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

                        FEMA: THE CURRENT STATE OF DISASTER
                         READINESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

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

                                    (118-27)

                                    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

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 19, 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
    54-986 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 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. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9

                                    WITNESS

    Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
      Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, oral statement...    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Letter of July 28, 2023, to Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator,
      Federal Emergency Management Agency, from Representatives Mike
      Ezell, Garret Graves, and Troy A. Carter, Submitted for the
      Record by Hon. Mike Ezell......................................    24
    Emails Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry..............    46

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions to Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator, Federal
      Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland
      Security, from:
        Hon. Lori Chavez-DeRemer.....................................    69
        Hon. Dina Titus..............................................    69
        Hon. Rick Larsen.............................................    70
        Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon................................    73
        Hon. Mike Ezell..............................................    81
        Hon. John Garamendi..........................................    85
        Hon. Greg Stanton............................................    90

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               September 15, 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 ``FEMA: The Current State
    of Disaster Readiness, Response, and Recovery''
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                   I. PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
    and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure will meet on Tuesday, September 19, 2023, at
    10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to
    receive testimony on a hearing entitled ``FEMA: The Current
    State of Disaster Readiness, Response, and Recovery.'' The
    hearing will examine how the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA) is carrying out its mission of ``helping people
    before, during, and after disasters.'' \1\ At the hearing,
    Members will receive testimony from the Honorable Deanne
    Criswell, Administrator of FEMA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ FEMA, About Us, (Aug. 31, 2023), available at https://
    www.fema.gov/about.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 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.\2\ 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. 100-
    707, as amended).\3\ The Stafford Act authorizes three types of
    declarations: (1) major disaster declarations; (2) emergency
    declarations; and (3) fire management grant (FMAG)
    declarations.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, (Feb. 3, 2023),
    available at https://www.dhs.gov/employee-resources/federal-emergency-
    management-agency-fema.
        \3\ Stafford Act, Pub. L. No. 100-707.
        \4\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED MAJOR DISASTER_

        When states or territories 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,'' \5\ the Governor of the affected
    state may request the President declare a major disaster.\6\
    FEMA's primary Stafford Act programs for disaster recovery in
    the aftermath of a major disaster are in the Public Assistance
    Program and the Individual Assistance and Households Program
    (IHP).\7\ Following a major disaster declaration, FEMA also
    provides Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ FEMA, A Guide to the Disaster Declaration Process and Federal
    Disaster Assistance 1, (last accessed Sept. 12, 2023), available at
    https://www.fema.gov/pdf/rebuild/recover/dec_proc.pdf.
        \6\ Id.
        \7\ Id.
        \8\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Public Assistance Program, authorized primarily by
    Sections 403, 406, and 428 of the Stafford Act, reimburses
    state, tribal, and territorial governments as well as certain
    private non-profits for repairing and rebuilding disaster
    damaged buildings and infrastructure.\9\ Additionally, the
    Public Assistance program also reimburses for costs associated
    with debris removal and emergency protective measures
    undertaken to reduce threats to public health and safety. The
    Public Assistance Program does not provide direct services to
    citizens for private property damage. The Federal cost-share
    for Public Assistance is 75 percent but may be increased by the
    President.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ FEMA, Assistance for Governments and Private Non-Profits After
    a Disaster, (Feb. 23, 2023), available at https://www.fema.gov/
    assistance/public.
        \10\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5172
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The IHP is authorized primarily by Section 408 of the
    Stafford Act. The IHP 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.\11\ The current limits for IHP
    assistance is $41,000 for housing assistance and $41,000 for
    other needs assistance.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ FEMA, Individuals and Households Program, (Feb. 3, 2023),
    available at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/individual/program.
        \12\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5174
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Section 404 of the Stafford Act authorizes HMGP, which
    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.\13\ 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. State,
    tribal, and territorial governments may use their HMGP funds to
    assist families in reducing the risk to their homes from
    natural disasters. The Federal cost share for HMGP is 75
    percent.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), (Dec. 27, 2022),
    available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation.
        \14\ 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.\15\ DRRA
    addresses the rising costs of disasters in the United States
    and reformed Federal disaster programs to ensure communities
    are better prepared for future hurricanes, flooding,
    earthquakes, wildfires, and other disasters. This legislation
    was intended to improve pre-disaster planning and mitigation,
    to reduce the future loss of life and the rising costs of
    disasters through the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
    Communities (BRIC) program.\16\ Studies have shown for every
    dollar spent in mitigation, between four and thirteen dollars
    is saved in avoided disaster recovery costs.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ DRRA, Pub. L. No. 115-254.
        \16\ FEMA, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, (Dec.
    1, 2022), available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-
    resilient-infrastructure-communities.
        \17\ National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard
    Mitigation Saves 2019 Report (December 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. CURRENT CHALLENGES

    DISASTER RELIEF FUND_

        The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is a no-year appropriation
    against which FEMA can direct, coordinate, manage, and fund
    eligible response and recovery efforts associated with domestic
    major disasters and emergencies that overwhelm state resources
    pursuant to the Stafford Act.\18\ Through the DRF, FEMA can
    fund authorized Federal disaster support activities as well as
    eligible state, territorial, tribal, and local actions such as
    providing emergency protection and debris removal.\19\ The DRF
    also funds the repair and restoration of qualifying disaster-
    damaged public infrastructure, hazard mitigation initiatives,
    financial assistance to eligible disaster survivors, and FMAGs
    for qualifying large forest or grassland wildfires.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Reports, (Aug. 29, 2023),
    available at https://www.fema.gov/about/reports-and-data/disaster-
    relief-fund-monthly-reports.
        \19\ FEMA, Fact Sheet: FEMA's Public Assistance Process, (June 7,
    2018), available at https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210318/fact-
    sheet-femas-public-assistance-process.
        \20\ FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Reports, (Aug. 29, 2023),
    available at https://www.fema.gov/about/reports-and-data/disaster-
    relief-fund-monthly-reports.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In February 2023, the Committee was first made aware of a
    potential DRF deficit that was projected to occur in July.\21\
    Subsequently, the monthly DRF report shifted the depletion
    projection to August 2023 which was confirmed by the FEMA
    Deputy Administrator during a Subcommittee hearing in May.\22\
    However, during that hearing FEMA was unable to provide the
    Subcommittee with details on the timing of any request for
    supplemental appropriations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ FEMA, February 2023 Disaster Relief Fund Report, (Feb. 9,
    2023), available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
    fema_disaster-relief-fund-report_022023.pdf.
        \22\ FEMA, May 2023 Disaster Relief Fund Report (May 9, 2023),
    available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
    fema_disaster-relief-fund-report_052023.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On August 10, 2023, the President submitted a supplemental
    request to Congress with $12 billion in disaster funding in
    addition to funding for Ukraine, border and migration, and
    wildland firefighter pay.\23\ On August 29, 2023, the
    Administrator sent a letter to the Committee indicating that
    FEMA was implementing immediate needs funding (INF).\24\ The
    implementation of INF halts DRF obligations to states,
    territories, and Federally recognized tribes for mitigation and
    long term recovery projects like the repair and replacement of
    disaster damaged roads, bridges, schools, and wastewater
    treatment plants. DRF funding is only obligated for response
    activities that lessens the loss of life and property and meets
    disaster survivor's immediate unmet needs during and following
    a disaster.\25\ As of September 12, 2023, the DRF balance is
    $2.9 billion.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Letter from Shalanda Young, Director, Office of Management and
    Budget to Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, United States House of
    Representatives (August 10, 2023), available at https://
    www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Final-Supplemental-
    Funding-Request-Letter-and-Technical-Materials.pdf.
        \24\ Letter from Deanne Criswell, Administrator, FEMA to Sam
    Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure (Aug. 29, 2023)
    (On file with Comm.).
        \25\ FEMA, Immediate Needs Funding Fact Sheet, (Aug. 2023),
    available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
    fema_inf-fact-sheet.pdf.
        \26\ E-mail from Brian Fauls, Congressional Affairs Specialist,
    Congressional Affairs Division, FEMA (Sept. 12, 2023, 4:30 p.m. EST)
    (on file with Comm.).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On August 31, 2023, President Biden requested an additional
    $4 billion for the DRF because of the disasters occurring
    across the United States, increasing the total disaster
    supplemental request to $16 billion.\27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Josh Boak, Biden wants an extra $4 billion for disaster
    relief, bringing the total request to $16 billion, AP News, (Sept. 1,
    2023), available at https://apnews.com/article/wildfire-hurricane-
    flooding-fema-disaster-relief-budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MAUI FIRES_

        On August 8, 2023, Maui, Hawaii, experienced historic and
    devastating fires resulting in destruction in Lahaina. On
    August 9, 2023, the President approved a FMAG to support
    firefighting efforts and on August 10, 2023, a Federal major
    disaster declaration was issued.\28\ The Maui fire is one of
    the deadliest wildfires in the United States' history.\29\ As
    of September 5, 2023, 115 individuals were reported as dead,
    and 66 individuals were reported as missing.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ See E-mail from Jason Nelson, Chief, Disaster Response &
    Recovery, Congressional Affairs Division, FEMA (Aug. 10, 2023, 9:20
    a.m. EST) (on file with Comm.); FEMA Notification of a Major Disaster
    Declaration for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4724-DR-HI), (Aug. 10, 2023),
    available at https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4724.
        \29\ Bill Hutchison, Maui wildfire now ranks as the fifth-deadliest
    in US history, ABCNews, (Aug. 22, 2023), available at https://
    abcnews.go.com/US/maui-wildfire-now-ranks-deadliest-us-history/
    story?id=102249625.
        \30\ E-mail from Jessica Zanotti, Congressional Affairs Specialist,
    Congressional Affairs Division, FEMA (Sept. 5, 2023, 1:39 p.m. EST) (on
    file with Comm.); Audrey McAvoy, The number of people missing following
    devastating Maui wildfires has dropped to 66, governor says, AP News
    (Sept. 8, 2023), available at https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-
    wildfires-maui-recovery-josh-green-5255b24219ba35e98ecf2d684c197717.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FEMA is coordinating the Federal response effort with three
    disaster recovery centers on the island of Maui, and more than
    10,500 survivors have registered for Federal assistance.\31\ To
    date, $20.8 million has been approved to assist over 5,000
    households under the IHP.\32\ The cause of the fire is
    currently under investigation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is supporting Maui County Fire
    Officials and other local partners efforts to investigate the
    causes of the fire including possible poor electric
    infrastructure and management.\33\ A lawsuit has been filed
    alleging these claims.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Id.
        \32\ E-mail from Jessica Zanotti, Staff, FEMA to Staff, H. Comm. on
    Transp. & Infrastructure (Sept. 4, 2023) (On file with Comm.).
        \33\ Robert Legare, Federal investigators deploy to Maui to assist
    with fire probe, CBS News, (Aug. 18, 2023), available at https://
    www.cbsnews.com/news/maui-lahaina-wildfire-federal-investigators-
    deploy-to-assist-with-fire-probe/.
        \34\ Andy Rose, Who caused Maui's devastating wildfire? Lawsuit
    adds telecom companies and landowners to the list, CNN (Sept. 7, 2023),
    available at https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/business/maui-fire-lawsuit/
    index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 IV. CONCLUSION

        September is National Emergency Preparedness Month and FEMA
    currently has active disaster declarations for floods,
    hurricanes, and wildfires. Given this, the hearing will focus
    on the Nation's current state of disaster readiness, response,
    and recovery under FEMA's leadership and guidance.

                                   V. WITNESS

         LThe Honorable Deanne Criswell, Administrator,
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), United States
    Department of Homeland Security

     FEMA: THE CURRENT STATE OF DISASTER READINESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 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 10:05 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 email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an
    opening statement for 5 minutes.

        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 witness, the Honorable
    Dianne--correction, Deanne. Is it Deanna or Deanne?
        Ms. Criswell. Deanne.
        Mr. Perry [continuing]. Deanne Criswell, the Administrator
    of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, as we call
    it, for being here today.
        Today, we are focusing on the current state of FEMA's
    readiness, response, and recovery. FEMA's core mission is to
    help people before, during, and after disasters. Unfortunately,
    FEMA has added layers of bureaucracy and adopted political
    agendas which have impacted how it delivers on its core
    mission. The Biden administration is imposing an agenda focused
    on climate change and equity, which is diverting away from
    FEMA's core mission.
        On August 28th, the committee was alerted that the Disaster
    Relief Fund--we will consider that the DRF at this point--would
    move to Immediate Needs Funding, or INF, until additional funds
    are appropriated. Now, under INF, Federal reimbursements to
    States, Territories, and federally recognized Tribes for long-
    term disaster recovery projects are halted. Instead, the
    remaining balance in the DRF is reserved for any immediate
    lifesaving response activities.
        Committee staff first asked FEMA back in February--that is
    a long time ago now--what it was going to do to avoid the DRF
    running out of money, since FEMA's own monthly reports
    indicated the DRF was projected to be depleted by now, in
    September, where we are. FEMA provided no real solutions or
    answers.
        Despite ongoing inquiries in the weeks and months since, we
    were not notified of a supplemental request until it was
    officially submitted to Congress in August, last month, and the
    request was tied to Ukraine spending.
        Now, in the wake of one of the deadliest fires in United
    States history, a supplemental request for additional disaster
    funding comes with strings attached to Ukraine? You just think
    about that in the audience and if you are watching this. The
    American taxpayer, the people that are suffering from
    disasters, and somehow couldn't be bothered to discuss getting
    the DRF refunded until August, and it is tied to Ukraine. I
    can't reconcile that.
        I have overarching concerns about decisions being made that
    waste taxpayer dollars and reduce our readiness. We see FEMA's
    funding request to support domestic disaster response
    activities tied with Ukraine. We see FEMA, under this
    administration, significantly expanding its mitigation programs
    in ways that no longer require projects to demonstrate that
    they will, in fact, reduce costs or actually save lives, all in
    the name of equity and climate change. We also see FEMA
    resources diverted for other purposes, such as the border
    crisis, despite FEMA reportedly being understaffed and
    obviously underfunded.
        The Homeland Security Act prohibits--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. Yes. And yet your agency can't be bothered to follow
    that law. That is concerning to me.
        FEMA clearly has a significant capacity problem, and every
    diversion of resources undermines its ability to perform core
    missions. The GAO confirmed this capacity issue at a hearing
    earlier this year. But we know, in response to letters from
    Chairman Graves of the full committee to FEMA, that key FEMA
    personnel have been diverted by the Secretary to assist with
    bringing people into the country illegally.
        FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program, originally
    created to help homeless Americans, has now become a program to
    pay for illegal foreign nationals residing in our communities
    and in our cities.
        I know I may disagree with many of my colleagues on the
    role of the Federal Government and what it should play when it
    comes to disasters. But, regardless, FEMA should not be used to
    advance partisan policy objectives, and FEMA resources--
    taxpayer resources through FEMA--should not be diverted for
    other purposes unrelated to its mission.
        Ultimately, all of this impacts FEMA's readiness and
    ability to respond to disasters happening across our country,
    from the Maui wildfires to Hurricane Idalia and multiple
    flooding events. Now, we can debate the role of the Federal
    Government, but at the very least--at the very least--we need
    to ensure FEMA is focused on its core mission because that is
    the one thing that this Congress or that a Congress and the
    President agreed to and signed into law.
        I look forward to hearing from you today, Administrator
    Criswell.
        [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
        I want to thank our witness, the Honorable Deanne Criswell, the
    Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for being here
    today.
        Today, we are focusing on the current state of FEMA's readiness,
    response, and recovery. FEMA's core mission is to help people before,
    during, and after disasters.
        Unfortunately, FEMA has added layers of bureaucracy and pushed
    political agendas, which have impacted how it delivers on its core
    mission. The Biden Administration is pushing an agenda focused on
    climate change and equity, diverting away from FEMA's core mission.
        On August 28th, the Committee was alerted that the Disaster Relief
    Fund (DRF) would move to immediate needs funding (INF) until additional
    funds are appropriated. Under INF, federal reimbursements to states,
    territories, and federally recognized tribes for long-term disaster
    recovery projects are halted.
        Instead, the remaining balance in the DRF is reserved for any
    immediate, life-saving response activities. Committee staff first asked
    FEMA back in February what it was going to do to avoid the DRF running
    out of money, since FEMA's own monthly reports indicated the DRF was
    projected to be depleted by now.
        FEMA provided no real solutions or answers.
        Despite ongoing inquiries in the weeks and months since, we were
    not notified of a supplemental request until it was officially
    submitted to Congress in August, and the request was tied to Ukraine
    spending.
        In the wake of one of the deadliest fires in United States history,
    a supplemental request for additional disaster funding comes with
    strings attached to Ukraine. I have overarching concerns about
    decisions being made that waste taxpayer dollars and reduce our
    readiness.
        We see FEMA's funding request to support domestic disaster response
    activities tied with Ukraine. We see FEMA, under this administration,
    significantly expanding its mitigation programs in ways that no longer
    require projects to demonstrate that they will in fact reduce costs and
    save lives--all in the name of equity and climate change. We also see
    FEMA resources diverted for other purposes, such as the border crisis,
    despite FEMA reportedly being understaffed.
        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 core
    missions--the Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed this
    capacity issue at a hearing earlier this year. But we know, in response
    to letters from Chairman Graves of the Full Committee to FEMA, that key
    FEMA personnel have been diverted by the Secretary to help with the
    border crisis.
        FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program, originally created to
    help homeless Americans, has now become a migrant program. I know I may
    disagree with many of my colleagues on the role the federal government
    should play when it comes to disasters. But, regardless, FEMA should
    not be used to advance partisan policy objectives, and FEMA resources
    should not be diverted for other purposes unrelated to its mission.
        Ultimately, all of this impacts FEMA's readiness and ability to
    respond to disasters happening across the country, from the Maui
    wildfires to Hurricane Idalia, and multiple flooding events. We can
    debate the role of the federal government, but at the very least, we
    need to ensure FEMA is focused on its core mission.
        I look forward to hearing from you today, Administrator Criswell.

        Mr. Perry. I now recognize the ranking member, Member
    Titus, Representative 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, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Administrator Criswell, for joining us today
    as we discuss FEMA's ability to lead disaster response and
    recovery.
        Since your testimony to the subcommittee last year, climate
    change and severe weather incidents have continued to generate
    dire circumstances that your agency has had to deal with. The
    Disaster Relief Fund, as a result, which serves as the backbone
    of your response and recovery programs, is nearing depletion.
    So, it is of utmost importance that Congress fulfill the
    President's request for supplemental funding, and we should do
    that free of any poison pills that try to impose social policy
    into this area.
        That is the only way that FEMA can continue to provide the
    necessary resources for ongoing recovery efforts like we are
    seeing in Maui and Florida, and we are likely to see even more
    emerge in the near future as we are into hurricane season. So,
    I appreciate your steadfast leadership of FEMA during this
    difficult time.
        My home State of Nevada has also experienced some
    terrifying impacts of climate change, and I want to take time
    to thank the FEMA people and the emergency response managers in
    my State for their rapid response to the extreme weather that
    threatened communities, especially in southern Nevada. You
    don't think about having a hurricane in the desert but, indeed,
    we saw that across southern California and some of its impact
    into the southern part of Nevada.
        We also had unrelenting heat. And we know that heat is a
    threat, just like other natural disasters, that needs to be
    addressed. And we had repeated flash flooding. A wadi, or a
    channel, that can be dry for years can suddenly become a
    rushing river. And we have a drought in the West that has been
    ongoing and likely will cause some of these disasters to get
    worse in the coming years.
        So, as we work together with Nevada communities, I think
    this demonstrates one of the priorities of the administration,
    which is an all-of-Government approach, and that is the only
    way we can deal with this.
        In addition to all of Government, we think equity is
    important. We think that solutions must guarantee that all
    disaster survivors and communities are created and treated
    fairly by these programs, and these programs are addressed
    fairly, regardless of the neighborhood.
        Natural disasters amplify existing disparities in our
    society, and it should go without saying that Government is
    here to address the needs of every American equally. Not just
    the more affluent neighborhoods should be rebuilt as we try to
    respond to these kind of crises.
        The subcommittee has received considerable testimony from
    underserved communities about their frustration of how they
    seem to be ignored, how much time it takes, how they are not in
    a position to get additional funding, and we need to be sure
    that FEMA addresses that.
        And I know that you do, Administrator, I know you recognize
    these longstanding disparities and you have been working with
    us to try to address them. We appreciate your work to implement
    new laws and policies that will have these long-term benefits
    and improve the well-being of victims all across the board.
        I especially appreciate and value your public support for
    reforms in the bill introduced by myself, Congressman Garret
    Graves, Congressman Troy Carter, and Congresswoman Jenniffer
    Gonzalez-Colon, and this is the Disaster Survivor Fairness Act.
    We passed that out of the full committee unanimously earlier
    this year. I would like to see it come forward, because it was
    unanimous, bipartisan, and it was designed to make Federal
    disaster aid more accessible to survivors. And it can
    contribute to some of the problems that the chairman has
    pointed out about making it more efficient and more effective.
        It removes barriers by creating a universal application for
    Federal assistance, and it empowers the Agency to assess home
    damage more fairly, more quickly, and more accurately. This
    should ease the burden on families applying for disaster
    assistance, and we hope to see it passed because these are the
    worst times in their lives and that is the least their
    Government can do.
        So, Administrator, I thank you and your colleagues for the
    work you have done to shepherd FEMA in a positive direction. I
    think you have done that by acknowledging and addressing the
    impacts of climate change, prioritizing equity, which we think
    is important, and investing in mitigation and resilience so we
    do build back better.
        We recognize the challenges you face, and we want to do
    everything we can to help you, and we know that that fund needs
    to be replenished. So, thank you for being here.
        And I yield back.
        [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 Administrator Criswell for
    joining us today as we discuss FEMA's readiness to lead disaster
    response and recovery.
        Since your testimony to this Subcommittee last year, climate change
    and the related severe weather events have continued to generate dire
    circumstances for FEMA. The Disaster Relief Fund, which serves as the
    backbone for FEMA's response and recovery programs, is nearing
    depletion. It is of the utmost importance that Congress fulfill
    President Biden's supplemental funding request, free of any poison
    pills, so FEMA can continue providing the necessary resources for
    ongoing recovery efforts, including those in Maui and Florida, and
    needs that will emerge in the near future. I greatly appreciate your
    steadfast leadership and the dedication of FEMA's staff during this
    challenging time.
        My home state of Nevada has experienced terrifying impacts in the
    wake of the new climate reality, and I want to take the time to
    acknowledge all of the emergency managers across the state and in my
    district who have been working diligently to prepare for and respond to
    extreme weather threatening our communities. This summer we all held
    our breaths as a hurricane threatened to cross the desert. Meanwhile,
    Las Vegas has experienced unrelenting extreme heat and repeated flash
    floods. What's more, is that a record drought in the West indicates
    these disasters will only grow worse in the coming years and we must
    work together to ensure Nevadan communities are ready to handle their
    consequences.
        Solutions must guarantee that all disaster survivors and
    communities are treated fairly by FEMA's programs. Natural disasters
    amplify existing disparities in our society and it should go without
    saying that the government must address the needs of every American
    equally in disaster recovery. Some of our most vulnerable populations,
    however, have been neglected or overlooked. The subcommittee has
    received testimony from underserved communities over time regarding
    frustration with FEMA's attention to their needs in times of recovery.
        Administrator, I know you recognize these long-standing disparities
    and are working with us to change them. We appreciate your work to
    implement new laws and policies that will have long-term benefits,
    improve the well-being of victims following disasters, and enhance the
    resilience of our public infrastructure and homes.
        I especially value your public support for reforms in a bill
    introduced by myself, Congressman Garret Graves, Congressman Troy
    Carter, and Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon--the Disaster
    Survivor Fairness Act, which passed out of the full committee
    unanimously earlier this year. This legislation is designed to make
    federal disaster aid more easily accessible to survivors, and it is my
    hope this bill can contribute to FEMA adapting 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 days of their lives.
        Administrator, I thank you and your colleagues for the work you
    have done to shepherd FEMA in a positive direction by acknowledging and
    addressing the impacts of climate change, prioritizing equity, and
    investing in mitigation and resilience. We recognize the challenges you
    face, and we want to do everything in our power to help you succeed.
        Thank you.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady from Nevada.
        The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
    committee, Chairman Graves, for 5 minutes for his opening
    statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GRAVES OF MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN,
             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

        Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Chairman Perry, and
    thank you, Administrator Criswell, for being here today.
        On a bipartisan basis, the committee, and this
    subcommittee, in particular, have worked to improve FEMA and
    the Federal Government's emergency management system. I am
    proud to again be one of the cochairs of FEMA's National
    Preparedness Month, which helps educate the American people on
    what they can do to be prepared.
        FEMA's role is critical. We have had recent flooding and
    tornadoes in my district, and it is important for FEMA to work
    quickly and closely with the State emergency management
    agencies and local responders.
        Last month, on August 4th, an EF2 tornado ripped through
    the city of Baring in Knox County, Missouri, in my district.
    Governor Parson submitted a Federal disaster declaration on
    September 6th, and I hope that FEMA will work swiftly and
    efficiently to approve this declaration so the people in
    Missouri can continue to recover.
        I also hope that many of the reforms that we have passed in
    my time on the committee are going to help remove a lot of
    unnecessary redtape and bureaucratic policies as we move
    through the recovery process.
        So, I look forward to hearing what the Administrator, what
    you have to say today on this and other critical issues as we
    prepare for and respond to disasters all across this country.
        And with that, Chairman Perry, I yield back.
        [Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
     from the State of Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation
                               and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chairman Perry, and thank you to Administrator Criswell
    for being here today.
        On a bipartisan basis, the Committee and this subcommittee in
    particular, have worked to improve FEMA and the federal government's
    emergency management system. I am proud to again be one of the co-
    chairs of FEMA's National Preparedness Month to help educate the
    American people on what they can do to be prepared.
        FEMA's role is critical. With recent flooding events and tornados
    in my district, it's important for FEMA to work quickly and closely
    with the State Emergency Management Agencies and local responders.
        Last month, on August 4th, an EF-2 tornado ripped through the city
    of Baring in Knox County, Missouri. Governor Parson submitted a federal
    disaster declaration on September 6th, and I hope FEMA will work
    swiftly and efficiently to approve this declaration so the people of
    Missouri can continue to recover.
        I also hope that many of the reforms we have passed in my time on
    the Committee will help remove unnecessary red tape and bureaucratic
    policies as we move through the recovery process.
        I look forward to hearing from the Administrator today on this and
    other critical issues as we prepare for and respond to disasters across
    the Nation.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for his 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
    Perry and subcommittee Ranking Member Titus, for calling
    today's hearing. It will be an opportunity today to discuss the
    many challenges FEMA is facing due to a busy disaster season
    and then the strategies to overcome those challenges.
        Climate change is making disasters more frequent, intense,
    and costly. NOAA announced a troubling new record this month,
    that in 2023, the U.S. has experienced a record number of
    disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion, 23 separate
    events with each of those events exceeding $1 billion. Disaster
    season is far from over, so, this figure is bound to grow.
        The intensity of this year's disaster season is rapidly
    depleting the Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. I am very
    concerned about the lack of funding available to fight these
    disasters and the impact on FEMA's authorized programs.
        In the wake of Maui's wildfires and in anticipation of
    Hurricane Idalia, FEMA announced the implementation of
    Immediate Needs Funding last month to save what little money
    FEMA has left. I understand that FEMA is only obligating funds
    for direct aid to disaster survivors and actions that
    immediately save life and property.
        The result is all other recovery projects, such as
    rebuilding roads, bridges, and schools, are on hold
    indefinitely. And FEMA has had to put about 1,610 recovery and
    mitigation projects on hold, impacting nearly every State and
    every community in our country.
        The current state of the Disaster Relief Fund is not FEMA's
    fault, however. It is Congress' responsibility to provide
    enough funding in the annual appropriations. So, it is
    imperative that Congress work together in a bipartisan manner
    to replenish the DRF as soon as possible so that FEMA can
    continue to fulfill its mission of helping people before,
    during, and after disasters.
        However, addressing the record number of billion-dollar
    disasters requires more than just adding more money to the DRF.
    FEMA needs to adapt and implement a strategy of readiness for
    an evolving world so it can provide an adequate response each
    time a disaster is declared. Deputy Administrator Hooks briefed
    us earlier this year on current efforts outlined in FEMA's
    strategic plan to address that.
        I appreciate the time that Regional Administrator Nunn in
    region 10 and his team took to run a disaster response tabletop
    exercise with my staff in Washington State. The exercise was
    very informative and facilitated several important connections.
    In fact, it is something I would encourage other Members to do
    in their regions with their FEMA regional directors to better
    understand Congress' role in responding to disasters.
        But there is always more work to be done. With more than a
    50-percent increase in storms and disasters in the last 10
    years, FEMA must use science to incorporate climate change
    projections into all of its programs. In order to address
    modern natural disasters, we also need to expand mitigation and
    increase resilience. Overwhelming evidence shows that
    mitigation is a commonsense, cost-effective way to save lives
    and property. So, I support expanding funding and access for
    mitigation and resilience projects.
        And we need to leverage all the resilience funding provided
    by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This landmark legislation
    included a $7 billion investment for pre-disaster mitigation
    programs, which made it possible for FEMA to support the
    largest Notice of Funding Opportunity in the Building Resilient
    Infrastructure and Communities program, the BRIC program, the
    largest NOFO in its history, last Congress, and funded the new
    STORM Revolving Loan Fund program.
        I also hope new authorities provided by legislation such as
    Representative Davids' Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act
    will also help the Agency target funding to communities with
    the greatest need and highest risk of natural disasters.
        We have to ensure all communities have equal opportunity to
    access these vital funds, and this can be achieved by providing
    additional technical assistance to underserved applicants and
    simplifying the benefit-cost analysis requirement.
        More needs to be done to ensure our Nation's readiness by
    incorporating climate change projections into all FEMA's
    programs and making access to pre-disaster mitigation grants
    equitable.
        Administrator, you have a difficult job. I want to thank
    you for the work that you do and that your team does and that
    they have done under your leadership. Your dedication and
    service to communities throughout the country is well-noted,
    and we need to do our job in supporting FEMA's efforts to
    ensure more equitable outcomes and building a more resilient
    Nation.
        So, I look forward to discussing how we can work together
    to drive needed reforms and help FEMA achieve its goals. And
    thank you for being here. I look forward to your testimony.
        And I yield back.
        [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 Current State of
    Disaster Readiness, Response and Recovery.''
        Today will be an opportunity to discuss the many challenges FEMA is
    facing due to a busy disaster season and strategies for overcoming
    these challenges.
        Climate change is making disasters more frequent, intense and
    costly.
        NOAA announced a troubling new record this month--in 2023, the U.S.
    has experienced a record number of disaster events with losses
    exceeding $1 billion in the 23 separate events. Disaster season is far
    from over, so this figure is bound to grow.
        The intensity of this year's disaster season is rapidly depleting
    the Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. I am very concerned about the lack
    of funding available to fight these disasters.
        In the wake of the Maui wildfires and in anticipation of Hurricane
    Idalia, you announced the implementation of Immediate Needs Funding
    last month to save what little money FEMA has left.
        I understand that FEMA is only obligating funds for direct aid to
    disaster survivors and actions that immediately save life and property.
        The result is that all other recovery projects such as rebuilding
    vital roads, bridges and schools have been put on hold indefinitely. A
    total of 1,610 recovery and mitigation projects have been put on hold--
    impacting nearly every state and every community in our country.
        I want to emphasize that the current state of the Disaster Relief
    Fund is not FEMA's fault. It is Congress' responsibility to provide
    enough funding in annual appropriations.
        It is imperative that Congress work together in a bipartisan manner
    to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund as soon as possible, so you can
    continue to fulfill FEMA's mission of helping people before, during and
    after disasters.
        However, addressing the record number of billion-dollar disasters
    requires more than just adding more money to the Disaster Relief Fund.
        FEMA needs to adapt and implement a strategy of readiness for an
    evolving world so it can provide an adequate response each time a
    disaster is declared.
        Deputy Administrator Hooks briefed us this Spring on current
    efforts outlined in FEMA's strategic plan to address that.
        I appreciate the time Regional Administrator Nunn and his team took
    to run a disaster response tabletop exercise with my staff in
    Washington. The exercise was very informative and facilitated several
    important connections. In fact, it's something I would encourage other
    members to do with FEMA in their regions with their region directors to
    better understand Congress' role in responding to disasters.
        But there is always more work to be done. With a more than 50
    percent increase in storms and disasters in the last 10 years FEMA must
    use science to incorporate climate change projections into all its
    programs. So, communities like Maui are prepared for unprecedented
    disasters before they happen.
        In order to address modern natural disasters, we also need to
    expand mitigation and increase resilience.
        Overwhelming evidence has proven that mitigation is a commonsense,
    cost-effective way to save lives and property.
        That is why I support expanding funding and access for mitigation
    and resilience projects.
        We need to leverage all the resilience funding provided by the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
        This landmark legislation included a $7 billion investment for pre-
    disaster mitigation programs, which made it possible for FEMA to
    support the largest Notice of Funding Opportunity in the Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program's history last
    Congress and funded the new Storm Revolving Loan Fund program.
        I also hope new authorities provided by legislation such as
    Representative Davids Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act will help
    the Agency target funding to communities with the greatest need and
    highest risk of natural disasters.
        You must ensure that all communities have equal opportunity to
    access these vital funds. This can be achieved by providing additional
    technical assistance to underserved applicants and simplifying the
    benefit cost analysis requirement.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made great progress in making our
    nation more resilient by providing nearly $7 billion to help
    communities proactively prepare for disasters.
        More needs to be done to ensure our nation's readiness by
    incorporating climate change projections into all of FEMA's programs
    and making access to pre-disaster mitigation grants equitable.
        Administrator, you have a difficult job. I want to thank you for
    all the work that you do and your team does and that they have done
    under your leadership. Your dedication and service to communities
    throughout the country is well known and we need to do our job to
    support FEMA's efforts to ensure more equitable outcomes and building a
    more resilient nation.
        I look forward to discussing how we can work together to drive
    needed reforms and help FEMA achieve its goals.
        Thank you for being here, I look forward to hearing your testimony
    today.

        Mr. Perry. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
        I would like to again welcome our witness and thank you for
    spending your time with us here today. I know you are busy, and
    we appreciate your presence.
        Briefly, I would like to take a moment to explain our
    lighting system to you. There are three lights in front of you.
    Green means go, yellow means you are running out of time, and
    red means to conclude your remarks. It actually means you
    probably should have already concluded your remarks, but we
    will give you a little grace there.
        I ask unanimous consent that the witness' full statement be
    included in the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        As your written testimony has been made part of the
    official record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral
    remarks to 5 minutes, ma'am.
        With that, Administrator Criswell, you are recognized for 5
    minutes for your testimony and statement.

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

        Ms. Criswell. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
    Titus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this
    opportunity to discuss the state of FEMA.
        FEMA has a powerful mission statement spelled out in just
    seven words: Helping people before, during, and after
    disasters. That mission statement, it is our North Star, and it
    reflects a deep and abiding commitment of our workforce to
    public service.
        And I can say without hesitation that our mission at FEMA
    has become more challenging. We can no longer really speak of a
    disaster season. From atmospheric rivers in January to
    tornadoes and wildfires in December, we now face intensified
    natural disasters throughout the year, often in places not used
    to experiencing them.
        In just the last several months alone, we have seen
    disasters ranging from record flooding in Vermont, to the
    deadliest wildfire in over a century on the island of Maui, to
    the first tropical cyclone to make landfall in California since
    1938.
        It is, therefore, vital that FEMA be able to tap into a
    properly funded Disaster Relief Fund. We strive to be vigilant
    stewards of the taxpayer dollar, and we are careful in our
    budget predictions. However, there are times when disasters
    outpace our appropriated funds, and we are in such a moment
    today.
        The administration has requested a supplemental funding
    package that includes $16 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund,
    and I urge congressional approval of this request and the
    administration's fiscal year 2024 budget request as soon as
    possible.
        As a result of the dwindling DRF, on August 29, FEMA
    implemented Immediate Needs Funding for the first time since
    2017. Under INF, we are prioritizing lifesaving and life-
    sustaining disaster response and delaying obligations for
    longer term work. As a result, we have needed to pause
    obligations to over 1,000 Public Assistance projects across the
    country worth over $1.5 billion. And you all have my commitment
    that FEMA will move quickly to resume obligations paused under
    INF as soon as the DRF is replenished, but, again, Congress
    must act today without delay.
        Of course, to be effective, FEMA requires not only funding,
    but a well-trained workforce ready to deploy at a moment's
    notice. And the vast majority of our 22,000-person workforce
    are reservists. And I thank this committee and Congress for
    passing the CREW Act last year, which extended to our
    reservists USERRA job protections. This law is already
    improving our recruitment and our retention efforts.
        FEMA is also working to constantly improve the technology
    our programs use. After Hurricane Ian impacted Florida, we
    implemented a unique Rapid Debris Removal Task Force that used
    a combination of satellite, flyover, and on-the-ground data to
    identify areas where the debris was particularly concentrated,
    and cleared 19 million cubic yards of debris--enough to fill
    more than 5,800 Olympic-size swimming pools--within 6 weeks
    across the hardest hit areas. This was months faster than we
    have been able to do previously.
        We are also using remote sensing technology in Maui to
    match homes listed in our Individual Assistance program with
    detailed map images. When a match is made, the survivor's case
    information is shared with our housing inspectors, who can then
    reach out to survivors without requiring them to be present at
    their destroyed homes. We will continue to leverage
    technologies such as this to achieve this kind of people-first
    results.
        But FEMA is not only a response and recovery agency. We
    also work to mitigate the worst impacts of disasters before
    they occur. An essential way to build resilience across our
    country is through adoption of hazard-resilient building codes,
    which have avoided at least $32 billion in losses from natural
    disasters since 2000 alone.
        And I recently met with survivors in Horseshoe Beach, a
    small community in Florida's Big Bend, which received the brunt
    of Hurricane Idalia's wind and storm surge recently, but where
    many buildings remained largely unscathed. I talked with one
    homeowner who owned several such properties, and he told me
    clearly: I built to code, and codes work. However, two out of
    three communities in the U.S. do not yet have up-to-date
    building codes, and we are implementing a national strategy to
    help incentivize their adoption.
        Another way in which FEMA is working to increase the
    resiliency of our Nation is through our new Safeguarding
    Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund program, which will give local
    governments another tool to finance projects to mitigate
    against natural disasters. And I want to thank you for the
    significant investment in the BRIC grant program, for which we
    have announced nearly $4 billion for mitigation projects across
    the Nation.
        Every day, I see the unwavering dedication of our FEMA
    workforce to help people before, during, and after disasters.
    And I ask you to ensure that our workforce has the resources it
    needs for that mission.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [Ms. Criswell's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator, Federal
       Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the state of
    the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We value this
    committee's legislative support and oversight of our agency, and I look
    forward to our conversation today.
        FEMA has a powerful mission statement, spelled out in just seven
    words: helping people before, during, and after disasters. That mission
    statement is our North Star, and it reflects a deep and abiding
    commitment of the FEMA workforce to our nation, its people, and public
    service.
        I can say, without hesitation, that our mission at FEMA has become
    more challenging and complex. We can no longer really speak of a
    disaster ``season.'' On average, we are seeing a disaster declaration
    every three days. From atmospheric rivers in January to tornados and
    wildfires in December, we now face intensified natural disasters
    throughout the year, often in places not used to experiencing them. In
    just the last several months, we have seen disasters ranging from
    record flooding in Vermont, to the deadliest wildfire in over a century
    on the island of Maui, to the first tropical cyclone to make landfall
    in California since 1938, and the gulf coast of Florida impacted by
    three hurricanes over the last year. In recent days, we witnessed the
    explosive intensification of Hurricane Lee strengthen from a Category 1
    to a Category 5 storm in less than 24 hours. FEMA continues to closely
    monitor all potential disaster activity.
        It is vital that FEMA--and the American people--be able to tap into
    an adequately funded Disaster Relief Fund so that we can continue to
    respond as soon as disaster strikes, rebuild in their aftermath, and
    prepare for future disasters. We strive to be vigilant stewards of
    taxpayer dollars, and we are careful in our projections of how much
    funding will be required for the Disaster Relief Fund. However, there
    are times when the number and intensity of disasters outpaces
    appropriated funds, and we find ourselves in such a moment today. The
    Administration has requested a supplemental funding package that
    includes $16 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, and these funds are
    necessary to ensure that our disaster recovery work around the nation
    can proceed without further delay. I urge Congressional approval of
    both the Administration's FY 2024 budget and its supplemental requests
    as soon as possible.
        As a result of the dwindling Disaster Relief Fund, on August 29,
    FEMA implemented Immediate Needs Funding (INF) for the first time since
    2017, and only the eighth time since 2001. In implementing INF, we are
    prioritizing lifesaving and life sustaining disaster response, and
    delaying obligations for longer term work. As a result, we have needed
    to pause obligations to over 1,000 Public Assistance projects across
    the country worth over $1.5 billion. This includes delayed
    reimbursements for projects such as the repair of facilities damaged or
    destroyed by past disasters across America. Each week creates
    additional financial burdens on state, local, Tribal, and territorial
    (SLTT) governments and eligible nonprofits who are waiting on
    reimbursements from the federal government. These applicants represent
    communities across the country, including small, rural, and under
    resourced municipalities. You have my commitment that FEMA will move
    quickly to resume obligations paused under INF as soon as the Disaster
    Relief Fund is replenished.
        Of course, to be effective, FEMA requires not only funding, but a
    well-trained workforce ready to deploy at a moment's notice. We have
    both national and regional personnel at the ready to support lifesaving
    and life-sustaining response operations, including four National and 13
    Regional Incident Management Assistance Teams; 28 Urban Search and
    Rescue Teams; and 36 Emergency Communications Teams. But the vast
    majority of our 22,000-person workforce consists of reservists. And I
    would like to thank this Committee and Congress for taking a huge step
    in helping us recruit and retain reservists, by passing the Civilian
    Reservist Emergency Workforce (CREW) Act last fall, which extends to
    our reservists the job protections of the Uniformed Services Employment
    and Reemployment Rights Act. FEMA is currently surveying existing and
    onboarding reservists on their awareness, utilization, and perceived
    effectiveness of the CREW Act. However, from personal interactions with
    reservists, I can assure you that this legislation is unquestionably
    improving our recruitment, retention, and training efforts. Further,
    the CREW Act has allowed some cadres with more technical or specialized
    duties, such as Financial Management, to tap into pools of
    professionals who have not previously been available to us as they did
    not want to risk losing their primary employment.
        Just as FEMA is working to improve the readiness of our workforce,
    we must also work to constantly improve our programs and the technology
    we use to accomplish our mission. For example, we are further investing
    in geospatial technology to help improve the efficiency of our
    operations. After Hurricane Ian impacted Florida, our geospatial
    analysis allowed us to expedite remote damage assessments for private
    homes and buildings, eliminating the need for an in-person inspection
    in many cases. Assessments were conducted using artificial
    intelligence, crowdsourcing, and high-resolution imagery from
    satellite, air, and ground, enabling us to distribute more than $78
    million in disaster assistance into the hands of more than 5,600
    disaster survivors much more quickly than with traditional methods.
        Another key element of helping communities recover from a disaster
    is getting roads open and neighborhoods cleaned up. To do this as
    quickly as possible following Hurricane Ian, we implemented a unique
    Rapid Debris Removal Task Force that used a combination of satellite,
    fly-over, and on-the-ground data to quickly identify areas where the
    debris was particularly concentrated and to clear 19 million cubic
    yards of debris--enough to fill more than 5,800 Olympic size swimming
    pools--within six weeks across the hardest hit areas. This was months
    faster than we have been able to do with past storms.
        FEMA is also using remote sensing technology to provide a better
    inspection experience for survivors impacted by the Hawaii wildfires.
    In Maui, remote sensing technology is being utilized to match homes
    listed in Individual Assistance registrations with detailed map images.
    When a match is made, the survivor's case information is updated and
    shared with the FEMA Housing Inspector. This information helps
    inspectors to know which homes were destroyed, allowing them to meet
    survivors more quickly where they are. As an agency, we will continue
    to leverage technology to help improve our ``people first'' focus.
        FEMA is not only a response and recovery agency. We also work to
    mitigate the worst impacts of disasters before they occur. Hazard
    mitigation saves lives, results in less complex disaster recoveries,
    and can help us to break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction,
    and repeated damage. Through close collaboration with other federal
    agencies, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, community-
    based organizations, and the private sector, FEMA is positioning itself
    as a true resilience agency.
        One of the most important ways to build resilience across our
    country and save lives is through adoption of hazard-resistant building
    codes. Communities that have adopted current building codes have
    avoided at least $32 billion in losses from natural disasters since
    2000 alone, which will translate into over $130 billion in estimated
    savings by 2040. In the aftermath of Hurricane Idalia, I surveyed
    damage and met with survivors in Horseshoe Beach, a small community on
    the tip of a peninsula in Florida's Big Bend region. This area received
    the brunt of Idalia's wind and storm surge but many of the buildings
    survived the storm and remained livable. I spoke with one survivor who
    owned several properties that sustained minimal damage--when I asked
    him why he thought his homes were minimally damaged, he responded: ``I
    built to code and codes work.'' However, two out of three communities
    in the United States have not yet adopted up-to-date building codes,
    which means there are roughly 220 million people at higher risk from
    the growing impacts of natural disasters. In order to help close this
    gap, FEMA is implementing a national strategy to incentivize the
    adoption of disaster-resistant building codes.
        Another way in which FEMA is working to increase the resiliency of
    our nation is by providing new types of financial support to our State,
    Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) partners for mitigation projects.
    I would like to thank this Committee and Congress for the strong
    bipartisan support for the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk
    Mitigation (STORM) Act, which authorized FEMA to create the
    Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund program. These revolving loan
    funds will give local governments another tool to finance projects to
    reduce their risks from natural hazards and disasters. In implementing
    these and other mitigation programs, we are working to eliminate the
    barriers that small, rural, and other communities with limited capacity
    may face when seeking mitigation funding. FEMA recently announced the
    first funding opportunity for the STORM program and selected seven
    states and the District of Columbia to fund their revolving loan
    programs through a capitalization grant. These revolving loan funds
    will support a wide range of local government mitigation needs,
    including flood control, retrofitting for wind mitigation, and funding
    for projects to protect infrastructure such as public housing, water
    treatment facilities, dams, levees, and coastal structures. These funds
    can also be used as the local cost share for other FEMA mitigation
    grants. Each of the eight recipients selected will use this funding
    based on their unique hazard mitigation needs and priorities.
        I also want to thank this Committee and Congress for the
    significant investment in the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
    Communities (BRIC) grant program. To date, the Administration has
    announced nearly $4 billion in available funding to states, local
    communities, Tribal Nations, and territories to undertake hazard
    mitigation projects. For the FY22 BRIC total grant cycle, 54 states and
    territories, as well as the District of Columbia, have been selected to
    receive funding, pending the outcome of the final review process. This
    also includes 34 tribes. An example project from the FY 2022 BRIC
    application period is in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, where a project
    will help harden power infrastructure to protect residents, essential
    businesses, and emergency service providers from hurricane-force winds,
    as well as upgrade poles and wire to withstand 150-mph winds and
    lightning strikes. As a result, the project should decrease the risk of
    power outages to residents and critical facilities.
        Having served as a firefighter and emergency manager at most levels
    of government, I understand--as you do--what disasters mean from the
    local stakeholder perspective. From my current position, I see the
    unwavering dedication of our FEMA workforce to supporting people across
    our nation before, during, and after disasters, facing what is, in many
    cases, the worst tragedy of people's lives. Our FEMA workforce
    demonstrates the very best of America, and I am committed to supporting
    them in every way possible. I ask you to ensure that the workforce has
    the resources it needs for its mission--to help protect the lives,
    homes, and well-being of the American people at times when they need
    our help the most.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
    answering your questions.

