA regulations. Aside from 
reviewing quarterly financial and programmatic reports, FEMA may also 
conduct enhanced monitoring through either desk review, onsite 
monitoring visits, or both. Enhanced monitoring involves review and 
analysis of financial compliance and administrative processes, 
policies, activities, and other attributes of each federal assistance 
award, and it identifies areas where the recipient requires technical 
assistance, corrective actions, or other support. FEMA is responsible 
for monitoring their Recipients. Recipients who are pass-through 
entities are responsible for monitoring their subrecipients in a manner 
consistent with terms of federal award at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, including 
2 C.F.R. Sec.  200.332. This includes the pass-through entity's 
responsibility to monitor activities of the subrecipient as necessary 
to ensure the subaward is used for authorized purposes in compliance 
with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the 
subaward, and that subaward performance goals are achieved.

    Question 4. The Homeland Security Act of 2022 states that FEMA's 
mission is to ``reduce the loss of life and property and protect the 
Nation from all hazards . . . by leading and supporting the Nation in a 
comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 6 U.S.C. Sec. 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 4.a. Would you please explain why FEMA is prioritizing 
equity and climate change over disaster preparedness, response, and 
recovery for all Americans?
    Question 4.b. Please provide FEMA's definition of equity.
    Question 4.c. How does FEMA plan to measure its goal of instilling 
``equity as a foundation of emergency management'' \3\?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ FEMA, 2022-2026 FEMA Strategic Plan, available at https://
www.fema.gov/about/strategic-plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 4.d. How does FEMA define climate resilience and how does 
FEMA plan to measure its goal of leading the ``whole of community in 
Climate Resilience'' \4\?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer to 4.a-4.d. FEMA's mission is to ensure that all disaster 
survivors get all the assistance for which they qualify, under the law. 
In fact, under Section 308 of the Stafford Act, FEMA is required to 
ensure that ``distribution of supplies, the processing of applications, 
and other relief and assistance activities shall be accomplished in an 
equitable and impartial manner, without discrimination on the grounds 
of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age, disability, English 
proficiency, or economic status.'' Administering our programs in an 
equitable manner is one of our highest priorities, and this requires 
recognizing some communities are more vulnerable to the adverse impacts 
of natural hazards than others. Increased community vulnerability may 
be due to location, lack of broadband internet access, population age, 
or any number of other reasons. As an agency, we must have a ``people 
first'' focus, and eliminate barriers to individuals and communities 
accessing our programs.
    FEMA defines equity as ``the consistent and systematic fair, just 
and impartial treatment of all individuals,'' which is in keeping with 
the definition of equity provided in Executive Order (EO) 13985.
    FEMA is not just an emergency response and disaster recovery 
agency. We must recognize the changing climate and ensure the Nation is 
prepared for these changes. What we do to prepare for all hazards is 
often as important as what we do after disasters strike. Resilience 
building is what we do to prepare before disasters and what we do after 
disasters by leveraging disaster recovery programs. As a component of 
the implementing department (i.e., DHS) of the Presidential Policy 
Directive 8 (PPD8): National Preparedness, FEMA adopts the resilience 
definition in PPD8. According to PPD8, ``resilience'' refers to ``the 
ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly 
recover from disruption due to emergencies.'' Recognizing that the 
drastic shifts in climate conditions are fundamentally changing the 
hazard risk landscape, FEMA has focused attention on building climate 
resilience in its strategic plan. FEMA is currently measuring our 
efforts to lead a whole of community approach in climate resilience 
through Government Performance and Results Act performance measures, 
including the percent of U.S. population covered by planned mitigation 
strategies, number of properties with flood insurance coverage, percent 
of total floodplain mapped, and the percent of communities in high 
earthquake, flood, and wind-prone areas adopting disaster-resistant 
building codes.

    Question 5. In the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA), 
Congress directed FEMA to put greater consideration into localized 
impact when determining whether to recommend a disaster declaration. 
FEMA pushed out general guidance to the regions, but specific policy 
was never implemented.
    Please provide the Committee with examples of how localized impact 
has been factored into disaster declaration decisions.
    Answer. FEMA complies with section 1232 of the Disaster Recovery 
Reform Act (DRRA). Administrator Criswell considers severe, localized 
impacts and the frequency of recent disasters, along with the estimated 
cost of assistance and other factors identified in regulation (44 
C.F.R. 206.48) in each recommendation she makes to the President.
    In 2019, FEMA issued guidance to its Regional Administrators and 
updated its Presidential Disaster Declaration request cover letter 
template to prompt states, tribes, and territories (STTs) to 
specifically include detailed information regarding localized impacts 
and recent disaster history. FEMA's Regional Administrators work with 
STTs requesting a major disaster declaration to assemble the Governor 
or Tribal Chief Executive's request, carry out Preliminary Damage 
Assessments (PDAs), fill out a declaration request form and cover 
letter, and help address as many regulatory declaration criteria as 
appropriate. In September 2019, FEMA provided a report to Congress that 
outlined actions taken to implement sections 1232 and 1239 of the DRRA.
    In December 2020, FEMA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
entitled, ``Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster Declaration 
Process for the Public Assistance Program'' that stated: ``With respect 
to the recent multiple disasters and localized impacts factors, FEMA 
proposes not to substantively amend 44 CFR 206.48(a)(2) and (5). As is 
discussed below, these factors are already sufficiently flexible to 
address the requirements of section 1232 of the DRRA.'' For additional 
context, please see the full text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Across all grant programs and pursuant to its Strategic Plan, FEMA 
is focused on instilling equity, removing barriers, and adopting a 
people first approach. For disaster assistance, this includes working 
through the STTs to explore ways in which disaster survivors, including 
local governments, can more easily get access to needed disaster 
relief.

    Question 6. In many recovery efforts, FEMA and the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding are leveraged for projects 
yet many times these funding streams have different timing, different 
rules, and different requirements.
    Question 6.a. What is FEMA doing to work with HUD to reduce 
conflicts that slow up the rebuilding process?
    Question 6.b. What has FEMA done to coordinate with other agencies 
to make sure communities know where to go for disaster assistance?
    Answer to 6.a.-6.b. In 2020, FEMA and the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding and issued joint implementation guidance to streamline 
coordination between FEMA and HUD where HUD's Community Development 
Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds are used by communities 
to meet non-federal cost-share requirements of FEMA's Public Assistance 
(PA) projects.
    This was particularly important in Puerto Rico, during recovery 
from Hurricanes Irma and Maria, where HUD CDBG-DR was used by the 
Commonwealth, in part, as non-federal cost share for billions of 
dollars in FEMA PA funding.
    Although federal disaster recovery programs have requirements 
rooted in their legislative history and purpose, including 
environmental and historic preservation (EHP), public participation, 
and equity requirements, FEMA continually supports efforts like the 
Unified Federal Review (UFR) process to streamline and align disparate 
agency compliance requirements as much as possible, without reducing 
the effectiveness of each program in accomplishing the goals for which 
it was established.
    As a result of different funding and program authorizing 
legislation, FEMA and HUD have different legislative authorities, 
exclusions, and allowances for EHP. For example, the Disaster Relief 
Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-2) states that HUD grantees may 
adopt, without review or public comment, any environmental review, 
approval, or permit performed by another Federal agency when the HUD 
grantee is providing supplemental assistance to actions performed under 
sections 402, 403, 404, 406, 407, or 502 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. No such legislative 
provision allowing for adoption without review or public comment exists 
for FEMA.
    FEMA works closely with HUD and all its federal partners after 
presidentially declared disasters to coordinate recovery efforts to 
ensure communities are aware of all available disaster assistance to 
them, both disaster and non-disaster programs. Following a 
presidentially declared disaster, key field leadership roles are 
deployed to the field to begin setting up the appropriate 
organizational structures. Two of those key roles are the Federal 
Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC) and the Federal Disaster Recovery 
Officer (FDRO). They serve as central coordinators of the federal 
interagency recovery effort, and communicate closely with their State 
counterparts to ensure the recovery remains community-focused and in 
support of their goals. Working closely within that field structure are 
deployed staff from many of the federal partners, field titled as RSFs. 
An RSF is a structure to facilitate problem-solving, access to 
resources, and close coordination in six functional areas of recovery. 
While some federal partners also deploy independently to support, the 
RSFs allow unity of effort in the field when solving for complex 
problems. HUD, as an example, coordinates and leads the Housing RSF.
    FDRCs, FDROs, and RSF partners work closely with communities to 
help them define their recovery priorities and identify financial and 
technical support resources. In addition, FEMA created several online 
tools to help individuals and communities navigate federal assistance 
available for recovery. These tools are available at https://
www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/practitioners/recovery-resources.
    The coordination efforts outlined above are all derived from the 
National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). This key doctrine outlines 
the roles and responsibilities of recovery stakeholders, a coordinating 
structure under which stakeholders operate in the field, and guides 
recovery planning in support of a more resilient nation. Presently, the 
NDRF version 3 is being worked on. The effort kicked off in 2022 for 
its next update cycle, but was paused so that the doctrine could remain 
best aligned with the National Security Council's policy process 
currently looking at opportunities to improve Federal Government 
support. In the interim, FEMA led a review of the RSF structures to 
identify any gaps or necessary adjustments needed to improve federal 
coordination, including interviews with field staff and federal 
partners. That process continues to move forward and their staffs, 
supported by other federal agencies organized in the RSFs under the 
National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF).

