```

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

                DISASTER MITIGATION: REVIEWING THE EFFEC-
                  TIVENESS AND COSTS OF FEMA'S RESILIENCE 
                  PROGRAMS

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

                                (118-56)

                                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

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 1, 2024

                               __________

                       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                    
57-439 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                               

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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

      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                          Emergency Management

    Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman
Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Garret Graves, Louisiana
  District of Columbia               Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Sharice Davids, Kansas,                Puerto Rico
  Vice Ranking Member                Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon,
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana              Vice Chairman
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) Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

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

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
  Management, opening statement..................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, 
  opening statement..............................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8

                               WITNESSES

Victoria Salinas, Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy 
  Administrator, Office of Resilience, Federal Emergency 
  Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, oral 
  statement......................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Article entitled, ``Severe Weather Can Have Long-Term Impact on 
  Solar Generation: NREL,'' by Emma Penrod, Utility Dive, 
  February 1, 2024, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry.    14
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen:
    Letter of May 1, 2024, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and 
      Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
      Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, 
      from AEC Science & Technology, LLC et al...................    29
    International Code Council's 2024 Building Safety Month 
      Proclamations Prepared for the Subcommittee................    32

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Victoria Salinas, Senior Official Performing the 
  Duties of Deputy Administrator, Office of Resilience, Federal 
  Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland 
  Security, from:
    Hon. Scott Perry.............................................    33
    Hon. Rick Larsen.............................................    35
    Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon................................    40
    Hon. Mike Ezell..............................................    42

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             April 26, 2024

    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 ``Disaster Mitigation: 
Reviewing the Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA's Resilience 
Programs''
_______________________________________________________________________

                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, 
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, at 10:00 
a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive 
testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Disaster Mitigation: 
Reviewing the Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA's Resilience 
Programs.'' The hearing will examine the costs and benefits of 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) increasing 
emphasis on mitigation efforts. At the hearing, Members will 
receive testimony from the Senior Official Performing the 
Duties of Deputy Administrator for FEMA's Office of Resilience.

                             II. BACKGROUND

FEMA'S MISSION

    FEMA is the Federal Government's lead agency for preparing 
for, mitigating against, responding to, and recovering from 
disasters and emergencies related to all hazards--whether 
natural or man-made.\1\ FEMA's primary authority in carrying 
out these functions stems from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) (P.L. 100-
707, as amended).\2\ The Stafford Act authorizes three types of 
declarations: (1) major disaster declarations; (2) emergency 
declarations; and (3) fire management grant (FMAG) 
declarations.\3\ The Stafford Act authorizes the President to 
approve states' requests for a Federal disaster declaration 
when ``the situation is of such severity and magnitude that 
effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and 
affected local governments.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ DHS, FEMA, (Feb. 3, 2023), available at https://www.dhs.gov/
employee-resources/federal-emergency-management-agency-fema.
    \2\ Stafford Act, Pub. L. No. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4689.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   III. HAZARD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE

    FEMA provides hazard mitigation assistance through the 
Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs.\5\ HMA includes 
three grant programs: the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 
(HMGP), the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities 
(BRIC) program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant 
Program (FMA).\6\ Under the HMA, FEMA also administers a loan 
program known as the Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund 
Program (STRLF).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants, (Dec. 13, 2023), 
available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the HMA programs, FEMA also provides hazard 
mitigation funding through its Public Assistance (PA) and 
Individual Assistance (IA) programs. Hazard mitigation funding 
for PA is intended to help communities rebuild public 
infrastructure in a way that accounts for future disasters.\8\ 
The same is true for IA when it comes to rebuilding residential 
households.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ FEMA, Public Assistance Hazard Mitigation, (Jan. 4, 2024), 
available at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public/hazard-
mitigation#::text=Public%20Assistance%20hazard
%20mitigation%20provides,separate%20application%20or%20grant%20program.
    \9\ Elizabeth M. Webster, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R46014, FEMA 
Individual Assistance Programs: An Overview, (Mar. 22, 2024), available 
at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R46014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM

    Authorized by Section 404 of the Stafford Act, HMGP makes 
post-disaster mitigation funding available to state, local, 
tribal, and territorial governments that have experienced a 
presidentially declared disaster.\10\ HMGP is funded through 
the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) as a formula grant subject to a 
sliding scale based on a percentage of the estimated amount of 
disaster assistance up to 15 percent.\11\ This funding can be 
used for a wide range of projects including to develop hazard 
mitigation plans, to elevate buildings in flood prone areas, 
and to retrofit structures for hazards including hurricanes or 
earthquakes.\12\ HMGP also provides assistance to states, 
tribes, or territories that have experienced a fire which 
resulted in a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) 
declaration.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Diane P. Horn, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN11187, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance, (Dec. 28, 2023), 
available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11187?source=search.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, (Nov. 2, 2023), 
available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation.
    \13\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Post Fire, (May 5, 
2023), available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/post-fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the 2022 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Division 
Year in Review, in fiscal year (FY) 2022 FEMA awarded $764.48 
million for HMGP funding and $19.97 million for post-fire 
assistance.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Division Year in Review, 
(June 8, 2023), available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/
about/hazard-mitigation-assistance-division-year-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUILDING RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES

    In 2018, Congress passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act 
(DRRA) (P.L. 115-254), which established a new pre-disaster 
mitigation program.\15\ In response to DRRA, FEMA created the 
BRIC program in FY 2020, which provides state, local, tribal, 
and territorial governments with funding to complete hazard 
mitigation projects.\16\ Prior to the establishment of BRIC, 
FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation funding was available through 
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3438.
    \16\ Diane P. Horn, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN11187, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance, (Dec. 28, 2023), 
available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11187?source=search.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlike the PDM Grant Program, which was funded through 
Congressional appropriations, BRIC is funded through a set 
aside of up to six percent of annual disaster spending from the 
DRF.\18\ BRIC also has three categories for awards (1) state/
territorial allocation, (2) tribal set aside, and (3) a 
National competition.\19\ The National competition allows 
states to submit additional projects to FEMA that are separate 
from the state/territorial allocation.\20\ As FEMA's largest 
pre-disaster mitigation program, ``[BRIC's] guiding principles 
are supporting communities through capability and capacity 
building; encouraging and enabling innovation; promoting 
partnerships; enabling large infrastructure projects; 
maintaining flexibility; and providing consistency.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Diane P. Horn, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R46989, FEMA Hazard 
Mitigation: A First Step Toward Climate Adaptation, (Mar. 23, 2022), 
available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R46989?source=search.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ FEMA, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, (Feb. 
20, 2024), available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/
building-resilient-infrastructure-communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the six percent set-aside, Congress 
appropriated an additional $1 billion for BRIC in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58), 
with $200 million annually for FY 2022 through FY 2026.\22\ On 
October 12, 2023, FEMA published its notice of funding 
opportunity which announced that $1 billion in BRIC funding 
would be made available for FY 2023.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Diane P. Horn, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN11187, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance, (Dec. 28, 2023), 
available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11187?source=search.