        Mr. Perry. Thank you for your testimony.
        We will now turn to questions for the Administrator. The
    Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for questions.
        Administrator Criswell, it probably is no surprise to you I
    don't sometimes agree with my colleagues on what the role of
    the Federal Government should be in disasters, but I do believe
    whatever the Federal Government's role is, it should be
    efficient and actually help people.
        I recently learned of a situation in which a small business
    contractor has waited months, I actually think it is years now,
    to be reimbursed for emergency work. And I have heard of some
    contractors literally waiting years.
        I used to be a business owner, and your receivables are
    important. It is how you plan on being able to pay your
    employees, grow your business, pay your taxes, pay your
    insurance, buy equipment, et cetera.
        How do we expect private-sector partners to step up
    following disasters if they can't count on your administration?
        I would imagine if you think you are working for the
    Federal Government, that would be a guaranteed paycheck as long
    as you do the work to standard and as required. But if you are
    going to wait months and years to the point now where this one
    particular company is laying off its staff because they can't
    be paid by you, how do you expect anybody to be willing to work
    for FEMA in a moment of crisis where you have to move quickly,
    you are in a hurry, everybody's in a hurry because people are
    suffering the effects of the disaster? What is your answer to
    that? How does that get solved?
        Ms. Criswell. Chairman, I obviously don't have the
    specifics of the company that you are speaking of, but we work
    through our States and with our local entities to reimburse for
    the work that is being done as they rebuild after these storms.
        Part of our process is to make sure that we are collecting
    all of the appropriate documentation for the work and making
    sure that it is done in alignment with----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. So, if it is done and all the
    paperwork is in, in this particular instance--and I don't want
    to mischaracterize anything, you or them, so, I am not going to
    name that company, but we can talk offline about it.
        Everybody is doing this, right? They went in and did the
    work. They relocated their people. They did the work. The
    disaster is over. Everybody is happy with the work, but yet
    there are millions and millions of dollars unpaid now for
    years.
        Ms. Criswell. Chairman, every situation, obviously, is
    specific and unique to that situation. I would be happy to get
    with you offline and better understand the specifics of what
    you are talking about. And I will be happy to break through any
    barriers that we have.
        Mr. Perry. But you understand that other contractors that
    are watching that circumstance are going to be reluctant to
    respond in a similar circumstance if they know that they are
    not going to be paid for years in the tune of millions of
    dollars. You understand that, right?
        Ms. Criswell. Again, Chairman, I don't know the specifics
    of which one you are talking about. We reimburse billions of
    dollars----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I know you do.
        Ms. Criswell [continuing]. Every year to communities and
    States to do the recovery and rebuilding work. It is
    unfortunate that there is one specific example that you are
    talking about, but I am happy to work with you on resolving
    that.
        Mr. Perry. OK, ma'am. The devastation in Maui draws
    concerning parallels to the Camp Fire in California and the
    role of PG&E in that fire. In fact, the Wall Street Journal has
    reported that Hawaiian Electric is seeking legal advice from
    PG&E and itself in how to deal with the consequences of their
    actions.
        The Maui fires, like the Camp Fire in California, appear to
    be the result of net-zero policy, diverting resources away from
    fire mitigation towards renewable energy. Now, that is not on
    you, that is their decision, but this does mean the victims of
    the wildfires are the victims of self-imposed, irresponsible,
    and now deadly climate policy-created disaster. It wasn't the
    consequences of CO2. It was the consequences of these policies
    that destroyed their property, killed their loved ones, and
    ended over 100 lives.
        The net-zero madness started in 2015, when Hawaii became
    the first State in the Nation to mandate a transition--
    mandate--require a transition to so-called renewable energy by
    2045. And they said they would reach the net-zero benchmark 5
    years ahead of schedule, then retired two conventional
    powerplants and sought to replace them with 900 megawatts of
    renewable power.
        The same year, after one of the worst wildfire seasons in
    Maui to date, Hawaiian Electric identified the significant risk
    of wildfire to their system and the need to implement
    mitigation efforts. They identified it. But then they
    prioritized renewable energy over fire mitigation. To date,
    little or no mitigation work has been completed. Instead, they
    spent millions on this transition to renewable energy.
        This is a concerning trend of policy-induced wildfires, and
    it raises a lot of questions about the cost associated with
    rapidly transitioning under mandate, not under market, under
    mandate to unreliable technologies at significant cost to the
    ratepayer and, obviously, devastating consequences to
    homeowners.
        Making matters worse--I will just go on a little bit here,
    and I will truncate my remarks on that, but let me ask you
    this. This has become the policy of not only Hawaii but many
    Western States where wildfires are prevalent. Should the
    American taxpayer, through FEMA--should the American taxpayer,
    through FEMA--be responsible for paying for recovery efforts if
    States are diverting money away from mitigation efforts to
    misguided net-zero policies that actively exacerbate fire
    conditions and endanger the citizens of those States? Should
    the taxpayer be required to pay for that?
        Ms. Criswell. Chairman, we are seeing an increase in the
    number of wildfires across the U.S., and----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I don't know that that is true.
    But regardless, what I am talking about is what is causing
    them. Policies are causing the wildfires. People are losing
    their lives and their property. Should the rest of America be
    paying for that when that can all be avoided? That is the
    question.
        Ms. Criswell. FEMA's role should always be to go in and
    support the response and recovery of communities that are
    impacted by any type of severe weather event.
        Mr. Perry. Regardless of poor management decisions that are
    life-threatening?
        Ms. Criswell. But we also have several programs that help
    communities invest in mitigation to reduce the impact. That is
    a focus that we need to continue to work on together.
        Mr. Perry. Are you doing anything to reduce the impact of
    these net-zero policies?
        Ms. Criswell. To reduce the impact of severe weather
    events----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. No, net-zero policies. That is my
    question. Are you doing anything to mitigate them so these
    people's lives and homes can be saved? Are you doing anything
    in that arena?
        Ms. Criswell. Our focus, Chairman, is to work with
    communities to reduce the impact of whatever the risk is that
    they are facing.
        Mr. Perry. OK. So, the answer would be no. I thank the
    gentlelady.
        And I yield to the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus, for
    questions.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        I am still trying to figure out how using renewable energy
    causes fires, wildfires, but I guess there is an explanation
    for it. Trees explode. I don't know.
        Anyway, we know that the balance is down to $2.4 billion in
    the relief fund. That sounds like a lot, but as we have more
    disasters, they last longer, they do more damage, and they are
    more expensive; this money is going to be gone very quickly.
    And I have been very vocal about supporting supplemental
    funding to the DRF and saying that it should pass the House
    without any social policy poison pills attached to it.
        One area that you don't hear as much about, but it
    certainly is a partner of yours, is the National Weather
    Service. Now, the National Weather Service I think is one of
    the strongest Federal partners we have for emergency managers.
    We rely on their services daily to predict what is going to
    happen, forecasts, warnings, and decision support.
        Now, the Republicans have proposed slashing the National
    Weather Service by $200 million this fiscal year. I wonder if
    you can comment on how that will undermine some of your efforts
    or if you think that is a good idea.
        Ms. Criswell. Ranking Member Titus, the National Weather
    Service is such a great partner for us and all of the sister
    agencies that go with that. You have the National Water Center,
    the National Hurricane Center, all of those components
    underneath NOAA. They bring us critical data and information as
    well as modeling to help us anticipate what the threats are
    going to be to a community so we can put the right measures in
    place to help protect them, whether that is as we are watching
    a storm develop and allowing us to pre-position resources into
    areas so we can perform lifesaving actions, to predicting what
    the future might hold to help better invest our mitigation
    dollars.
        Any reduction in the ability for us to get that valued
    information, data, and modeling would have a significant impact
    on the safety and security of our communities across the
    Nation.
        Ms. Titus. It would negatively affect your ability to spend
    the taxpayer dollars in the most efficient way to save property
    and to, more importantly, save lives. Is that right?
        Ms. Criswell. I think it would cause us to have an increase
    in the amount of money that we are spending on responding and
    recovering, because we won't have the accurate data to better
    mitigate against the future risks that they are facing.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        I want to ask you also your opinion and to tell us a little
    bit about what you think will be the results if we can get the
    Disaster Survivor Fairness Act that I mentioned in my opening
    statement passed. This seems to be supported by both parties.
    It seems to make us more efficient. It seems to be a way to
    speed things up, to be more equitable. It passed out of this
    committee unanimously.
        Would you talk a little bit about how you anticipate that
    might be a good idea?
        Ms. Criswell. I am very excited and very appreciative of
    the support of this bipartisan legislation. I believe that the
    Disaster Survivor Fairness Act is going to make a tremendous
    difference in our ability to help communities.
        And there are a wide number of things that are covered in
    that, but there are three that I really want to point out for
    the committee. First, it is going to give us the authority to
    do direct repair to homes. This is going to be quicker, more
    efficient, as well as more cost-effective than the traditional
    programs that we use of manufactured housing or temporary
    housing units.
        Second, it is going to give us the ability to also provide
    direct housing grants to States. We have worked with some of
    our States through our noncongregate sheltering program over
    the last year to see how much quicker they can implement some
    of these programs by giving them the ability for us to give
    them direct grants. We believe that will also increase the
    efficiency and the ability for States to better take care of
    their residents.
        And then finally, and I think really important, it is going
    to give us the ability to streamline information sharing across
    our Federal agencies. Many of our Federal partners use our data
    to help influence how they are going to implement their
    disaster programs. If we can streamline that level of
    information sharing, it will make those programs quicker to get
    online.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Well, we need your help advocating for this, because I
    think--I agree with you, I think it would make a big difference
    and be helpful, and we would like to see it pass.
        Something else quickly I would ask you about are the
    firefighter grants that are set to sunset next year, next
    September: merit-based matching grants for local fire
    departments. Can you address those? Is that your advocacy for
    renewing those programs?
        Ms. Criswell. Yes. The reauthorization of our Assistance to
    Firefighters Grants program is of critical importance, because
    our firefighters are the backbone of our first responders that
    are out there. And this grant program allows us to continue to
    build capacity in our fire departments, both volunteer and paid
    departments, across the Nation. And the ability to have this
    program in place--if we didn't have it, it would definitely
    jeopardize our first responders across the Nation. You have my
    support for----
        Ms. Titus [interrupting]. And that is not just to fight
    wildfires; they have many other functions, as well.
        Ms. Criswell. I am sorry, ma'am?
        Ms. Titus. It is not just to fight wildfires in the West.
        Ms. Criswell. No.
        Ms. Titus. They have many other functions, as well.
        Ms. Criswell. Yes. This is for all of our firefighters:
    structural firefighters, municipal, as well as, again, our
    volunteer agencies, a critical program to keep that capability
    efficient to support the needs that we are facing.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Perry. I thank the gentlelady.
        The Chair now recognizes Representative D'Esposito. I am
    sorry, we thought that Chairman Graves would be here, but he is
    not, so, we are going to go to Representative D'Esposito. Five
    minutes, sir.
        Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to
    Administrator Criswell. I appreciate you appearing in front of
    the subcommittee that I chair under the Committee on Homeland
    Security, the Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee.
    And at that time, we discussed the ever-changing mission.
    Although FEMA has a mission, that mission has changed over the
    years and, obviously, most recently, in the disastrous southern
    border that we are dealing with.
        FEMA recently announced in June that New York City was set
    to receive $100 million from the Shelter and Services Program
    to address the ever-growing migrant crisis. Since then, as I am
    sure you are well aware, the problem has only worsened. And
    recently, Mayor Adams just last month, and I quote, said:
    ``This issue will destroy New York City.'' He claimed that
    agencies may have to slash up to 15 percent from their budgets.
        Now, prior to you being the Administrator of FEMA, you
    served New York City proudly for 2 years, and I appreciate you
    leading the Department of Emergency Management. But 15 percent
    from the budgets of departments like sanitation, the FDNY, the
    NYPD, emergency management, buildings, and on and on and on.
        Has anyone from New York City been in contact with FEMA
    requesting additional funds to address the migrant crisis after
    already receiving $100 million?
        Ms. Criswell. Representative, we have been in continuous
    communication with the city of New York. My regional
    administrator maintains close contact on a regular basis as to
    understanding what their needs are. And the Department recently
    sent a team down there to do a deep dive with the mayor and his
    staff on what the current situation is and the needs that they
    have to have a better understanding.
        The funding that we have through the Shelter and Services
    Program is a finite amount of funding. And so, we do recognize
    that they came in with a much larger request than what we were
    able to appropriate to them----
        Mr. D'Esposito [interrupting]. And how much have they
    additionally asked for?
        Ms. Criswell. I don't have that number right in front of
    me, but it was well above what we had the ability to give,
    given the amount of money we had available.
        Mr. D'Esposito. I think part of the problem is--and as
    someone--and I appreciate all of your time that you spent in
    emergency management. As someone who has also spent his adult
    life in the emergency management world, we always ask
    ourselves, are we better off today than we were the last time
    we dealt with this issue?
        And I think it's clear that Mayor Adams had no plan for
    being a sanctuary city. And when asked by FEMA, what are your
    needs and what do you need from us, he doesn't have an answer
    because there is no plan.
        So, obviously, it is concerning that New York City
    continues to face the significant challenges that it does. You
    never want to hear the mayor of one of the biggest cities in
    the world saying that we have an issue that we are facing that
    we can't control that is going to destroy our city.
        How is FEMA evaluating the difference between New York City
    and other cities and the intended purposes of this new program?
        Ms. Criswell. The Shelter and Services Program, again, was
    directed by Congress. And the first part of that funding went
    out through our legacy program, the Emergency Food and Shelter
    Program for humanitarian. As we moved into the Shelter and
    Services Program and the delivery of this as a new grant
    program, we evaluated the data as it relates to releases as
    well as destinations to make our determination.
        In the first part of the program, we had a heavier weight
    on releases, and in the second part in the first delivery of
    the SSP program, we did have a higher focus on the destination
    cities.
        As we move into the next fiscal year, if this program
    continues to be funded, we are going to look at making this a
    more competitive grant program using current data, since the
    first delivery was based on existing data. But we know that the
    dynamics of the situation are real and that the data changes on
    a daily basis, and we want to make sure we have a better
    understanding of impacts to communities as we go into the next
    fiscal year.
        Mr. D'Esposito. So, in making these decisions, you and your
    team have obviously gone through more data than anybody
    probably ever wants to look at.
        Do you believe that there is an immigration crisis facing
    us under the, I would say, failed leadership of the President
    and Secretary Mayorkas? Are we dealing with an immigration
    issue throughout this country, specifically in New York City,
    which borders my congressional district?
        Ms. Criswell. Representative, I am not an immigration
    agency, but what I can tell you is that my agency will continue
    to focus on supporting jurisdictions that are managing the care
    of immigrants through our Shelter and Services Program.
        Mr. D'Esposito. And I appreciate that. I only have a few
    seconds, so, I will ask it this way: Are there resources that
    should be utilized in other areas of FEMA focusing on its
    original mission that are now being taken away because of the
    issues that we are facing because of the failed policies of
    Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden?
        Ms. Criswell. The only resources that we are contributing
    to this mission right now are through the delivery of our
    Shelter and Services Program and providing reimbursements to
    jurisdictions for some of the costs that they are incurring.
        Mr. D'Esposito. Correct. And if we didn't have this issue
    in place, we would be utilizing that funding for other things
    in FEMA.
        Mr. Chair, my time is expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman and ranking member
    of the full committee, Mr. Larsen from Washington.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Administrator, could you just clarify that last answer? Is
    the Shelter and Services Program diverting dollars from
    otherwise or is this allocated, appropriated dollars into that
    program that is in there, you don't control?
        Ms. Criswell. The Shelter and Services Program was an
    additional allocation to our budget specifically for that
    program and not diverted from other programs.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, you didn't divert money from
    other programs in FEMA?
        Ms. Criswell. We did not.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks.
        Speaking of which, other programs, back to the Disaster
    Relief Fund. I understand you are implementing cost-saving
    measures until Congress passes supplemental disaster funding.
        There are quite a number of projects, you noted the number,
    I noted the number, that are being delayed in terms of funding,
    one of which is in Whatcom County in my district. And we can
    all talk about our district. But for Washington State, that one
    program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, funding delay is
    a little over 10 percent of the total amount in Washington
    State.
        So, can you elaborate a little bit on the urgent need for
    supplemental funding, but how delaying projects that are funded
    in different programs can't be funded because of the delay and
    the problem with the Disaster Relief Fund?
        Ms. Criswell. With the current health of the Disaster
    Relief Fund, again, we have been watching this very closely
    throughout the year, and I made the determination to implement
    Immediate Needs Funding, because our focus and our priority
    needs to make sure that we always have the resources available
    to support life-safety, life-sustaining activities.
        Through Immediate Needs Funding, that is what we are able
    to do. What we do is delay the obligations for some of this
    other work. It doesn't mean that the work necessarily stops. It
    just means that we cannot reimburse jurisdictions for the costs
    that they incur as a result of that until the DRF is
    replenished.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Is that because the money is
    reimbursed out of the DRF?
        Ms. Criswell. It is reimbursed out of the DRF.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, if it is funded through the
    Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which is for Whatcom County,
    that's, how I believe, where those dollars are coming from.
    Those dollars are spent down, or does the DRF fund the Hazard
    Mitigation Grant Program?
        Ms. Criswell. Our Hazard Mitigation Grant Program as well
    as our Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
    program are both funded out of the Disaster Relief Fund.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. OK. OK.
        Ms. Criswell. And I think one of the things that we will
    see is smaller jurisdictions that aren't getting reimbursed for
    their projects, they are not going to be able to continue some
    of the work because of cash flow issues. And so, they will need
    the reimbursement for these types of projects so they can
    continue the work. Even though we don't stop the work, it is
    really upon them to figure out how they can continue to manage
    the work being done until they can get reimbursed with the
    Disaster Relief Fund once it is replenished.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, and other jurisdictions have
    this challenge. And Whatcom County does not have $8.6 million
    sitting around to continue that work. Even, noting one--it is
    not my district, but Thurston County Fire District 3 is waiting
    on $859. They might be able to find it, but my guess, it's
    probably a rural fire district as well. So, there is quite a
    range of communities that are being challenged here.
        On BRIC, you most recently announced--and thank you for
    getting these BIL dollars out the door. We authorized the STORM
    program and funded it. And you, 2 weeks ago, announced the
    first $50 million for STORM. Is that right? Have I got the
    number right?
        Ms. Criswell. Yes, correct. We issued the first $50 million
    under the STORM Revolving Loan Fund, a new program and a new
    type of program for FEMA to jurisdictions. And, again, this was
    oversubscribed, but we are really excited about the ability
    that this program is going to do to help jurisdictions with
    their cost share portion of some of these very difficult hazard
    mitigation projects so they can continue to build resiliency in
    their communities.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Can you talk a little bit
    just briefly about that, because I think that is important to
    understand all this discussion, the challenges you have on
    climate change, challenges you have with the DRF, the
    challenges you have ensuring we are doing mitigation and
    resilience, the three big themes that I heard from you today;
    how STORM and the new money that we put in BRIC is helping you
    achieve maybe at least the mitigation and resilience, and
    helping you turn the corner on what FEMA is all about.
        Ms. Criswell. Yes. Ranking Member Larsen, we are absolutely
    seeing an increase in the intensity, the severity, the length
    of recovery, the complexity of the types of severe weather
    events that we are responding to. And we will continue to
    respond to these events, but we have got to build resilience in
    these communities to reduce the impact from these events.
        And the way we do that is through our mitigation programs,
    whether that is our HMGP program, which is funded after a
    disaster where States and jurisdictions have funding after a
    disaster strikes, or our BRIC program, which can provide
    funding for pre-disaster, helping them identify what types of
    projects are going to help make them more resilient.
        But we know that these projects can be very expensive, and
    they all come with a cost share. And many of our jurisdictions
    do not have the funding necessarily to come up with that cost
    share. And where the STORM program really makes a difference is
    it can help a jurisdiction through this revolving loan fund to
    be able to complete these projects and come up with their match
    or do other projects that maybe aren't going to be funded under
    one of the Federal programs.
        It's a critical tool to help communities achieve the level
    of resilience that they are going to need to have as we face a
    future of climate-related events that is increasing the impacts
    that we are seeing to communities across the Nation.
        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Thank you.
        And just quickly, Mr. Chair, if you will just indulge me,
    in 2022, Washington State had 662 fires, according to our State
    DNR. This year, to this date, Washington State has had 1,855
    fires that our State department of natural resources has
    responded to. So, at least for one State, wildfires are
    increasing. I just wanted to make sure that got established, at
    least for my State.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Mississippi, Mr. Ezell, Representative Ezell.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Administrator Criswell, thank you for joining us today. I
    really appreciate it.
        Before I was sworn into office, I promised my voters I
    would focus on flood insurance and flood mapping issues that
    directly affect my district in south Mississippi.
        To combat the effects of active flooding, several of these
    counties are actively engaging in resiliency projects.
    Accordingly, FEMA is planning to spend $3 billion this year on
    resiliency projects, in addition to several other agencies
    across the Federal Government.
        Specifically, Jackson County, which is my home county on
    the Mississippi gulf coast, is relying on many of these
    programs to plan and build projects and improve drainage,
    enhance our shorelines, and protect our citizens from storms
    and flooding.
        Ideally, these investments will provide better protection
    for properties and help lower flood insurance rates. However,
    because FEMA refuses to disclose the full algorithms used in
    Risk Rating 2.0, the county leaders are unable to plan and
    target projects where they will have the greatest benefits to
    my constituents, including lowering their insurance cost.
        My question to you this morning: Are resiliency investments
    taken into account in the Risk Rating 2.0 algorithm?
        Ms. Criswell. Representative, the most important piece
    about Risk Rating 2.0 is that it now bases flood insurance
    premiums on each home's unique flood risk, which means that it
    does take into account mitigation measures that have been put
    in place either by the homeowner or the community, and that is
    then directly reflected in the rate that the homeowner sees.
        Mr. Ezell. So, it does, correct. Thank you. I will be
    submitting QFRs to provide more certainty on this and, due to
    time, I am going to move on.
        Congress, similarly, has explored policies to improve the
    National Flood Insurance Program, which is unaffordable and
    unattainable in several areas in my district. I would like to
    submit the attached letter for the record I wrote to you in
    July on the topic.
        Mr. Chairman, in accordance with committee rules, I ask
    unanimous consent to submit the letter for the record.
        Mr. Perry. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

       Letter of July 28, 2023, to Hon. Deanne Criswell, Administrator,
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, from Representatives Mike Ezell,
      Garret Graves, and Troy A. Carter, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                                   Mike Ezell
                         Congress of the United States,
                                          Washington, DC 20515,
                                                         July 28, 2023.
    The Honorable Deanne Criswell,
    Administrator,
    Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC
            20472.
        Dear Administrator Criswell,
        Our constituents and stakeholders constantly express concerns with
    the availability and affordability of flood insurance. Individual
    discussions and Congressional hearings have been held over several
    sessions to explore policies that would improve the National Flood
    Insurance Program and encourage the development of the private
    insurance market. As Congress works to address the concerns surrounding
    flood insurance premiums, we are gathering information that will help
    ultimately inform policy solutions.
        Recently, our offices were made aware of an innovative approach to
    disaster risk management, which we believe merits further study. The
    City of New York partnered with the private sector on a Community Based
    Catastrophe Insurance (CBCI) transaction that brings financial
    resilience to low- and moderate-income households \1\ in the face of
    extreme flooding events. This transaction was the first of its kind; it
    creates a mechanism for communities to better understand their exposure
    to flood risk, develops an incentive to reduce the risk, and provides
    an ability for these individuals to recover more quickly following a
    disaster.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Evans, Steve, ``Swiss Re, Guy Carpenter & ICEYE deliver NYC
    parametric flood insurance,'' www.artemis.bm, March 7, 2023. See full
    article here.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To help provide disaster insurance to a community, a CBCI can be
    arranged by a local government, quasi-governmental body, or a community
    group. Additionally, the coverage is designed to ensure rapid payouts
    to enhance the financial resilience of the local government itself and/
    or its residents. It also allows for increased accessibility and
    affordability of private insurance in an area of low take-up rates or
    insufficient coverage--thus decreasing the burden on the federal
    government, specifically the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA). By increasing awareness of their exposure to natural disasters
    and their associated costs, communities are also incentivized to invest
    in risk mitigation to bring down insurance costs over time. This type
    of program is flexible and can be created to cover a single hazard or a
    range of natural disasters for a given community, including flood,
    extreme heat, wildfire, earthquake, and other forms of natural or
    manmade catastrophic risk.
        Given the abovementioned structure of CBCI coupled with the
    potential taxpayer savings associated with local risk management and
    financial resilience measures, we would like to explore the public
    policy framework so we can better understand these types of
    transactions. Therefore, we respectfully ask you to answer the
    following questions:
          Section 406(b)(3)(A) of the Stafford Act, as amended by
    the Budget Act of 2018, provides FEMA with the authority to increase
    the minimum Federal share for Public Assistance on a sliding scale from
    75% to 85% if a state has invested in hazard mitigation, purchased
    insurance, or taken other risk reduction measures prior to the
    disaster. When will this provision be finally implemented? Can you
    explain how FEMA is incentivizing state and local governments to self-
    insure, particularly for critical infrastructure?

          Under its current structure, applicants for Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) receive extra points
    for providing a higher percentage match, which rewards communities with
    more resources. Since the cost share does not have to be financial, how
    is FEMA helping rural communities innovatively explore alternate uses
    of the cost share? Does FEMA have the authority to allow BRIC funding
    to be used for insurance premiums to fund and pilot CBCI transactions
    that promote community-wide financial resilience?

          Does FEMA have the authority to provide credits under its
    Public Assistance program to communities that purchase insurance (e.g.,
    for PA recipients, provide a credit for hazard mitigation investments
    in the amount of insurance premium the community had paid)? If yes,
    will you incorporate this into the Public Assistance program policies?

          Does FEMA have the authority to allow the proceeds of a
    parametric insurance policy specifically tailored to cover losses not
    eligible under the Public Assistance program towards the state's Public
    Assistance matching requirement? If yes, please incorporate this into
    the Public Assistance program policies.

        Thank you for your attention to this matter. Your response will
    help achieve our goals of encouraging public-private partnerships and
    protecting our most vulnerable communities.
                Sincerely,
    Mike Ezell,

      Member of Congress.

    Garret Graves,

      Member of Congress.

    Troy A. Carter, Sr.

      Member of Congress.