    Question 7. FEMA created Consolidated Resources Centers (CRCs) to 
ensure all post-disaster documentation from victims is complete, in an 
attempt to minimize claw backs as FEMA completes reviews. However, it 
seems that CRCs are adding another unnecessary internal review and 
slowing the recovery process even more.
    Question 7.a. What role are CRCs playing in the recovery process?
    Question 7.b. What is FEMA doing to streamline the recovery process 
for disaster victims?
    Answer to 7.a.-7.b. FEMA is committed to supporting each 
community's recovery process as quickly and efficiently as possible 
while simultaneously being good stewards of taxpayer dollars. To 
support this goal, FEMA's Consolidated Resource Centers (CRCs) were 
established in 2017 as part of FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) National 
Delivery Model, which is committed to continuous improvements and 
efficiency in implementing the PA program. As disasters become more 
frequent, severe, and complex, demands placed upon the emergency 
management community increased dramatically. To address increasing 
demand and complexities of recovery, FEMA established dedicated, 
permanent offices to pool experts and specialized resources together to 
share their skills across operations, while also improving consistency. 
Today, there are four CRCs staffed with 588 full-time employees who 
support states, tribes, territories, local governments, and certain 
private non-profit organizations with grant applications under the PA 
Program to help communities recover from federally declared disasters.
    CRCs are responsible for validating, developing, reviewing, and 
processing PA grant applications based on information and documentation 
provided by our field counterparts to enable communities to protect 
lives and property and rebuild their infrastructure after a major 
disaster declaration.
    FEMA recently completed an independent assessment of the PA program 
to determine if the PA National Delivery Model and establishment of the 
CRCs were meeting the original design intent to standardize PA program 
delivery and increase accuracy, efficiency, and simplicity. Through 
extensive engagement with FEMA Regions, state PA programs, tribes, CRC 
staff, field staff, and PA contractors, the assessment found the 
structure enabled FEMA to deliver historic levels of assistance for 
COVID-19 without needing to hire thousands of additional staff. 
Additionally, the assessment found CRC processing for Scoping and 
Costing took an average of 21 days and accounted for less than 15 
percent of the processing times for PA. By comparison the bulk of the 
time, 76 days on average or 60 percent of the processing times for PA, 
was dedicated to Impacts and Eligibility Assessments, where Program 
Delivery Mangers (PDMG) in a Joint Field Office work with applicants to 
assess their impacts from the disaster.
    The Assessment noted that the Impacts and Eligibility Assessments 
time was reduced from 76 days to 16 days for COVID-19 events. FEMA 
introduced a Streamlined Project Application specific to COVID-19 
projects which allowed applicants to directly submit projects to the 
CRC by providing clear instructions and standard questions instead of 
developing their application through a PDMG. In conjunction with the 
issuance of the Simplified Procedures Policy in January 2023, FEMA 
expanded use of simplified project applications for all emergency 
protective measures and debris removal in disasters declared since 
issuance of the policy. FEMA continues to simplify its entire PA 
application process and forms, to include a simplified application for 
infrastructure restoration and all phases of the post-award process.
    The assessment also made a number of recommendations which FEMA is 
in the process of implementing, including:
      Re-establishing the Public Assistance Steering Committee. 
The committee is an advisory group of state, territorial, tribal, and 
local government representatives designed to help improve the PA 
process for applicants. The committee first convened in 2017 to provide 
real-world partner perspectives, inform strategic program changes and 
discuss overall program improvements.
      Simplifying documentation requirements for unobligated 
projects, including releasing the ``Public Assistance Sampling 
Procedure'' to standardize and simplify what supporting documentation 
must be submitted.
      Waiving the requirement that unobligated projects with 
completed small projects must be prepared based on actual costs.
      Deploying technical experts from FEMA CRCs to the fields 
to aid project scoping and development for complex operations and 
projects.
      Allowing additional flexibility in costs claimed for 
power restoration work.
      Not requiring separate cost analysis for work performed 
through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact during disaster 
response and recovery operations.

    The Assessment also noted that Scoping and Costing processing times 
were reduced from 76 days to 16 days for COVID-19 events. In addition, 
FEMA introduced a Streamlined Project Application for COVID-19 events 
which drastically reduced time needed to assess and document damages by 
providing clear instructions and standard questions for applicants. In 
conjunction with the issuance of the Simplified Procedures Policy in 
January 2023, FEMA expanded use of simplified project applications for 
all emergency protective measures and debris removal in disasters 
declared since issuance of the policy. FEMA continues to simplify its 
entire PA application process and forms, to include a simplified 
application for infrastructure restoration and all phases of the post-
award process.

    Question 8. In a report issued in August 2022, the DHS OIG found 
that the fiscal agent of the EFSP heavily used spreadsheets to 
determine support and cost eligibility, including by allowing recipient 
organizations to remove ineligible expenses from the spreadsheet 
without requiring supporting documentation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ DHS, OIG, OIG-22-56, FEMA Needs To Improve Its Oversight of the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (Aug. 10, 2022), available at 
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2022-09/OIG-22-56-
Aug22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Has FEMA worked with the fiscal agent to stop this practice? If 
not, why?
    Answer. FEMA is committed to work with the EFSP National Board and 
UWW, the fiscal agent of the EFSP National Board, to address 
recommendations provided in the DHS OIG report. While the DHS OIG 
report noted the EFSP National Board and UWW heavily relied on 
spreadsheets to determine support and cost eligibility, the report did 
not list any recommendations to stop or reduce such reliance. The 
report notes that when UWW identified compliance exceptions, it would 
allow LROs to remove ineligible expenses from the spreadsheet and 
resubmit without requiring invoices, checks, or other supporting 
documentation.
    UWW does require supporting documentation such as invoices or 
checks for eligible expenses incurred by LROs to ensure costs paid with 
EFSP funds are in accordance with statute, program guidance, and the 
EFSP National Board's grant agreement. Both proofs of payment and 
itemized invoices are required, and the National Board reserves the 
right to request additional information as deemed necessary to support 
expenditures under EFSP. Documentation for costs deemed ineligible and 
thus not paid under EFSP does not need to be submitted as it is 
unnecessary for UWW to collect and retain it in its grant files.

       Questions from Hon. Dina Titus to Hon. Erik Hooks, Deputy 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of 
                           Homeland Security

    Question 1. Disasters often strike the same community more than 
once. Therefore, it only makes sense that repairs to public 
infrastructure incorporate designs that will make them more resilient 
to the next disaster. What can FEMA do to incentivize state and local 
officials to incorporate mitigation measures when repairing disaster-
damaged facilities using the Public Assistance program?
    Answer. FEMA recognizes that after a disaster, the best time to 
protect damaged public infrastructure is during the recovery period. 
Prioritizing mitigation and building back better during disaster 
recovery can help save human lives and property and reduce costs and 
disruptions from future incidents.
    For example, Lourdes Hospital, a critical care hospital in 
Binghamton, New York, is on the banks of the Susquehanna River. In 
2006, the river flooded, forcing the hospital to evacuate its patients 
and close for two weeks. In addition, the disaster caused $20 million 
in damages to the facility. After deciding that relocating to avoid 
future damage was not an option, the hospital incorporated a mitigation 
project into its repairs. A floodwall was built around the facility and 
in the event of flooding, entry-point gates would automatically trigger 
from floodwater pressure and raise to completely seal the property. The 
hospital used PA Mitigation funding from FEMA and New York State to 
fund the floodwall, which was completed in 2010, four years after the 
initial flood event. Just a year later in 2011, Tropical Storms Irene 
and Lee made landfall within 10 days of each other, causing the 
Susquehanna River to crest at over 25 feet--nearly twice the level 
necessary to declare a flood in that area. Because floodwaters never 
breached Lourdes Hospital's floodwall, the facility was able to remain 
fully operational.
    FEMA has dedicated increased attention to PA hazard mitigation over 
the past decade, obligating over $8.6 billion since FY 2013.
    FEMA encourages incorporation of PA hazard mitigation measures by 
communicating early and often about hazard mitigation with State, 
Local, Tribal and Territorial (SLTT) partners throughout delivery of 
the PA program; enabling disaster operations staff to help communities 
include hazard mitigation in their PA projects; and encouraging SLTT 
partners to set PA hazard mitigation as a recovery priority. To ensure 
applicants receive information they need when they need it, information 
about PA Mitigation is communicated to partners by a combination of 
fact sheets, standard applicant briefings, written technical guidance 
and, technical assistance provided by FEMA's hazard mitigation staff 
throughout the delivery of the PA Program.
    Furthermore, FEMA's PA Program is working to develop a policy to 
implement Section 20606 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which 
authorizes a 10 percent federal cost share increase for applicants who 
take measures to increase their readiness for, and resilience from, 
disasters. This authority amended the Stafford Act at Section 
406(b)(3).
    FEMA is also taking steps to further incentivize state and local 
officials to incorporate mitigation measures through the PA Program. 
Through coordination with the FEMA's Resilience Office, PA is improving 
staff and applicant training, clarifying policy and guidance, expanding 
prescriptive lists of cost-effective mitigation (Public Assistance 
Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG) Appendix J), developing tailored 
technical guidance (Hurricane and Flood Mitigation Handbook for Public 
Facilities, see Hurricane and Flood Mitigation Handbook for Public 
Facilities at FEMA.gov), coordinating across Regions and disasters to 
improve consistency and expedite issue resolution, further refining the 
agency-wide benefit-cost analysis tool, and advancing changes in 
current (Grants Manager/Grants Portal), and future (FEMA Grants 
Outcome) grant management systems to make it easier to request and 
obtain PA hazard mitigation.
    These program-wide efforts are aimed at improving the applicant 
experience and increasing applicant uptake of PA Mitigation to increase 
community (and therefore the nation's) resilience.

    Question 2. The constant strain of a climate change fueled disaster 
cycle is exhausting FEMA employees and local emergency managers. What 
can be done to support the health and wellbeing of this critical 
workforce? Do you have any recommendations regarding how Congress can 
help FEMA support the mental health of federal, state, and local 
emergency managers?
    Answer. The health and well-being of the FEMA workforce remains a 
top priority. In recent years, FEMA enhanced mental health resources 
available to the full workforce, including by hiring mental health 
professionals within the agency and creating robust support programs.
    To supplement work-life services already offered, FEMA provides 
every employee access to the Headspace health and wellness application. 
This initiative is designed to encourage and empower employees to take 
a breath and focus on mindfulness with unlimited access to hundreds of 
resources on everything from stress, to sleep, to focus, and anxiety.
    This enhanced capability includes two psychologists (one on staff 
and one contractor) who oversee development and implementation of 
FEMA's internal services and provide clinical oversight and guidance to 
leadership. Over the last year, our psychologists, in addition to 
creating new policy, have provided crucial psychoeducation both in 
person and virtually to over 15,000 employees on topics such as 
depression, anxiety, trauma, and burnout. By providing real-time 
information, our clinicians are changing our culture and helping to 
break the stigma that surrounds seeking mental health assistance.
    FEMA is currently hiring 11 licensed professional counselors to 
support field and regional staff while on deployments. In addition, 
FEMA implemented a DHS-accepted peer support program to provide a 
valuable resource to employees, which is part of FEMA's multi-layered 
approach for accessing mental health resources. In many situations, an 
employee will feel relief by having a confidential and safe person to 
speak to, and this is where peer support can ``fill in'' during non-
emergencies. This allows licensed mental health professionals to be 
available for situations more appropriate to their experience and skill 
level, such as critical incidents.
    In the FY 2024 President's Budget, FEMA requests an additional six 
health professionals, including a psychologist, senior counselor, two 
occupational health nurses, and two paramedics, to provide expanded 
services to address workforce mental health and wellbeing, increase 
peer support training, enhance employee medical resilience, prevent 
occupational injuries and illnesses, and provide onsite medical and 
mental health support to FEMA responders deployed to disasters.
    Finally, the FEMA Chief Medical Officer and psychologist, as well 
as a multi-disciplinary team of researchers, are in the process of 
gaining approval for a mental health research study to investigate 
perceived stress and emotional trauma specifically for emergency 
managers. This study will examine variables such as job title and role, 
employee type, deployment length, and age compared to levels of 
perceived stress and emotional trauma. Currently there is almost no 
available data on mental health baselines, or threats to or protective 
factors for emergency manager mental health, and this study could help 
to inform future initiatives and interventions to improve the mental 
health of our workforce before, during, and after disasters.