    \23\ FEMA, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, (Feb. 
20, 2024), available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/
building-resilient-infrastructure-communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM

    FMA is a competitive grant program that provides funding to 
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments for projects 
that reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to 
buildings insured by the NFIP.\24\ IIJA appropriated a total of 
$3.5 billion for FMA, with $700 million for each of FY2022 to 
FY2026.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ FEMA, Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program, (Apr. 8, 
2024), available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/flood-
mitigation-assistance.
    \25\ Diane P. Horn, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN11187, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance, (Dec. 28, 2023), 
available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11187?source=search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAFEGUARDING TOMORROW REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM

    In 2021, the STRLF program was established through the 
passage of the STORM Act.\26\ This new program provides states, 
eligible Federally recognized tribes, territories, and the 
District of Columbia with funding to establish low-interest 
revolving loan funds for mitigation projects primarily to be 
used at the local level.\27\ The IIJA appropriated a total of 
$500 million for the STRLF program, with up to $100 million for 
each of FY 2022 through FY 2026.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Pub. L. No. 116-284, 134 Stat. 4869.
    \27\ FEMA, Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program, (Mar. 
1, 2024), available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/storm-
rlf.
    \28\ Diane P. Horn, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN11187, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance, (Dec. 28, 2023), 
available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN11187?source=search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       IV. FEMA'S STRATEGIC PLAN

    FEMA's mission is to help people before, during, and after 
disasters.\29\ The 2022-2026 Strategic Plan lists three goals 
for the agency to better achieve their mission: (1) instill 
equity as a foundation of emergency management, (2) lead whole 
of community in climate resilience, and (3) promote and sustain 
a ready FEMA and prepared Nation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ FEMA, 2022-2026 FEMA Strategic Plan: Building the FEMA Our 
Nation Needs and Deserves 4-5 (2021), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_2022-2026-strategic-
plan.pdf. [hereinafter Strategic Plan].
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 1: EQUITY

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

        [T]he consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial 
        treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong 
        to underserved communities that have been denied such 
        treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native 
        American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and 
        other persons of color; members of religious minorities; 
        lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) 
        persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural 
        areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent 
        poverty or inequality.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009 (Jun. 25, 2021), 
available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-30/pdf/
2021-14127.pdf.

    To achieve this goal, FEMA has committed to ensure its 
employees ``increasingly reflect the diversity of the 
[N]ation.'' \32\ The Agency plans to make their programs more 
accessible through a people first approach, to ensure FEMA 
resources can be accessed by underserved communities.\33\ FEMA 
commits to periodically assess their programs and policies for 
inequities and redirect resources to eliminate any identified 
shortcomings.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Strategic Plan, supra note 30 at 10.
    \33\ Id. at 11.
    \34\ See id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 2: CLIMATE RESILIENCE

    FEMA's Strategic Plan asserts that the number and severity 
of disasters is increasing, and consequently some communities 
are barely able to recover before another disaster strikes.\35\ 
In order to increase climate literacy among the emergency 
management community, FEMA plans to integrate climate science 
into ``policy, programs, partnerships, field operation, and 
training.'' \36\ The Agency also plans to use mitigation grant 
programs to allow communities to mitigate against climate 
change.\37\ Finally, FEMA plans to expand ``the availability 
of, access to, and understanding of future conditions data and 
modeling'' \38\ to empower risk-informed decision making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Id. at 14.
    \36\ Id. at 15.
    \37\ Id. at 16.
    \38\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOAL 3: FEMA READINESS

    FEMA's Strategic Plan asserts that an increasing number of 
disasters requires FEMA to have more staff readily deployable 
in advance of disasters.\39\ To do this, FEMA will invest in 
professional development and improve employee retention.\40\ 
Further, as evident with the COVID pandemic, FEMA needs to be 
ready to respond to non-traditional Stafford Act disaster 
categories. The Agency plans to increase their capacity to 
mitigate against critical National capability gaps for all 
disasters.\41\ FEMA also plans to unify coordination and 
delivery of Federal assistance by working with other Federal 
disaster partners to streamline the burdensome process.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Id. at 21.
    \40\ Id. at 22.
    \41\ Id. at 24.
    \42\ Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           V. THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST

    On March 11, 2024, President Biden released his FY 2025 
Budget Request.\43\ Included in the FY 2025 Budget Request is 
an $85 million increase for FEMA's climate resilience 
initiatives.\44\ This includes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ The White House, FACT SHEET: The President's Budget for Fiscal 
Year 2025, (Mar. 11, 2024), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/11/fact-sheet-the-presidents-
budget-for-fiscal-year-2025/.
    \44\ FEMA, FY 2025 Congressional Justification, available at 
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/
2024_0320_federal_emergency_management_agency.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING AND RISK ANALYSIS

     LThe President's FY 2025 Budget Request includes 
$363.75 million to support the Federal Flood Risk Management 
Standard and to meet FEMA's remaining flood mapping 
requirements.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     LThis is an increase of $82.3 million compared to 
the FY 2024 enacted funding levels.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Pub. L. No. 118-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUILDING CODE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

     LThe President's FY 2025 Budget Request includes 
$2.1 million to implement FEMA's Building Code Strategy and 
increase building code adoption Nationwide.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ FEMA, FY 2025 Congressional Justification, available at 
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/
2024_0320_federal_emergency_management_agency.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

     LThe President's FY2025 Budget Request includes 
$1.5 million to focus on climate adaptation and create a full-
time policy and coordination office within FEMA.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             VI. CONCLUSION

    In recent years, FEMA has placed an increasing emphasis on 
pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation. The second goal of 
FEMA's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan is to promote leading the whole 
community in climate resilience. Furthermore, the President's 
FY 2025 Budget Request includes an increase of $85 million in 
funding for climate resilience initiatives. This hearing will 
examine FEMA's existing mitigation work to better understand 
the costs and benefits of these programs.

                              VII. WITNESS

     LMs. Victoria Salinas, Senior Official Performing 
the Duties of Deputy Administrator, Office of Resilience, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Department 
of Homeland Security

 
 DISASTER MITIGATION: REVIEWING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS OF FEMA'S 
                          RESILIENCE PROGRAMS

                              ----------                              

                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
                Buildings and Emergency Management,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 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.
    The Chair asks unanimous consent that the Chairman be 
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's 
hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on 
the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into 
the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an 
opening statement for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Perry. I want to thank our witness, Ms. Victoria 
Salinas, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of Deputy 
Administrator for FEMA's Office of Resilience, for being here 
today.
    Today's hearing will focus on examining the costs and 
benefits of FEMA's increasing emphasis on mitigation.