        Mr. Ezell. The letter references Community-Based
    Catastrophe Insurance, an innovative approach that allows for
    customized coverage and empowers local decisionmaking rather
    than a one-size-fits-all approach, further reducing the burden
    on FEMA by promoting self-resiliency.
        I believe this approach could bring financial resiliency to
    lower and moderate income households often facing extreme
    flooding events and even save the taxpayer some money.
        Can I have your commitment to exploring this approach to
    help better understand our State/county needs and individuals'
    risk that they face in extreme flooding cases? And does FEMA
    have the authority to use BRIC funding to support similar
    approaches? Simple answers will be sufficient.
        Ms. Criswell. Representative, you absolutely have my
    commitment to continue to work with you on helping homeowners,
    one, better understand their flood risk, as well as ways that
    we can help reduce their costs. We know that many of this is
    unaffordable, which is why FEMA has put forth to Congress an
    affordability framework to help everybody have the ability to
    obtain the necessary protection that they need to help protect
    their families. And so, you have my commitment to continue to
    work with you on that.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much.
        Promoting resiliency is only half the equation. With the
    rising cost of disasters, even the most resilient communities
    may still lack the financial resources to adequately respond to
    a disaster, leaving leaders to take out large sums of credit to
    cover the immediate cost of recovery.
        While FEMA does provide assistance in reimbursing these
    advances eventually, more must be done to expedite/ease the
    financial burdens on these disasters.
        Can I get your commitment to looking at proposals such as
    the FEMA Loan Interest Payment Relief Act as potential
    solutions to mitigate additional burdens placed on my
    community?
        Ms. Criswell. Yes. We have a number of programs that help
    communities with their cash flow issues, because we understand
    that that can be a challenge. And so, you have my commitment to
    continue to find ways that we can improve upon that so we can
    help these communities rebuild and rebuild in a way that is
    going to make them more resilient.
        Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes Representative Holmes Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Criswell, it looks like we've got a big
    double problem. We have got a worsening climate crisis, and we
    have got insufficient funds in the Disaster Relief Fund.
        In my district, the District of Columbia, 13 Public
    Assistance projects totaling $7 million have been put on pause,
    as well as a $190,000 hazard mitigation project also on pause.
        It is critical that we replenish the Disaster Relief Fund
    as soon as possible. Could you speak to the impact on
    communities and disaster survivors if Congress does not pass
    supplemental funding for the Disaster Relief Fund?
        Ms. Criswell. Representative Norton, right now, we are
    closely watching the draw on the Disaster Relief Fund and want
    to ensure that we always have enough funding to support those
    life-safety, life-sustaining activities that need to happen,
    which means many of the projects like you described, our
    obligation and our ability to reimburse those jurisdictions is
    on hold.
        The largest impact on that is their ability to continue
    with new projects until they can get reimbursed for the work
    that they have already done, and that will delay these
    communities in their ability to continue to recover.
        Absent a supplemental, this just means that we are going to
    be that much further behind with what is appropriated or what
    is recommended in the President's budget for fiscal year 2024,
    and will further delay our ability to continue these long-term
    recovery projects in the months ahead.
        Ms. Norton. In your testimony, you emphasize the need for
    up-to-date disaster-resistant building codes. This issue
    concerns the residents of my district, the District of
    Columbia, which hosts a large number of historic buildings.
        In what ways can FEMA aid in pre-disaster mitigation and
    resiliency of historic buildings?
        Ms. Criswell. One of the programs that I am very excited
    and proud of is our Direct Technical Assistance program that we
    are doing under our BRIC mitigation program, Building Resilient
    Infrastructure and Communities, where we are going into
    communities and helping them envision what types of mitigation
    projects that they can do and helping them think through what
    maybe they hadn't thought of before.
        And we have had great success in supporting a number of
    communities across the Nation to help them design and develop
    mitigation projects that are going to help protect their
    communities, especially communities that have such historic
    nature.
        And we would be happy to work with you in better
    understanding some of the communities that you feel might need
    this type of technical assistance and then work with you to try
    to offer that.
        Ms. Norton. I would appreciate that, because that is a
    special problem here in the Nation's Capital.
        Finally, we in the District of Columbia have seen extreme
    heat. Earlier this month, temperatures soared to at least 97
    degrees for 5 straight days, breaking all historic records.
        How does FEMA help State and local governments respond to
    extreme heat?
        Ms. Criswell. One of the best things that FEMA does to help
    communities battle the impacts of extreme heat is through
    preparedness as well as mitigation. On preparedness, what we
    have done this year is we launched our #SummerReady campaign to
    help individuals and communities understand the things that
    they can do to help protect their families that are
    experiencing extreme heat.
        But we also know that we have to help communities build
    resilient infrastructure to help support that, whether that is
    making sure that they have generators for cooling centers or
    white roofs to help reduce the heat inside buildings or adding
    green areas. Our mitigation programs can also be used to help
    mitigate the impacts of extreme heat for the future events that
    we are going to see.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
        The Chair now recognizes Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon from
    Puerto Rico.
        Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for bringing us together for this hearing.
        And thanks to the Administrator for actually being here to
    answer many questions.
        In my case, tomorrow is going to be the sixth anniversary
    of Hurricane Irma and Maria in Puerto Rico. And we are still in
    the process of approving and performing recovery work for
    municipalities, not-for-profits, faith institutions,
    individuals, and many others.
        The recovery of the electric power grid of the island is
    still mostly in the planning stages, which is one of the
    agencies that I am most concerned with. And there has been
    historic funding, but there is a very real fear that between
    delays and cost increase, that there will be a missed
    opportunity, and I am worried that what was promised will not
    get done.
        To that end, I know that the FEMA recovery page indicates
    that between all the various disasters in the past few years on
    the island, FEMA Public Assistance has allocated and obligated
    $45 billion for Puerto Rico, almost all out of the Disaster
    Relief Fund, of which $19 billion has been outlaid, that is,
    transferred from FEMA accounts to the accounts of the entities
    that are going to be responsible for the work.
        And on the other hand, FEMA announced $31 billion for
    Public Assistance projects. In COR3, the obligation is near
    $1.9 billion. But because most of the municipalities or
    counties on the island are not-for-profits, do not have cash on
    hand or credit to start work before reimbursement, the local
    institution, COR3, established a working capital advance system
    providing $1.2 billion for agencies, municipalities, and not-
    for-profits.
        However, yesterday, local press in Puerto Rico reported
    that COR3 announced that as many as two-thirds of those
    entities will have to return those advances due to not being
    able to have evidence of the use after a year, and that FEMA is
    aware and will get a report on this this week.
        So, to that end, I am representing the island, so, I would
    love to have a copy of that report that you promised, or at
    least it has been said that FEMA promised to have a report on
    that relation of the funds between FEMA and COR3. As well, the
    Committee on Oversight should have that report.
        My question, Administrator, does your agency have your own
    record on how much has been actually disbursed to Puerto Rico?
        Ms. Criswell. Representative Gonzalez-Colon, we are
    extremely committed into helping Puerto Rico recover. And since
    I have taken this position, I have met many times with Governor
    Pierluisi, and my team is still embedded in Puerto Rico----
        Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon [interrupting]. Do you have the amount
    that is being disbursed?
        Ms. Criswell. And we absolutely have the amount. And since
    I have taken this position, we have funded over 10,600 projects
    that total $30 billion. This is 2,800 projects that have begun
    construction across Puerto Rico and 1,800 that have been
    completed. Prior to me coming into this position, there were
    only 81 projects that had been completed----
        Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon [interrupting]. I know. I have been
    here all these years.
        Ms. Criswell [continuing]. So, we have had a tremendous
    increase in the progress that we are seeing across Puerto Rico.
        Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Administrator, what I would love--
    because there is a lot of data and numbers and projects and
    entities that have been receiving the funds. If you can provide
    the committee information about where we are with the latest
    update of those funds for--not just the municipalities, COR3,
    and the electrical grid on the island, which is one of the
    major issues. And how many projects are right now still pending
    for approval or disbursement from FEMA? Because we have got the
    same issue with the local agencies, which is a completely
    different process.
        Another issue that for me is important is, with the
    difference with the section 428 and 406, the cost of inflation
    for many of those projects has come up, and prices that were
    announced for funding in 2018 now may be bigger.
        As an example, the hospital in Vieques was originally $59
    million, and now it is $85 million. So, we have got many
    projects like that that may not have the full amount of
    resources to finish. And that will happen with the electrical
    grid on the island.
        And I know my time is going to expire, but I would like the
    committee to have the precise data regarding the planning
    stages of the electrical grid on the island, how much has been
    disbursed, when do you expect that we actually have some
    construction or delivery of the upgrades of the local plants on
    the island, which is one of the biggest issues and the biggest
    reasons the Congress did approve more than $11 billion that is
    not being used.
        And that is not your fault. But the people of Puerto Rico
    have been waiting for 6 years. And now the local agencies are
    telling you not to use power for a week because we don't have
    enough power to cover the whole island when the funds are being
    assigned.
        So, having said that, I will provide the committee as well
    with a list of questions regarding this, and I will hope that
    the FEMA Administrator can provide that to the committee, and,
    as well, to our office.
        With that, thank you, Administrator.
        Ms. Criswell. We would be happy to provide you answers for
    the record.
        Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
        And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Huffman.
        Mr. Huffman. I thank the chair.
        Administrator Criswell, I want to spend my time asking you
    about something that is really at the core of FEMA's work, and
    that is the question of who gets FEMA disaster relief and who
    doesn't.
        And let me first say that I am a big believer in the
    mission of your agency. I think it is one of the great things
    that our Federal Government does to make sure that that FEMA
    disaster relief is there for devastated communities, no matter
    where they are, no matter what their politics are. And I want
    to commend you and your colleagues for the dedication that you
    bring to this critical work.
        I represent the North Bay and the North Coast of
    California, so, I have seen firsthand what a difference that
    disaster relief can make for devastated communities. But I have
    also seen what happens when there is a devastating natural
    disaster that doesn't quite trigger FEMA disaster relief, and I
    have seen how inequitable that can be.
        My district includes a lot of rural, less-affluent
    communities as well, and we have an equity problem when it
    comes to this mechanism. We leave a lot of rural, less-affluent
    communities behind. And with the climate crisis bringing us
    more and bigger disasters, we really need to tackle this equity
    problem now to get ahead of it.
        So, I told you a little about my district. We have got
    earthquakes. We have got tsunamis. We have got wildfires. It is
    sort of the poster child for this problem because FEMA's
    arbitrary and inflexible financial damage threshold can leave
    devastated communities behind.
        I will give you an example. In 2017, the Helena Fire burned
    72 homes in Junction City, Trinity County, one of the smallest,
    poorest, rural counties in California. That took out 15 percent
    of the county's housing stock: 15 percent of a county that has
    modest homes, so, the property values were not high enough to
    reach the threshold. And, of course, the county government
    lacks resources. This is a struggling community. And so, they
    didn't get that FEMA disaster relief.
        In December 2022, a 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck the
    small town of Rio Dell in Humboldt County. It took out about 25
    percent of the city's housing stock, an estimated $26 million
    in overall damage, a total of $35 million in damage to the
    county. But, again, this is a rural struggling county. It
    didn't meet the threshold.
        If you took the same disaster and it happened in an
    affluent place--Pebble Beach, any number of other places--and
    maybe took out a small fraction of the homes, you would have no
    problem triggering Federal disaster relief. But these
    communities were left without that support.
        The flip side of that, in 2011, there was a massive
    earthquake in Japan that triggered a tsunami that just wrecked
    the Crescent City Harbor in Del Norte County in my district.
    The damage was about $50 million. Again, just short of the
    threshold to get disaster relief.
        But we got lucky because that same tsunami also hit a
    harbor in Santa Cruz farther south in the State where some very
    fancy yachts were parked. And because those yachts enabled the
    damage tally to go a little higher, Crescent City did qualify
    for Federal disaster relief. But imagine if some of those fancy
    boats had not been parked in the harbor at that time. We would
    have been left with nothing.
        So, Administrator Criswell, it seems to me that this is
    fundamentally unfair. And, again, with more disasters coming,
    we really need to provide more flexible, equitable ways for
    devastated communities to qualify for Federal disaster relief
    from FEMA.
        And my staff will be presenting you with a letter today. I
    am asking you to work with us on this important issue. I
    believe you have existing authority that would let you do a
    rulemaking to provide that flexibility and equity. But if you
    need new authority, additional authority, I hope you will
    please let us know, and we will get to work to make it happen.
        Let me just leave it there and ask for your response, and I
    am really hoping to hear a commitment to work with me on this
    critical issue.
        Ms. Criswell. Representative, you make some very good
    points. And it really does show why one of my priorities has
    been equitably delivering our programs.
        When it comes to declaring a disaster, we have a number of
    factors that we take into consideration: Whether the State has
    the capacity to support it and not just the local
    jurisdictions, but also the amount of insurance and the amount
    of damage. I mean, it can be very complex.
        And that is why we are continuing to work on ways that we
    can improve the way we are delivering our programs but also
    better understand the barriers that communities, just as you
    mentioned, are experiencing to being able to get the assistance
    that they need in order to properly recover from these
    disasters.
        And so, you have my commitment to continue to find ways
    that we can improve the way we are delivering our programs and
    ensuring that everybody who is eligible for our programs has
    access to that assistance.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, the gentlelady from Oregon, Representative
    Chavez-DeRemer.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Chairman.
        It is nice to meet you. I know we have not officially met,
    but as a new Member of Congress, I am grateful that you are
    here today to answer the questions that we have.
        So, Administrator Criswell, given your background at FEMA
    and in Colorado as a firefighter and a fire chief, I am sure
    you have a unique and deep appreciation for the devastation
    caused by wildfires. One of my highest priorities is to find
    solutions to help Oregonians address the challenges of
    wildfires.
        On the House Committee on Agriculture, one of my top farm
    bill priorities is to properly equip our firefighters to get
    these wildfires under control and prevent them from getting out
    of hand in the first place. So far, I am championing nine
    legislative items in the Congress to tackle these important
    issues, and this is an issue that I will continue to focus on.
        In 2020, the State of Oregon experienced its most
    devastating wildfire season on record, the Labor Day Fires,
    which actually began in August and lasted until November.
    According to the Oregon Department of Emergency Management, the
    wildfires burned over 1 million acres, about the area of Rhode
    Island. It affected 20 counties, destroyed or damaged over
    5,000 structures, and resulted in over $600 million in damage
    across the State.
        The city of Detroit in Marion County was especially
    devastated by the fires, and my office continues to work with
    the city to help that community and region recover. In fact,
    this location was a required stop for my new staff. I had DC go
    to Oregon to understand what was most important to me and to
    visit as we set up our new offices.
        One specific area of frustration brought to my attention
    concerns Detroit's application to obtain unobligated funds for
    a water treatment plant. This process continued and has
    continued for 3 years after the fires.
        Detroit dutifully completed their paperwork and met FEMA's
    engineering requirements. However, high turnover at FEMA has
    forced the city to reexplain the application and rejustify each
    aspect of the project multiple times. The application is for
    $5.7 million.
        Completing the Federal paperwork and meeting standards is
    hard enough, but how is it fair to require a small community to
    essentially recomplete it over and over again for 3 years?
        So, my question to you is, can you offer any assurances
    today that FEMA will give the pending application full and fair
    consideration?
        Ms. Criswell. Absolutely. Representative, I will follow up
    on this personally and ensure that this application is reviewed
    and that we are giving it full and fair consideration based on
    the application that is submitted.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. I am happy to follow up. I am happy to
    meet with you offline. One of the things I like to do is open
    my office to get the work done. We have to move the ball down
    the field. And oftentimes, after testimonies like this, it
    doesn't happen. So, I am committed to get this application
    moved forward.
        Regarding the high turnover, what steps can FEMA take to
    help ensure the Agency is able to retain basic institutional
    knowledge when someone leaves? And then how can we reduce the
    burden on the applicant to bring someone new up to speed on an
    application such as this?
        Ms. Criswell. The retention and the recruitment of our
    workforce is so critical. The majority of the personnel that we
    have, again, are our reservists. And they are the backbone of
    what we do, which is why we are very grateful to Congress for
    the passing of the CREW Act, which gives them USERRA
    protections. And we have now a broader pool of people that I
    feel we can recruit from.
        And I have talked to reservists firsthand out in the field
    about how they are already benefiting from this piece of
    legislation, which is increasing the number of reservists that
    we can potentially account on.
        We are also offering new incentives. We are offering
    recruitment bonuses as well as administrative time off for our
    reservists after they demobilize. These little steps, I think,
    are also increasing the desire of our workforce to be able to
    bring in new people, but also helping them understand that we
    are there for them and that we recognize the value that they
    bring, and it makes them excited about their continued work in
    supporting survivors before, during, and after disasters.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is going
    to expire, so, I will yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
    Representative Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You have got a tough job, Ms. Criswell. You really, really
    do. All around this Nation, there is some sort of a disaster
    going on almost all the time. And thank you. Thank you for your
    efforts. Thank you for the work that you and your team do.
    Obviously, all of us believe it to be extremely important, the
    recovery piece of it.
        Now, there is always a problem. And some of these problems
    are--in the scope of the issues you face, would seem to be
    mundane.
        We had a COVID crisis a couple of years ago. There were
    shutdowns. There were individual--counties housed homeless
    people in separation so that they might not get sick or infect
    the community. One of those counties I happen to represent is
    awaiting reimbursement for their program.
        Region 9 made a decision that they wouldn't be paid. That
    decision appears to be contrary to your national guidance. We
    would like for you to look into it. We will get you the
    specific information, and if you would take a look at it.
        It has to do with not a great amount of money in the scope
    of what you are facing, but nonetheless important to Contra
    Costa County. So, if you would take a look at that. Try to
    align your guidance with the region 9 determination to not
    reimburse.
        Now, having said that, I will just let that hang out there.
    We will get you the specific information, and if you will
    follow up, we would appreciate it. But in the scope of the
    issues you have, good luck.
        We will never be able to deal with disasters unless we
    continue to press for mitigation. And the mitigation is one of
    your tasks. And there are a couple of mitigation programs that
    are of concern here, specifically, the mitigation having to do
    with water infrastructure.
        One of your programs does not seem to provide for
    firefighting water infrastructure. It may be a hydrant. It may
    be a tank. Could you please take a look at that? And if we are
    going to mitigate, for example, the Camp Fire or Lahaina, how
    do we do it without water and the water infrastructure?
        You have a program that can deal with that, and we need to
    make sure that that would be included. Again, we will get you
    specific concerns that we have in California about that.
        The final point is your revolving loan fund program. If it
    works, it would provide the State with money that they can then
    pass on to counties, cities, and others to get ahead of the
    problem by using that money to develop mitigation programs.
        However, you have awarded that to seven States--about $50
    million to seven States and the District of Columbia. You have
    about $100 million available. So, how about the other $50
    million? Maybe you have as much as $200 million. It is not
    exactly clear how much money is in this revolving loan fund
    program.
        Can you push the money out, or is that money now being
    allocated for the disaster recovery? Please take a look at
    that. Obviously, California and other States who have spoken
    here today--their Representatives have--what is the status? Can
    you push the rest of that money out, or is that going to depend
    upon the additional money that we must provide to FEMA?
        I don't know that you are up on this issue now. If you are,
    I would love to hear your comments. If you are not, I am sure
    you will get back to us.
        Ms. Criswell. Representative, the STORM Revolving Loan Fund
    is such an incredible tool to help our communities build
    resilience in areas where perhaps they don't have the funding
    to front some of the costs or even to cover the cost-shares for
    some projects. So, we are very excited about this program.
        When we first got the authorization and the funding for
    this program, we wanted to make sure that we could get a
    portion of that funding out as quickly as possible. And so,
    that is why we did a partial Notice of Funding Opportunity for
    the initial $50 million that you mentioned.
        This program also requires--it is a first-of-its-kind
    program. And it also requires that our State and our local
    partners build capacity to be able to administer such a
    program. And so, while we did an initial Notice of Funding
    Opportunity, we have also been working with our State and local
    partners to help them establish programs so they can administer
    this.
        And as we continue to go forward with this program, we will
    be issuing our Notice of Funding Opportunities for the full
    amount of this program going forward while we continue to work
    with building their capacity.
        Mr. Garamendi. I am out of time, but my final comment is, I
    very, very much appreciate the task that you are doing and the
    extraordinary importance of it. So, know that at least some of
    us want to really support you. Thank you.
        Ms. Criswell. Thank you.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [presiding]. Thank you.
        And with that, I will recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair, and for the committee
    members for allowing me to sit in today. I appreciate it. A
    very important topic.
        And so, Ms. Criswell, thank you for your efforts with FEMA
    and the difficult times.
        Pivoting off of what Mr. Huffman said a while ago with
    tsunami and earthquake and wildfire and flood, I think we can
    add pretty much all of that in the area I represent adjacently.
    And who knows? Maybe volcanic eruptions someday with the
    possibilities.
        But I wanted to--in terms mostly of wildfires, my area has
    been devastated several times. Mr. Garamendi mentioned the Camp
    Fire right in my backyard, Paradise, California, only to be
    eclipsed by Lahaina in the loss of life. Incredible. And the
    Dixie Fire in 2021, 1 million acres. Lost the town of
    Greenville and Canyondam.
        So, the Lord has blessed us with much rainfall and snowpack
    this year, so, we are not feeling so much of the size and scope
    of a wildfire that we have been kind of used to lately.
        But I wanted to speak with you about some of the practical
    matters again. It is hard to get things out the door quickly
    enough, and we understand that. There was some really great
    work done by FEMA working with Cal OES and the local
    governments on those other fires. Kind of having to build from
    the ground up on wildfires since it hadn't been quite the big
    area that FEMA had to do in the past.
        But we are still having trouble on timing of things like
    that and getting--whether it has been the housing, the trailers
    and things. I want to touch on what is called the North Complex
    Fire centered in Butte County, California, the town of Berry
    Creek. And you might well be familiar with this.
        The Lake Madrone area of that in the North Complex Fire was
    very impacted, including their water delivery system for the
    community. And they have nothing there. So, the water system
    was wiped out.
        So, the district, their water district submitted several
    Public Assistance claims, but it took years for the submission,
    then a denial, then an appeal, a denial again to take place for
    that assistance. And during that time, what was there of the
    water district--the infrastructure--was allowed to deteriorate
    even more. Part of it may well have been salvageable, but we
    couldn't get the teams out there. We couldn't get the
    coordination amongst everybody to look at the district and see
    what it really was going to be and what level.
        So, FEMA didn't meet their required deadlines to respond on
    that. So, a lot of time and effort and maybe valuable
    infrastructure was lost.
        So, especially a really small town like that--like kind of
    what Mr. Huffman was talking about--are extremely impacted
    because they have limited staff, a limited ability to apply for
    this or ask for grants and things like that.
        So, what I would ask you is that--if you could take, at
    your level, another look at Lake Madrone of the North Complex
    Fire in northern California and see if you really believe they
    got a fair shake on that. Because they absolutely need the
    assistance, and so much time went by before the--they are just
    on the short end of it now.
        And then overall, I would like to see if we can commit the
    coordination with the State folks more--like Cal OES in our
    case--so our applicants can know what the resources can be more
    quickly and respond to that so there is less local suffering,
    basically.
        So, would your office be able to work with mine and with
    HUD as well as California's entities to find a way to compact
    these timelines and not have these unnecessary delays?
        Ms. Criswell. Absolutely. On the first point, we will
    certainly take a look at the case that you mentioned. I
    obviously don't have the specifics on that here, but I am happy
    to take a look at that.
        And we have worked over the last 2 years to really figure
    out ways that we can be better engaged with our customers and
    have more, again, of a people-first approach, customer-centric
    approach to the way that we are delivering our programs. And
    sometimes it just takes that one-on-one communication.
        And so, you do have my commitment to make sure that we are
    doing everything we can to work with the communities within
    your district but across California and the rest of the country
    to better understand that.
        Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate it. On the Madrone one, it took
    strong effort by my staff to finally say, everybody come to one
    meeting and meet on this. And it did happen, but it was quite a
    long time after the fire and the deterioration.
        One last one is that we need to look at things that happen
    post-wildfire that aren't necessarily the fire directly but
    have a direct--mudslides. Let me talk about that. OK.
        Mudslide issues, we can tie directly back to the cause,
    being the wildfire. So, we need to have aftereffects taken into
    account, too. So, do you think we can look at that process so
    that mudslides directly related to a fire could be part of that
    conversation?
        Ms. Criswell. It is definitely one of the concerns that we
    always have after a wildfire. And we do have post-wildfire
    hazard mitigation assessment teams that will go into
    communities and better understand what the cascading impacts
    might be and what types of mitigation projects we need to put
    in place now to help protect those communities.
        So, you have my commitment to continue working on that, and
    we are happy to provide your staff a briefing on what that work
    does.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks very much. And then I will just mention
    in 5 seconds, a pre-positioning of resources for wildfires
    would be a key component as well going forward.
        So, Madam Chair, thank you for the time. I yield back.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
        The Chair will recognize Mr. Carter from Louisiana for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you, Administrator Criswell, for being here with
    us today.
        There are at least five major Army Corps of Engineers
    projects being held up in my district currently due to a
    funding gap. With INF having been implemented and the DRF--
    Disaster Relief Fund--running low, what happens if this fund is
    not replenished by Congress?
        Ms. Criswell. Congressman, the projects that you currently
    mention, the obligations are on hold because they are not
    lifesaving, life-sustaining projects, and we want to continue
    to reserve what is left of the DRF to support those efforts for
    things like we saw in Hurricane Idalia or in the Maui
    wildfires.
        As soon as the DRF is replenished, you have my commitment
    to begin reimbursing these projects on a first-in, first-out
    basis. And we will work around the clock, 7 days a week, to
    expedite those payments, but we cannot do so until the DRF is
    replenished.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. We know that the timeframe that we
    previously have known as hurricane season is dramatically
    extending year over year. If a $2.4 billion storm were to hit
    right now and empty the DRF, what would happen if a subsequent
    disaster struck with the Disaster Relief Fund sitting on zero?
        Ms. Criswell. We are monitoring our Disaster Relief Fund
    very closely, which is why we implemented the Immediate Needs
    Funding.
        If we have another catastrophic event that happens at the
    same time, we will continue to prioritize those most critical
    lifesaving activities to ensure that we have the resources that
    can go into communities and save lives and continue to delay
    the obligations for the recovery projects and then perhaps, if
    needed, for some of those life-sustaining projects that are
    happening so we can focus our efforts on life safety.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. We know that these storms come
    harder, come faster, stay longer, and leave more devastation in
    their path. We also know that there is a looming chance that
    the Government can shut down or even have a continuing
    resolution.
        In the case of such a drastic act of shutting down the
    Government or having a continuing resolution that freezes
    funding, what does that do to your agency and all of the
    ongoing natural disasters that you are currently facing?
        Ms. Criswell. Should a lapse in appropriations occur, then
    anything that would remain in our Disaster Relief Fund
    carryover balance would be moved forward. But given our current
    state, it would be insufficient to cover all of our ongoing
    lifesaving operations, and we would, again, have to continue to
    reduce the scope of what it is that we are supporting in our
    operations.
        We would be legally able to incur obligations for
    activities necessary for lifesaving and protection of human
    life, but, again, we would have to further reduce those types
    of lifesaving operations that we are working on based on the
    amount of funding that we have available.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Isn't it true that such an action
    of shutting down the Government or having a continuing
    resolution that drastically impedes your ability to provide
    resources, impacts Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and
    the like throughout our country?
        Ms. Criswell. A lapse in appropriation for FEMA's Disaster
    Relief Fund has an impact on everybody across this Nation from,
    again, our ability to do lifesaving actions in a number of
    places as well as ongoing recovery projects regardless of where
    they are at.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. As a result of climate change,
    deadly heat waves have gripped our Nation from coast to coast.
    What step is the Agency taking to mitigate heat hazards in our
    community?
        In my State alone, wildfires that we have are unprecedented
    in Louisiana. Bayou Sauvage burning out of control. Share with
    us what measures you are taking.
        We see this happening more and more in places it has never
    happened before. People that have never suffered these
    calamities are now dealing with them. Share with us what
    actions your agency is taking to address them.
        Ms. Criswell. Yes. I think, Representative Carter, what you
    have described is this convergence of multiple climate-related
    hazards that are coming together on communities in ways that we
    haven't seen before, where decades of drought combined with
    extreme heat are creating unprecedented wildfires in areas or
    heat domes in areas that are lasting longer than they ever
    have.
        Our mitigation programs definitely can help support
    communities to better understand the types of threats and risk
    that they not just face today, but the risks that they are
    going to face in the future, and how we can use our mitigation
    funds to help mitigate and reduce the impact of these risks,
    whether it is creating green space and white roofs to reduce
    the impact of heat, or hazard mitigation to help reduce the
    spread of wildfires in communities that have that type of
    threat.
        Our mitigation programs are so critical to helping
    communities across this country better understand what their
    risk is and how we can help reduce the impact so they don't
    have these long, complex recoveries, but most of all, that we
    can save lives.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you very much.
        My time is up. And, Madam Chair, I am just going to end
    with this statement because I will never pass up an opportunity
    when in your presence to talk about Risk Rating 2.0 and the
    devastation that it has, particularly on Louisiana, but in
    multiple other States. And I will continue to encourage that we
    put our heads together.
        Thank you for the time that you have spent in discussing
    back and forth this issue that is far yet resolved. But I thank
    you for the efforts, and I implore you to continue working with
    us in a bipartisan way to address the issue of Risk Rating 2.0
    that is devastating, particularly for Louisiana.
        Thank you, ma'am. I yield back.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
        The Chair looks forward to yielding to Mr. Graves from
    Louisiana for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I want to thank my friend from Louisiana for bringing
    up some local issues, and I want to pick up where he left off.
        Administrator, we had a chance to cover some ground in
    Louisiana in the past and talk through a number of issues. And
    in this case, I want to talk about where Mr. Carter left off,
    and that is Risk Rating 2.0.
        You are part of the Federal Government. When it is
    comprised of our hundreds of millions of citizens, we, I think,
    thrive on transparency and accountability.
        The fact that FEMA has continued to hide behind this
    proprietary model and the methodology for determining rates for
    Risk Rating 2.0, Mr. Carter and I are incapable of explaining
    to the people that we represent why their rates have gone from
    $560 a year under preferred risk to $8,000 or $9,000 a year. It
    is not OK that we can't explain it. It is not OK that FEMA
    tries to hide behind this proprietary model.
        And I just want to ask you, would you make transparent the
    methodology and allow us to explain to our constituents why
    their rates are skyrocketing, explain to our constituents how
    levee protection and other features are actually benefiting
    them, and that, in many cases, property taxes, sales taxes, and
    appropriations Congressman Carter and I and others have been
    able to secure are actually making them safer?
        Ms. Criswell. Congressman, Risk Rating 2.0--I believe one
    of the most important factors about Risk Rating 2.0 is that it
    bases our flood insurance rates on a home's unique risk. And
    while we have seen a significant amount of policies across the
    Nation that have had decreases, we also know that, now that we
    understand a home's unique risk, many of the policies--many of
    which are in Louisiana--their rates have gone up.
        We have provided several reasons----
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. That is not
    answering the question on transparency. The question is
    transparency. I can't explain to a constituent why their rates
    have doubled, tripled, quadrupled, or what have you. I can't
    explain to a constituent how the levee that is right behind
    their house actually provides them a level of protection if
    FEMA is refusing to be transparent.
        You are part of the Federal Government. This lack of
    transparency, it is not OK. And the fact that you have some
    places where rates are skyrocketing, when these people are,
    according to your maps, outside the flood zone--like, it
    doesn't make sense.
        And something--if we are just going to talk common sense
    for just a minute. Homes are static structures in many cases.
    They are a concrete slab of grade. I understand we've come in
    and elevated them under ICC and other programs.
        But in reality, the people complied with the rules at the
    time they built their home. In some cases, these homes have
    been here for hundreds of years. And all of a sudden, we are
    going to come in and change conditions on them? And we are
    going to refuse to provide any degree of transparency?
        I would like a commitment from you that you are going to be
    transparent and provide the methodology to the American public,
    let people look at it, understand it, and perhaps perfect it.
        Ms. Criswell. Congressman Graves, we continue to provide
    briefings to your staff and others on how we have developed----
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. I will take that as
    a no.
        And as we are talking about lack of transparency, I want to
    talk about something else.
        There was a meeting that was held at the White House on May
    11 of this year with the National Security Council, FEMA, and
    others talking about NSC stepping in and taking over,
    effectively, coordination of disasters or emergencies. That is
    what Congress charged you to do.
        Can you shed any light on what this is that the White House
    is coming in and taking this over? Can you share documents with
    the committee and help us understand this better, since we are
    the ones who actually write the laws?
        Ms. Criswell. Thank you for that question.
        Recovery is and will remain one of the core functions that
    FEMA does, and we are always looking for ways that we can
    improve on how we deliver not just our programs, but help
    coordinate the Federal family for long-term recovery.
        Maui is a great example of how we have set up a long-term
    recovery operation in the county with the State using the
    leadership of our State and local leadership to help drive the
    requirements.
        There is always room to improve. And one of the things that
    we are working as a result of Hawaii with the NSC on is
    bringing together our Cabinet Secretaries to help ensure that
    they have visibility of all of the things that their programs
    and their agencies are doing on the ground.
        That is the commitment that I have to continue to support
    communities like Maui with these long-term recovery operations:
    Making sure that FEMA sustains their role of being that agency
    that has the ability to coordinate across all Federal agencies.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. So, Administrator, look. You have
    got a tough job. You do. And I appreciate your willingness to
    do it. Every time you step in, it is because there is a
    disaster. That is not an enviable position.
        But I want to be clear that the Congress has charged you
    with that responsibility. And if there is some proposed change
    there, this committee deserves transparency to make sure that
    we believe it is consistent with the law and congressional
    intent. And I just want to ask your commitment to provide us
    transparency on this as well.
        Is that a commitment that you are willing to provide?
        Ms. Criswell. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
        Last thing, and I know, I will be quick here.
        Duplication of benefits drives me crazy because I watch our
    Federal Government be incredibly inefficient. We have
    resiliency programs or mitigation programs in FEMA, in Corps of
    Engineers, at HUD, in Interior, at Department of Agriculture,
    in NOAA, and many, many others.
        We explicitly wrote a change in the law in DRRA in 2018
    that said that duplication of benefits with Corps of Engineer
    programs and HMGP does not exist, meaning you can pay for it
    through HMGP. Yet, I have watched where FEMA has refused and
    said that you could not provide HMGP funds to a Corps project
    that was in the 7001 report, that I will make note does not
    mean it is funded.
        Yet, you have had the situations where Washington, DC, has
    gotten funds for, quote, ``tree equity.'' I don't know what the
    hell that is. Gotten money for tree equity. Meanwhile, Portland
    has gotten funds through similar programs.
        So, why is it that, if the Forest Service is going to fund
    urban tree planting, how come FEMA will fund it as well through
    BRIC? Why isn't that a duplication of benefits?
        Ms. Criswell. I don't have the specifics of why we do or
    not----
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. Could you please
    get us an answer on that.
        Ms. Criswell [continuing]. But I would be happy to follow
    up with you on that.
        Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        I am sorry for going over. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
        The Chair will recognize Mr. Stanton from Arizona for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for allowing
    me to participate in this subcommittee discussion, an issue of
    great importance and urgency to my home State of Arizona.
        Administrator Criswell, communities along the southern
    border are on the front lines of an ongoing humanitarian
    crisis. Right now, Federal migrant holding facilities are well
    over capacity. Last week, DHS began--unnoticed--release of
    migrants on the streets of small, rural Arizona communities
    like Bisbee, Nogales, and Douglas, Arizona.
        And instead of providing the necessary resources to support
    these border communities in housing, feeding, and transporting
    vulnerable migrants, the Federal Government has shifted Federal
    assistance away from Arizona to other States and made it much
    harder for local governments to get reimbursed for costs
    incurred.
        Now, I am a former mayor, and I know how tight municipal
    budgets are. But frankly, it is insulting that the Federal
    Government is forcing them into such a precarious financial
    position.
        Administrator, I am particularly concerned about FEMA's
    complete lack of transparency in how the Shelter and Services
    Program funds are allocated and why such a disproportionately
    small amount of the overall funding has come to Arizona's
    overwhelmed border communities.
        In its June guidance, FEMA stated simply that eligible
    applicant allocations were, quote, ``based on release and
    destination data received from CBP and Emergency Food and
    Shelter Program humanitarian requests made in fiscal year
    2023,'' unquote. No other information was provided for how
    these funds would be allocated.
        The southern Arizona coalition, which includes Pima and
    Santa Cruz Counties, the city of Tucson, and Catholic Community
    Services, has a combined monthly cost and have averaged more
    than $2 million a month this summer, and their costs are
    steadily rising, as DHS releases more than 1,000 migrants on
    average every day. But they were eligible to apply for just
    $10.9 million in assistance through the Shelter and Services
    Program, while New York, 2,000 miles a away, received 10 times
    that.
        I have been told the funds southern Arizona has received
    will only last about 5 months. That's due in part to deep cuts
    these local governments and nonprofits were forced to make in
    other areas. It is simply not right.
        Administrator Criswell, why is there such an enormous
    disparity between the resources allocated to border communities
    compared to interior communities under this program? Shouldn't
    the needs of Arizona's border communities and those in other
    border States be weighed more heavily when allocating these
    critical funds?
        Ms. Criswell. Representative Stanton, we know that there is
    great need out there for these funds. And through our legacy
    program, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program-Humanitarian,
    with the direction of Congress to establish our new Shelter and
    Services Program, we used our legacy program to administer the
    first portion of that funding, which highly favored our border
    cities.
        As we implemented the Shelter and Services Program, we did
    begin to take into greater account release data but also
    destination data, as we understand that communities across the
    country are incurring costs as they are providing shelter and
    services for the migrants.
        As we move into the next fiscal year, and if the program
    continues to be funded, we will be basing this more on a
    competitive program to take into account the existing data and
    impacts that communities are experiencing as we make decisions
    for future funding allocations.
        Mr. Stanton. So, are you committing today that FEMA will
    make this, moving forward, a competitive grant program like the
    Emergency Food and Shelter Program to disburse funds?
        Ms. Criswell. The Emergency Food and Shelter Program was
    not a competitive grant program as compared to our traditional
    grant programs. The Shelter and Services Program will be more
    of a competitive program similar to our other grant programs.
        Mr. Stanton. I am happy to hear that there will be
    additional rounds of funding. When that funding occurs, how
    will you address the significant shortfall by Arizona's border
    communities in responding to the increased number of asylum
    seekers being released by DHS?
        Ms. Criswell. This program--even through our legacy
    program, but as well as the Shelter and Services Program--
    continues to be oversubscribed, and I anticipate it will
    continue to be oversubscribed. We will use data collected from
    CBP to help make those decisions. But, again, we know that many
    communities will not get enough funding for the cost that they
    are incurring.
        Mr. Stanton. SSP funding is far more restrictive in
    covering costs incurred by local governments and NGOs. Why are
    SSP funds so much more restrictive than the funding received
    previously under the Emergency Food and Shelter Program? What
    was the rationale for capping hotel costs now when it
    previously wasn't capped?
        Ms. Criswell. I would have to go back with my team on some
    of the specifics on how we made those decisions and those
    requirements within our program.
        But, again, this program is a new program for FEMA. This
    was the first iteration of the Shelter and Services Program. We
    always continue to improve based on the lessons learned on the
    initial allocation of those funds. I am happy to continue to
    work with you and your staff on ways we can continue to
    improve.
        Mr. Stanton. Madam Chair, one final quick question, if I
    might, dealing with extreme heat, another important issue to
    Arizona.
        Are extreme heat declarations eligible for a Stafford Act
    disaster declaration, or does the Stafford Act need to be
    amended to include extreme heat conditions?
        Ms. Criswell. The Stafford Act does not need to be amended
    to include extreme heat. We base our decisions on a number of
    factors. Mostly on, does it exceed the capacity of the State
    and local jurisdictions?
        If the response to an extreme heat incident exceeds the
    capacity of a State and local jurisdiction, they are very open
    to submit a disaster declaration request, and we will consider
    that based on whether or not it exceeds their capacity.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Stanton.
        The Chair will recognize Mr. Rouzer from North Carolina for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Rouzer. I thank the madam chair.
        And, Madam Administrator, thank you so much for being here.
        As my friend and colleague Garrett Grigsby--Garret Graves.
    Pardon me. I know a Grigsby somewhere else.
        As my colleague Mr. Graves mentioned, there is no question
    you have a tough job. I will reiterate what he underscored in
    that the duplication of benefits really is a big issue for a
    lot of us. And we would love to see the administration stick
    with the intent of Congress on that because that certainly is a
    big, big issue for many of our disaster survivors.
        Speaking of disasters, we have a lot of hurricanes come
    through, obviously. My district is southeastern North Carolina.
    In 2016, we had Hurricane Matthew. We had a lot of flooding
    with that. In 2018, we had Hurricane Florence, a tremendous
    amount of flooding with that.
        And it was quite common for residents who live in
    condominiums, homeowners associations, housing cooperatives,
    that when those natural disasters hit, they can get no
    assistance from FEMA. And I am just curious if you foresee that
    that will continue to be the case, or if there has been any
    internal discussion about modifying the rules and regulations
    to where they would be eligible moving forward.
        Ms. Criswell. So, Congressman, people who own their homes,
    whether that be an individual home, whether that be a condo,
    whether they are a renter in one of those homes--they are all
    eligible for our programs.
        Our decisions are based on a number of factors. One is most
    certainly the amount of insurance they have and what insurance
    covers, and then whether they have actual damages to their
    homes and what we can repair for those homes. But we also
    provide things like rental assistance, which people are
    eligible for regardless of whether they are a homeowner or a
    renter.
        If there is something specific that you have an example of,
    I would be happy to work with your staff to look at it and
    better understand what that circumstance was. But there is no
    factor that does not allow somebody who owns a condo to be
    eligible for our programs.
        Mr. Rouzer. Well, historically, FEMA has been very
    resistant to helping those that are technically classified as a
    homeowners association, and many people live in neighborhoods,
    big and small, that have a homeowners association, and
    therefore, they can't get debris picked up. There are always
    municipalities that get reimbursed through Public Assistance
    for picking up debris, et cetera. Well, they won't pick up
    debris in a homeowners association for that reason.
        I have some legislation that will help clarify this and
    make everybody's life a little easier. It is H.R. 3777, the
    Disaster Assistance Fairness Act. But I am not so sure that
    what is included in the legislation couldn't be addressed with
    a simple rulemaking because it very much fits within the intent
    and scope of FEMA's work during disaster recovery.
        And so, I would love to visit with you more about that
    offline, and I appreciate your attention to it.
        Ms. Criswell. Yes. Thank you for that further explanation.
    And we would be happy to provide direct technical assistance--
    drafting technical assistance on what you are working on.
        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer.
        With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Ryan from New York for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me
    to join.
        Thank you, Administrator, not only for your service to our
    Nation now but also for your service to New York in your
    previous roles.
        As I believe you're aware and certainly your team is aware,
    several communities in my district in the Hudson Valley of New
    York--Cornwall, Highland Falls, Fort Montgomery, and West
    Point--were absolutely devastated in early July with
    unprecedented--over 8 inches of rain in just a few hours,
    absolutely overwhelming all of the systems, processes, and
    resources that the community had ever had to deal with or
    prepare for.
        Tragically, we did lose one young woman to that flood. We
    have had hundreds displaced since the flood. My team and I have
    personally spoken with hundreds of affected residents. As is
    always the case--and you know this well--each of their stories
    is just heartbreaking.
        One that I cannot stop thinking about, a veteran in my
    community--100 percent disability rating from the VA who
    suffered TBI and other serious injuries--is still fighting and
    struggling to get any help to rebuild his home that was
    completely condemned. And despite all the work by you and your
    team, despite the declaration of a Federal disaster and some of
    the Public Assistance, folks like him and hundreds of others
    are still without any help and any relief.
        Almost none of them had flood insurance because of the
    topography of where they live. It was absolutely almost
    impossible that they could have experienced something like
    this, but tragically, they did.
        So, I want to commend you and thank the President and the
    administration for pushing to declare the disaster declaration,
    for working with a good team on the ground to start to get the
    Public Assistance flowing. But the number one question that I
    hear still in our office is, why have we not received an
    Individual Assistance declaration?
        Both the breadth but really the depth of the damage for
    several hundred families is just devastating, and the
    gentleman's story that I shared is just one. We have got kids
    living in condemned homes because they just have no other
    option. Seniors without homes.
        So, I have invited you to come. I know you are very busy.
    But I would ask you or one of your senior leaders to commit to
    come and look those folks in the eye with me, help explain what
    is going on, and brainstorm what we can do to help them. Can we
    count on you to do that, Administrator?
        Ms. Criswell. Yes, absolutely. I obviously don't have the
    specifics on why we haven't yet. I am happy to look into that
    personally. But you have my commitment if I can't make it, one
    of my senior leaders can join you to better understand the
    impacts to this community.
        Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it.
        And building on questions from several of my colleagues,
    specifically Mr. Huffman, can you explain why, in the midst of
    a disaster like this, it is so darn hard and complicated and
    opaque--which seems to be a theme that we have heard throughout
    the questioning--that we can't just answer residents who are
    devastated why they are not getting Individual Assistance?
        And what we can do to change that, what my team and I, what
    all the local officials and our Governor and our county
    leadership and local leadership who have all been working as a
    team. Can you help explain that?
        Ms. Criswell. Yes. There are a number of factors that we
    look at when we are making a determination on whether to
    recommend a declaration for both Public Assistance and
    Individual Assistance. And, again, a good portion of that falls
    on what the capacity of not just the local jurisdiction is, but
    what the State should be able to do to also support.
        And we understand when there are communities--small, rural
    communities in States like New York that have large urban
    centers, that it creates a greater capacity that the State
    should be able to come in and also provide a level of
    assistance.
        And so, all of those are factors that are taken into
    consideration. Not just the impact to the one community, but
    how much the State should also be able to support.
        Mr. Ryan. And I appreciate your commitment to personally
    look into this. I can tell you on the ground, while the State
    has contributed significantly, it is nowhere near meeting the
    need, specifically for folks, frankly, that don't qualify for
    some of the income thresholds, but had no flood insurance and
    are far beyond their means to repair devastating damage.
        So, we have to, as Americans, be able to figure out how to
    navigate this. And myself and my team will be available
    anytime, anywhere to you and your team. So, thank you to your
    folks that have been on the ground in helping, and we will
    certainly be persistent in following up with you on your kind
    commitment today. So, thank you.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Or Mr. Chair. I apologize.
        Mr. Perry [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair is now in agreement with the ranking member that
    we are going to go for a second round. And so, the Chair will
    recognize himself for the beginning of that second round of
    questions.
        Administrator Criswell, I think you highlighted the CREW
    Act in your testimony now and verbally numerous times regarding
    how it helped in staffing shortages. Yet, in your letter and
    your responses to letters from Chairman Graves, FEMA resources
    and personnel have been diverted to help deal with the border
    crisis.
        I ask unanimous consent to have these emails admitted to
    the record.
        And without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