    Question 3. Are any aspects of the current hiring process hindering 
FEMA's ability to address staffing shortages? If so, what parts of the 
process are limiting FEMA's ability to hire the people the agency 
needs?
    Answer. FEMA is designing, developing, and implementing strategies 
for its Workforce Readiness Cycle (WRC) to better build, develop, 
deploy, and support a resilient, well-trained, and experienced 
workforce in the face of sustained increases to operational tempo. As 
part of the WRC, FEMA is working on four specific efforts to increase 
hiring and retention: (1) implementing the Civilian Reservist Emergency 
Workforce (CREW) Act, which provides Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) benefits to FEMA Reservists; (2) 
implementing FEMA's Strategic Recruitment Plan; (3) performing National 
and Regional Force Structure Reviews; and (4) introducing an enhanced 
demobilization process.
    One of the ongoing challenges FEMA faces is that its Reservist 
workforce is subject to dual compensation laws that hinder federal 
retirees from joining FEMA and continuing to serve the nation as 
intermittent employees. FEMA Reservist positions, by nature, are 
intermittent and align with the lifestyle and schedules of federal 
civilian retirees; however, the salary offset is not appealing to many 
of these candidates. The intermittent nature of Reservist work is also 
a barrier for hiring more broadly. FEMA is working to amplify the 
USERRA benefits now provided to FEMA Reservists under the CREW Act by 
effectively communicating its protections to applicants, and current 
Reservists and their supervisors, to increase Reservist recruitment and 
retention. In combination with more flexible conditions of employment 
to be implemented in 2024, this will better serve Reservist needs 
related to outside employment. This initiative will provide FEMA 
broader and more experienced recruitment pools, especially for hard-to-
fill positions, incentivize current Reservists to accept disaster 
deployments, and help grow public/private sector relationships through 
FEMA training and deployment experiences.
    In November 2022, FEMA published its Strategic Recruitment Plan. 
The Plan supports the agency's strategic priority of building the 
necessary workforce size and skillsets for its full-time and disaster 
workforce. Additionally, it outlines goals to help FEMA increase 
outreach and improve upon technology and resourcing to support 
recruitment efforts, especially within the Incident Management (IM) 
Workforce. To aid in execution of the Plan, FEMA developed a Strategic 
Recruitment Implementation Plan that provides specific actions and 
milestones to document activities for monitoring and evaluating the 
agency's hiring efforts to address staffing gaps in the IM Workforce.
    FEMA is conducting National and Regional Force Structure Reviews to 
take a data-driven approach to setting and achieving the topline force 
strength necessary to ensure FEMA continues to effectively manage 
increasingly frequent and severe disasters, as well as evolving 
responsibilities like Homeland Security Events and COVID-19. In 2023, 
FEMA finalized net growth targets for its 23 cadres for FY 2023-2026 
that reflect the force strength goal for each FY, factoring in 
anticipated gains (hiring and progression into) minus anticipated 
losses (attrition and progression out) for each position in every 
cadre.
    To ensure that all FEMA responders have access to the support 
needed to transition out of deployments, FEMA is implementing an 
enhanced demobilization process that provides dedicated time to 
complete disaster close-out activities, including debriefing on their 
deployment and accessing mental health resources as needed. FEMA also 
launched a Responder Demobilization Hub to centralize and amplify 
responder support resources. This enhancement of the demobilization 
process is a key step toward operationalizing Administrator Criswell's 
vision for a deliberate cultural change across the agency in terms of 
how FEMA supports its workforce to mitigate risk of burn out, increase 
morale, and promote retention.

    Question 4. Surveys conducted under FEMA contract, have estimated 
that almost one-third of FEMA employees experience discrimination or 
harassment. GAO made a number of recommendations to FEMA to improve 
anti-harassment and anti-discrimination efforts. What is FEMA doing to 
ensure that its policies adhere to promising practices for preventing 
harassment? What is FEMA doing to change the culture to further prevent 
harassment and discrimination? And how are employees at FEMA held 
accountable for such serious misconduct?
    Answer. FEMA considers matters of alleged harassment and misconduct 
seriously and takes appropriate action in accordance with FEMA 
Instruction 300-21-0001: Anti-Harassment Program. Specifically, reports 
of harassment are thoroughly investigated, and our Labor and Employee 
Relations Branch works closely with decision makers to determine if 
violations of FEMA Instruction 300-21-0001 occurred and assists in 
taking swift and appropriate corrective actions. In cases of serious 
misconduct, FEMA uses its Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) to address 
misconduct. The DRB is a neutral panel that reviews serious misconduct 
cases and decides on the appropriate disciplinary action. Consistent 
with FEMA's Table of Penalties, misconduct due to harassment--including 
failing to take appropriate action to prevent or curtail prohibited 
discrimination or harassment of a subordinate when the supervisory 
employee knew or should have known the conduct was discriminatory--
carries a penalty ranging from suspension to removal from federal 
service depending on the circumstances.
    FEMA continues to reinforce our Core Values of Compassion, 
Integrity, Fairness, and Respect and to address concerns of 
discrimination or harassment, to include through new and updated 
training required for all FEMA personnel and agency-wide guidance. The 
FEMA Office of Equal Rights (OER) updated its mandatory harassment 
training courses--``FEMA Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Employee 
Course 2022'' (IS-0018.22) and ``FEMA EEO Supervisor Course 2022''--in 
October 2021 and January 2022, respectively. These courses address how 
to identify and mitigate risk factors specific to FEMA's workplace, 
provide easy to understand and realistic methods for addressing 
harassment, encourage employees to ``speak up'' at the lowest level in 
the chain of command first, and inform how to escalate up and outside 
the chain of command as circumstances may warrant. Further, FEMA 
published its 2023-2027 FEMA Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and 
Accessibility Strategic Plan on March 6, 2023. FEMA is committed to 
developing a work environment free from discrimination and harassment 
and where employees feel acknowledged, valued, and respected.
    FEMA OER acknowledges the importance of confidentiality associated 
with harassment complaints and will continue to evaluate and include 
more robust and relevant training on this important point. FEMA 
supervisors must take and achieve a passing score for the appropriate 
courses annually. For 2023, these include ``Preventing and Addressing 
Workplace Harassment'' and ``Civil Treatment for Leaders.'' 
Importantly, these courses address identifying and mitigating risk 
factors specific to FEMA's workplace. FEMA OER also regularly offers a 
variety of additional EEO training to supervisors, including anti-
harassment training.
    FEMA is also developing easy-to-understand and realistic methods 
for addressing harassment. FEMA's anti-harassment training for 
supervisors contains substantial information on preventing, 
recognizing, and promptly addressing harassment in the workplace.
    The FEMA Management Development Program--provided to FEMA 
supervisors--reinforces management's responsibilities regarding anti-
harassment and their role as inclusive leaders. The FEMA Incident 
Workforce Academy offers ``Elements of Supervision'' training, which is 
divided into two components: Employee Rights-Unit 0602 for middle 
managers; and Supervisory Responsibilities-Unit 0603 for first-line 
supervisors. These courses and their subcomponents provide additional 
anti-harassment training to FEMA employees, supervisors, and managers.
    FEMA also improved training for supervisors to ensure they know and 
understand confidentiality rules applicable to harassment complaints. 
By March 31, 2024, FEMA will update anti-harassment training available 
to supervisors to ensure these trainings include information on all 
four elements identified in Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 
recommendation.
    Consistent with FEMA Directive 112-13: Office of Professional 
Responsibility (OPR), FEMA employees have multiple options to report 
harassment. FEMA's Office of Professional Responsibility has three ways 
to report employee misconduct and harassment to OPR: email FEMA-
[email protected]; by telephone to 833-TELL-OPR (833-835-5677); 
and by mail to Office of Professional Responsibility, 400 C Street, SW, 
7th Floor (7SW), Washington, DC 20472. This information, along with 
OPR's process and approach to misconduct and harassment allegations, is 
available to all employees. In addition, FEMA employees can always 
report misconduct allegations to the DHS OIG. Another way of reporting 
harassment is to report it to FEMA's OER at fema-
[email protected].
    FEMA has undertaken several internally and externally driven 
assessments which provide valuable insight into harassment risk factors 
in its workplace. To that end, the FEMA Annual Federal Equal Employment 
Opportunity Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints (EEOC Form 
462) data indicates over the past three fiscal years, the number of 
formal EEO harassment claims filed dropped from 16 percent in FY 2021 
to 13 percent in FY 2023.
    Through commitment in terms of policy, and in integrating anti-
harassment into a wide variety of our training programs, demanding 
accountability from leaders and employees, and being immediately 
responsive when there are allegations or reports of harassment, FEMA 
worked to build a positive, respectful workplace and culture where 
harassment is not tolerated.