    FEMA provides hazard mitigation funding to State, Tribal, 
and Territorial governments through several grant programs, 
including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; the Building 
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, Program; and 
the Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program. FEMA also 
provides hazard mitigation funding through its Public 
Assistance and Individual Assistance Programs.
    FEMA reported that in fiscal year 2023, it had obligated 
more than $2.93 billion in funding for hazard mitigation 
grants. Going further back in time, FEMA obligated more than 
$1.78 billion in fiscal year 2022, more than $2.34 billion in 
fiscal year 2021, more than $1.31 billion in fiscal year 2020, 
and more than $1.16 billion in fiscal year 2019.
    I know the numbers kind of make people's eyes glaze over. 
But that means that over the past 5 fiscal years, FEMA has 
obligated more than $9.5 billion for mitigation grant funding. 
That's a lot of money. That's not counting for all mitigation 
assistance spent in the years prior. And given this huge sum of 
money, obviously, we have several concerns.
    First, despite literally spending billions of dollars on 
mitigation work, FEMA continues to ask Congress for more money. 
It is my understanding that FEMA is once again asking for 
supplemental funding for the Disaster Relief Fund, which is 
estimated to run out of money sometime this summer. And while 
FEMA claims that hazard mitigation funding will reduce the cost 
of disasters, FEMA continues to spend billions of dollars per 
disaster. So, we are looking for where is the cost benefit, how 
does the investment actually equal lower or less dollars being 
spent.
    FEMA's 2023 National Preparedness Report stated that 
between January 2020 and December of 2022, there were 60 
climate-related disasters, costing at least $1 billion each. We 
fail to see how the $9.5 billion in mitigation funding has 
significantly saved our taxpayers' dollars. I am not even sure 
``significantly'' is the right word. But we are also concerned 
that the types of mitigation projects that FEMA is choosing to 
fund, we are concerned about them. And in reviewing some of the 
more recent mitigation projects approved by FEMA, terms like 
``nature-based solutions'' and ``climate resilience'' appear in 
many of the project descriptions.
    FEMA is funding projects to plant trees and improve habitat 
for wildlife. It is all very nice, but I am not sure it is part 
of the core mission and something we need to be spending tax 
dollars on, as none of this is within the scope of 
responsibility of FEMA's mission. And if that's where FEMA is 
funneling our taxpayer funds, is the Agency really achieving 
the stated goals of these mitigation grants, which is to reduce 
disaster costs and save lives?
    Further, concerningly, FEMA has continued to struggle to 
make hazard mitigation funding available to the communities 
that need it the most. The application process to receive 
mitigation grants is complicated; so complex, in fact, it 
creates real challenges for small communities attempting to 
apply for these funds. And those who cannot afford to hire 
grant writers are the ones that are at a loss.
    We see that wealthier States with the means to pay for 
outside consultants and grant writers successfully received 
FEMA funds, while smaller States are passed over. Are these 
funds truly being focused on reducing risk where it is most 
needed?
    So, what I really want to know is how FEMA is awarding 
these funds. Is the Agency actually targeting investments to 
strategically counter the effect of natural disasters? Or is it 
simply funneling money to States that have the resources 
available to jump through the hurdles and complete the 
application process?
    FEMA's BRIC Program is a prime illustration of those 
concerns. For the first 3 years of funding, 5 States, 
accounting for 30 percent of the Nation's population, received 
50 percent, half, through the BRIC, whereas 24 smaller States, 
accounting for 21 percent of the Nation's population, combined 
were only awarded 5 percent of BRIC funding. That is a pretty 
stark contrast. In fact, according to analysis done by outside 
groups, the San Francisco and New York metro areas have been 
the most successful in applying for BRIC funding. Is there any 
accountability whatsoever for this? How can FEMA justify its 
allocation of funds?
    We want to discuss these questions with our witness today, 
and we want to dig into how FEMA determines which projects have 
the merit to receive mitigation funding, and whether the 
process targets funding to projects that actually mitigate 
against disasters.
    FEMA can't solve everyone's problems, and if FEMA is going 
to fund mitigation, at the very least, the projects should 
demonstrate they will actually reduce the cost of disasters. As 
a matter of fact, that's the point of it.
    With that, I look forward to hearing from our witness on 
these issues.
    [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, Ms. Victoria Salinas, the Senior 
Official Performing the Duties of Deputy Administrator for FEMA's 
Office of Resilience, for being here today.
    Today's hearing will focus on examining the costs and benefits of 
FEMA's increasing emphasis on mitigation.
    FEMA provides hazard mitigation funding to state, tribal, and 
territorial governments through several grant programs including the 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program, and the Flood Mitigation 
Assistance Grant Program (FMA). FEMA also provides hazard mitigation 
funding through its Public Assistance (PA) and Individual Assistance 
(IA) programs.
    FEMA reported that in fiscal year 2023, it had obligated more than 
$2.93 billion in funding for hazard mitigation grants. Going further 
back in time, FEMA obligated more than $1.78 billion in fiscal year 
2022, more than $2.34 billion in fiscal year 2021, more than $1.31 
billion in fiscal year 2020, and more than $1.16 billion in fiscal year 
2019. That means that over the past five fiscal years, FEMA has 
obligated more than $9.5 billion for mitigation grant funding. That's 
not counting all the mitigation assistance spent in the years prior.
    Given this huge sum of money, I have several concerns.
    First, despite literally spending billions of dollars on mitigation 
work, FEMA continues to ask Congress for more money. It is my 
understanding that FEMA is once again asking for supplemental funding 
for the Disaster Relief Fund, which is estimated to run out of money 
sometime this summer. And while FEMA claims that hazard mitigation 
funding will reduce the costs of disasters, FEMA continues to spend 
billions of dollars per disaster. FEMA's 2023 National Preparedness 
Report stated that between January 2020 and December 2022 there were 60 
``climate-related'' disasters, costing at least $1 billion each. I fail 
to see how that $9.5 billion in mitigation funding has significantly 
saved our taxpayer dollars.
    I am also concerned with the types of mitigation projects that FEMA 
is choosing to fund. In reviewing some of the more recent mitigation 
projects approved by FEMA, terms like ``nature-based solutions'' and 
``climate resilience'' appear in many of the project descriptions. FEMA 
is funding projects to plant trees and improve habitat for wildlife. 
None of this is within the scope or responsibility of FEMA's mission. 
And if that's where FEMA is funneling our taxpayer funds--is the agency 
really achieving the stated goals of these mitigation grants, which is 
to reduce disaster costs and save lives?
    Further, concerningly FEMA has continued to struggle to make hazard 
mitigation funding available to the communities that may need it the 
most. The application process to receive mitigation grants is 
complicated--so complex, in fact, it creates real challenges for small 
communities attempting to apply for these funds. We see wealthier 
states with the means to pay for outside consultants successfully 
receive FEMA funds while smaller states are passed over. Are these 
funds truly being focused on reducing risk where it is most needed? So, 
what I really want to know is how is FEMA awarding these funds? Is the 
agency actually targeting investments to strategically counter the 
effects of natural disasters, or is it simply funneling money to states 
that have the resources available to jump through the hurdles and 
complete the application process?
