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

[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]