    Question 5. FEMA's programs were designed with hurricanes and 
flooding in mind, so the Agency has struggled to adapt to the growing 
wildfire threat out west. In the past year, what progress has FEMA made 
to adapt its programs to the needs of survivors and communities before, 
during and after wildfire?
    Answer. FEMA's grant programs are authorized by the Stafford Act 
and other legislation. Programs are developed to implement those 
authorities based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, 
incident type, community needs, and best practices and lessons learned 
over time. The Stafford Act definition for ``major disaster'' includes 
the following incident types which are not limited to hurricanes and 
flooding: hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind driven water, 
tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, 
mudslide, snowstorm, or drought, or, regardless of cause, any fire, 
flood, or explosion (42 U.S.C. 5122). As authorized by law, FEMA's 
grant programs provide assistance for the purpose of preparedness, 
mitigation, response, and recovery in relation to the various incident 
types included in the Stafford Act definition for ``major disaster.'' 
The following programs provide assistance to individuals, communities, 
and public officials in the form of near real-time data to inform 
decision making, targeted messaging, training, emergency responder 
support, public assistance, and mitigation funding.
FEMA U.S. Fire Administration
    FEMA's U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has always included 
structure fire and wildfire as part of its all-hazard approaches for 
the nation's fire service and emergency medical service partners. In 
response to the growing threat of wildfire to the Wildland Urban 
Interface (WUI) and to suburban and rural communities and the 
increasing demands on state and local fire service, FEMA/USFA has:
      Launched a modernization effort and is working with DHS 
Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to develop a new, 
interoperable fire information and analytics platform, the National 
Emergency Response Information System (NERIS). NERIS will support all-
hazard incident data including WUI events and community risk reduction 
efforts by leveraging existing data sets from federal agencies and non-
governmental organizations compiled to provide insights that individual 
data sets cannot.
      Convened a National Summit on Fire Prevention and Control 
in October 2022 with the leadership of national fire service 
organizations to develop a national strategy on key fire service 
challenges. One of the strategies identified was a focus on the WUI to 
prepare structural firefighters for climate-driven challenges. The Fire 
Administrator also established a stakeholder work group to identify 
actionable solutions for the challenges identified. The WUI strategy 
will be revisited and updated during the October 2023 USFA Summit.
      The USFA National Fire Academy (NFA) provides training 
for first responders and emergency managers to help them prepare more 
effectively for response to WUI fires. The NFA training and education 
curriculum provides first responders with the ability to create and 
sustain fire-adapted communities including land-use planning, code 
adoption, and evacuation planning.
      NFA courses are also offered for structural firefighters 
on wildland fire behavior, foundational wildland firefighting skills, 
and command and control. USFA works closely with federal interagency 
partners in the National Interagency Fire Center and National Wildfire 
Coordinating Group to support joint response operations and coordinated 
training and education needs. More information is available at https://
www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/training/.
      The USFA provides a complete suite of research, tools, 
and resources for fire service and emergency management partners on WUI 
topics including community risk management at USFA WUI. Resources 
include communications tools for public messaging, an augmented reality 
app for wildfire home safety, resources for state and local partners to 
use for community outreach and engagement, and risk management efforts 
to support wildfire preparedness and recovery planning.
      USFA also supports the S&T wildfire development and 
implementation of recommendations from the WUI Operational Requirements 
and Capability Analysis which was developed in response to 2017 
California fires. Projects include the Team Awareness Kit, a free-to-
use GPS communications tool for mobile devices to improve situational 
awareness, and a wildland fire sensors project to develop a suite of 
sensors, platforms and other early wildfire detection technologies 
which is currently being field tested. All resources available at: 
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/research-technology/.
      USFA along with the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and 
Interior co-lead the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission 
which began in 2022 and includes 11 Federal members and plays a key 
role in recommending ways that federal agencies can better prevent, 
mitigate, suppress, and manage wildland fires and wildfires that reach 
or originate in communities.
FEMA Fire Mitigation Assistance Grants
    When a wildfire begins, FEMA moves quickly to provide financial 
support for emergency measures to protect life and property using Fire 
Management Assistance Grants (FMAGs). FMAGs provide funding for a wide 
breadth of firefighting and non-firefighting activities, including: 
expenses for field camps; equipment use, repair, and replacement; 
tolls, materials, and supplies; mobilization and demobilization; 
emergency work (e.g., evacuation, sheltering, and traffic control); 
public information dissemination; search and rescue; and 
administration.
    FEMA continues to make improvements to support community resilience 
to wildland wildfires and to ensure actionable public assistance. For 
example, in April 2022, FEMA headquarters and regions came together for 
a Wildland WildFire Summit to discuss FEMA wildland wildfire policies 
and how the agency can be more effective in helping impacted 
communities.
    Following the Summit, FEMA established the Wildfire Policy 
Initiative (WPI) which is designed to provide flexibility to better 
align policy with the unique circumstances surrounding wildfire 
incidents and has issued the following updates to PA policy as a result 
of the WPI efforts:
      Policy changes regarding debris removal that benefit 
declared wildfire incidents captured in the Simplifying the PA Program, 
Part 2 Memo, issued September 2022.

    All policy changes implemented through these policy memos will be 
codified within Version 5 of the PAPPG. The WPI will continue to 
explore and recommend potential policy changes to address the 
complexities of wildfire incidents.
FEMA and Wildland Wildfire Mitigation
    The FEMA Mitigation Directorate oversees a variety of assistance 
programs to enable State, Local, Tribal and Territorial (SLTTs) 
partners to implement risk reduction projects (i.e., mitigation) in 
order to become more resilient to the effects of multiple natural 
hazards, to rebound more quickly after a natural hazard event, and to 
reduce the overall costs associated with disaster response and 
recovery.
    Most of FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs can fund 
wildfire mitigation projects, with the exception of the Flood 
Mitigation Assistance program. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 
(HMGP), HMGP Post Fire, Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities, and the Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan program all 
provide funding that could be used for wildfire mitigation. The most 
common types of wildfire mitigation funded under these programs include 
hazardous fuels reduction, vegetation management, defensible space, and 
ignition-resistant construction. Other types of wildfire mitigation 
eligible under HMA include, but are not limited to, post-fire soil 
stabilization and post-fire flood risk reduction. HMA also regularly 
evaluates its program authorities and guidance and coordinates with 
stakeholders to identify additional opportunities for wildfire 
mitigation.
    In the past year, HMA has implemented the following changes and 
initiatives to improve wildfire mitigation assistance:
      The 2023 HMA Program and Policy Guide was updated to 
remove the 2-mile limit for hazardous fuels reduction projects. 
Hazardous fuels reduction is no longer limited to a 2-mile radius from 
at-risk structures. The 2023 update also clarified that wildfire 
warning systems are eligible under HMA which was not explicitly listed 
in previous guidance. These updates to the guidance provide more 
flexibility to applicants seeking to apply for mitigation funding for 
wildfire projects. The HMA Wildfire Policy Work Group, in coordination 
with HMGP Post Fire, is also developing recommendations for expanding 
wildfire mitigation eligibility under HMA.
      HMGP and HMGP Post Fire has developed application support 
materials for the most common mitigation project types to streamline 
the application process and improve stakeholder access to mitigation 
assistance. The application support materials include a project-
specific application form, instructions for completing the application, 
and job aids for technical and EHP reviews. Application support 
materials are available for the following wildfire mitigation project 
types: hazardous fuels reduction/vegetation management/standing burned 
tree removal; defensible space; ignition-resistant construction; post-
fire soil stabilization; and post-fire flood risk reduction.

    Question 6. The Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act (GCRMA, 6 
U.S.C. Sec. 821-Sec. 825) requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, to lead a comprehensive, whole-of-government 
assessment of global catastrophic and existential risk over the next 30 
years, and submit a report on these matters by December 23, 2023. The 
Act also requires updates to the Federal Interagency Operational Plans 
at the core of FEMA's strategic plans to respond to catastrophes. 
Please update the Committee on the progress of implementing this law 
and developing its critical assessment of our national security, 
including:
    Question 6.a. How the responsibilities of the GCRMA are delegated 
to senior officials and component offices inside DHS and FEMA;
    Answer. The Administrator of FEMA delegated to the FEMA/Resilience/
Risk Management Directorate the responsibility for carrying out the 
Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act (GCRMA). FEMA is working with 
DHS S&T and a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) 
to satisfy the risk assessment and the initial report which is due by 
December 23, 2023.

    Question 6.b. If the heads of other federal departments and 
agencies, as identified in 6 U.S.C. Sec.  822(b), have made available 
their senior designees to assist the DHS and FEMA in the production of 
the assessment and accompanying report;
    Answer. 6 U.S.C. Sec. 822(b) names 24 officials at more than 12 
departments and agencies. DHS and FEMA intend to engage their designees 
using an established National Security Council's interagency 
coordination process. We anticipate this engagement can begin no 
earlier than mid-December in order to have a draft product which our 
interagency partners may examine and discuss. The Act identifies six 
hazards and requires assessment of each hazard according to the nine 
elements specified in the Act. Because the content and coordination 
requirements are extensive, and because this will be the first report 
in the series, it is hard to predict how long interagency coordination 
will require. And it would be unwise to shortchange any stakeholder, 
hazard or required element. Accordingly, we currently project that the 
initial report will be delivered after the date specified in the Act, 
possibly by as much as a few months.

    Question 6.c. How the FEMA is planning to ``regularly consult with 
experts'' on global catastrophic and existential risk in the 
development of the assessment, as required by the law; and
    Answer. DHS has contracted with the Homeland Security Operational 
Analysis Center (HSOAC), one of its federally funded research and 
development centers to satisfy the Act's requirement of producing an 
initial report. Through HSOAC, DHS and FEMA can access subject matter 
expertise as required by the law. HSOAC has a confidential peer review 
process which will facilitate their research and drafting. Our 
understanding is the Act's requirement for ``regular'' consultation 
begins with the production of the first report. Thereafter, regular 
consultation is expected to perform the other tasks specified in the 
Act and subsequent reports which are due each decade. We intend to use 
this initial production cycle as a means to identify whether HSOAC's 
processes will be optimal to meet the requirement of regular 
consultation and to adjust as necessary to meet our obligations.

    Question 6.d. FEMA's planned schedule for updating the Federal 
Interagency Operational Plans to include an annex containing a strategy 
to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the civilian 
population affected by catastrophic incidents.
    Answer. The Act's requirement to update FIOP is necessarily 
sequential to the publishing of the initial report. The four strategic 
actions, six elements and five assumptions which the Act requires each 
FIOP to address must be informed by the hazard assessments, expert 
estimates, technical assessments, forecasts, proposals and other 
matters contained in the first report. It is therefore premature to 
schedule any specific timetable for revising FIOP. HSOAC is performing 
their tasking mindful that their report will be leveraged for FIOP 
updates. DHS and FEMA intend to confer with the interagency about the 
FIOP requirement as part of the coordination of the draft report as 
discussed above.