    FEMA's BRIC Program is a prime illustration of these concerns. For 
the first three years of funding, five states, accounting for 30 
percent of the nation's population, received half of the money through 
BRIC, whereas 24 smaller states, accounting for 21 percent of the 
nation's population, combined were only awarded five percent of BRIC 
funding. That's a stark contrast.
    In fact, according to analysis done by outside groups, the San 
Francisco and New York metro areas have been the most successful in 
applying for BRIC funding. Where is the accountability? How can FEMA 
justify its allocation of funds? I want to discuss these questions with 
our witness today. I want to dig into how FEMA determines which 
projects have the merit to receive mitigation funding, and whether the 
process targets funding to projects that actually mitigate against 
disasters.
    FEMA can't solve everyone's problems, and if FEMA is going to fund 
mitigation, at the very least the projects should demonstrate they will 
actually reduce the costs of disasters.
    With that, I look forward to hearing from our witness on these 
issues.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Ms. 
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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ms. 
Salinas, for being here today to talk about FEMA's mitigation 
programs.
    Climate change and related severe weather events have 
changed the disaster landscape, and they are devastating 
communities of all sizes, rural, urban, across the country. 
Responding to these disasters really isn't enough. Proactive 
mitigation strategies are necessary to build resilience before 
disasters, so communities have a chance to bounce back. 
Therefore, I am proud of this committee's bipartisan history of 
supporting mitigation efforts with demonstrable returns on 
investment.
    In the past 5 years, FEMA's mitigation program, combination 
of programs, has grown substantially at Congress' direction to 
address these disaster impact trends and ensure public safety. 
In 2020, FEMA awarded the first round of BRIC grants, making 
unprecedented funding available to States before disasters to 
implement large and innovative programs. Last year, FEMA 
awarded the first capitalization grants for the Safeguarding 
Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program, which was finally funded 
thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Before these pre-disaster programs, FEMA's mitigation 
investments came almost entirely post-disaster through the 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This program remains 
critically important and still accounts for the largest 
percentage of FEMA's hazard mitigation spending, but the 
Safeguarding Tomorrow Fund and the BRIC Program are finally 
providing communities the proactive tools they need.
    Since its authorization, FEMA has invested $4.5 billion in 
pre-disaster mitigation through the BRIC Program, and State and 
local governments are demonstrating considerable demand, with 
the most recent funding opportunity being five times 
oversubscribed. Additional actions at the State and local level 
also indicate a growing interest in mitigation efforts to 
protect homes and infrastructure. States and cities from 
Mobile, Alabama, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, including Clark 
County, Nevada, where my district is, are establishing hazard 
mitigation offices, resiliency centers, and chief resilience 
officer positions to strategically identify local mitigation 
opportunities.
    Now, talk about saving money, it's not surprising that 
investments in mitigation are proven to save money. Every $1 
invested in mitigation results in up to $13 saved post-
disaster.
    We have also got to continue to prioritize the equitable 
distribution of these investments to disadvantaged communities 
that may be hit hardest by the disasters, take the longest to 
recover, and have the fewest resources to be able to do that.
    I have heard from these communities that they are often 
unable to successfully apply for the Federal mitigation grant 
funding due to a lack of capacity and resources. And that is 
why I support President Biden's Justice40 Initiative to 
allocate 40 percent of BRIC and flood mitigation assistance 
grants to disadvantaged communities, and the Community Disaster 
Resilience Zone Act led by Representative Davids here in the 
House to identify census tracts that are most in need and most 
at risk to natural disasters.
    Finally, access to mitigation funding can't stop at the 
local level. I believe homeowners should have the chance to 
access mitigation funds to protect their families and their 
financial security. Unfortunately, homeowners often can't 
retrofit their homes with recommended mitigation measures 
because they are just too expensive. Last year, I filed a 
successful amendment to H.R. 5473 that will create a pilot 
program for making individual homes more resilient to all 
hazards. It's my hope that it will be enacted before the end of 
the year so we will have an opportunity to measure its 
effectiveness.
    Ms. Salinas, I thank you and your colleagues for your hard 
work to implement FEMA's growing suite of mitigation programs, 
and I look forward to more conversation about how this 
essential work not only saves taxpayer dollars but improves 
public safety.
    Thank you, 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 our witness for joining us 
today to discuss FEMA's mitigation programs.
    Climate change and the related severe weather events have changed 
the disaster landscape and are devastating communities nationwide. 
Responding to these disasters is not enough--proactive mitigation 
strategies are necessary to build resilience before disasters, so 
communities have a chance to bounce back. Therefore, I'm proud of this 
Committee's bipartisan history of supporting mitigation efforts with 
demonstrable returns on investment.
    In the past 5 years, FEMA's mitigation program suite has grown 
substantially at Congress' direction to address disaster impact trends 
and ensure public safety. In 2020, FEMA awarded the first round of BRIC 
grants making unprecedented funding available to states before 
disasters to implement large and innovative projects.
    Last year, FEMA awarded the first capitalization grants for the 
Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program, which was finally 
funded thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Before these pre-
disaster programs, FEMA's mitigation investments came almost entirely 
post-disaster through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This program 
remains critically important and still accounts for the largest 
percentage of FEMA's hazard mitigation spending, but the Safeguarding 
Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund and BRIC program are finally providing 
communities the proactive tools they need.
    Since its authorization, FEMA has invested $4.5 billion in pre-
disaster mitigation through the BRIC program, and state and local 
governments are demonstrating considerable demand, with the most recent 
funding opportunity being five times oversubscribed.
    Additional actions at the state and local level also indicate a 
growing interest in mitigation efforts to protect homes and 
infrastructure. States and cities from Mobile, Alabama, to Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, and to Clark County, Nevada, are establishing hazard 
mitigation offices, Resiliency Centers, and Chief Resilience Officer 
positions to strategically identify local mitigation opportunities.
    This is not surprising as investments in mitigation are proven to 
save money. Every one dollar invested in mitigation results in up to 
$13 saved post-disaster.
    We must also continue to prioritize the equitable distribution of 
these investments to disadvantaged communities that may be hit hardest 
by disasters and take the longest to recover. I've heard from these 
communities that they are often unable to successfully apply for 
federal mitigation grant funding due to a lack of capacity and 
resources. That's why I support President Biden's Justice 40 initiative 
to allocate 40 percent of BRIC and Flood Mitigation Assistance grants 
to disadvantaged communities and the Community Disaster Resilience Zone 
Act, led by Rep. Davids in the House, to identify census tracts that 
are most in need and most at-risk to natural disasters.
    Finally, access to mitigation funding cannot stop at the local 
level. I believe homeowners should have the chance to access mitigation 
funds to protect their families and financial security. Unfortunately, 
homeowners often cannot retrofit their homes with recommended 
mitigation measures because they are too expensive. Last year, I filed 
a successful amendment to H.R. 5473 that will create a pilot program 
for making individual homes more resilient to all hazards, and it is my 
hope for it to be enacted before the end of the year, so we have an 
opportunity to measure its effectiveness.
