[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 [email protected].
    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]