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

    Question 1. We are all aware that the devastation in Puerto Rico 
after Maria totally overwhelmed both our public and private sectors and 
even FEMA at the time. Unable to handle everything at once, many 
entities in Puerto Rico have had to ask for extension after extension 
of deadlines. This lengthens the delays AND allows inflation to devalue 
the impact of the appropriated funding.
    Is there a strategy for addressing these situations, to better 
prepare or assist recipients and subrecipients or better obtain 
results, so it does not have to get to the point of the threat that 
that funding will be lost?
    Answer. Hurricane Maria represents one of the most complex disaster 
recovery missions in FEMA's history. FEMA continues to work with and 
support the Government of Puerto Rico and the Central Office for 
Recovery, Reconstruction and Resiliency (COR3) to expedite the 
obligation and the implementation of projects. At the federal level, 
FEMA is streamlining our processes to provide funding as quickly as 
possible to ultimately get shovels in the ground, while taking this 
opportunity to build more resilient infrastructure.
    FEMA is providing a historic level of support to Puerto Rico, both 
financially and in the form of technical guidance. Some examples 
include assisting the Government of Puerto Rico with expediting its 
Requests for Proposal/contracts process, clarifying documentation 
requirements and conditions to help avoid delays and ensure project 
formulation processes can move forward, and providing detailed 
procurement compliance review to COR3 as part of its technical 
compliance assistance. Additionally, since 2017, FEMA and the 
Government of Puerto Rico have worked together to build tremendous 
levels of capacity on the island to recover from disasters.
    Another strategy to speed recovery has been COR3's Working Capital 
Advance program. FEMA is supportive of this program, which aims to 
provide the liquidity that sub applicants need to execute contracts and 
begin construction work. The Working Capital Advance program originally 
sought to provide municipalities with a 25 percent advance of FEMA 
obligated funds for permanent projects, the program will now provide up 
to 50 percent of working capital per project, based on need, for 
immediate liquidity to advance recovery forward.
    According to COR3, approximately 2,804 recovery projects are under 
construction and roughly 1,887 are complete. Some of the most 
vulnerable municipalities have the largest funding amounts obligated 
and reconstruction activities in their communities are underway.
    FEMA continues to look for additional ways to support the 
Government of Puerto Rico and its efforts to recover in a timely and 
resilient manner. In terms of the extensions that are being approved, 
they are for Period of Performance extensions of obligated projects 
where the applicant has not yet completed its construction, and Fixed 
Cost Estimate (FCE) deadline extensions for Section 428 projects (a 
reduced number). Currently, the agency is not accepting Requests for 
Public Assistance.
    Regarding inflation concerns, FEMA includes cost estimating factors 
(CEF) in every FCE for all PA Section 428 projects. The CEF includes an 
estimate of base construction costs and a series of factors to account 
for additional costs, including allowances for inflation over the 
length of the project. Each FCE is developed and mutually agreed upon 
by the Recipient, subrecipient and FEMA. Additionally, as part of the 
flexibility of Section 428 projects, the Government of Puerto Rico 
(Recipient) or subrecipient may use all or part of the excess funds to 
cover overruns on other Section 428 projects under the same Applicant.
    Projects developed under PA Section 406 are funded to actual 
eligible costs, which includes increases due to inflation. FEMA 
considers inflation and other factors such as code or standard changes, 
availability of in-kind construction material, quantity, delivery 
schedules, and the economy.

    Question 2. Specifically on the FEMA funding for the Puerto Rico 
electric utilities rebuilding under the FAASt program--this adds up to 
$9.5 billion for long term reconstruction above regular emergency 
obligations.
    We are aware of lobbying and even suits by groups demanding that 
someone, anyone in DC, be it DOE or FEMA or the Courts or Congress, 
mandate that not a cent of those funds be used for anything that uses 
any fossil fuel.
    Question 2.a. Is that even something under FEMA's authority or 
scope? Does the agency reaffirm they will follow the existing Action 
Plan based on the needs and laws in Puerto Rico, which include using 
LNG as a transition bridge to other sources?
    Question 2.b. What measures can FEMA implement to ensure that 
subrecipients and contractors are complying with the requirements for 
the Action Plan? Are there progress reports and plan updates being 
produced?
    Answer to 2.a.-2.b. The Government of Puerto Rico is the entity 
with the responsibility and authority to define the public policy 
towards the use of allocated funds for the island's recovery. FEMA 
continues to provide a historic level of support to the government and 
remains committed to helping Puerto Rico meet its electricity needs 
with 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, as established in the Puerto 
Rico Energy Public Policy Act (Act 17).
    One of these initiatives includes the Puerto Rico Grid Resilience 
and Transitions to 100 percent Renewable Energy Study (PR100), a 2-year 
study by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Grid Deployment Office 
and six national laboratories to comprehensively analyze stakeholder-
driven pathways to Puerto Rico's clean energy future.
    Funded primarily through an interagency agreement with FEMA, the 
study is based on rigorous modeling and analysis of stakeholder-driven 
pathways to achieve Puerto Rico's goal of 100 percent renewable energy 
by 2050 (PR100). The PR100 study aims to evaluate clean energy 
alternatives for the reconstruction of the power grid on the island to 
help the island meet its renewable energy targets and improve power 
sector resiliency.
    This study is one of several strategies that FEMA is collaborating 
on--together with federal and local agencies--to support the recovery 
of the energy grid through equitable, sustainable and resilient 
solutions. Energy justice considerations and climate risk assessments 
are also incorporated into the study's modeling efforts.
    At the halfway point of this 2-year study, this interim report 
provides initial modeling results and access to high-resolution data 
sets of wind and solar resources for Puerto Rico, along with other 
publicly available data sets. In the second year of the study, DOE and 
the National Laboratories will iterate on and refine these findings, 
and analyze all scenarios for their impact on transmission, 
distribution, emissions, energy justice and resilience.
    For FEMA, the PR100 study represents a commitment to Puerto Rico to 
provide the resources, including technical assistance, that address 
identified long-term recovery needs after Hurricane Maria.
    Besides the $9.5 billion that the Agency has allocated for the 
reconstruction of the power grid though FEMA's Accelerated Award 
Strategy, the Government of Puerto Rico also relies on other funding to 
rebuild its energy system. This includes HUD's CDBG-DR funding and the 
partnerships for the development of infrastructure through the Puerto 
Rico Public-Private Partnerships Authority (P3).

    Question 2.c. Is there any risk that any part of the $9.5 billion 
in grid recovery obligation be clawed back or rescinded at any point? 
If so, where is that risk and how can it be addressed?
    Answer. Funding for grid recovery was awarded as a fixed-cost 
amount following Alternative Procedures Project Funding Under Section 
428 of the Stafford Act. Once the fixed-cost amount is obligated, FEMA 
considers if it is reasonable and eligible, the funding may be used for 
the proposed or alternate scopes of work if there is no evidence of 
fraud, and the Applicant complies with Federal grant conditions.
    FEMA continues supporting the Government of Puerto Rico in their 
plans to rebuild the island's energy grid until the last project is 
completed. Reconstruction is moving forward and no FEMA funds for the 
energy system are presently at a foreseeable risk.

    Question 2.d. What measures are in place with the recipients and 
subrecipients to ensure that the grid operators use this funding in the 
most effective manner? Does FEMA have any intervention or oversight on 
for instance if the grid operators purchase or contract from their own 
subsidiaries or sister corporations?
    Answer. FEMA provides technical assistance to the Puerto Rico COR3 
to support the island's long-term recovery projects. FEMA and COR3 each 
play a role in making program funds available to subrecipients. FEMA is 
responsible for determining eligibility, conducting environmental/
historic preservation review, approving projects, and making the 
federal share of the approved grant available to COR3. COR3 is solely 
responsible for ensuring that reimbursements for recovery projects meet 
the statutory, regulatory, and programmatic requirements established by 
FEMA.
    FEMA, in close coordination with the Procurement Disaster 
Assistance Team, has provided detailed procurement compliance training 
to COR3 as part of its technical compliance assistance, so COR3 is 
properly trained to discharge its management and oversight 
responsibilities. The intent behind this type of technical assistance 
and training is that projects meet not only federal contracting 
requirements, but state and local ones as well. FEMA and its federal 
partners will continue to provide technical assistance to COR3 and all 
subrecipients to ensure recovery continues to move forward.
    Recipients and Subrecipients are subject to federal and non-federal 
audits. Records are subject to audit by state or Territorial government 
auditors, FEMA, the DHS OIG, and GAO. FEMA may adjust project funding 
due to audit findings. FEMA requires the Recipient to report on the 
status of all open Large Projects on a quarterly basis. This enables 
FEMA to monitor grant performance. Recipients must submit Quarterly 
Progress Reports (QPRs) to FEMA no later than 30 days after the end of 
each quarter. The Subrecipient must include the status of work for each 
project. FEMA reviews QPRs for oversight and managing the progress of 
recovery, tracking potential time extension requests, and planning for 
closeout.

    Question 3. The Strategic plan discusses the need for more 
deployable staff and investment in staff retention. In Puerto Rico 
post-Maria FEMA's own reports pointed to lack of staff and frequent 
turnover as factors in the slowing down of recovery.
    What will be the focus of this staff development? More on-site 
inspectors, more evaluators and processors of claims, more staff at 
local Disaster Assistance Offices and maybe keeping those offices open 
for longer?
    Answer. FEMA's Joint Recovery Office in Puerto Rico, established 
after Hurricane Irma in September 2017, currently has approximately 564 
staff working on the ground to support Puerto Rico's long-term recovery 
from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. 98 percent of these employees live on 
the island. These employees are cross trained to assist in any future 
disasters in Puerto Rico and have been deployed to other disasters 
providing the expertise they have developed. This strong on-island 
presence in Puerto Rico helped FEMA be better prepared to respond 
quickly when Hurricane Fiona made landfall in September 2022.
    Additionally, FEMA is designing, developing, and implementing 
strategies for its WRC to help build, develop, deploy, and support a 
resilient, well-trained, and experienced workforce in the face of 
sustained increases in our operational tempo. As a part of the WRC, 
FEMA is working on four specific efforts to increase hiring and 
retention--develop and publish a Strategic Recruitment Plan, conduct 
National and Regional Force Structure Reviews, implement and socialize 
the CREW Act that provided USERRA benefits to FEMA Reservists, and 
establish an Enhanced Demobilization Process.
    In November 2022, FEMA published its Strategic Recruitment Plan. 
The plan seeks to achieve the agency's strategic priority of building a 
more diverse workforce and outlines goals that will help FEMA to 
increase outreach and improve upon technology and resourcing needs to 
support the increased need for recruitment efforts, especially within 
the IM Workforce. To aid in execution of the recruitment plan, FEMA 
developed a recruitment implementation plan that provides specific 
actions and milestones that will document activities for monitoring and 
evaluating the agency's hiring efforts to address staffing gaps in the 
IM Workforce.
    Further, through the National and Regional Force Structure Reviews, 
FEMA is taking a data-driven approach to setting and achieving top line 
force strengths necessary to ensure FEMA continues to effectively 
manage increasingly frequent and severe disasters as well as evolving 
responsibilities like Homeland Security Incidents and COVID-19. In 
2023, FEMA and its 23 cadres finalized net growth targets for FY 2023-
2026 that reflect the force strength goal for each fiscal year, 
factoring in anticipated gains (Hiring and Progression Into) minus 
anticipated losses (Attrition and Progression Out) for each position in 
every cadre.
    Additionally, FEMA is working to amplify the USERRA benefits now 
provided to FEMA Reservists by effectively communicating its 
protections to applicants and current Reservists and their supervisors 
in the hopes of increasing Reservist recruitment and retention. In 
combination with more flexible conditions of employment to be 
implemented in 2024, this will better serve the needs of Reservists 
with outside employment. This initiative will provide FEMA broader and 
more experienced recruitment pools, especially for hard to fill 
positions. It also incentivizes current Reservists to accept disaster 
deployments and will help grow public/private sector relationships 
through FEMA training and deployment experiences.
    Lastly, to ensure that all FEMA responders have access to the 
support needed to transition out of their deployment, FEMA is 
implementing an Enhanced Demobilization Process which provides 
dedicated time to complete disaster close-out activities including 
debriefing on their deployment and accessing mental health resources as 
needed. FEMA has also launched a Responder Demobilization Hub to 
centralize and amplify responder support resources. This enhancement of 
the demobilization process is a key step toward operationalizing 
Administer Criswell's intention for a deliberate cultural change across 
the enterprise in how FEMA supports its workforce to mitigate the risk 
of staff burn out, increase morale, and promote staff retention.