    Ms. Salinas, I thank you and your colleagues for your hard work to 
implement FEMA's growing suite of mitigation programs. I look forward 
to our conversation to learn more about this essential work that saves 
taxpayer dollars and improves public safety.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, subcommittee Chair 
Perry and subcommittee Ranking Member Titus, for calling 
today's hearing. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the 
impact and performance of FEMA's hazard mitigation programs, 
especially as one of the counties in my district is still 
recovering and rebuilding from November 21 floods.
    Disasters cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. 
Last year, climate and weather-related disasters caused over 
$92.9 billion in impacts nationwide. This figure is not an 
anomaly. In the past 5 years, the average annual cost for 
disasters in the U.S. was $119 billion.
    FEMA can help States and disaster survivors cover some 
recovery costs, but many disasters go undeclared, which means 
homeowners, farmers, business owners, and State and local 
governments are paying the majority of disaster damage bills. 
This slows economic growth and recovery. It's unsustainable as 
well for those who live in the path of increasingly frequent 
and severe disasters.
    So, hazard mitigation does offer a solution. And according 
to the National Institute of Building Sciences, every $1 
invested in hazard mitigation results in $13 saved. FEMA 
projects that nationwide adoption of modern building codes also 
would save $600 billion in disaster impacts by 2060.
    In order to reduce the cost of future disasters, Congress 
and FEMA have dramatically expanded the mitigation grant 
programs the Agency offers. So, before 2018, almost all of the 
mitigation funding FEMA provided was only available to States 
after a disaster. The creation of BRIC and the Safeguarding 
Tomorrow Loan Fund have changed that. Since 2020, FEMA has been 
able to award over $5 billion for mitigation projects before 
disaster strikes. This proactive approach is needed to protect 
communities, and I strongly support the additional investments 
that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made in these programs.
    State and local demand for pre-disaster mitigation funding 
is very clear. FEMA's competitive Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
Program, the BRIC Program, is consistently oversubscribed more 
than four times over. That is why I support increasing the set-
aside for the BRIC Program from 6 to 15 percent of annual 
Disaster Relief Fund spending. More money spent on resilience 
before disasters means less money spent on repairs after.
    Now, making Federal funding available for mitigation 
projects is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. Money needs 
to get out the door to eligible States and local governments in 
a timely manner, and the funds need to be accessible to the 
most disadvantaged communities.
    All new grant programs face some implementation challenges. 
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Programs have not been an exception 
to that. According to information from FEMA, 77 award winners 
for the fiscal year 2020 BRIC funding cycle and 112 applicants 
for the fiscal year 2021 funding cycle have not yet received 
full funding. FEMA needs to make sure those funds get out the 
door promptly.
    However, I am pleased with other efforts FEMA has made to 
improve the BRIC application process by simplifying the 
benefit-cost analysis requirements and offering technical 
assistance to disadvantaged communities. The positive impact of 
these changes is already noticeable as the Resilience Office 
has reported receiving a greater number of applications from 
new applicants.
    So, I look forward to discussing solutions to continue 
improving program efficiency and getting mitigation funding out 
the door faster into the hands of communities.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is improving our Nation's 
resilience by providing $5 billion to help communities 
proactively prepare for disasters, but there is still a long 
way to go.
    I applaud the administration's prioritization of resilience 
to keep communities safe and to reduce disaster recovery costs. 
So, Ms. Salinas, I look forward to discussing with you how we 
can work together to make FEMA's mitigation programs even more 
effective in the future.
    Thank you for being here. I look forward to the testimony.
    With that, 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.
    I welcome the opportunity to discuss the impact and performance of 
FEMA's hazard mitigation programs, especially as one of the counties in 
my district is still recovering and rebuilding from the November 21 
floods.
    Disasters cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Last year, 
climate and weather-related disasters caused over $92.9 billion in 
impacts nationwide. This figure is not an anomaly. In the past five 
years, the average annual cost of disasters in the United States was 
$119 billion.
    FEMA can help states and disaster survivors cover some recovery 
costs, but many disasters go undeclared, which means that homeowners, 
farmers, business owners, and state and local governments are paying 
the majority of disaster damage bills.
    This slows economic growth and recovery, and is unsustainable for 
those who live in the path of increasingly frequent and severe 
disasters.
    Hazard mitigation offers a solution.
    According to the National Institute of Building Sciences, every $1 
invested in hazard mitigation results in $13 saved.
    FEMA projects that the nationwide adoption of modern building codes 
would save $600 billion in disaster impacts by 2060.
    In order to reduce the costs of future disasters, Congress and FEMA 
have dramatically expanded the mitigation grant programs the agency 
offers.
    Before 2018, almost all of the mitigation funding FEMA provided was 
only available to states after a disaster.
    The creation of BRIC and the Safeguarding Tomorrow Loan Fund have 
changed that.
    Since 2020, FEMA has been able to award over $5 billion for 
mitigation projects before disaster strikes.
    This proactive approach is needed to protect communities, and I 
strongly support the additional investments the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law made in these programs.
    State and local demand for pre-disaster mitigation funding is very 
clear. FEMA's competitive pre-disaster mitigation program, the BRIC 
program, is consistently oversubscribed more than four times over.
    That is why I support increasing the set-aside for the BRIC 
program, from 6 to 15 percent of annual Disaster Relief Fund spending. 
More money spent on resilience before disasters means less money spent 
on repairs after.
    Making federal funding available for mitigation projects is one 
piece of a much larger puzzle.
    Money needs to get out the door to eligible states and local 
governments in a timely manner and the funds need to be accessible to 
the most disadvantaged communities.
    All new grant programs face some implementation challenges. The 
pre-disaster mitigation programs have not been an exception.
    According to information from FEMA, 77 award winners for the Fiscal 
Year 2020 BRIC funding cycle and 112 applicants for the Fiscal Year 
2021 funding cycle have not yet received full funding. FEMA needs to 
make sure these funds are getting out the door promptly.
    However, I am pleased with other efforts FEMA has made to improve 
the BRIC application process by simplifying the benefit cost analysis 
requirements and offering extra technical assistance to disadvantaged 
communities.
    The positive impact of these changes is already noticeable as the 
Resilience Office has reported receiving a greater number of 
applications from new applicants.
    I look forward to discussing solutions to continue improving 
program efficiency and getting mitigation funding out the door faster 
and into the hands of communities.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is improving our nation's 
resilience by providing $5 billion to help communities proactively 
prepare for disasters, but there is still a long way to go.
    I applaud the Administration's prioritization of resilience to keep 
communities safe and reduce disaster recovery costs.
    Ms. Salinas, I look forward to discussing how we can work together 
to make FEMA's mitigation programs even more effective in the future.