              Emails Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Perry. On March 17th, an email of yours provided to the
    committee in response to these oversight letters show that you
    emailed Secretary Mayorkas that both you and FEMA's region 3
    administrator had discussed the current state of coordination
    based on her observations.
        Everything you said is kind of unclear because it is
    heavily redacted, as you can see here. But what I can see is
    that you expressed concerns committing her to no longer than 30
    days.
        And then on the following day, on March 18th, you received
    an email from the Secretary thanking you for supporting FEMA
    region 3 administrator's dedication to the border coordination
    with IMAT support for a 30-day period.
        Now, the IMAT teams are specialties, as I understand it,
    that deal with disasters. Does that mean you and the Secretary
    agree there is a disaster on the border? I mean, you sent one
    of these--go ahead, ma'am.
        Ms. Criswell. Our Incident Management Assistance Teams are
    unique teams that are trained to deal with complex problems,
    and the skill set that they bring, specifically the team that
    our region 3 administrator leads, is a team made up of
    collateral leaders across our agency designed to support a
    variety of different incidents to help bring that level of
    collaboration, coordination, and communication, the skill set
    that our emergency managers bring to all of the problems that
    we solve.
        Mr. Perry. OK. So, it is not about disasters?
        Ms. Criswell. So, this was specifically about creating an
    organizational structure to help support our partners across
    the Department establish a sound, unified coordination group.
        Mr. Perry. So, I guess by transposition, then, if it is not
    a disaster, and it is to create this team, then we are saying
    that apparently Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of
    Homeland Security doesn't have what it needs. It is not
    equipped to handle what is happening on the southern border
    because they are calling on you.
        You're resource-challenged by your admission. You even were
    concerned, per your email. Then in November, you emailed the
    Secretary indicating that he had requested support again from
    your region 3 administrator on the border.
        And I would remind you that region 3 covers Pennsylvania
    and the district I am proud to represent, and I am concerned
    about those folks in the district that are paying the taxes for
    FEMA to support them and to remind everybody that region 3, the
    district we are talking about, had 11 major disaster
    declarations, not including COVID, during that period. I am
    concerned as you are.
        How many personnel--how many people did FEMA send to the
    border, and what was the duration? Since I can't find out from
    these emails.
        Ms. Criswell. The specific instance that you are talking
    about with our region 3 regional administrator, again, is part
    of an IMAT team that is made up of collateral personnel from
    across our agency, many from headquarters. Our region 3----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. OK. That is great. How many for
    how long?
        Ms. Criswell. They have a handful of people. I don't know
    exactly how many from that team, but that team is only 12
    people, and they----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. So, it wouldn't be more than 12?
        Ms. Criswell. It would not be more than 12. And----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. OK. And you don't know how long
    or how many instances at this point?
        Ms. Criswell. That team was sent to here in DC to work with
    our partners across the Department to help them establish what
    is now the Southwest Border Coordination Center. And they help
    them----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. OK. But while they were here in
    DC or at the southwest border, they weren't focused on region
    3, which is Pennsylvania, which is what they were hired to do.
    It is what they are--that is their daily responsibility, right?
        And while we are having disasters in that region, they are
    focused on Washington, DC, and the border in particular. I
    mean, that is what I see here. I mean, can you----
        Ms. Criswell [interrupting]. And the only person on that
    team from region 3 is the one person who is the lead. This is a
    team that is made up----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. But that is also the person in
    region 3 that is the lead for region 3, right?
        Ms. Criswell. But this team is made up of collateral
    personnel to come help support a variety of incidents----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I get it. But my point is, is
    that this person is not focused on the region that is having
    disasters because they are focused on the border. And while we
    might disagree or agree why the border disaster is happening, I
    would contend that it is happening because of the policies of
    this administration.
        So, the people in Pennsylvania that are paying for their
    region administrator don't get their region administrator,
    because the administration determines that that person is going
    to be on the southwest border or in Washington, DC, dealing
    with the southwest border problem caused by this
    administration.
        Let me ask you this one final question: Who is paying for
    that? Who is paying for that?
        Ms. Criswell. For the region 3----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. For the IMAT team, for the region
    3 coordinator, for the person that is supposed to be in
    Pennsylvania that is in Washington, DC, dealing with the
    southwest border, who is paying for that?
        Ms. Criswell. These are part of our appropriated funds.
        Mr. Perry. FEMA is paying for that. So, FEMA is paying for
    the border, right?
        So, when you pay your taxes and we say, oh, well, that is
    all going to the Department of Homeland Security, this portion
    to secure the border, that's not true.
        The Department of Homeland Security is now requiring FEMA
    to take some of their disaster relief people and send them
    somewhere to deal with the border. That's how we are also
    dealing with it.
        So, it is costing doubly. Not only is Homeland Security--
    and by the way, I don't know if people realize this, but you
    are not supposed to be duplicating services that are provided
    by another agency, whether it is Interior, whether it is
    Forestry. You are doing that with planting trees as well, by
    the way. That's another story.
        But on this occasion, you are duplicating services that are
    supposed to be handled by the Department of Homeland Security
    with FEMA dollars, and yet FEMA is demanding and asking, and
    maybe rightly so in many cases, for a supplemental for disaster
    assistance funding at the same time they are spending America's
    tax-paying dollars that are supposed to go to disaster relief
    on the southwest border in a disaster created by policy by this
    administration.
        With that, I yield.
        And I recognize the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. Let's go back and talk about the
    Inflation Reduction Act. It has been called the greatest
    investment in environmental policy in a lifetime.
        One of the things that it did was authorize FEMA's Public
    Assistance and hazard mitigation programs to provide
    reimbursements for use of low-carbon materials and incorporate
    future climate projections into their emergency management
    plans.
        You use net-zero energy as well. Would you talk about how
    that has been helpful, how you are leveraging that, how it fits
    into your overall recovery, replacement, and rebuilding
    schemes?
        Ms. Criswell. We are grateful for that added ability to
    reimburse jurisdictions that use this type of construction
    methodology to, one, increase their resilience as we are
    rebuilding, but also reduce the impact on our environment.
        And so, this is a new program. These are the types of
    projects that take years to build. I am very excited to see how
    our jurisdictions across the country are now going to be able
    to build back in a way that not only makes them more resilient
    but makes them better for the environment as we go forward.
        Ms. Titus. Wouldn't this kind of epitomize Build Back
    Better, so we don't build back just the way it was before the
    disaster, so that if that incident occurs again we are faced
    with the whole same problem one more time?
        Ms. Criswell. Absolutely. Our goal is to build back better
    so communities do not have to repeat the complex recoveries
    that they are facing today.
        Ms. Titus. So, in the long run, this would be a more
    efficient use of taxpayer dollars and it would probably be
    cheaper as you amortize it out over future disasters.
        Ms. Criswell. Every dollar that we invest in mitigation
    saves $6 in recovery.
        Ms. Titus. And is that across all kinds of disasters,
    whether it is fire or hurricane or whatever? It is just in
    general?
        Ms. Criswell. The current studies show that $1 invested in
    mitigation saves $6 in recovery. I am sure it varies slightly
    from type of event to type of event, but the recent study that
    came out shows how much mitigation does save our taxpayers in
    the end from recovery.
        Ms. Titus. So, this would be a good thing, to save taxpayer
    dollars while also trying to save the planet.
        Ms. Criswell. Absolutely.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    LaMalfa.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thanks for
    allowing me to sit in here and go for a second round of
    questions today. I appreciate it.
        So, Ms. Criswell, again, thank you for your appearance and
    for the coordination we have been able to have with FEMA in
    northern California after the many disasters.
        So, in recovering from wildfires in my own district, we
    have had a lot of great strides, but some bureaucratic
    challenges, not necessarily in your Department, have delayed
    progress and really true recovery so that victims can get back
    to normal.
        So, just removing hazardous trees or to build housing, fix
    a road, the local jurisdiction must do a NEPA. Every project
    within the recovery process has a separate NEPA requirement,
    which can take a year to produce and oftentimes are things that
    are very basic. You wouldn't need a full-blown NEPA for
    changing a culvert or repairing especially already existing
    infrastructure.
        So, not much has changed on the process of how NEPAs are
    done. So, my constituents continue to say this is such a pain
    for them, and it really does take more time and sometimes
    opportunities as grant dollars run out and permits, other types
    of permits may expire, or more conditions keep getting added
    on.
        So, it would be, I believe, and many folks have weighed in
    with me, that couldn't we have one big regional NEPA after, in
    this case, a wildfire for the whole burn scar and have that
    applicable for all recovery and mitigation projects tied to a
    disaster that was declared by the President.
        Wouldn't that seem like a commonsense way of doing it, just
    having an area-wide, in this case, burn scar-wide NEPA and do
    it as a catchall, instead of so much duplication, like this
    zone, that zone, this project. Is that something we can strive
    for, do you believe?
        Ms. Criswell. There are a number of policies out there when
    we are doing our environmental and historic reviews, and NEPA
    is certainly one of those that are out there. There are tools
    in our toolbox that can do programmatic reviews, but, again,
    each instance is very different.
        We would have to work with each jurisdiction to better
    understand how we can apply broader application of our tools,
    which we have done in some areas. But we can't do it in every
    area, because they are all so specific.
        And so, I can't give you a general answer, but happy to
    continue to work with you on ways that we can streamline this
    process, because we also recognize it is one of those pieces of
    this recovery and rebuilding effort that has some of the longer
    timelines associated with it.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Indeed, in the Paradise area, the
    Camp Fire, we are going to be 5 years in in November, and we
    are still chasing permits to remove hazardous trees. These are
    dead trees that are not going to be part of the landscape or a
    positive part, maybe a handful for woodpeckers, but not to the
    extent there are acres and acres.
        And this still keeps just a dark cloud over recovery, over
    building and, indeed, getting insurance again for the area.
    Insurance companies are pulling out of California and pulling
    out of areas like this, even though what you would really look
    at--the risk--has changed completely after that, such a
    devastating fire, such a complete fire. Once these trees are
    removed, it will be a much more insurable area for folks, and
    you have folks--one lady, one anecdote, and I will stop.
        But a lady and her, I think, two kids were in their home
    and during a wind event trees were falling over, dead trees.
    And you could hear them cracking that hadn't fallen yet.
        She finally decided she was going to have to get her family
    out of her home, because she was within reach of some of the
    trees, and go take a hotel down the hill in the town of Chico
    rather than stay in her home, because we keep hanging on,
    hanging on with the inability to quickly and efficiently remove
    the hazardous trees that still exist there.
        So, we don't need to NEPA to death every little project.
    Indeed, a coordination of projects into one. The darn NEPA
    doesn't teach you that much anyway. I don't know if they even
    read the thing. At the end of the day, is it going to affect a
    yellow-toed salamander or what have you?
        The work is going to get done. It needs to get done. It is
    just a lot more pain. So, if you can--we need help on that Lake
    Madrone thing that I mentioned a while ago.
        And if in your conversations with the regulators on this,
    please emphasize that a broader approach, a burn scar approach,
    would be very helpful for everybody, I am sure for your
    Department and for the people that are actually victims.
        So, thank you for that.
        And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
    yields back.
        Are there any further questions from any members of the
    subcommittee who have not been recognized?
        Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would
    like to thank the witness for her testimony and for being here
    today. It was tough questions, tough job. We appreciate you,
    and we thank you for coming and taking the heat.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

       Questions from Hon. Lori Chavez-DeRemer to Hon. Deanne Criswell,
    Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of
                               Homeland Security

        Question 1. Does the current grant guidance allow funding to be
    used for technologies such as AI/ML and other prediction and early
    detection capabilities? Technology and integrated services will allow
    for earlier detection, improved situational awareness and better
    decision-making, mitigating impacts of these fires on small and often
    impoverished communities.
        Question 2. If the current FEMA grant guidance does not allow for
    these types of technologies and technology services, I would like to
    request FEMA issue the appropriate grant guidance to the states to
    maximize the accessibility of grants for wildfire technology and
    related services.
        Answer to 1 & 2. In general, warning systems may be eligible for
    HMA grants if they meet the general program eligibility requirements,
    including feasibility and cost-effectiveness. When seeking assistance
    for these projects, it is important that applicants describe how the
    system will be used to reduce potential injury and damage from a
    natural disaster (i.e., what actions will be associated with the
    warning) and that the technology used, such as artificial intelligence
    or machine learning, is accepted and proven to be effective when
    incorporated into early warning systems.

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

        Question 1. We need to ensure that FEMA exercises the full breadth
    and extent of its authorities provided by Congress to provide resources
    to state, local and tribal governments to build capacity and increase
    resilience against wildfires, including through mitigation efforts. One
    such area that shows promise for wildfire mitigation is through the use
    of advanced technology and technology services, such as artificial
    intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in order to predict future
    behaviors of fires.
        Question 1.a. Does the current grant guidance for the Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program allow funding
    to be used for technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and
    machine learning (ML) and other prediction and early detection
    capabilities?
        Question 1.b. If it does not, does FEMA plan to issue guidance in
    the future addressing these uses for the BRIC program?
        Answer to 1.a. & 1.b. In general, warning systems may be eligible
    for HMA grants if they meet the general program eligibility
    requirements, including feasibility and cost-effectiveness. When
    seeking assistance for these projects, it is important that applicants
    describe how the system will be used to reduce potential injury and
    damage from a natural disaster (i.e., what actions will be associated
    with the warning) and that the technology used, such as artificial
    intelligence or machine learning, is accepted and proven to be
    effective when incorporated into early warning systems.