    Question 4. On page 11 of the GAO report presented today, we see a 
graphic on how the different federal agencies are connected in the 
different aspects of a recovery. And that is all before you get to the 
level of the state or municipal agencies. No wonder things get slowed 
down or delayed!
    GAO recommends ``that FEMA, HUD, and DOT identify and take steps to 
better manage fragmentation between their individual disaster recovery 
programs and other federal programs. We also recommended that FEMA--as 
administrator of several disaster recovery programs--take steps to 
better manage fragmentation across its own programs, which could make 
the programs simpler, more accessible, and more user-friendly''.
    Should Congress specifically legislate that the Federal level 
institute a one-stop disaster recovery model? So that all the 
information is gathered once and shared widely?
    Answer. Recovery is successful when it is federally supported, 
state managed, and locally executed. FEMA brings its significant 
resources, authorities, and experience to leading federal recovery. 
Communities overwhelmed by disasters and facing long-term recovery 
encounter a multitude of challenges--ranging from infrastructure 
rebuilding and post-disaster housing to health and social services as 
well as economic recovery. FEMA provides a range of coordinating 
functions and technical support to support those needs, including 
facilitating federal interagency coordination, EHP, and community 
planning and capacity building.
    Additionally, FEMA is taking several actions under EO 14058, 
``Transforming Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery to 
Rebuild Trust in Government,'' to streamline and simplify its programs.
    First, FEMA PA is working to simplify its processes, including by 
implementing simplified procedures for projects with an estimated cost 
below $1 million for all disasters declared after August 3, 2022, and 
refining its information collection forms to simplify the PA 
applicant's experience by implementing a risk-based approach, 
recognizing that not all applicants or projects require the same level 
of resources, documentation, or oversight.
    In an effort to reduce complexity and increase efficiency, FEMA 
continually supports efforts like the UFR process to streamline and 
align disparate agency EHP compliance requirements and review processes 
as much as possible, without reducing the effectiveness of each program 
in accomplishing the goals for which it was established. Providing FEMA 
authorities similar to those under the Disaster Relief Appropriations 
Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-2) that states that HUD grantees may adopt, 
without review or public comment, any environmental review, approval, 
or permit would allow for increased efficiencies and reduce complexity.
    FEMA Individual Assistance (IA) is also simplifying and modernizing 
the IA Registration Intake process for taking registrations online 
through www.disasterassistance.gov. By August 30, 2023, this 
streamlined process will transition IA's online intake process from a 
linear questionnaire that all survivors must respond to regardless of 
their needs into a tailored, needs-based assessment process that only 
provides the questions each survivor should answer to meet their 
specific recovery needs. For most survivors, this will reduce the 
number of questions they answer and the time it takes to apply for 
individual assistance. Future enhancements are planned to incorporate 
these changes into IA's intake process through call centers. Survivors 
experiencing barriers to power and internet can also visit a Disaster 
Recovery Center to apply in person, where FEMA staff are available to 
assist if needed, or to get help from a Disaster Survivor Assistance 
agent.
    Finally, also under EO 14058, FEMA is working with the U.S. Small 
Business Administration (SBA), the Office of Management and Budget, and 
other interagency partners to develop joint recommendations and an 
implementation plan to improve disaster housing, casework, and other 
supportive services by minimizing duplication and survivor navigation 
burden between FEMA and SBA.

    Question 5. As mentioned in the hearing, we have seen disasters 
that leave a sequel of extended consequences. The outlook is for 
potentially more repeat instances of such scales of damage and 
recovery. And one thing I run into with constituents is a perception 
that FEMA does everything related to every disaster and everything in a 
recovery is FEMA's responsibility--even if under a different agency or 
a state or private responsibility--and an apparent expectation that 
FEMA is supposed to just completely make whole everything.
    How do we manage these perceptions? The agency's name says 
``Emergency Management'' but, is there a need to also become, or to 
create, what would be specifically a rebuilding, recovery and 
resilience entity that looks beyond the emergency to the full recovery?
    Answer. Emergency Management, by nature, requires a whole of 
community effort to rebuild and recover. FEMA is the lead federal 
coordinator for disaster recovery, and brings its significant 
resources, authorities, and experience to the role of leading federal 
recovery. FEMA has separate directorates responsible for coordinating 
federal interagency response, recovery, and resilience support through 
the Emergency Support Function Leadership Group under the National 
Response Framework, the RSFLG under the NDRF, and the Mitigation 
Framework Leadership Group under the National Mitigation Framework 
(NMF). FEMA's FDRC, senior level officials empowered to directly access 
designated senior officials in every Federal agency that may contribute 
to recovery, help manage the development and implementation of the 
recovery support strategy.
    Each agency brings considerable expertise and authorities within 
its own areas of responsibility, which would be difficult or impossible 
for FEMA to duplicate. The existing frameworks and leadership groups 
provide a national coordinating structure for each mission area, 
providing unity of effort among all federal agencies supporting states, 
local governments, territories, and tribes in the achievement of their 
response, recovery, and mitigation goals. Federal agencies coordinate 
policy at headquarters and regions, along with deploying expert staff 
to joint field offices to coordinate funding and technical support 
directly for each specific declared disaster and impacted jurisdiction.

    Question 6. Just a reminder of my request that if possible we may 
arrange for my office to be updated as to whether there are any FEMA 
funds for Puerto Rico at risk of being lost or repurposed, due to 
deadline expirations, budgetary clawbacks, noncompletion of stages of 
programmed work, or other reason in the rest of 2023 and 2024, and of 
what they are for, how much, what especially needs to be done (and by 
who and when) to prevent losing them, the Agency Staff may contact my 
office directly or through the committee for this purpose.
    Answer. FEMA continues to support the Government of Puerto Rico, 
its agencies, and municipalities, as well as nonprofit organizations, 
in their plans to rebuild the island until the last project is 
completed. FEMA has multiple grant programs with different eligibility 
criteria and works with the Government of Puerto Rico's COR3 to ensure 
Puerto Rico receives all funding that it is eligible to receive. For 
example, funding for grid recovery was awarded as a fixed-cost amount 
following Alternative Procedures Project Funding Under Section 428 of 
the Stafford Act. Once the fixed-cost amount is obligated, FEMA 
considers it reasonable and eligible, if there is no evidence of fraud, 
and the Applicant complies with Federal grant conditions. Nonetheless, 
as part of our commitment to the island's recovery, we will continue to 
monitor and provide technical support and assistance, as needed, to 
subrecipients so that they have the tools necessary to continue moving 
forward. FEMA is open to providing additional information in response 
to specific inquiries.

Questions from Hon. John Garamendi on behalf of Hon. Mark DeSaulnier to 
  Hon. Erik Hooks, Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management 
              Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

    Question 1. In your testimony, you described three crosscutting 
goals of the Strategic Plan that was released in December 2021. First 
among them was to ``instill equity as a foundation of emergency 
management'', stating that FEMA programs are ``sometimes not easily 
accessible to those who need them'', and that FEMA ``is focused on 
reducing the barriers people face when accessing our programs, while 
also ensuring that all disaster survivors receive the assistance for 
which they qualify for (sic) under the law.''
    Most would agree that our homeless population is disadvantaged and 
poorly positioned to access and avail themselves of programs that might 
benefit them; an obvious truth that is likely magnified during times of 
disaster. This is true regardless of whether they are intended as the 
direct recipients of federal disaster assistance, or the beneficiaries. 
Unfortunately, I'm told that counties that housed residents in non-
congregate housing from the earliest days of the COVID pandemic, many 
of whom were homeless and medically at-risk, might not get reimbursed 
for having done so.
    Could you please provide for the Committee the total reimbursement 
amount that has been requested by counties around the country for 
housing of individuals that were classified as asymptomatic, but at 
high-risk and required emergency non-congregate shelter as a social 
distancing measure?
    Question 2. It is my understanding that the decision as to whether 
to reimburse counties for housing asymptomatic, high-risk individuals 
is being left to each FEMA region. Is it true that a county in Florida 
and a county in California may be treated differently with respect to 
being reimbursed for the housing of their asymptomatic, high risk 
populations during the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Answer to 1-2. Following the March 13, 2020 national emergency 
declaration for the COVID-19 pandemic, FEMA's Regional Administrators 
were delegated authority to approve requests for COVID-19-specific non-
congregate sheltering (NCS) for the duration of the public health 
emergency for COVID-19. FEMA Regions are responsible for reviewing and 
determining eligibility of the COVID-19 NCS-related work and costs, 
including projects that may have extended COVID-19 NCS to people 
experiencing homelessness. Communities were able to use NCS to shelter 
individuals experiencing homelessness when the local public health 
order specifically required it for the purpose of isolation and 
quarantine to protect public health and safety or for a limited period 
of time when people experiencing homelessness fit into one of the three 
criteria below.
    Sheltering specific populations, such as the homeless, in NCS 
should be determined by a public health official's direction or in 
accordance with the direction or guidance of health officials by the 
appropriate state or local entities. Length of sheltering for 
individuals is based on written guidance and direction from appropriate 
health officials and should be limited to what is needed to address the 
immediate threat to public health and safety. Sheltering eligibility 
for sheltering activities may not extend beyond the state or local 
public health order or the HHS Public Health Emergency for COVID-19.
    FEMA published the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: Non-Congregate 
Sheltering FAQs in March 2020, which detail the criteria for approval 
of NCS requests. The criteria for approval is the same in all Regions 
throughout the nation, and includes provision of COVID-specific NCS to 
individuals as follows:
      Those who test positive for COVID-19 who do not require 
hospitalization but need isolation (including those exiting from 
hospitals);
      Those who have been exposed to COVID-19 who do not 
require hospitalization; and
      Asymptomatic high-risk individuals needing social 
distancing as a precautionary measure, such as people over 65 or with 
certain underlying health conditions (respiratory, compromised 
immunities, chronic disease.)