    Thank you all for being here, I look forward to your testimony.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair would now like to welcome our witness and thank 
her for being here today.
    Briefly, I would like to take a moment to explain our 
lighting system to our witness. 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.
    The Chair asks unanimous consent that the witness' full 
statement be included in the record. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record of 
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witness has 
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to her 
in writing. Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record 
remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or the witness to be included in the 
record of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
    As your written testimony, ma'am, has been made part of the 
record, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks 
to 5 minutes.
    With that, Ms. Salinas, you are recognized for 5 minutes 
for your testimony.

 TESTIMONY OF VICTORIA SALINAS, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE 
 DUTIES OF DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESILIENCE, FEDERAL 
   EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                            SECURITY

    Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much, and good morning.
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Larsen, Ranking Member 
Titus, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity to speak with you today about FEMA's evolving role 
in hazard mitigation. We value this subcommittee's legislative 
support and oversight of our Agency, and I really look forward 
to today's conversation.
    Communities today face an increasing set of challenges, 
from atmospheric rivers to once-in-a-century fires. In 2023 
alone, NOAA calculated that the U.S. sustained 28 disasters 
that each cost $1 billion or more. That's the most ever in a 
single year on record.
    At FEMA, our mission is helping people before, during, and 
after disasters. And our Agency is spearheading efforts to 
bolster communities' ability to understand and fulfill their 
role related to increasing disaster resilience. Improved 
resilience saves lives, results in less complex recoveries, and 
helps break the disaster cycle.
    If we are going to help prepare our communities in the 
future, then we need to invest in the communities before a 
disaster strikes. One way FEMA is working to achieve this goal 
is through our suite of grant programs. Our Hazard Mitigation 
Assistance Program provides critical funding to invest in cost-
effective activities that build a community's resilience while 
lowering future disaster costs. Despite historic funding levels 
across our programs, we continue to see more applications come 
in than funding is available each year. These programs are 
helping across our Nation.
    For example, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities Program, BRIC, for the fiscal year 2022 grant cycle 
saw the largest BRIC notice of funding ever at $2.3 billion. We 
selected 50 States, 35 Tribal nations, 4 Territories, and the 
District of Columbia to receive funding pending final review of 
their projects.
    One example of these projects is from Jefferson Parish, 
Louisiana, where they are hardening power infrastructure to 
protect their community. This means that after a storm, not 
only will individuals and households be protected, but critical 
facilities, too.
    State and local demand for project funding and technical 
assistance is only growing. Through the fiscal year 2023 BRIC 
application cycle, we saw a record number of requests for BRIC 
direct technical assistance come in, with 164 submissions and 
asks for support from all 10 FEMA regions. Through this 
program, FEMA provides tailored support to communities and 
Tribal nations that may not have resources to do the planning 
and project design on their own. FEMA has already announced for 
BRIC DTA 74 communities and Tribal nations for the program, and 
this year, we look to select another 80.
    Up-to-date building codes are another efficient and cost-
effective way to safeguard our communities. Therefore, we also 
established a new set-aside, a plus-up in our Building 
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program in the fiscal 
year 2023 grant cycle, and we saw $52 million worth of building 
codes-related projects come in. That is a record breaking 
number for FEMA.
    Our portfolio of hazard mitigation grants also includes the 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which provides funding to 
develop mitigation plans and retrofit in ways that reduce the 
impact of future disaster losses. We also provide 
capitalization grants for mitigation projects through the 
Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund. This new revolving 
loan fund is helping States, Tribes, and Territories finance 
projects to reduce risk. These funds can be used as required 
local match, which means that they can be used for match for 
even FEMA programs, providing additional flexibility to 
communities. This reduces and helps eliminate barriers for many 
small rural and other communities with limited capacities that 
they may face.
    Recently, FEMA and DHS also announced more than $1.8 
billion in funding for our eight fiscal year 2024 preparedness 
grant programs that help stakeholders prevent and respond to 
acts of terrorism as well as hazards.
    Education and training are also key, and through our 
partnership with the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, 
we offer over 190 trainings each year that are reaching 
thousands of emergency managers, first responders, and local 
leaders.
    FEMA is also working to bolster resilience through the 
establishment of Community Disaster Resilience Zones and 
announced the first 483 zones last September. These 
designations will leverage collaboration and cross-sector 
coordination across all levels of Government, philanthropy, 
businesses, and academia.
    As we look to the challenges ahead, we are currently 
implementing changes to accelerate the grant programs and build 
capacity. FEMA looks forward to our continued work with this 
subcommittee to mitigate hazards and build a more resilient 
Nation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to our conversation and your questions.
    [Ms. Salinas' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Victoria Salinas, Senior Official Performing the 
Duties of Deputy Administrator, Office of Resilience, Federal Emergency 
        Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today 
about the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) evolving role in 
hazard mitigation. We value this Subcommittee's legislative support and 
oversight of our agency, and I look forward to our conversation today.
    From atmospheric rivers to once-in-a-century fires, communities 
today face an increasingly complex set of challenges. In 2023 alone, 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calculated that the 
United States sustained 28 disasters that each cost $1 billion or 
more--the most ever in a single year on record.
    FEMA's mission is helping people before, during, and after 
disasters, and our agency is spearheading efforts to bolster 
communities' ability to understand, and fulfill, their roles related to 
increasing their own local disaster resilience. Improved resilience 
saves lives; results in less complex disaster recoveries; and helps 
break the cycle of disaster damage, rebuilding, and repeated damage. 
But, if we, as a Nation, are going to help prepare our communities for 
a future in which they continue to be tested by hazards, then we need 
to invest in these communities before a disaster strikes.
    One important way FEMA is working to achieve this goal is through 
our suite of grant programs. Our hazard mitigation assistance programs 
provide critical funding to state, local, tribal, and territorial 
governments to invest in cost effective activities that build a 
community's resilience while lowering future disaster costs. Across our 
programs, we continue to see oversubscription, or more applications 
submitted than funding is available each year, as communities 
increasingly seek to use FEMA's grants to help mitigate risks, build 
operational capabilities, and save lives.
    For example, through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, FEMA 
administers funding to develop hazard mitigation plans and retrofit in 
a way that reduces the impacts of future disaster losses in communities 
following a presidentially declared disaster. We also have $185 million 
available for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 for the Rehabilitation of High 
Hazard Potential Dams program, which provides technical, planning, 
design, and construction assistance for eligible dams, and another $26 
million in FY 2024 through the National Dam Safety State Assistance 
Grant Program to provide assistance to states for strengthening their 
dam safety programs.
    FEMA also provides capitalization grants for hazard mitigation 
projects through the Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund program, 
which states, Tribes, and territories can use to finance projects to 
reduce their risks from natural hazards and disasters. These revolving 
loan funds can be used as the required local cost share for FEMA's 
other grant programs. Implementation of this program is helping 
eliminate barriers that small, rural, and other communities with 
limited capacity may face when seeking mitigation funding.