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

        Question 1. Point Roberts, WA, is located in an exclave; the town
    is completely surrounded by the territory of Canada. Point Roberts is
    also located in a disaster-prone area, which is at high risk for
    hazards such as wildfires and tsunamis.
        Question 1.a. How does FEMA support disaster preparedness and
    response in exclaves?
        Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and our
    network of regions, distribution centers, and personnel respond to
    emergencies and disasters from Guam to the U.S. Virgin Islands. As
    such, we have expertise in responding to geographically isolated
    communities, like Point Roberts, WA, and the State of Alaska.
        Just like other communities, FEMA works closely with the State of
    Washington to provide trainings and exercises, disaster preparedness
    support, grants management, and technical assistance.
        Additionally, through the Western-Regional Emergency Management
    Advisory Committee there is a mechanism for rapid resource sharing
    between the United States and Canada.
        Working through the National Response Coordination Center, FEMA can
    and will deploy resources to communities like Point Roberts, WA through
    Canada by closely coordinating with U.S. and Canadian border officials.

        Question 1.b. Has the Agency ever awarded a grant to an exclave or
    extended a disaster declaration to cover exclave territory?
        Answer. Yes, FEMA has awarded disaster and non-disaster grants to
    exclaves. There are currently five open disasters in Alaska. In
    addition, Point Roberts, WA was included in a 2022 disaster declaration
    (DR-4418) for severe winter weather.

        Question 2. Investments in mitigation save lives, property and
    taxpayer dollars. Therefore, pre-disaster mitigation programs such as
    BRIC are critical to building nationwide resilience. This year, 23
    states will be first time recipients of BRIC grants.
        Question 2.a. How did FEMA ensure a geographically diverse
    disbursement of awards this funding cycle?
        Question 2.b. How can Congress work with FEMA to ensure that pre-
    disaster mitigation investments are similarly dispersed for future
    funding cycles?
        Answer to 2.a. & 2.b. FEMA benefitted from a multi-pronged
    approach, dedicating funding to each state/territory and setting aside
    funding for Tribes, providing technical assistance, and conducting
    extensive outreach that helped achieve a geographically diverse
    disbursement of awards during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Building
    Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) funding cycle, which
    resulted in BRIC selections across 55 states and territories.
        The BRIC program's State/Territory allocation helped to ensure that
    all states and territories have the opportunity to apply for and
    receive BRIC funding. This allocation, combined with the separate set
    aside specifically for tribes, contributes to geographically disbursed
    awards. During the FY 2022 BRIC funding cycle, FEMA allocated $2
    million to each state/territory and set aside $50 million for tribal
    applicants. This is in addition to the more than $2.1 billion in
    funding made available under the national competition.
        FEMA has also made BRIC Direct Technical Assistance (BRIC DTA)
    available to communities and Tribal nations throughout the country,
    providing holistic hazard mitigation planning and project support at
    the earliest stages. BRIC DTA is currently supporting 74 communities
    and Tribes across the country, offering support for up to 36 months.
    Nine Tribes/communities selected for BRIC DTA in FY 2020 and FY 2021
    had supplications applications identified for further review in the FY
    2022 BRIC program and we anticipate more in coming years.
        Furthermore, FEMA embarked on an extensive outreach campaign to
    ensure states, Tribes, territories, and communities were aware of the
    BRIC program and understood how to apply for grants. In addition to
    traditional outreach through news releases and coordinated actions
    throughout the ten FEMA Regions, FEMA delivered a series of nine
    national webinars to help ensure widespread accessibility, reviewing
    eligible activities, discussing the application process, and providing
    general technical assistance to support quality subapplications. This
    included targeted outreach to Tribes, dedicating one of the webinars
    for Tribal communities.
        On August 28, 2023, FEMA announced the final project selections for
    the FY 2022 BRIC grant cycle. FEMA selected competitive projects for
    further review from 38 states and territories. Of those, 23 states will
    be first-time recipients for competitive BRIC selections upon
    completing their pre-award reviews. This is an increase from 19 states
    in FY 2021 and 10 states in FY 2020. The increase in tribal nation
    requests continued to rise as well. In total, 34 Tribes were selected
    in the Tribal Set-Aside for approximately $54 million in funding in FY
    2022.
        The FY 2022 BRIC application cycle benefitted from the availability
    of funds following the COVID-19 disaster declarations, and as a result
    of the additional funding through the Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act, FEMA is able to select more projects across a more diverse
    geographic scope.
        FEMA was intentional in the FY 2022 Notice of Funding Opportunity
    to ensure the BRIC funding was available to all states. First, FEMA
    directly allocated funding across all 50 states and territories, and
    set-aside funding specific for Tribal Nations. Second, FEMA conducted
    extensive outreach and trainings to make sure applicants were aware of
    the BRIC opportunities. Third, FEMA expanded the direct technical
    assistance program to help develop applications for disadvantaged
    communities. Fourth, when making final selections the FEMA
    Administrator ensured geographic diversity in the awards. And finally,
    the availability of additional BRIC funds in FY 2022 permitted FEMA to
    make more awards, which contributed to geographic diversity.

        Question 3. Delays in receiving reimbursement through the Public
    Assistance (PA) program have caused many counties to take out large
    loans to cover immediate recovery costs.
        Question 3.a. What is FEMA doing to expedite PA reimbursements?
        Answer. FEMA has seen a large increase in the amount of Public
    Assistance requested in recent years, due in part to an increase in
    major disasters and emergencies, a number of severe events with
    catastrophic damage, and the COVID-19 pandemic. In the five-year period
    between calendar years 2010 and 2014, FEMA provided an average of $4
    billion in Public Assistance each year. In the last five calendar years
    (2018 to 2022), FEMA has averaged nearly $24 billion in Public
    Assistance each year--more than a five-fold increase.
        FEMA conducted an independent assessment of the Public Assistance
    (PA) program in 2022. The assessment found that most of the delays in
    timeliness occur during the Damage Intake and Analysis phase when a
    FEMA Program Delivery Manager in the field works with the applicant to
    prepare their project application for submission. Specifically, as it
    relates to timeliness, FEMA has already made several changes to reduce
    the burdens during this phase, including:
          Simplified documentation requirements for unobligated
    projects under the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG)--
    version 4.
          Waived the PAPPG requirement for unobligated projects on
    open incidents, that completed small projects must be prepared based on
    actual costs.
          Adjusted the 90-day post-obligation deadline for projects
    with work completed prior to obligation to begin on the date of
    obligation.
          Announced the release of the PA Sampling Procedure which
    reduces the level of documentation that applicants are required to
    submit for large projects for FEMA to validate PA claims.
          Providing applicants flexibility in how they claim costs
    for the work associated with power restoration projects.
          No longer performing a separate reasonable cost analysis
    of work performed through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact
    (EMAC), as long as the project followed established EMAC rules.

        Once FEMA obligates funding, the funds are released to the
    recipient (typically the state emergency management agency), which can
    disburse funding to the applicant consistent with the recipient's
    procedures for disbursement of federal grant funds.
        FEMA understands that some states may delay release of obligated
    funds, either as a standard practice or to avoid the potential for
    repayment later, to ensure that all requirements of the grant are met
    and to avoid any potential audit findings. However, disbursement and
    reimbursement processes are set by the recipient, and are dictated by
    the Recipient-Subrecipient Agreement and are typically initiated by the
    subrecipient's request for reimbursement.

        Question 3.b. What role will the VAYGo process play in the PA
    program moving forward? Will all PA grants be subject to VAYGo?
        Answer. Validate as You Go (VAYGo) is, and will continue to be,
    FEMA's PA grants payment internal control review process, which ensures
    FEMA's compliance with statutory improper payment review and reporting
    requirements. VAYGo payment integrity testing results allow recipients
    to remediate questioned costs and take appropriate actions to
    strengthen internal controls in grant lifecycle processes. This will
    prevent or reduce the likelihood of future improper payments.
        Testing is based on drawdowns. Any drawdown made by a Recipient for
    a disaster declared on or after October 1, 2019, is subject to VAYGo
    testing.

        Question 4. Subcommittee staff have heard that some mitigation
    grant obligations may have been delayed due to Requests for Information
    (RFI) that are sent to the applicant from the relevant FEMA region
    office.
        Question 4.a. Does FEMA track the number of RFIs sent from the
    regional offices to applicants?
        Question 4.b. If yes, what is the average number of RFIs sent to
    the applicant per BRIC and Hazard Mitigation grant project,
    respectively?
        Answer to 4.a. & 4.b. FEMA issues Requests for Information (RFIs)
    because the applicant has not fully explained, justified, or documented
    their request. RFI's help to ensure compliance with policy, statutory,
    and regulatory requirements, allowing FEMA to make awards and help FEMA
    and grantees avoid situations where funding needs to be deobligated or
    returned to FEMA because of a lack of compliance.
        FEMA Grants Outcomes (FEMA GO) creates records of RFIs sent by the
    Regional offices. The National Emergency Management Information System
    (NEMIS), the grants management system currently used by Hazard
    Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), does not track the number of RFIs sent
    by the Regional offices. However, the Regional offices retain copies of
    RFIs either via paper or digital means.
        BRIC/Flood Mitigation Assistance program years 2020 and 2021 saw an
    average 1.7 and 1.9 RFIs, respectively, per subapplication. For
    subapplications that had at least one RFI, the average rises to 2.7 and
    2.6, respectively.
        Since NEMIS does not track RFIs, this number cannot be queried for
    HMGP.

        Question 4.c. Are all RFIs submitted using FEMA Go? If not, what
    alternative methods are used to submit RFIs?
        Answer. RFIs for grant programs currently using FEMA GO are
    intended to go through the system. The Hazard Mitigation Assistance
    (HMA) Program is aware that some Regions are sending RFIs using systems
    other than FEMA GO (such as SharePoint and other file sharing systems)
    but should be uploading them as attachments to FEMA GO. For HMGP, the
    most common delivery method is email. When HMGP is onboarded into FEMA
    GO, RFIs will likely also be tracked and processed in the system.
        For reference, part 6.G of the 2023 Hazard Mitigation Assistance
    Program and Policy Guide (HMAPPG) provides guidance about the process
    for requesting additional information. See pages 144-147 of the HMAPPG.

        Question 5. Congress amended section 406 of the Stafford Act to
    incentivize pre-disaster investment measures that increase readiness
    and resilience to major disasters. The law requires FEMA to increase
    the federal cost share for Public Assistance reimbursements for state
    and tribal governments that have proactively embraced such measures.
        When will FEMA publish regulations and guidance regarding this
    mandatory authority?
        Answer. FEMA intends to publish a policy that will implement this
    provision in calendar year 2024.

        Question 6. Please provide all written documentation and guidance
    that FEMA uses to determine incident periods for disaster declarations.
        Question 6.a. In the absence of written guidance, please explain
    what procedures are used to determine incident periods for declared
    events.
        Question 6.b. Which positions/personnel are involved in the process
    used to determine incident periods?
        Question 6.c. What criteria does FEMA use to determine if an
    incident period should be reopened?
        Question 6.d. What criteria are used to determine whether it is
    appropriate to group similar events that occur simultaneously or in
    immediate succession into a single incident period?
        Answer to 6, 6.a.-6.d. The incident period is the time interval
    during which the disaster-causing incident occurs. FEMA will not
    approve federal assistance under the Stafford Act unless the damage or
    hardship to be alleviated resulted from the disaster-causing incident
    which took place during the incident period (or was in anticipation of
    that incident).
        The disaster declaration and the FEMA-State Agreement (FSA)
    establish the incident period based on official information the
    appropriate federal agency provides, such as the National Weather
    Service (NWS) for a weather-related event or the United States
    Geological Survey (USGS) for an earthquake.
        Generally, a major disaster declaration for a storm event is
    limited to a single storm or a series of storms that are deemed to be
    part of the same storm system that impacts the same geographical areas,
    such that the impacts from the separate storms are indistinguishable
    and are separated by three days or less. The NWS has previously
    clarified to FEMA that a discrete weather system affects the same
    geographic area for a period of no more than two or three days, whereas
    broader meteorological phenomena (e.g., weather patterns, troughs, and
    pressures) result in multiple storm systems over a longer period of
    time, ranging from days to weeks. Successive storm systems separated by
    more than 72 hours are considered separate storm systems. FEMA
    evaluates these systems separately to determine whether they
    independently meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for a
    declaration. Furthermore, the damage and impact from each distinct and
    separate storm system must be of the severity and magnitude that would
    warrant a separate declaration.
        When the effects of the incident are ongoing, the initial
    declaration and the FSA may state that the incident period is
    ``continuing.'' If so, the Federal Coordinating Officer is responsible
    for monitoring and evaluating incidents to determine when to recommend
    closing the incident period. FEMA will consult with the state, Tribe,
    or territory and establish the closing date in an amendment to the FSA
    and the declaration and publish the amended date in the Federal
    Register.
        A request to reopen the incident period for the declared incident
    should include information demonstrating that the incident had
    significant impacts outside of the declared incident period (e.g.,
    damaged critical infrastructure and other secondary effects) and:
          Evidence that the additional incident occurred or will
    occur within 72 hours after the end of the declared incident period.
          The same geographic areas are impacted again.
          The damage was, or is likely to be, significant and
    difficult to distinguish from that of the declared incident.

        When reviewing a request to reopen an incident period, FEMA, in
    consultation with the NWS (or other federal agency, as appropriate),
    bases the determination on whether the new incident is connected to the
    original declaration (i.e., one that is part of the same storm system).

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

        Question 1. The FEMA Recovery page indicates that between all the
    various disasters of the past few years, FEMA Public Assistance has
    allocated and obligated $45.665 Billion for Puerto Rico, almost all out
    of the Disaster Relief Funds, of which $19.272 Billion has been
    outlaid, that is transferred from FEMA accounts to the accounts of the
    entities responsible for the work.
        Of that, a recent FEMA release announced that over $31 billion are
    for 10,800 Public Assistance projects, and within that, close to $4
    billion earmarked for over 6,400 projects that are supporting the
    recovery of the municipalities of Puerto Rico, including for this year
    2023 over $296.8 million for 434 projects.
        The local agency in charge of getting those funds to the
    municipalities, the Central Office of Recovery, Rebuilding and
    Resiliency (COR3), indicates they have managed 4,150 projects whose
    obligations near $1.9 billion.
        Because most municipalities and nonprofits do not have cash on hand
    or credit to start work before reimbursement, COR3 established a
    Working Capital Advance system, providing $1.264 billion to 30 state
    agencies, 58 municipalities and 44 nonprofits.
        However, yesterday, the press reports that COR3 announces that as
    many as two thirds of those entities would have to return those
    advances due to not being able to evidence use after a year. And that
    FEMA is aware and will get a report on the specifics this week. I
    expect that as soon as that information is available, as the
    Representative from Puerto Rico on the committee with oversight, I will
    be copied on it directly or through the Subcommittee.
        Questions:
        [Editor's note: Questions 1.a., 1.b.i., 1.b.ii., 1.b.iii., and 1.c.
    are listed out of order below. They appear in the order in which the
    witness responded to them.]
        Question 1.a. Does FEMA have its own record of how much has been
    actually disbursed, as in paid for work done (as opposed to just
    transferred to the entity in charge)?
        Question 1.c. Should we create an instrument or protocol at the
    federal level to enable FEMA to handle the cases of communities who
    simply have NOTHING with which to cover a funding match or do work
    pending a future reimbursement? Or to support them in case inflationary
    pressures cause their share to grow beyond their capacity to pay?
        Answer to 1.a. & 1.c. COR3 has developed the Working Capital
    Advance (WCA) Program so that all government agencies and nonprofits
    that have projects obligated through FEMA's PA Program--and meet the
    established requirements--may apply for a 50 percent advance through
    this pilot program run by COR3. WCA allows nonprofits and government
    agencies to identify priority projects that have not started due to
    lack of money and apply for the WCA to continue advancing the work.
        COR3 has already developed this instrument to cover a funding
    advance: this entity manages and executes the program to allow advance
    payments that are moving forward the execution of thousands of
    reconstruction projects.

        Question 1.b. If so, I would ask that you provide us what is the
    status as of this date of:
        Question 1.b.i. How many municipal projects have been finally
    completed and delivered?
        Answer to 1.b. & 1.b.i. This information is managed by COR3 and is
    available through their Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery Transparency
    Portal--COR3. COR3 submits a Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) in which
    this information is included. Based on the latest QPR, they report a
    total of 1,410 municipal projects completed.

        Question 1.b.ii. How many municipal projects are underway?
        Answer. As per COR3's latest QPR, a total of 11,438 municipal
    projects are in progress through their different execution stages. The
    breakdown of these execution stages is as follows: 7,284 in the
    Planning stage; 1,424 in Design; 10 in Permitting; and 2,720 Under
    Construction.

        Question 1.b.iii. How many projects are right now still pending for
    approval, or approved and pending for disbursement of payment?
        Answer. A total of 524 projects are in FEMA's Phase 2 of project
    formulation and, of these, 413 (79 percent) are pending for the
    applicant to submit the required Scope of Work (SOW) to determine
    eligibility. 10,841 projects are already obligated under FEMA's PA
    Program. In regard to those that are pending for disbursement of
    payment, this is a process managed and reported by COR3.

        Question 2. In late 2020 and early 2021 there was the announcement
    of the FEMA Accelerated Awards Strategy (FAASt) Obligations for major
    permanent infrastructure recovery:
          $9.5 billion for the electric system
          $3.7 billion for the water system
          $2 billion for the schools
          $554 million for public housing
        Question 2.a. Starting especially with the obligation for the
    Electric Utility rebuilding, can you provide us a breakdown of what is
    the progress of the Action Plan for the projects under these
    obligations, including as in the case of municipalities:
        Question 2.a.i. What has been approved to proceed.
        Question 2.a.ii. What has been submitted and is under evaluation.
        Question 2.a.iii. What has been started, and of that what has been
    completed.
        Answer to 2.a.i.-2.a.iii. As of September 19, 2023, a total of 139
    FEMA Accelerated Awards Strategy (FAASt) subprojects have been approved
    for the energy grid. These include 101 for Distribution, six for
    Transmission, 14 for Substations, two for Telecommunications/IT, 14 for
    Generation, one for Architecture and Engineering (A&E); and another for
    the advanced purchase of materials.
        The $600 million federal allocation for the advanced purchase of
    materials and equipment will allow resources to be available once the
    reconstruction work begins. This purchase in advance will be carried
    out for materials and equipment that are currently in short supply,
    that usually have a long-lead time or that could be impacted by future
    events.
        According to the applicant, 112 projects have been completed.
        FEMA continues working closely with the applicant to scope and
    review their remaining projects, including providing significant
    technical assistance in leveraging Hazard Mitigation opportunities and
    complying with Environmental and Historic Preservation requirements.

        Question 2.b. If there is a regular progress report for each of
    these Action Plans that FEMA can provide us as a regular update to the
    Subcommittee, we would request that.
        Answer. COR3 submits a QPR regarding the recovery progress. The
    last updated report submitted reflects the reconstruction progress of
    the quarter from April 1st until June 30th, 2023.

        Question 2.c. How is FEMA addressing inflationary pressures on
    these programs?
        Answer. FEMA has been carefully monitoring inflation data. While
    FEMA already includes an inflation adjustment factor in all fixed cost
    offers, we are working closely with Puerto Rico's COR3 to compare
    recent actual costs of project implementation to the awarded fixed cost
    estimates.
        In addition to working with COR3, FEMA has also been engaging with
    the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which is performing an
    independent assessment of the emerging risks due to increased costs as
    part of GAO engagement 105557.
        FEMA is committed to continuing to monitor the available funding to
    ensure continued support of the recovery from Hurricane Maria in Puerto
    Rico.

        Question 3. The FEMA funding programs right now are also facing
    issues regarding the rising costs of works under Public Assistance.
    There are projects that are under the Section 406 which are paid as the
    costs are incurred, but there are also projects under Section 428 which
    were based on a fixed cost estimate that included an inflation
    provision based on what was the inflation rate THEN, 2018-2020. That
    however has fallen short.
        For example, the Vieques Health Center had its funding approved in
    2020 when the estimated cost was $59 million yet a contract for
    construction was not signed until February of this year and by now the
    cost is expected to be $85 million, which is $26 million more. Recently
    the mayors of several Puerto Rico Municipalities have visited FEMA and
    the Congress seeking guidance on this, bringing up instances where bids
    have to be declared vacant because NO contractor could bid low enough
    to be covered under the approved allocation, or the design stage alone
    would consume the entirety of the allocation.
        Question 3.a. To what extent was this a result of initial estimates
    being done without looking in depth at the full extent of the recovery
    work that would be needed?
        Question 3.b. When either an unusual spike in inflation, or
    observation of the real requirements on-site, renders the original
    estimates and adjustment margins moot, is there any mechanism to
    address this? Should Congress create one?
        Answer to 3.a. & 3.b. While FEMA already includes an inflation
    adjustment factor in all fixed cost offers, we are working closely with
    Puerto Rico's COR3 to compare recent actual costs of project
    implementation to the awarded fixed cost estimates.
        In addition to working with COR3, FEMA has also been engaging with
    the GAO who is performing an independent assessment of the emerging
    risks due to increased costs as part of GAO engagement 105557.
        FEMA includes cost estimating factors (CEF) in every fixed cost
    estimate for PA Section 428 projects. The CEF includes an estimate of
    base construction costs as well as factors to account for additional
    costs, such as construction cost contingencies, change orders, and
    importantly, inflation over the length of the project. This cost
    escalation factor uses a two-year average of either the Building Cost
    Index or the Construction Cost Index, with a larger inflation
    adjustment made for projects with longer expected timelines.
        In Puerto Rico specifically, in addition to this cost escalation
    factor, FEMA commissioned the HSOAC to analyze the impact of
    anticipated changes to labor, materials, and equipment costs associated
    with the scale of recovery necessary in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
    Islands from Hurricane Maria. It developed the Future Price Forecast
    (FPF), which provides an additional adjustment to labor, material, and
    equipment costs in the CEF to account for the additional demand for
    construction from recovery efforts providing an additional adjustment
    for inflation, in addition to FEMA's normal adjustment. This analysis
    is updated quarterly and the June 1, 2023, update indicates that there
    had been little change in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands in terms
    of key economic and construction sector indicators. Construction prices
    in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have not increased as much
    as in the rest of the country.
        In the case of the Vieques Health Center, FEMA has carefully
    reviewed the bids on the contract and the possible effects of
    inflation. In this case, the applicant has deviated from FEMA's
    original SOW requesting an improved project, in which an applicant is
    expanding the SOW beyond the FEMA approved SOW at their own cost. Prior
    to Hurricane Maria, Vieques Health Center was approximately 33,000 sq
    ft. FEMA's original approval for a replacement of the facility included
    a number of upgrades to bring the facility to the latest building codes
    and industry standards, increasing the size of the replacement facility
    to 38,613 sq ft, in addition to adjustments for inflation and the FPF
    factors. After approval of the project, the applicant then elected to
    go out to bid for a new Vieques Health Center of 59,210 sq ft which was
    an increase of 65 percent over the original FEMA approved SOW, and 79
    percent over the pre-disaster size of the facility. The final bidded
    costs for this project are proportional to the increased scope of the
    improved project, however, due to the increased scope, FEMA could not
    determine the exact effect (if any) that inflation would have had on
    the original version of the project. In the case of the Vieques Health
    Center, FEMA has carefully reviewed the bids on the contract and the
    possible effects of inflation. Nonetheless, in this case the applicant
    has deviated from FEMA's original SOW requesting an improved project,
    in which an applicant is expanding the SOW beyond the FEMA approved SOW
    at their own cost. The improved facility will almost double in size.
    Due to the increased scope, FEMA could not determine the exact effect
    (if any) that inflation would have had on the original version of the
    project.

        Question 4. The point of Section 428 Alternate Procedure was that
    the tradeoff was that there would be a fixed cost estimate, but that
    would mean that in turn approval would be quicker and action could be
    started more quickly as well. Yet the mayors of the different
    municipalities have complained to us that this did not happen, and that
    is the reason they now face the aforementioned inflationary impact.
    That it would have been one thing if something applied for in 2018
    could have been approved in 2019 started in 2020, vs. only getting
    started in 2023.
        As you probably are aware, this caused many to claim that aid to
    Puerto Rico was being deliberately slow-walked by the different
    agencies.
        Question 4.a. What was the main cause for the perceived slowness in
    moving aid forward and getting start approvals for the first 4 years
    post-Maria?
        Answer. As of September 14, 2023, FEMA has obligated nearly 10,800
    Project Worksheets for a total of over $31 billion, which is a historic
    amount of PA for one (non-COVID-19) disaster. The magnitude of federal
    funds and the number of projects are historic and will help the island
    recover from Hurricane Maria. Additional information on the progress of
    recovery can be found on COR3s Recovery Transparency Portal. Link:
    Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery Transparency Portal--COR3 (pr.gov)
    [https://recovery.pr.gov/en].
    Emergency Work and Permanent Work from Calendar years 2017-2022:
        During the initial two years after Hurricane Maria, FEMA, COR3, and
    the applicants directed their efforts towards performing emergency work
    and obligating emergency work projects. In 2017 and 2018, a total of
    1,173 projects were obligated, of which 86 percent were emergency work
    projects (Categories A and B). During 2019, a total of 962 projects
    were obligated, with 56 percent categorized as emergency work projects.
    These categories of projects were prioritized over permanent work
    projects to safeguard lives, protect public health and safety, and
    mitigate any immediate threats of additional damage. Given the
    magnitude of the disaster's impact on the island, the prioritization of
    emergency work projects was crucial to sustaining critical lifelines.
        After ensuring the stability of these lifelines, FEMA, COR3, and
    the applicants were able to redirect their efforts towards permanent
    work projects, thereby contributing to the island's long-term recovery.
    Starting in 2020, applicants and COR3 have actively shifted their focus
    to permanent work projects, making notable strides in this regard. In
    2020 and 2021, FEMA obligated over 8,400 projects, of which 92 percent
    were permanent work projects. In 2022, FEMA obligated 2,371 projects,
    of which 94 percent were permanent work projects.
        Another factor which may have contributed to the time it has taken
    to move aid forward is the fact that Applicants had incurred damage
    across multiple facilities and projects, potentially limiting their
    capacity to manage all projects simultaneously. Other factors include
    COVID-19 impacts, applicants competing for the same contractors,
    limited construction workforce, competing priorities for other
    disasters, limited capacity requirements, and complex environmental
    reviews.
        FEMA is continuously evaluating our programs and operations and
    look to improve our processes and procedures. We continue to look at
    these issues and improve upon them.