    FEMA's Regional staff review COVID-19 NCS-project related work and 
costs and determine which are eligible for reimbursement. A request for 
funding for COVID-19 NCS for people experiencing homelessness, whether 
in a county in Florida or a county in California would be evaluated 
consistently based on the established criteria.
    FEMA does not track information related to reimbursements for 
housing homeless individuals who did not test positive for COVID-19. 
Since multiple activities can be packaged into one project, it is 
difficult to ascertain what funding was specifically being provided for 
non-congregate sheltering for people experiencing homelessness. In 
addition, we are not tracking their COVID-19 infection status. If this 
information was tracked it would likely be by localities, not in FEMA 
databases.

    Question 3. A March 27, 2020 letter written by the FEMA Director of 
Region IX to the Director of the California Governor's Office of 
Emergency Services states that FEMA will reimburse emergency non-
congregate shelter costs incurred for, generally,
    (1)  individuals who test positive for COVID-19, but do not require 
hospitalization, but need isolation or quarantine;
    (2)  individuals who have been exposed to COVID-19 and do not 
require hospitalization, but need isolation or quarantine, and
    (3)  individuals who are asymptomatic, but at high-risk and require 
emergency non-congregate shelter as a social distancing measure.

    As such, wouldn't you agree that with regard to the non-congregate 
sheltering of our nation's homeless population, and in keeping with the 
guidance in the March 27, 2020 letter, a county that housed an 
individual who was asymptomatic, but at high-risk and required 
emergency non-congregate shelter as a social distancing measure, should 
be reimbursed for the sheltering of that person?
    Answer. Eligibility for reimbursement is based on whether an 
applicant conducted COVID-19-specific NCS operations in alignment with 
a public health official's direction, sheltered only individuals who 
met the criteria listed in the FAQ, and submitted documentation 
demonstrating compliance with the guidance in the FAQ.
    On March 13, 2020, President Trump issued a nationwide emergency 
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (Stafford Act) for the COVID-19 Pandemic. Under this 
declaration, FEMA's Regional Administrators were delegated authority to 
approve requests for COVID-19 NCS for the duration of the Public Health 
Emergency for COVID-19. FEMA Regions are responsible for reviewing and 
determining eligibility of the COVID-19 NCS related work and costs, 
including projects that may have extended COVID-19 NCS to people 
experiencing homelessness. FEMA published the Coronavirus (COVID-19) 
Pandemic: Non-Congregate Sheltering FAQs, which detail the criteria for 
approval of NCS requests. The criteria is the same in all regions 
throughout the Nation, and includes:
      Those who test positive for COVID-19 who do not require 
hospitalization but need isolation (including those exiting from 
hospitals);
      Those who have been exposed to COVID-19 who do not 
require hospitalization; and
      Asymptomatic high-risk individuals needing social 
distancing as a precautionary measure, such as people over 65 or with 
certain underlying health conditions (respiratory, compromised 
immunities, chronic disease).

    In March, 2020 EMA released COVID-19 Non-congregate Sheltering 
guidance and interprets the term ``high-risk'' as relating to the list 
of medical conditions identified in Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention's (CDC) guidance (e.g., People with Certain Medical 
Conditions--CDC). An individual (regardless of whether they were 
experiencing homelessness or not) who was asymptomatic and confirmed to 
be at high-risk based on the CDC list of medical conditions referenced 
above may be eligible to be placed in COVID-19 NCS.
    The applicant would need to justify that the sheltered individual 
experiencing homelessness was sheltered because they were either 
exposed to COVID-19 or that they were at high-risk and therefore 
specifically required Emergency NCS as a social distancing measure. The 
fact that the individual is experiencing homelessness does not, on its 
own, justify that the individual is at high-risk for contracting COVID-
19 and is unable to socially distance appropriately.
    The referenced FAQ also states:
      ``Sheltering specific populations in non-congregate 
shelters should be determined by a public health official's direction 
or in accordance with the direction or guidance of health officials by 
the appropriate state or local entities.'' In addition to meeting the 
above criteria regarding who could be sheltered, the applicant would 
need to provide documentation that they were adhering to a public 
health official's direction that was in effect at the time the COVID-19 
NCS was conducted.
      Tracking mechanisms must be in place to provide data and 
documentation to establish the eligibility of costs for which the 
Applicant is requesting PA funding (including the need for NCS of each 
individual, length of stay, and costs). As with any activity, lack of 
supporting documentation may result in FEMA determining that some or 
all of the costs are ineligible.''

  Questions from Hon. Scott Perry to Chris Currie, Director, Homeland 
    Security and Justice Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office

    Question 1. GAO issued a report on Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's (FEMA's) workforce and GAO found that FEMA has an overall 
staffing gap of approximately 6,200 staff (35 percent) across different 
positions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-23-105663, FEMA Disaster 
Workforce: Actions Needed To Improve Hiring Data and Address Staffing 
Gaps, May 2023 available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-
105663.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 1.a. What factors do you attribute to this staffing gap?
    Answer. FEMA's staffing gaps were due to multiple factors.\2\ 
First, staffing gaps were partly due to an increase in force structure 
targets, which FEMA officials attributed to the growing number of 
disaster staff needed, as identified during a review of the disaster 
workforce in May 2019. For example, certain cadres such as the Public 
Assistance and Logistics cadres experienced increases in their targets 
of 130 and 26 percent, respectively.\3\ Next, FEMA officials also 
attributed recent staffing gaps to the loss of staff due to the year-
round pace cause by the COVID-19 pandemic and increasing number of 
disasters. FEMA initially increased its disaster workforce by almost 
1,600 staff (or 13 percent); however in fiscal year 2020 the disaster 
workforce lost 20 percent of staff (over 2,600 employees). Starting in 
March 2020, officials stated that they faced additional 
responsibilities due to COVID, while also managing the traditional 
seasonal peaks of disaster activity during the year, which created 
burnout for many employees and increased employee attrition. These 
losses resulted in staffing gaps in certain positions, and an overall 
decline in force strength.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ GAO, FEMA Disaster Workforce: Actions Needed to Improve Hiring 
Data and Address Staffing Gaps, GAO-23-105663 (Washington, D.C. May 2, 
2023).
    \3\ The FEMA Public Assistance cadre force structure targets 
increased from about 1,780 staff to over 4,000 staff. The Logistics 
cadre also increased force structure targets from approximately 1,600 
staff to over 2,000 staff.

    Question 1.b. Is FEMA's focus on the migrant crisis and COVID 
contributing to FEMA's lacking personnel numbers and capability to 
carry out its core mission?
    Answer. We identified that FEMA's staffing gaps were partly due to 
increases in its disaster staffing targets. For example, there were 
increases in targets in certain cadres such as Public Assistance and 
Logistics. However, the year round pace of the COVID-19 pandemic and 
increasing number of disasters also contributed to recent staffing 
gaps. These included additional responsibilities due to COVID-19 and 
managing the rising disaster activity during the year, which increased 
burnout and employee attrition.

    Question 2. GAO identified that there are over 30 federal agencies 
and departments involved in disaster recovery with at least 32 
congressional committees involved.
    Question 2.a. How did disaster recovery get this complex and do you 
have recommendations on how to streamline this web of agencies?
    Answer. The current federal approach is the product of over 40 
years of incremental efforts to address emerging issues in disaster 
recovery through legislative reform--most recently with the enactment 
of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, as well as through 
evolving agency regulation and policy. These efforts have created a 
complex system of programs that were not always designed to work 
together effectively. There have been benefits to having multiple 
entities involved in disaster recovery. For example, agencies bring 
their various expertise to recovery projects, such as the Federal 
Transit Administration having key insights into how to successfully 
rebuild public transportation systems. In addition, different programs 
can have different focuses, such as the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development mainly serving low and moderate income populations. 
However, there have also been negative effects of this fragmentation. 
While Congress and federal agencies have taken some steps to improve 
the current system, including implementing some of our prior 
recommendations, these actions have largely focused on a single agency 
or program.
    In November 2022, we provided options to improve the federal 
approach to disaster recovery in addition to recommendations to improve 
agency efforts.\4\ Based on our review of relevant literature; 
interviews with federal, state and local officials; and our panel of 
experts, we identified 11 options. Some options could be acted on 
within one or more agencies' existing authorities while others may 
require Congressional action to implement.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ GAO, Disaster Recovery: Actions Needed to Improve the Federal 
Approach, GAO-23-104956 (Washington, D.C. November 15, 2022).
    \5\ Other than where we have made prior recommendations related to 
certain options, we do not endorse any particular option. Our report 
identified ways each option could be implemented and the strengths and 
limitations of each.

               Table 3: Options to Improve the Federal Government's Approach to Disaster Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Develop new coordinated efforts to clearly and consistently communicate about recovery programs.
2. Provide coordinated technical assistance throughout disaster recovery.
3. Develop models to more effectively coordinate across disaster recovery programs.
4. Develop a single online application portal for disaster recovery that feeds into one repository.
5. Standardize requirements of federal disaster recovery programs.
6. Simplify requirements of federal disaster recovery programs.
7. Further incentivize investments in disaster resilience as part of federally-funded recovery programs.
8. Identify desired recovery outcomes and develop a mechanism to track these across programs.
9. Prioritize disaster recovery funding for vulnerable communities across all federal programs.
10. Consolidate federal disaster recovery programs.
11. Adjust the role of the federal government in disaster recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of relevant literature; interviews with federal, state, and local officials; and our panel
  of experts. GAO-23-104956


    We recommended that FEMA and other agencies better manage 
fragmentation within their programs. Additionally, we recommended that 
Congress consider establishing an independent commission to recommend 
reforms to the federal government's approach to disaster recover, which 
may include the options identified in that report. As of June 2023, all 
recommendations remain open.

    Question 2.b. Are agencies working with one another to resolve 
overlaps and conflicts?
    Answer. As of May 2023, FEMA, and other agencies are coordinating 
to address our recommendations, including working with the White House 
and senior executives across the federal government through an 
Interagency Policy Committee. This interagency effort includes 
consideration of the options we identified. FEMA has paused its update 
of the ``National Disaster Recovery Framework'' until these efforts 
conclude. In the interim, FEMA and HUD are taking steps to streamline 
processes. For example, FEMA is working with the Small Business 
Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, and other partners 
to develop a plan for a single disaster assistance application, aligned 
with one of the options we identified, by end of calendar year 2023. In 
addition, HUD is seeking public input on ways to improve delivery of 
funds through its Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery. 
We are continuing to monitor agency progress to implement our 
recommendations.