    The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) 
program is one of FEMA's flagship grant programs and is designed to 
help communities increase their resilience to disasters and save lives. 
For the FY 2022 grant cycle, where FEMA announced the largest BRIC NOFO 
ever of $2.3 billion, FEMA selected 50 states, 35 Tribal Nations, 4 
territories, and the District of Columbia to receive BRIC funding, 
pending the outcome of the final review process. For example, an FY 
2022 BRIC project in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 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. Meanwhile, the FY23 grant 
application cycle, which made $1 billion available in funding, received 
1,233 BRIC subapplications across all 50 states, 35 Tribal Nations, 5 
territories and the District of Columbia, requesting more than $5.6 
billion in project funding.
    Recently, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security announced 
more than $1.8 billion in funding for eight FY 2024 preparedness grant 
programs, including $373.5 million through the State Homeland Security 
Program and $13.5 million to eligible Tribal Nations through the Tribal 
Homeland Security Grant Program. Our preparedness grants provide 
critical funding to help state, local, Tribal, and territorial 
officials prepare for, prevent, protect against, and respond to acts of 
terrorism and other hazards. For the State Homeland Security Program 
specifically, this funding can be used to support the acquisition of 
basic lifesaving skills that can be employed to assist others in a 
critical incident, including multi-casualty and terrorism-based events. 
Additionally, the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program 
provides resources to close known capability gaps in housing and 
logistics and supply chain management; encourage innovative regional 
solutions to catastrophic incidents; and build on existing regional 
efforts.
    As FEMA continues to administer this critical funding, the agency 
is also working to innovate and improve these and other programs to 
better increase all-hazards resilience across our Nation. We are 
currently implementing changes to accelerate the grant award process, 
the impact of capacity building, and other streamlined methods for our 
grant programs.
    Through the FY 2023 BRIC application cycle, FEMA saw an increase in 
requests for BRIC Direct Technical Assistance (BRIC DTA), with 164 
submissions--28 of which were from federally recognized Tribal Nations 
and 136 communities across all 10 FEMA regions. Through BRIC DTA, FEMA 
provides tailored support to communities and tribal nations that may 
not have the resources to begin resilience planning and project 
solution design on their own. FEMA has already announced a total of 74 
communities and Tribal Nations selected from previous grant cycles, and 
the agency is expecting to make at least 80 more selections from these 
submissions. Recognizing that the development of up-to-date building 
codes is among the most efficient and cost-effective ways to safeguard 
our communities, FEMA also established a new set-aside funding 
opportunity--the Building Code Plus-Up--for the FY 2023 BRIC Grant 
cycle. We received $52 million in applications, which is the largest 
amount of BRIC funding ever requested from FEMA for building codes. 
Aligning with the Administration's National Initiative to Advance 
Building Codes, the BRIC Building Code Plus-Up dedicates funding 
exclusively to all states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, 
and federally recognized Tribal Nations to support building code 
activities. Moreover, FEMA has established streamlined cost-
effectiveness determination methods for some hazard mitigation projects 
and project types. Using one of these methods fulfills the cost-
effectiveness requirement if the project meets applicable criteria.
    FEMA is also working to bolster the resilience of our partners 
through the establishment of Community Disaster Resilience Zones 
(CDRZ). In September 2023, FEMA announced the first 483 CDRZ's in all 
50 states and the District of Columbia. CDRZ designations will leverage 
collaboration and cross-sector coordination across all levels of 
government, philanthropic foundations, private non-profits, 
universities, the insurance industry, and other private businesses to 
assist our most at-risk communities in building resilience against 
natural hazards and extreme weather events.
    Lastly, FEMA manages a network of training and education partners 
providing learning solutions to address preparedness gaps in 
communities across the country. The National Domestic Preparedness 
Consortium is our premier partnership that offers over 190 FEMA 
training courses to emergency managers, first responders, and local 
leaders.
    As we look to the challenges ahead, FEMA looks forward to working 
with the Members of this Subcommittee to mitigate hazards and build a 
more resilient nation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look 
forward to answering your questions.

    Mr. Perry. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. We 
are going to turn to questions now. The Chair is going to turn 
to himself.
    I am curious. FEMA, says so right in the name, right, the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Emergency, right? So, I am 
looking at this publication: ``FEMA Economic Benefit Values for 
Green Infrastructure.'' ``Benefit Values for Green 
Infrastructure,'' under FEMA, July 2022. And I see in here, 
under green infrastructure benefit categories, one of the 
benefits is property value improvement, for, I guess--well, 
this is one of the--this is one of the things we are striving 
for. And I am wondering, are heat islands, is that an 
emergency? I guess this is mitigation, when you are talking 
about planting trees, right, urban trees here, I see. And we 
will get into the questioning about the value of that. But is 
that an emergency? And how much money are we spending on that?
    Ms. Salinas. We are, through our Hazard Mitigation Grant 
Program, and our portfolio of grants, helping communities 
reduce the risks that they face. And so, there are a number of 
eligible types of projects across our hazard mitigation grant 
portfolio.
    As you well know, many of our grant programs have a cost-
effectiveness requirement. So, from the very get-go, when 
communities apply, we are looking at the benefit cost of the 
programs and projects that are being requested as part of the 
vetting before any funding is given to projects.
    Mr. Perry. So, I get that. I guess, among other things, 
when I look at urban trees, I see the total benefit, if you 
talk about things including property value improvement, 
stormwater volume and quality, the benefit is $1,055.19. And, 
of course, it is all broken down here. But I do wonder, and I 
think the people paying the taxes wonder, how you derive that 
benefit, number one. Well, maybe not number one. Number one is, 
how is this an emergency? Like an emergency is something--you 
think about a disaster. I mean, if you live at certain places, 
flooding is probably an issue that you can anticipate. 
Hurricanes might be an anticipated emergency, wildfires, you 
can go through the list of things.
    Heat island. Well, let me ask you this. How is FEMA 
mitigating emergencies and disasters by planting trees?
    Ms. Salinas. FEMA's mission is to help people before, 
during, and after disasters. And reducing disaster risk is one 
of the most critical ways that we help save lives, protect 
property, and ensure that communities can recover quickly after 
disasters.
    The types of events that communities are facing is changing 
dramatically. We are seeing heat domes, we are seeing 
wildfires, we are seeing flood following fire, a whole range of 
types of disasters. And the approaches to reducing disaster 
risk are varied.
    For instance, you have brought up trees and nature-based 
solutions. We are seeing that, in communities across the 
country, that there is a differential in heat depending on the 
topography. And so, there are many communities that are seeking 
to really cool down neighborhoods because each year, even this 
last year, there were several hundred deaths because of extreme 
heat. And so, that's one of the emerging hazards.
    Mr. Perry. Do we know, ma'am, can you quantify how many 
deaths have been averted by planting these trees?
    Ms. Salinas. In the cost-benefit analysis----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Do people stand out underneath 
the tree? What do they do? What's happening?