        Question 4.b. Were there any situations that raised red flags and
    led to requiring tighter oversight of the obligations and
    disbursements?
        Answer. Due to concerns post hurricanes Irma and Maria about the
    Government of Puerto Rico's diminished capability and the need to be
    prudent about the federal investment, FEMA restricted the drawdowns for
    obligations associated with the Irma and Maria declared disasters in
    Puerto Rico and implemented a manual drawdown process. This required
    FEMA to review the documents that the Government of Puerto Rico
    provided in support of a request for reimbursement.
        Nevertheless, in 2019, FEMA eliminated the manual drawdown process
    in favor of the Government of Puerto Rico and all the responsibility
    was passed down to the recipient--in this case COR3--granted given that
    COR3the entity met a completeness and compliance review before carrying
    out disbursements.
        These restrictions were eliminated in by 2021 and from then on COR3
    has been completely in charge of validating completeness and
    compliance, as the entity that disburses funds to sub-applicants.
    Parallel with this action, nationwide FEMA implemented the VAYGo
    strategy, a process that randomly assesses completeness and compliance
    requirements of drawdowns and disbursements based on FEMA regulations.
    The most recent results from a FEMA VAYGo assessment are that COR3 is
    on target with completeness and compliance reviews requirements.

        Question 4.c. What is the Agency doing to prevent this from
    happening again?
        Answer. Recovery is progressing at a steady pace as FEMA continues
    to work closely with COR3 to obligate all recovery projects this year
    and ensure the island has the necessary tools for its long-term
    recovery.
        The agency is providing a historic level of support to Puerto Rico,
    both financially and in the form of technical guidance. Through
    continuous interaction and communication with COR3 and subrecipients,
    FEMA can further clarify documentation requirements and conditions to
    help avoid delays and ensure project formulation processes can move
    forward.
        Likewise, FEMA has provided a detailed procurement compliance
    review to COR3 as part of its technical compliance assistance. The
    intent behind this type of review is to ensure that projects meet not
    only Federal contracting requirements, but state and local ones as
    well.
        FEMA continues to provide technical guidance and support to COR3
    and subrecipients to ensure projects move forward with a shared vision
    to restore critical services systems and build capacity in Puerto Rico
    in a manner that is both fiscally sound and resilient against the
    impacts of future disasters.

        Question 4.d. In the early stages there was a serious problem of
    staff turnover resulting in loss of knowledge and experience while
    projects were still in the pipeline. How has the Agency addressed this?
        Answer. FEMA established a permanent operation to manage Hurricane
    Maria recovery operations (DR-4339) through the Puerto Rico Joint
    Recovery Office (PR JRO). The PR JRO has under the same structure a
    capable and well-prepared workforce, which includes subject matter
    experts that manage this type of operation. Ninety percent of this
    workforce is local staff that have been in the operation since 2017 and
    who were initially hired for 120 days (Local Hire employee type). These
    employees were later hired under another employment category (Cadre of
    On-Call Response/Recovery Employees) within FEMA.

        Question 5. Related to the recovery for the Electric Utility
    system--A year ago it was discussed that there would be a short term
    need for FEMA to cover 700MW of temporary power generation for
    stability of the system, but later it was decided that what was needed
    by this hurricane season was 350MW, then this summer as power
    interruptions continued it turns out that it really did need 700MW
    after all.
        Question 5.a. What happened there? A miscommunication? A change of
    estimates from PREPA or from DOE?
        Question 5.b. Do these changes require additional administrative
    processes and slow down the process further?
        Question 5.c. As the Agency may be keeping track of the
    installation of the supplementary power, could you advise us how much
    is online now and by when it is expected to be all online?
        Answer to 5.a.-5.c. As a result of the impacts of Hurricane Fiona,
    the Governor of Puerto Rico requested the Federal government's support
    to stabilize the power system. The Puerto Rico Power System
    Stabilization Task Force (PR PSSTF) was established in October 2022.
    The Federal Government anticipated the need to place up to 700 MW of
    temporary power on the system depending on the US Army Corps of
    Engineers (USACE) repair schedule and the number of units they may take
    down at any given time for repair. When Puerto Rico indicated they were
    completing emergency repairs to the grid without federal support, FEMA
    mission-assigned the USACE to oversee the installation of temporary
    power generation units at the Palo Seco and San Juan power plants, to
    augment system capacity by providing 350 MW of supplemental capacity to
    stabilize the power system during the 2023 hurricane season. The
    initial intent was that FEMA would provide this assistance for six
    months, beginning in July 2023. The buildout of the supplemental
    generation at the San Juan facility took longer than expected, thus
    FEMA extended the Direct Federal Assistance mission to March 15, 2024,
    to ensure six months of temporary generation is provided.
        The PR PSSTF determined the optimal number of megawatts at peak
    load at 3,650 MW, with adequate generation capability redundancy and no
    single point of failure. Based on projected repairs and progress made
    by the Government of Puerto Rico on several Hurricane Fiona damage-
    related emergency repairs at Aguirre Power generation plant, the
    original temporary power estimates of 700 MW were adjusted to 350 MW.
        Through Direct Federal Assistance, there are fully operational
    temporary generation units in the Palo Seco and San Juan power plants,
    providing 350 MW baseload capacity on liquified natural gas with
    demineralized water system.
          At Palo Seco, six temporary generators are providing up
    to 150 MW and became operational on July 1, 2023.
          At San Juan, nine temporary generators are providing up
    to 200MW and became operational on September 26, 2023.

        While recent unprecedented heat in Puerto Rico prompted a request
    from Governor Pedro Pierluisi for an additional 350MW, FEMA was unable
    to fulfill this additional request because the extreme heat is not a
    direct result of Hurricane Fiona.

        Question 6. The Assistant Administrator after last May's hearing
    assured us that the FEMA funds under the FAASt program were NOT at risk
    of clawbacks. That was good to know. But there is still much worry
    among the entities receiving other assistance programs.
        In all the other FEMA funding structure, allocated or obligated for
    Puerto Rico recovery, is there any FEMA funding that is in any way
    vulnerable to ``use-it-or-lose-it'' deadlines, or to claw-backs from
    Washington if it is seen as remaining unused?
        Answer. FEMA is not aware of any Disaster Relief Funding for Puerto
    Rico recovery that is vulnerable to claw-backs or ``use-it-or-lose-it''
    deadlines.

        Question 7. The pace of recovery has been a reiterated concern
    through the past years, including delays both in construction and in
    payments for work already done as well as in approvals or revisions.
        Question 7.a. Are you satisfied with the pace of use of funds and
    execution of work? What level of oversight does FEMA have on how and
    when the work is done, and the funds are used?
        Answer. As of September 14, 2023, FEMA has obligated nearly 10,800
    Project Worksheets for a total of over $31 billion, which is a historic
    amount of PA for one disaster. The magnitude of federal funds and the
    number of projects are historic and will help the island recover from
    Hurricane Maria. Additional information on the progress of recovery can
    be found on COR3s Recovery Transparency Portal. Link: Puerto Rico
    Disaster Recovery Transparency Portal--COR3 (pr.gov) [https://
    recovery.pr.gov/en].
        COR3 and Applicants work together with FEMA not just during the
    review and approval of projects, but also when reviewing the period of
    performance (POP) of projects. FEMA has been reviewing Time Extensions
    for each Applicant on each project's POP. FEMA has been flexible in
    approving these Time Extension POPs due to considerations such as the
    impact of COVID-19; applicants competing for the same contractors;
    limited construction workforce; competing priorities for other
    disasters; limited capacity requirements; and complex environmental
    reviews. The Applicants must provide to FEMA and COR3 the reason for
    the delays, the status of the work, project timelines with a project
    completion date, and documentation substantiating delays beyond its
    control.

        Question 7.b. Is there a way to make it possible to get funding
    directly to municipalities more quickly?
        Answer. The processes and procedures for the administration of PA
    grants is governed by 44 Sec.  CFR part 206, subpart G. These
    regulations dictate that FEMA obligate money to the Recipient, which is
    a State, Territorial, or Tribal Government that receives and manages
    the federal award under the disaster declaration. The Recipient then
    disburses funding to eligible subrecipients. The subrecipients are
    Applicants who have received a subaward from the Recipient and are then
    bound by the conditions of the award and subaward. The Executive
    Director of COR3 (Recipient) serves as the Governor's Authorized
    Representative for purposes of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
    and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988.

        Question 7.c. I know this was decided by your predecessors at the
    time, but do you know, or can you find out, with certainty: WAS it FEMA
    who required that there HAD to be a centralized ``filter'' through COR3
    for the funding?
        Answer. FEMA requires the Government of Puerto Rico act as a
    recipient. To manage the federal funding and ensure not only adequate
    project execution, as well as transparency, accountability and
    compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the Government of
    Puerto Rico created the COR3 back in 2018, which in turn acts as
    Recipient of FEMA PA and HMGP funds. The COR3 Executive Director also
    serves as the Governor's Authorized Representative for purposes of the
    Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988
    (Stafford Act). Accordingly, COR3 has a prominent role in the recovery
    process, along with FEMA and each subrecipient, including
    municipalities, certain private non-profit entities, state agencies,
    and public corporations and instrumentalities, such as the Puerto Rico
    Electric Power Authority. After the occurrence of a major disaster and
    subsequent Presidential declaration, FEMA awards PA and/or HMGP funds
    to COR3 as Recipient, while COR3 enters into subaward agreements with
    subrecipients and serves as pass-through entity to provide funding to
    carry out part of the PA or HMGP activities. As Recipient, COR3 is
    responsible for providing technical assistance and ensuring that
    subrecipient activities are carried out in full compliance with FEMA
    and other federal, state, and local requirements. On the other hand,
    subrecipients are responsible for actual procurement and project
    execution pursuant to applicable federal, state, and local regulations,
    which in most cases mandate a full and open competitive process.

        Question 7.d. Is the Agency satisfied with the performance of your
    Puerto Rico local-level partners like COR3 in getting project funds
    ``out the door'' and work happening?
        Answer. As of September 14, 2023, FEMA has obligated nearly 10,800
    Project Worksheets for a total of over $31 billion, which is a historic
    amount of PA for one disaster. The magnitude of federal funds and the
    number of projects are historic and will help the island recover from
    Hurricane Maria. Additional information on the progress of recovery can
    be found on COR3s Recovery Transparency Portal. Link: Puerto Rico
    Disaster Recovery Transparency Portal--COR3 (pr.gov) [https://
    recovery.pr.gov/en]. Additionally, COR3 has developed the Working
    Capital Advance (WCA) Program in which all government agencies and
    nonprofits that have projects obligated through FEMA's PA Program (and
    meet the established requirements) may apply for a 50 percent advance
    through this pilot program run by COR3. This WCA program allows
    nonprofits and government agencies to identify priority projects that
    have not started due to lack of money and apply for the WCA to continue
    advancing the work. This advance payment can allow the execution of
    thousands of reconstruction projects to begin the permanent repairs
    required.

        Question 8. In the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 it was provided
    explicitly that funding for critical services recovery would be done up
    to current standards and without regard to prior existing condition.
    Still, it is repeatedly reported to us that there still arise
    situations of staff questioning whether certain work or acquisitions
    respond exclusively to damage from the specific disaster under the
    declaration, or the proverbial ``but is this the same doorknob''
    question about replacements or repairs. This is even more aggravating
    when you may have had multiple disasters hitting repeatedly. The
    Governor of Puerto Rico has asked for a formal administrative
    consolidation of the different declarations so if certain
    infrastructure needs repairing, it is repaired up to standards, period,
    regardless how much of the damage came from each incident.
        Question 8.a. Would the Agency be able to do this administratively
    or do you require Congressional Authorization? If so, how?
        Answer. FEMA interprets and uses the authority provided by section
    20601 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA) as broadly as possible
    to support the recovery in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
    FEMA first put out FEMA Recovery Policy, Implementing Section 20601 of
    the 2018 BBA Through the PA Program, in September 2018, then, after
    Congress further amended the provision in 2019, FEMA updated and
    released version 2 of the policy in September 2019. Version 2 further
    expanded on the flexibilities provided in section 20601 and explicitly
    stated that FEMA would maximize the supplemental assistance made
    available through this special authority to improve recovery outcomes
    for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
        Section 20601 of the BBA authorizes FEMA to ``provide assistance,
    pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford Act . . . for critical services
    as defined in Section 406.'' This authority allows FEMA to provide
    assistance to restore disaster-damaged facilities or systems that
    provide the specifically identified critical services to an industry
    standard without regard to pre-disaster condition; and to restore
    components not damaged by the disaster when necessary to fully
    effectuate restoration of the disaster-damaged components to restore
    the function of the facility or system to industry standards. BBA
    authorities expand but do not replace the PA permanent work eligibility
    criteria.

        Question 8.b. How effectively is the provision that critical
    service repair must be up to code and regardless of prior condition,
    conveyed to the different levels of staff? Should more be done?
        Answer. The BBA directs FEMA to provide recovery assistance for
    critical service facilities to replace or restore the function of a
    facility to approved industry standards. Further, BBA Policy directs
    FEMA to apply industry standards to the eligible SOW, based on the pre-
    disaster design capacity of the facility or system. This direction is
    consistent with standard PA policy for permanent work, defined as the
    work required to restore a facility to its pre-disaster design (size
    and capacity) and function, in accordance with applicable codes and
    standards.

        Question 9. COR3 has indicated that as many as two thirds of
    municipal/state/NGO entities that received Working Capital Advances may
    have to return these funds for not being able to evidence compliance,
    and that they would notify this week to FEMA what are those entities. I
    am requesting that my office know that information as soon as you get
    it from COR3.
        Answer. FEMA has not received this information from COR3.

        Question 10. Remembering this 6th anniversary of Maria, and for the
    purposes of this question granting that we were to be able to fund the
    Disaster Relief Fund and the regular appropriations: how confident are
    you that FEMA has become prepared for a situation of multiple major
    disasters in close succession or simultaneously?
        Answer. While the nation continues to see an increase in the
    severity and complexity of major disasters, FEMA remains postured to
    meet the immediate needs of survivors. Between May and August 2023,
    FEMA responded to Typhoon Mawar in the Pacific, Hawaii wildfires, and
    Hurricane Idalia across multiple states and territories. As of October
    2023, FEMA is providing support to 78 major disasters and six emergency
    declarations. FEMA will continue to effectively manage resources to
    deliver lifesaving, life-sustaining response and recovery programs to
    impacted states, locals, Tribes, and territories, including
    implementing augmentation strategies to boost call center capacity to
    support increasing survivor registrations and delivery of recovery
    resources.

        Question 11. One thing that keeps happening and I've seen it with
    Irma, Maria, the 2020 earthquakes, and Fiona, has been a disconnect
    between the needs of constituents and what the Agencies can actually do
    by law. For example, unlike what people expect, assistance for Home
    Repair is NOT for completely rebuilding like new. Right now the maximum
    is $41,000 IF everything is approved, and structural damages can easily
    be far above that with the high rise in construction prices in the last
    few years. This is especially a problem in an underinsured jurisdiction
    like Puerto Rico or like places in Florida or other states where
    coverage has become unaffordable or simply the carriers have left the
    market.
        Is there a plan to manage this between the federal agencies to
    better coordinate that recovery coverages for which the same person
    could be eligible?
        Answer. FEMA assistance is designed to jumpstart a disaster
    survivor's recovery. The IHP is limited by law and is intended to help
    with a survivor's immediate needs after a disaster, such as providing
    temporary housing or making initial repairs to their home. IHP is
    unlikely to cover all of a disaster survivor's losses and is not, nor
    is it intended to be an adequate substitute for insurance.
        FEMA maintains several processes enabled to ensure better
    coordination between applicable Federal Agencies and Partners aiding in
    a survivor's recovery. When a disaster survivor applies for assistance
    or calls the FEMA Helpline, FEMA provides them with information about
    other agencies and organizations that may also be able to help them,
    such as the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the U.S. Department
    of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). FEMA provides this information
    both verbally and in writing.
        Survivor's disaster-caused needs are often complex and highly
    varied, as well as applicable to the unique circumstances of that
    survivor household, which necessitates FEMA's coordination across a
    host of Federal Agencies applicable to specific disaster needs. For
    instance, the SBA makes significant funds available to disaster
    survivors in the form of low interest loans. HUD provides a variety of
    resources to eligible individuals and coordinates various federally
    supported housing programs with FEMA following a disaster; also,
    Congress may also appropriate funds to HUD to provide additional
    assistance to disaster survivors through the Community Development
    Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program. In Puerto Rico, CDBG-
    DR funds are managed by the Puerto Rico Department of Housing and
    distributed to disaster survivors with unmet needs, such as needing
    additional funds to repair their home. The Social Security
    Administration can expedite delivery of checks delayed by a disaster
    and offers assistance in applying for disability and survivor benefits.
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture makes emergency loans to farmers and
    ranchers. The Internal Revenue Service maintains special tax law
    provisions that may help taxpayers and businesses recover. The U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services offers programs like its
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or its Low-Income Home Energy
    Assistance Program which are highly applicable to specific populations
    in disasters. The U.S. Department of Labor works with states on
    disaster unemployment as well as provides services through things like
    the American Job Center Network helping businesses find qualified
    workers. FEMA works closely with all of these agencies to share
    information, make referrals, and prevent duplication of benefits
    between programs.
        As the services landscape is vast, to reduce the burden on
    survivors, as the services landscape is vast, FEMA is prioritizing an
    effort which intends to create a cross-agency customer experience
    initiative with SBA by improving cross-agency data sharing.
        FEMA is also making significant reforms to the assistance provided
    to individuals and households that will establish new benefits that
    provide flexible funding directly to survivors when they need it most,
    cut red tape, expand eligibility to reach more people and help them
    recover faster, and simplify the application process to meet survivors'
    individual needs and meet people where they are. These changes will
    become effective for disasters declared on or after March 22, 2024.

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

    Resiliency/Risk Rating 2.0
        Question 1. You stated in your testimony that resiliency
    investments are taken into account in the Risk Rating 2.0 (RR2.0)
    formula to determine the risk of individual properties and the
    corresponding flood insurance premium. Please describe in detail how
    resiliency projects impact specific factors in the RR2.0 algorithm, how
    those factors are weighted, and what characteristics (for instance,
    proximity to said resiliency project) are considered in the development
    of the insurance premium and how those characteristics impact that
    premium.
        Answer. Resilience investments are incorporated into Risk Rating
    2.0 premiums through underlying datasets. Risk Rating 2.0 relies on the
    USGS National Hydrography Dataset for delineation and classification of
    individual hydrographic features such as lakes and rivers. Stormwater
    management features, such as ditches, detention ponds, and weirs may be
    reflected in both the elevation data from the USGS and the third-party
    catastrophe models. To the extent that these features are present in
    the elevation data and the flood models, they would implicitly be
    incorporated into rates for a local area. In addition, FEMA's Risk
    Mapping, Assessment, and Planning Program regulatory and non-regulatory
    products are used in the development of insurance rates. As regulatory
    mapping products are updated to reflect new and ongoing local
    mitigation projects, these data will continue to inform the rates as
    rates are updated over time. Lastly, communities engaging in mitigation
    projects are also eligible for Community Rating System discounts that
    apply to all National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in the
    community. Community Rating System discounts can range from 5 percent
    to 45 percent off of insurance premiums.
        In addition, FEMA's Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning Program
    regulatory and non-regulatory products are used in the development of
    rates. As regulatory mapping products are updated to reflect new and
    ongoing local mitigation projects, these data will continue to inform
    the rates as rates are updated (although usually marginally to reflect
    the changes in the overall nature of risk, which are currently
    magnified by the `in or out' nature of the regulatory maps).

        Question 2. Transparency is critical for homeowners to understand
    their full risk rate under the new RR2.0 regime. Will FEMA require WYO
    companies to disclose the full risk rate on the invoice for renewal and
    explain the new full risk rate on the declarations page?
        Answer. FEMA provides full risk premium information for all quotes
    to NFIP insurers, whether for new business or renewals. This
    information is available to any policyholder at any time by contacting
    their agent or insurer. FEMA recently updated requirements for the
    renewal invoice to provide more information in routine renewal
    correspondence about the Annual Cap Premium Discount on the renewal
    invoice. In addition, FEMA requires NFIP insurers to provide updated
    clear and concise information about the policy renewal. Policyholders
    are instructed to contact their insurance agent or insurer if they have
    questions about their policy or would like to make changes to their
    policy. The NFIP declaration page, which is a document provided to all
    new and renewing policyholders, currently provides property
    information, key rating elements, and itemized full risk premium
    information, similar to declarations pages commonly used by the
    insurance industry. FEMA continues to explore what additional support
    can be provided to NFIP insurers and insurance agents to communicate
    flood risk.

        Question 3. How do incremental elevation increases impact
    homeowners' premiums under the RR2.0 algorithm? Please describe in
    detail how elevation impacts specific factors in the RR2.0 algorithm
    and how those factors are weighted in the development of the premium.
        Answer. Risk Rating 2.0 uses a multi-model approach to support the
    development of the new rates, with data from multiple sources including
    NFIP flood mapping data; NFIP policy and claims data; USGS 3D Elevation
    Program data; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea,
    Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes storm surge data; and U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers data sets, particularly for areas behind
    levees.
        Under Risk Rating 2.0, FEMA has expanded the policy discounts
    available when policyholders take steps to mitigate against potential
    flood damage to their property. Mitigation efforts, such as elevating a
    building on piles or installing proper flood openings in a crawlspace,
    will help to reduce flood damage and potentially the cost of flood
    insurance. Risk Rating 2.0 provides mitigation credits for elevation up
    to 25 feet for up to an 88.9 percent discount off the premium. Because
    we now have a more property-specific measurement of both the property
    and mitigation project, there are instances where the legacy rating
    system provided a greater discount and there are instances where Risk
    Rating 2.0 provides a greater discount. A complete list of discounts
    can be found in the Discount Explanation Guide Discount Explanation
    Guide (fema.gov) [https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
    fema_discount-Explanation-Guide.pdf] at fema.gov.
        For detailed information on how mitigation credits are applied in
    Risk Rating 2.0, please see the Risk Rating 2.0 Data and Methodology
    Report and the Appendix D Rating Factors, which are linked at the
    bottom of the Risk Rating 2.0 webpage on FEMA.gov (link: NFIP's Pricing
    Approach: FEMA.gov) [https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/risk-rating].
    In the Appendix D Rating Factors file, the tabs for Foundation Type,
    First Floor Height, and Machinery and Equipment (ME) Above First Floor
    contain the specific rating factors used for each category or value for
    each of these three variables.
    Natural Disaster Alert
        Question 4. In the realm of digital billboards, what is the
    significance of expeditiously disseminating messages to the general
    populace, particularly in the context of promptly alerting citizens to
    impending natural disaster hazards?
        Question 5. How do public-private partnerships help FEMA with
    disaster service?
        Answer to 4 & 5. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) enhance all
    aspects of emergency management including preparedness, protection,
    response, recovery, and mitigation. They do so by engaging in
    information sharing, emergency planning, emergency communications, and
    resource sharing. In July 2021, FEMA coordinated with our federal and
    civil society partners to release the Building Private Partnerships
    guide to provide our stakeholders with examples, case studies, and best
    practices to bolster FEMA's PPPs. PPPs support whole of community
    efforts in preparation, response, and recovery phases of disaster.
        In July 2022, FEMA and AARP collaborated to design, produce, and
    distribute two products designed to support preparedness for older
    adults. The FEMA ``Guide to Expanding Mitigation: Making the Connection
    to Older Adults'' highlights how natural hazards uniquely affect older
    adults and provides recommendation for how emergency managers,
    planners, local officials, and community members can include older
    adults in community efforts to lower their risks. The complementary
    ``AARP Disaster Resilience Tool Kit'' features strategies to help
    local, state, and community leaders and advocates reduce the risk and
    impacts of disasters on older adults.
        This PPP between FEMA and AARP was further built in July 2023
    through a Community Engagement on Older Adults meeting that brought
    together AARP, FEMA, the Rosalynn Carter Institute for Caregivers, the
    State of Pennsylvania, and other public and private organizations that
    work with or include older adults to review and contribute to efforts
    in FEMA's Ready Campaign material designed for older adults. These
    organizations not only contributed to the development of the program,
    but also helped to distribute to their membership and others.
        In addition, FEMA's National Business Emergency Operations Center
    (NBEOC) coordinates and enhances information-sharing among government
    partners and business, industry, and infrastructure organizations--
    before, during, and after disasters. The NBEOC facilitates public and
    private sector information-sharing to get resources where they are
    needed most during disasters. Additionally, the NBEOC leverages data
    and information-sharing to help influence business continuity
    decisions. The NBEOC works to engage critical business, industry, and
    infrastructure organizations to support disaster response and recovery
    operations. By understanding business and industry operating status
    throughout the disaster lifecycle, the NBEOC is able to support
    economic and supply chain resilience. The NBEOC provides near real-time
    disaster information to help businesses recover quickly after a
    disaster while providing a forum to share information and coordinate on
    disaster response and recovery operations. For example, routinely
    during disaster response operations, issues are highlighted by the
    private sector during daily NBEOC calls where the FEMA NBEOC staff then
    engages with appropriate Departments, Agencies or State partners to
    remove barriers or provide critical information that can help speed the
    restoration of supply chain flows or help businesses regain operations
    sooner.
        PPPs support FEMA's efforts to ensure outreach to all individuals
    to build preparedness and resiliency across the nation.