    Question 3. Public Assistance is a complex and lengthy grant 
program that has long been a source of frustration for state and local 
officials. Complicating this is the fear that if rules are not followed 
or changed later, certain funding may be recouped years down the road. 
It seems that repeated attempts to streamline this program have not 
worked.
    Question 3.a. What steps are needed to streamline the Public 
Assistance Program?
    Answer. FEMA recognizes the need to streamline the Public 
Assistance program and as such has re-established the Public Assistance 
Steering Committee, a committee designed to help improve the Public 
Assistance process for applicants. It lists actions taken to date on 
its external facing website. For example, in September 2022, FEMA 
started allowing additional flexibility in costs claimed for power 
restoration work; and eliminated size requirements for the eligibility 
of the removal of hazardous trees, limbs, branches, and stumps for 
debris removal projects, among other things.
    Additionally, according to officials, FEMA increased the small 
project threshold and published a Simplified Procedures Policy.\6\ 
These efforts aim to reduce the administrative burden on small 
projects, which in turn can support equitable deliver of assistance to 
underserved communities and apply simplified procedures in a consistent 
manner. Further, FEMA refined its information collection forms to 
simplify the Public Assistance applicant's experience. These efforts 
aim to implement a risk-based approach by recognizing that every 
applicant or project does not require the same level of resources or 
oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ FEMA, FEMA Policy: Public Assistance Simplified Procedures, 
FEMA Policy FP-104-23-001 (Washington, D.C.: January 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, as mentioned previously, we developed 11 options to 
improve the federal government's approach to disaster recovery. Options 
such as developing a single online application portal for disaster 
recovery and simplifying and standardizing requirements for disaster 
recovery programs, among others could streamline these processes as 
well.

    Question 3.b. Are changes to the Stafford Act needed to address 
this issue?
    Answer. We have not conducted a review of the Stafford Act to 
determine what changes if any may be needed to streamline FEMA's Public 
Assistance program.\7\ However, we have reported on the challenges 
faced by state, local, tribal, and territorial entities in navigating 
the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  5170b, 5172, 5173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, we previously reported on Puerto Rico's challenges in 
developing long-term permanent work projects under the Public 
Assistance program. For example, in February 2020, we reported that a 
large number of damaged sites and delays in establishing cost 
estimation guidance specific to Puerto Rico presented challenges to 
developing projects.\8\ We recommended, among other things, that FEMA 
develop a repository for all current applicable Public Assistance 
policies and guidance for Puerto Rico and make it available to all 
recovery partners. FEMA agreed and, in response made Public Assistance 
policies and guidance documents accessible to Puerto Rico recovery 
partners. In November 2020, we reported that 3 years after the 
hurricanes destroyed much of Puerto Rico's electricity grid, neither 
FEMA nor the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had 
approved any long-term grid recovery projects in Puerto Rico.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ GAO, Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery: FEMA Actions Needed to 
Strengthen Project Cost Estimation and Awareness of Program Guidance, 
GAO-20-221 (Washington, D.C.: February 5, 2020).
    \9\ GAO, Puerto Rico Electricity: FEMA and HUD Have Not Approved 
Long-Term Projects and Need to Implement Recommendations to Address 
Uncertainties and Enhance Resilience, GAO-21-54 (Washington D.C.: 
November 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, in October 2021, we found that FEMA inconsistently 
interpreted and applied its policies for expenses eligible for COVID-19 
Public Assistance within and across its 10 regions.\10\ For example, 
officials in one state said that FEMA at one point had deemed the 
provision of personal protective equipment at correctional facilities 
as ineligible for reimbursement in their region but that states in 
other regions had received reimbursement for the same expense. These 
inconsistencies were due to, among other things, changes in policies as 
FEMA used the Public Assistance program for the first time to respond 
to a nationwide emergency. FEMA officials stated that it was difficult 
to ensure consistency in policies as different states and regions are 
not experiencing the same things at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ GAO, COVID-19: Additional Actions Needed to Improve 
Accountability and Program Effectiveness of Federal Response, GAO-22-
105051 (Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We recommended that FEMA require the agency's Public Assistance 
Program employees in the regions and at its Consolidated Resource 
Centers attend training on changes to COVID-19 Public Assistance 
policy. FEMA concurred with the recommendation and stated that it took 
a number of actions to educate staff on changes to COVID-19 Public 
Assistance policy. For example, FEMA conducted a webinar with over 300 
staff, which covered a number of issues. Between January 2022 and 
January 2023, FEMA posted two videos publicly and two for Program 
Delivery Managers related to COVID. In addition, it held the Public 
Assistance Working Session with state, local, territorial, and tribal 
partners in July 2022. However, FEMA has not provided information to us 
on whether these training sessions are required for its staff, nor 
whether they are ensuring FEMA Public Assistance staff understand the 
content and are applying it.

    Question 3.c. What impact has COVID-19 Public Assistance 
reimbursements and staffing gaps had on the ability to ensure timely 
processing for more traditional disasters?
    Answer. Specific to the impact of COVID-19 reimbursements on the 
timely processing for more traditional disasters, officials have stated 
that should the Disaster Relief Fund run a deficit, FEMA will 
prioritize funding disasters response and delay reimbursements for 
recovery operations. According to the June 2023 DRF monthly report, 
FEMA estimates a deficit at the end of fiscal year 2023 of 
approximately $9.6 billion dollars. We currently have ongoing work in 
this area and will report preliminary observations later this year.
    Regarding staffing gaps, as mentioned previously, we identified 
that these staffing gaps were partly due to increases in its disaster 
staffing targets. For example, increases in targets for certain cadres 
such as Public Assistance and Logistics and burnout and attrition due 
to the year round pace of the COVID-19 pandemic and increasing number 
of disasters contributed to recent staffing gaps.

Questions from Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon to Chris Currie, Director, 
  Homeland Security and Justice Team, U.S. Government Accountability 
                                 Office

    Question 1. On page 11 of the GAO report presented today, we see a 
graphic on how the different federal agencies are connected in the 
different aspects of a recovery. And that is all BEFORE you get to the 
level of the state or municipal agencies. No wonder things get slowed 
down or delayed!
    GAO recommends ``that FEMA, HUD, and DOT identify and take steps to 
better manage fragmentation between their individual disaster recovery 
programs and other federal programs. We also recommended that FEMA--as 
administrator of several disaster recovery programs--take steps to 
better manage fragmentation across its own programs, which could make 
the programs simpler, more accessible, and more user-friendly''.
    Should Congress specifically legislate that the Federal level 
institute a one-stop-shop disaster recovery model so that all the 
information is gathered once and shared widely?
    Answer. Reducing the complexity of the fragmented approach to 
disaster recovery is a policy challenge and any decision about the best 
path forward will require complex tradeoffs. In our November 2022 
report, we identified options for improving the federal approach, 
including, for example, consolidating federal programs and developing a 
single application for disaster recovery assistance that feeds into a 
one repository.\1\ Consolidating federal programs, such as reducing the 
number of agencies or collapsing the number of recovery programs, could 
simplify some processes and reduce the administrative burden on 
applicants. However, depending on how this option is implemented, it 
may not reduce the complexities of the programs and could negatively 
affect efforts to distribute resources equitably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ GAO, Disaster Recovery: Actions Needed to Improve the Federal 
Approach, GAO-23-104956 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Developing a single online portal for federal disaster recovery 
program applications could help applicants, including state and local 
governments and individual disaster survivors, identify which federal 
programs fit their specific recovery needs based on their eligibility. 
Having the information feed into one repository could reduce the need 
for applicants to input duplicative application information for 
multiple federal programs.\2\ It could also leverage existing federal 
sources of data to help inform program eligibility, such as tax data 
from the Internal Revenue Service.\3\ However, implementing this option 
could be challenging due to data sharing and privacy concerns as well 
as additional costs associated with developing a new system. As of May 
2023, FEMA is working with the Small Business Administration, the 
Office of Management and Budget, and other partners to develop a plan 
for a single disaster assistance application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Leicht, Holly M., Rebuild the Plane Now: Recommendations for 
Improving Government's Approach to Disaster Recovery and Preparedness 
(New York: July 2017): 6-7. Liu, Federal Post-Disaster Recovery, 6.
    \3\ Martin, Carlos, Brandi Gilbert, Dan Teles, and Brett Theodos. 
Housing Recovery and CDBG-DR: A Review of the Timing and Factors 
Associated with Housing Activities in HUD's Community Development Block 
Grant for Disaster Recovery Program (Washington, D.C.: April 2019): 72. 
Liu, Amy, Federal Post-Disaster Recovery: A Review of Federal Programs 
Summary of Key Observations and Recommendations from a Stakeholder 
Roundtable, (Washington, D.C.: May 2010).

    Question 2. As mentioned in the hearing, we have seen disasters 
that leave a sequel of extended consequences. The outlook is for 
potentially more repeat instances of such scales of damage and 
recovery. And one thing I run into with constituents is a perception 
that FEMA does everything related to every disaster and everything in a 
recovery is FEMA's responsibility--even if under a different agency or 
a state or private responsibility--and an apparent expectation that 
FEMA is supposed to just completely make whole everything.
    How do we manage these perceptions? The agency's name says 
``Emergency Management'' but, is there a need to also become, or even 
to create, what we could call a specifically rebuilding, recovery and 
resilience entity that looks beyond the emergency to the full recovery?
    Answer. One of the options we discuss in our November 2022 report 
involves consolidating disaster recovery programs, including 
consideration of a new agency focused on long-term disaster 
recovery.\4\ As we note in that report, addressing the fragmented 
approach to disaster recovery is a policy challenge and any efforts to 
do so should consider the complex tradeoffs and strengths and 
limitations. Reducing the number of agencies could simplify disaster 
recovery projects and reduce the siloes between funding streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See GAO-23-104956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, in September 2020 we reported that survivors 
experienced challenges with the requirements to apply for the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA's) disaster loan program and 
understanding FEMA's eligibility and award decisions.\5\ We recommended 
that FEMA improve the completeness and consistency of its communication 
of the requirement to apply for an SBA disaster loan prior to be 
considered for SBA-dependent other needs assistance. FEMA concurred 
with our recommendation and in May 2023 provided updates of its letters 
to disaster applicants outlining its communications on SBA 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ GAO, Disaster Assistance: Additional Actions Needed to 
Strengthen FEMA's Individuals and Households Program, GAO-20-503 
(Washington, D.C., Sep. 30, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Creating a new federal agency could provide an opportunity to 
design an approach that proactively focuses on mitigation, adaptation, 
and recovery while incorporating effectiveness and equity into its core 
mission. However, creating a new agency would not necessarily reduce 
the complexity of the individual programs or address the capacity 
challenges at the tribal, state, local, and territorial level. Creating 
a new agency for recovery and resilience may create additional 
coordination challenges as the line between response and recovery is 
not always clear and decisions made during response can impact recovery 
or result in more duplication of effort.

                                 [all]