        Question 6. How is FEMA exploring and adopting the use of new
    satellite technologies to improve response and recovery mandates, and
    evolve the survivor experience across the NFIP?
        Answer. FEMA routinely uses Geospatial Information System tools to
    identify disaster impacts and relay information in an easy-to-
    understand format that is essential to lifesaving and life-sustaining
    operations. FEMA uses satellite technologies to obtain imagery to
    complete Geospatial Damage Assessments (GDAs) to support these
    operations and provide situational awareness and data to decision-
    makers across the entire emergency management lifecycle. GDAs involve
    reviewing and assessing pre- and post-incident imagery to inform
    response organizations of total incident impacts, including extent,
    severity, and types of structures impacted.
        In addition, FEMA is using remote sensing technology to match homes
    listed in Individuals and Household Programs (IHP) registrations with
    detailed map images. When a match is made for a destroyed home, the
    registration is updated and the assigned FEMA Housing Inspector is
    notified. This allows FEMA Housing Inspectors to meet survivors where
    they are, without them having to undergo the trauma of visiting their
    destroyed home.
        FEMA partners with other organizations regarding exploration and
    use of imagery sensors and artificial intelligence-aided analysis of
    satellite and airborne imagery. The development and use of these
    technologies continues to enhance agency capabilities to effectively
    respond to disasters and delivering recovery resources quickly to
    survivors following disasters. For example, FEMA is also using remote
    sensing technology to support damage assessments to help expedite the
    declaration process and supplement traditional on-site preliminary
    damage assessments in some situations. FEMA uses a range of remote
    sensing data including flyover imagery, flood gauge data, satellite
    captured data, and modeling to collect information about damage to
    homes and infrastructure. Often there are other infrastructure and real
    property data sets that can be compared to captured data to help
    quantify the impact and inform flood event impact projects, such as
    potential policies impacted and expected number and dollar value of
    flood insurance claims.
    Duplication of Benefits Methodology
        Question 7. I understand due to initial variances in approaches
    from across regional offices, FEMA adopted a nationwide standard on how
    it reviews duplication of benefit methodologies based on input from
    healthcare providers across the country. Due to delays from this new
    system, hospitals in my district have been waiting for their
    reimbursement for two years now. Can you tell me the agency's plan on
    how they will expedite these reimbursements and when the hospitals in
    my district can expect them?
        Question 8. In October 2022, FEMA published the first substantive
    guidance on duplication of benefit (DOB) analysis for COVID-19 claims.
    That guidance instituted a review process by the RAND Corporation.
    Since such implementation, we understand that it has been estimated
    that at the current rate of review, RAND will not be able to complete
    all reviews for another 7 years. What steps has FEMA taken to ensure
    RAND DOB reviews are efficient?
    COVID Project Updates:
        Question 9. Can you provide the status of the FEMA reimbursement
    for COVID-19 related projects under the following pending projects in
    my district below?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Project #                  Project Name       Amount Owed          Notes               Hospital
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    335121...........................  Capital Equipment..     $719,817.00  Pending project      MHG.
                                                                             amendment for RAND
                                                                             duplication of
                                                                             benefits reduction.
    672144...........................  Vaccine                  $47,749.08  FEMA Final Review..  MHG.
                                        Administration.
    674040...........................  COVID Testing II...   $3,684,137.32  FEMA Final Review..  MHG.
    670587...........................  MHG Budgeted          $1,335,551.00  FEMA Final Review..  MHG.
                                        Employee Labor 2
                                        (Fiscal Year 2021)
    673928...........................  MHG UnBudgeted           $42,024.24  FEMA Final Review..  MHG.
                                        Employee Labor
                                        COVID Testing
                                        (Fiscal Year 2021)
    673927...........................  MHG Budgeted            $114,092.73  FEMA Final Review..  MHG.
                                        Employee Labor
                                        COVID Testing
                                        (Fiscal Year 2021)
    673107...........................  COVID Kits II......      $18,319.82  FEMA Final Review..  MHG.
    667456...........................  MHG UnBudgeted          $380,160.75  FEMA Final Review..  MHG.
                                        Employee Labor
                                        (Fiscal year 2020)
    681886...........................  MHG Budgeted             $99,277.83  RAND Reviewed,       MHG.
                                        Employee Labor 3                     $97,404 DOB w/
                                        (Fiscal Year 2022).                  Patient care
                                                                             revenue. FEMA
                                                                             Final Review.
    681888...........................  MHG UnBudgeted           $23,439.24  RAND Reviewed,       MHG.
                                        Employee Labor 3                     $28,042 DOB w/
                                        (Fiscal Year 2022).                  Patient care
                                                                             revenue. FEMA
                                                                             Final Review.
    697985...........................  Safe Reopening and      $200,788.84  FEMA Final Review..  MHG.
                                        Operations.
    164260...........................  Contract Staffing..   $5,673,674.27  FEMA Final Review..  SRHS.
    691044...........................  PPE................     $220,660.92  FEMA Final Review..  SRHS.
    696898...........................  2nd contract          $9,022,469.55  FEMA Final Review..  SRHS.
                                        staffing.
    725124...........................  3rd contract          $5,932,368.87  FEMA Final Review..  SRHS.
                                        staffing.
    721093...........................  ...................   $1,700,000.00  FEMA Final Review..  Forrest General.
    164260...........................  ...................   $5,673,674.27  FEMA Final Review..  ...................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Answer to 7, 8, & 9. FEMA has obligated more than $72.9 billion in
    PA funding for the COVID-19 pandemic, more than any other event in the
    agency's history. This unprecedented amount of funding is the result of
    an equally historic number of applications, which did affect processing
    times, particularly earlier in the pandemic.
        FEMA is using a risk-based approach to review PA projects for
    potential duplication with patient care revenue. These reviews are
    conducted only when an applicant is both charging patients, or their
    insurance, for services, and requesting reimbursement from FEMA for the
    costs of providing all or part of those same services, providing a high
    risk of duplication.
        In the development of the standard review process, FEMA
    specifically focused on reducing the administrative burden on
    applicants and engaged with the American Hospital Association and
    hospitals from across the country to develop a review methodology that
    uses available information from the Healthcare Cost Reporting
    Information System and Electronic Municipal Market Access System.
        Some applicants are still electing to submit an alternate
    methodology for review, which takes substantially longer, instead of
    undergoing a standard review. For projects less than $25 million, FEMA
    works with the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC),
    operated by the RAND Corporation, to conduct a Standard Review using
    already available public data without any further information from the
    applicant, substantially reducing processing times.
        We have sustainably increased capacity for medical billing reviews,
    including a doubling of capacity for patient care duplication of
    benefits review in May 2023. FEMA is continuing to work to increase
    that capacity, including pre-identifying applicants and projects that
    are unlikely to have duplication of benefits, and expanding staffing to
    complete reviews.
        In October 2023, FEMA worked with RAND to review the available
    public data for all health care applicants and pre-calculate likely
    duplication ceilings to reduce standard review processing times across
    the board. Using the pre-calculated ceilings, FEMA was then able to
    identify 140 applicants in bulk who are unlikely to approach their
    duplication ceilings and cleared them with an abbreviated review.
        FEMA reviewed hospital applicants in Mississippi's 4th
    congressional district, and found projects for Forrest General
    Hospital, Singing River Hospital, and Memorial Hospital Gulfport. As of
    October 20, 2023, together, the three hospitals have requested 16
    projects; 10 of those have already been awarded for over $5.1 million;
    three are in the final stages of award with an anticipated additional
    award of $3.4 million; and the remaining three, which are all for the
    Singing River Hospital, are currently undergoing a review for
    duplication of costs billed to patients for the same services. Singing
    River Hospital's initial submission of an Alternate Applicant's
    Methodology (rather than the using the standard methodology) for
    resolving duplications was found not reasonable. They have since
    updated their methodology and the revised methodology is now under
    review.

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

        Question 1. Administrator Criswell, as you well know one of the
    most devastating wildfires in US history hit Lahaina in August. I have
    witnessed similar devastation to communities in California and other
    western states due to catastrophic wildfire. We also have a recent
    example where targeted wildfire mitigation measures, identified by
    water agencies, fire districts, and the environmental community,
    successfully protected an at-risk community.
        I want to make sure that FEMA is providing communities at-risk from
    wildfires with every tool possible to avoid or mitigate the loss of
    life, property, and environmental impacts from wildfire and other
    natural disasters. Are water infrastructure projects specifically for
    fire suppression to protect at-risk communities eligible for hazard
    mitigation assistance?
        Answer. How to create a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
    (fema.gov) [https://www.usfa.fema.gov/blog/cb-062420.html]
        The US Fire Administration (USFA) has taken a number of steps to
    help address the growing wildfire threat to communities and the
    guidance provided in the recommendations from the President's Council
    of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Wildland Firefighters
    report: PCAST Releases Report on Modernizing Wildland Firefighting
    through Science and Technology: PCAST: The White House [https://
    www.whitehouse.gov/pcast/briefing-room/2023/02/22/pcast-releases-
    report-on-modernizing-wildland-firefighting-through-science-and-
    technology/]). The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has launched a
    modernization effort and is working with U.S. Department of Homeland
    Security's Science and Technology Directorate to develop a new,
    interoperable fire information and analytics platform, the National
    Emergency Response Information System. This will empower the fire and
    emergency services community by equipping them with an empirical basis
    for decision-making. It will provide the community with reliable
    predictive analytics to support enhanced preparedness and response to
    all-hazard incidents, wildland urban interface (WUI) events, community
    risk reduction efforts, climate change threats and associated
    resilience and mitigation efforts, and future pandemic emergency
    response resource preparedness.
        The USFA National Fire Academy (NFA) provides training for first
    responders and emergency managers to help them prepare more effectively
    to respond 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. The training addresses multiple landscapes from
    wildland to the urban interface, and suburban communities recognizing
    the growing influence of climate change on wildfire in the context of
    each landscape. NFA courses note that there are preparedness and risk
    mitigation tools that can be applied specifically to each landscape.
    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.
        The NFA is expanding internal and external partnerships to increase
    state and local fire service training capacity on WUI and urban
    conflagration events. The NFA is coordinating with the Society of Fire
    Protection Engineers to develop this two-day training course for state,
    local, Tribal, and territorial organizations, based on their WUI
    Handbook for Property Fire Risk Assessment & Mitigation. Examples of
    other partnerships include the U.S. Forest Service, CALFIRE, and the
    International Association of Fire Fighters. These partnerships are
    being leveraged to provide more WUI related training directly to our
    stakeholders.
        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, local, Tribal, and
    territorial partners to use for community outreach and engagement, and
    risk management efforts to support wildfire preparedness,
    investigation, and recovery planning. For example, the USFA developed a
    template on creating a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the USFA
    produced the ``WUI: A Look at Issues and Resolutions'' paper in 2022.
    https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/wui-issues-
    resolutions-report.pdf.
        Historically, FEMA has determined improving fire suppression
    capabilities is not an eligible hazard mitigation activity because it
    does not directly address the occurrence or severity of wildfires, but
    rather only improves response capabilities. Specifically, hazard
    mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or
    eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards
    and their effects. This definition distinguishes actions that have a
    long-term impact from those that are more closely associated with
    immediate preparedness, response, and recovery activities.
        Generally, water infrastructure projects may be eligible for hazard
    mitigation assistance if they meet general program eligibility
    requirements including technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness and
    environmental and historic preservation. FEMA's mitigation programs
    ``water infrastructure projects'' generally refers to the focus of
    flood risk reduction. However, water infrastructure projects for
    wildfire may include fire suppression systems (such as an external
    sprinkler system) to help extinguish flames and prevent the spread of
    fire to nearby buildings or combustible vegetation. This policy change
    was updated with the publication of the Hazard Mitigation Program and
    Policy Guide, published in 2023. The Guide also noted that development
    or enhancement of fire suppression capability through the purchase of
    equipment or resources (e.g., water supply or sources, dry hydrants,
    cisterns not related to water hydration systems, dip pond) remain
    ineligible project types.
        It should also be noted that flood risk reduction water
    infrastructure projects, such as retention ponds, may hold secondary or
    co-benefits to a community that has a risk of wildfire. When seeking
    assistance for these projects, it is important that applicants describe
    how the infrastructure project will increase the level of protection
    and reduce potential injury or damage to people and property.

        Question 2. Administrator Criswell, earlier this year,
    Representatives DeSaulnier, Harder, and I wrote to you and the FEMA
    Region 9 Administrator regarding Region 9's decision to not reimburse
    local governments for noncongregate shelter (NCS) they provided to
    unhoused people during the pandemic. In responding to our letter,
    FEMA's Region 9 Administrator asserted that reimbursement would only be
    approved if NCS was provided for individuals who fell into one of three
    categories:
        (1)  Individuals who test positive for COVID-19 that do not require
    hospitalization, but need isolation or quarantine (including those
    exiting from hospitals);
        (2)  Individuals who have been exposed to COVID-19 (as documented
    by a state or local public health official, or medical health
    professional) that do not require hospitalization, but need isolation
    or quarantine; and
        (3)  Individuals who are asymptomatic, but are at ``high-risk,''
    such as people over 65 or who have certain underlying health conditions
    (respiratory, compromised immunities, chronic disease), and who require
    emergency NCS as a social distancing measure.

        The issue in question relates to this third category of individuals
    and hinges on the understanding and requirements of the term
    ``asymptomatic.'' Namely, FEMA's Region 9 Administrator wrote in his
    response letter that `` . . . some applicants have sought reimbursement
    for sheltering members of their community whose living situation made
    them unable to adhere to social distancing guidance but lacking
    documentation verifying whether the individuals were asymptomatic.''
        The language of FEMA's initial guidance for the third category of
    individuals makes no direct mention of testing or documentation
    requirements. At best the term ``asymptomatic'' implies a positive test
    but could also be honestly interpreted as an individual who simply
    showed no symptoms. If a positive test was required for NCS to be
    reimbursed, then the third category of eligible individuals would be
    functionally redundant with the first category. Separately grouping
    individuals who tested positive for COVID but ``do not require
    hospitalization'' and those ``who are asymptomatic'' is centered around
    a distinction without a meaningful difference. Moreover, testing and
    documentation requirements would have been unnecessarily burdensome
    when testing resources were scarce during the early phases of the
    pandemic. Lastly, the use of the term ``high-risk'' emphasized a broad
    understanding of who was eligible to be provided NCS to promote social
    distancing and slow the spread of the virus. Under that interpretation,
    counties proactively provided NCS to unhoused people under the
    expectation and understanding that they were complying with FEMA's
    guidelines and would be reimbursed for their expenses.
        Administrator Criswell, where is FEMA headquarters in the process
    of reviewing and deciding on Region 9's policy? At a minimum it seems
    that there was a serious breakdown in communication on the part of FEMA
    Region 9 that now imperils these counties with a heavy financial
    burden. Will you ensure that local governments in Region 9 are not
    saddled with a bill they expected to be reimbursed for, given FEMA's
    initial guidance and the scarcity of reliable testing during the first
    phase of the pandemic?
        Answer. In a letter to the California Office of Emergency Services
    dated October 16, 2023, FEMA Region 9 clarified how it would review
    eligibility for Non-Congregate Sheltering (NCS) projects. Specifically,
    the letter explained that it recognized the scarcity of testing and
    vaccine availability prior to the California Governor's recission of
    the statewide stay-at-home order on June 11, 2021. As a result, FEMA
    stated it will not limit the eligibility of length of stays in
    emergency NCS prior to June 11, 2021.
        In the letter, FEMA also recognized the effective action the State
    of California took to reduce the spread and mitigate the impacts of
    COVID-19 by June 11, 2021. Consequently, between June 11, 2021-May 11,
    2023, eligible costs for emergency NCS may be incurred for up to 20
    days, in accordance with the lengthiest Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention recommendation for isolation and quarantine.
        FEMA also reiterated in its letter that reimbursement of costs for
    eligible emergency NCS remains subject to the same requirements set
    forth in correspondence dating back to March 2020, and the Agency's NCS
    Transition Plan to other Federal Funding letter, dated October 18,
    2021, and provided to all state, local, tribal and territorial
    governments. Sheltering specific populations in emergency 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.
        Reimbursement of costs for emergency NCS does not include
    assistance for individuals experiencing homelessness unless they
    qualify under one of the three eligible population categories. A copy
    of the October 16, 2023, letter is attached for your reference.
                                   __________

                                   Attachment

                  U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
                                               FEMA Region 9,
                                         1111 Broadway, Suite 1200,
                                              Oakland, CA 94607-4052,
                                                      October 16, 2023.
    Ms. Nancy Ward,
    Director,
    Governor's Authorized Representative, California Office of Emergency
            Services, 3650 Schriever Avenue, Mather, California 95655.

    RE: Emergency Non-Congregate Sheltering--FEMA-4482-DR-CA (COVID-19)

        Dear Director Ward:
        This letter provides clarification to questions received from the
    California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) regarding
    the eligibility of emergency Non-Congregate Sheltering (NCS) during the
    COVID-19 Pandemic, specifically the eligibility of ``high-risk''
    individuals requiring social distancing and FEMA's methodology for
    evaluating the length of stay for eligible populations in emergency
    NCS.
        Under the COVID-19 major declaration, FEMA will consider emergency
    NCS for health and medical-related needs, such as isolation and
    quarantine resulting from the public health emergency. FEMA will
    reimburse emergency NCS costs incurred for:
        1.  Individuals who test positive for COVID-19 that do not require
    hospitalization, but need isolation (including those exiting from
    hospitals);
        2.  Individuals who have been exposed to COVID-19 (as documented by
    a state or local public health official, or medical health
    professional), that do not require hospitalization; and
        3.  Individuals who are ``high-risk,'' such as people over 65 or
    who have certain underlying health conditions (respiratory, compromised
    immunities, chronic disease), and who require emergency NCS as a social
    distancing measure.

        For the third category of eligible individuals, FEMA interprets the
    term high-risk based on the list of medical conditions identified in
    the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) guidance.\1\
    An individual confirmed to be at high-risk based on the CDC list of
    medical conditions may be eligible for emergency NCS if needed as a
    social distancing measure. Providing confirmation of a positive COVID
    test is not a requirement for the third category; however, eligible
    applicants will need to demonstrate that the individuals sheltered are
    high-risk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-
    precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html#MedicalConditionsAdults
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Regarding the length of stay for eligible populations in emergency
    NCS, FEMA recognizes the unprecedented scale and scope of the COVID-19
    response. Widespread community transmission overwhelmed healthcare
    systems across the nation, and in the absence of available testing
    supplies, sheltering was a key strategy for limiting the loss of life
    and protecting public safety. Vaccines were not readily available to
    all members of the public until the Governor rescinded the Statewide
    Stay at Home Order on June 11, 2021.\2\ Recognizing the scarcity of
    testing and vaccine availability prior to recission of the Governor's
    State at Home Order, FEMA will not limit the eligibility of length of
    stays in emergency NCS prior to June 11, 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Governor's Executive Order, No. N-07-021, rescinding Executive
    Order, No. N-60-20 (Statewide Stay-at-Home Order).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FEMA also recognizes new COVID-19 variants resulted in spikes of
    COVID-19 community transmission following the Governor's rescission of
    the Statewide Stay at Home Order. Some local public health orders
    required sheltering for a longer period following June 11, 2021, to
    protect individuals from exposure to COVID-19.
        Between March 2020 and June 2021, California took effective action
    to reduce the spread and mitigate the impacts of COVID-19, successfully
    curbing the spread of the virus and dramatically lowering disease
    prevalence and death. As of June 11, 2021, over 70 percent of
    Californians 18 and older received at least one vaccine dose, raising
    the overall level of immunity in the state.\3\ Because of the
    significant efforts made by the State of California to reduce
    transmission of COVID-19, after June 11, 2021, FEMA Region 9 has
    aligned its implementation of emergency NCS with federal public health
    authorities and their official recommendations regarding isolation and
    quarantine periods.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/06/11/governor-newsom-announces-
    new-rewards-for-vaccinated-californians-as-second-round-of-vax-for-the-
    win-50k-winners-is-drawn/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consequently, between June 11, 2021-May 11, 2023, eligible costs
    for emergency NCS may be incurred for a period up to 20 days in
    accordance with the CDC's recommended isolation and quarantine period,
    which is the lengthiest period the CDC recommended for isolation and
    quarantine.\4\ Based on Cal OES' extension requests in 2020, the
    average length of emergency NCS was 11 days for first responders and 37
    days for high-risk individuals. Additionally, Cal OES submitted monthly
    emergency NCS data reports between December 2020-May 2023 that showed
    an average of 14 days for emergency NCS stays.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-
    isolation.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Except where specifically stated otherwise in this letter, the
    reimbursement of costs for eligible emergency NCS remains subject to
    the same requirements set forth in the California NCS Approval Letters
    \5\ and the NCS Transition Plan to other Federal Funding letter, dated
    October 18, 2021. Sheltering specific populations in emergency 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. As mentioned in the October 18,
    2021 letter, reimbursement of costs for emergency NCS does not include
    assistance for individuals experiencing homelessness unless they
    qualify under one of the three eligible population categories. Finally,
    contracts for emergency NCS must comply with federal procurement
    requirements at 2 CFR Part 200, including reasonable costs and
    incorporation of a termination for convenience clause. I have attached
    an emergency NCS project eligibility review list that my staff will use
    to review emergency NCS project submissions from applicants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Initial letter approving PA funding for eligible NCS costs
    incurred by the State of California dated March 27, 2020, initial
    letter approving PA funding for eligible costs incurred by local NCS
    providers dated April 2, 2020, and most recent letters approving NCS
    extensions dated July 1, 2020, July 30, 2020, August 29, 2020, October
    1, 2020, October 30, 2020, and November 30, 2020
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for emphasizing to local providers the importance of
    maintaining effective tracking mechanisms to provide sufficient data
    and documentation to establish the eligibility of emergency NCS costs
    (including wrap-around services directly necessary for the safe and
    secure operations of emergency NCS facilities) for which they intend to
    request Public Assistance funding. As with any activity, lack of
    sufficient supporting documentation may result in FEMA determining that
    some or all of the costs claimed are ineligible.
        Thank you for your continued partnership as we address questions
    related to COVID-19 eligible activities during an unprecedented time.
    If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please do not
    hesitate to contact me.
                Sincerely,
                                              Robert J. Fenton,
                                  Regional Administrator, FEMA Region 9

    Attachment 1: Emergency NCS Project Eligibility Review List

                                   __________

                 Attachment 1: Emergency NCS Project Review List
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legal responsibility......................  To be eligible, work must be
                                                 the legal responsibility of
                                                 an eligible applicant.
                                                 Measures to protect life,
                                                 public health, and safety
                                                 are generally the
                                                 responsibility of state,
                                                 local, tribal, and
                                                 territorial governments.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Directed and Documented by Public Health    NCS must be at the direction
     Official.                                   of and documented through
                                                 an official order signed by
                                                 a state, local, tribal, or
                                                 territorial public health
                                                 official.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Intake process at each NCS site (data       Individuals should be pre-
     collection of questionnaires and/or         screened or referred to by
     surveys).                                   an authorized local public
                                                 health representative.
                                                 Applicants should follow
                                                 the detailed protocols
                                                 issued by the Department of
                                                 Public Health and site
                                                 administrators to ensure
                                                 that only individuals who
                                                 meet FEMA eligible criteria
                                                 are sheltered. Data
                                                 collected should include:
                                                  Documentation
                                                 showing a recent positive
                                                 test,
                                                  Self-certification
                                                 form or,
                                                  Medical referrals
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Duration of the Sheltering Activities.....  Number of individuals
                                                 sheltered
                                                Operational period
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wraparound services.......................  Costs associated with the
                                                 provision of support
                                                 services, such as case
                                                 management, mental health
                                                 counseling and similar
                                                 services are not eligible
                                                 for reimbursement.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost reasonableness.......................  Costs claimed by State,
                                                 Local, Tribal and
                                                 Territorial governments
                                                 must be reasonable pursuant
                                                 to federal regulations and
                                                 federal cost principles. A
                                                 cost is considered
                                                 reasonable if, in its
                                                 nature and amount, it does
                                                 not exceed that which would
                                                 be incurred by a prudent
                                                 person under the
                                                 circumstances prevailing at
                                                 the time the decision was
                                                 made to incur the cost.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unoccupied rooms..........................  Generally, unoccupied rooms
                                                 are ineligible. Exceptions
                                                 might be made for
                                                 reasonable pre-positioning
                                                 of resources or other
                                                 circumstances made on a
                                                 case-by-case basis.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Termination for Convenience Clauses.......  Applicants must follow
                                                 FEMA's Procurement Under
                                                 Grants Conducted Under
                                                 Exigent or Emergency
                                                 Circumstances [https://
                                                 www.fema.gov/
                                                grants/procurement/resource-
                                                 library] guidance and
                                                 include a termination for
                                                 convenience clause in their
                                                 contracts.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        Question 1. Since 2011, the City of Maricopa, Arizona, and various
    stakeholders have been working to develop a regional flood control
    solution to the damaging flooding from the Lower Santa Cruz River that
    flows north from Mexico and southern Arizona. Maricopa has suffered
    devastating floods--in 1983 and 1993--that inundated the city and the
    1983 flood left over a foot of mud in Maricopa High School.
        In December 2021, the city submitted a Conditional Letter of Map
    Revision (CLOMR) for its flood channelizing project. At the time, FEMA
    estimated the CLOMR would be completed within 12 months. I, along with
    the other members of the Arizona congressional delegation, realizing
    the importance of housing and economic development in the city in one
    of the fastest growing cities in the United States, sent a letter to
    FEMA asking for expedited approval of the CLOMR. Not only did FEMA not
    expedite approval of the CLOMR, but it is now nearly two years after
    its original submittal, nearly double the time FEMA initially estimated
    it would take. I am extraordinarily frustrated by the significant delay
    and so is the city. Can you provide a reasonable estimate of when you
    expect the CLOMR (Case number 22-09-0685R--North Santa Cruz Wash
    Regional Flood Control Project) to be completed?
        Answer. We have scheduled a call for December 13, 2023, with the
    applicant and community to discuss our review comments/concerns for
    their second and third responses.
        This Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request is
    currently suspended (suspended as of April 10, 2023) while we work with
    the applicant to resolve the two remaining comments. Once these
    comments have been resolved, the CLOMR will be reopened under a new
    case number. Once the CLOMR is reopened, FEMA will either provide a
    final determination or additional data letter to the requester within
    90 days.
        This CLOMR request was processed following our standard process,
    protocols, and procedures for processing. FEMA will continue supporting
    the applicant and community with their CLOMR request while doing
    everything possible to minimize the future 90-day regulatory review
    time once the CLOMR is reopened.
        For additional information, general processing timeframes are
    discussed in Section 3, MT-2 Request Processing Overview, of the FEMA
    MT-2 Guidance document https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/
    documents/fema_MT-2-requests-guidance_112021.pdf

        Question 2. A second CLOMR (Case Number 21-09-1338R--North Santa
    Cruz Wash Eagle Shadows) has been submitted by a major residential
    housing developer in the city for one of its projects. Can you provide
    a status update of this project's CLOMR and a timeline for completion?
        Answer. This CLOMR request was originally submitted on May 25,
    2021, and did not include a hydraulic analysis representing post-
    project conditions. FEMA sent an additional data letter to the
    requester on June 15, 2021. This letter included a request for a
    hydraulic analysis representing post-project conditions.
        Following the June 15th letter, FEMA has corresponded with the
    requester and communities numerous times regarding how the hydraulic
    analysis representing the post-project conditions should be completed.
    The last and most recent correspondence was on August 25, 2023, when
    FEMA provided additional guidance to the requester on how to analyze
    embankments within their modeling area.
        This CLOMR request is currently suspended as of September 13, 2021,
    while the hydraulic analysis is being completed. Once the hydraulic
    analysis is complete and submitted by the requester, the CLOMR will be
    reopened under a new case number. Once the CLOMR is reopened, FEMA will
    either provide a final determination or additional data letter to the
    requester within 90 days.

        Question 3. Why, in general, are CLOMRs and LOMRs taking, in some
    cases, more than double their original time estimates to complete? What
    can FEMA do to expedite completion of these cases?
        Answer. Processing times for CLOMRs and Letters of Map Revision
    (LOMRs) can vary greatly from case to case. This depends on factors
    such as the size of the revision area, complexity of the modeling, the
    availability of data, and the flood hazard mapping experience of the
    requester.
        For large and/or complex CLOMRs and LOMRs, such as CLOMR Case Nos.
    22-09-0685R and 21-09-1338R, we encourage communities to contact FEMA
    for pre-submittal coordination to ensure that requesters are following
    and interpreting FEMA standards and guidance. FEMA looks forward to
    working with the communities and requester to answer any further
    questions or conduct any additional conference calls.

        Question 4. Can you provide a list of all outstanding CLOMRs and
    LOMRs in the state of Arizona and an estimated timeline for completion?
        Answer. [Editor's note: A list describing the status for all
    ongoing CLOMRs/LOMRs in the state of Arizona was provided to
    Representative Stanton and is retained in committee files.]

                                   [all]