    Ms. Salinas. With many of the solutions that really rely on 
nature, mother nature to protect and support communities, we 
have seen in different types of projects that the benefits are 
many. And as I mentioned----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I get that, and I wish you could 
quantify some of them. My time is quickly running out. We have 
talked a lot and said nothing, I think, unfortunately. We want 
the results. Show me some results to any of this.
    I see that also we are spending a boatload of money in 
Puerto Rico on sustainable energy, and I saw the list of people 
that were involved in putting the program together. But I 
didn't see anybody there to talk about the fact that the last 
two hurricanes had sustained winds of 180 and 175--max 
sustained winds, 180 and 175 miles per hour. I have a study 
here that shows the impact on solar panels begins at 56 miles 
per hour, and that's not to mention hail.
    I will ask that this be entered into the record, this 
study.
    [The information follows:]

                                 
 Article entitled, ``Severe Weather Can Have Long-Term Impact on Solar 
  Generation: NREL,'' by Emma Penrod, Utility Dive, February 1, 2024, 
              Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry
   Severe Weather Can Have Long-Term Impact on Solar Generation: NREL
Events such as hail or high winds can have a lasting impact on solar 
        panels' productivity, an NREL study found.
by Emma Penrod

Utility Dive, February 1, 2024
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/severe-weather-hail-solar-generation-
nrel/706254/
                              Dive Brief:
      Solar panels that have been subjected to severe weather 
events produce about 1% less energy per year after these events, 
according to a new study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

      Although the immediate impact of a single event is 
relatively small, the effects could accumulate over time to represent 
more sizable losses for owners of large fleets of solar panels, 
according to Dirk Jordan, a distinguished researcher at NREL and an 
author of the study.

      Given the increased frequency of severe weather, solar 
manufacturers--and utilities--may want to consider more stringent 
standards for solar panel durability to avoid future losses, Jordan 
said.
                             Dive Insight:
    Solar generation--and especially solar plus storage--is generally a 
good source of backup power in the aftermath of extreme weather events, 
Jordan said. But severe weather can have a long-term impact on the 
productivity of solar systems that increases with each severe weather 
event, according to new NREL research.
    Each episode of severe weather decreases a solar installation's 
annual productivity by about 1% on average, according to the study, so 
a solar system that is subjected to multiple severe weather events 
could take heavy losses over time as a result. Previous research by 
NREL indicates that productivity of the average solar installation 
declines by about .75% per year, with solar panels in warm climates 
experiencing more rapid aging than those in cooler climates.
    ``It sounds small, and maybe it is if only one system is 
impacted,'' Jordan said, ``but if you are an owner with a fleet of 
5,000 systems and many megawatts that are impacted, it could represent 
a lot of money.''
    NREL's analysis also points to a possible need for more stringent 
testing of solar panels, Jordan said. For example, his team's analysis 
determined that hail begins to have long-term impacts on solar output 
when it exceeds about 1 inch in diameter. The current industry standard 
calls for solar panels to be stress-tested for impact by hail of up to 
1 inch. But given the increased frequency of severe hail across the 
country, Jordan said this standard may not adequately protect against 
lasting damage.
    Jordan said he also had concerns about trends such as using larger 
modules with thinner front-side glass panels in utility-scale solar 
installations, as these modules may be more susceptible to weather-
related damages.
    The study also found that high wind events cause lasting damage to 
solar panels beginning at about 56 miles per hour, and that heavy 
snowfall may cause long-term damage beginning at depths of 1 meter, or 
a little over three feet.
    These impacts aren't uniform across all impacted panels, Jordan 
said. Some panels, for example, might be sheltered from high winds by 
trees or buildings. Or poor installation or component quality could 
cause certain panels to be more susceptible to weather-related 
productivity losses.
    The study didn't differentiate between residential and utility-
scale solar installations, and wasn't able to explore the specific 
reasons why severe weather caused long-term productivity losses, said 
Kirsten Perry, a data scientist on NREL's PV reliability and 
performance team. She said NREL hopes to parse these issues and expand 
the dataset to include other kinds of natural disasters, such as 
heatwaves and wildfires, in future research.

    Mr. Perry. It just seems to me we are just blowing money 
that we don't have while FEMA asks for more.
    And then finally, I look at the distribution of the BRIC 
funds State ranking. I have DC here with three disaster 
declarations, including inauguration, like that's an emergency 
we didn't see coming, apparently. Meanwhile, you have 
Mississippi with 21. DC is way up here, getting all this money. 
Mississippi is way down here, getting none of this money. 
That's an issue, ma'am, that needs to be resolved.
    But I see my time has expired. So, I am going to yield my 
time and recognize the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus, the 
ranking member.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just a couple of things. When you're talking about 
measuring the results of mitigation, it's harder to measure 
something that doesn't happen than it is to measure something 
that does happen. And the purpose of mitigation is to keep 
things from happening. So, it's not just so easy to come with a 
statistic that the chairman apparently is looking for.
    Also, representing Las Vegas, in the sunniest, hottest, 
driest State in the country, we have a great appreciation for 
heat islands and the damage that can be done to a community, to 
infrastructure, to individuals, to pets because of this extreme 
heat. So, planting trees does make a big difference in an area 
like that, and that can quickly lead to disaster. In some 
areas, it leads to fire, like I said, death, kind of 
devastation of a neighborhood. And so, we appreciate the 
emphasis on some of these heat islands that apparently the 
chairman doesn't have in Pennsylvania.
    I did want to ask you, though--my glasses broke, so, I am 
sorry--the BRIC Program was five times oversubscribed. I 
mentioned that, and I think you may have mentioned it, too, and 
that many of the applicants were first time--the first time 
they had applied for one of these grants. I wonder if you could 
tell us kind of how that has evolved, if it's oversubscribed, 
what we can do. Do you need more funds? Would you just go into 
a little more detail about that program?
    And having so many applicants seems to me to be one 
indicator that it must be successful because people want to be 
part of it.
    Ms. Salinas. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. And 
as you said, there has been a growing demand and realization 
across this Nation of the need to take action and reduce risk. 
Part of that has been the well-studied return on investment 
that hazard mitigation has, and our ongoing commitment to 
ensuring that all of the projects are cost effective. And we 
are seeing that many communities are becoming first-time 
applicants. And we have been working very closely with them to 
be able to better access our programs.
    Some of those concrete things we are doing are dismantling 
the barriers to access Federal funding. So, for instance, over 
the last couple of years, not only have we streamlined language 
in our notices of funding, we have become much more proactive 
in how we provide support. So, you heard me mention direct 
technical assistance. The number of communities we are helping 
with that means that many of those are starting to now access 
competitive grants that they couldn't have accessed before.
    We have also been providing and changing requirements 
around the support we give to low-income communities for 
conducting benefit-cost analysis, again, which is a requirement 
for all of our programs. It used to be an impediment, a 
barrier. People had to hire contractors in some cases. And 
because we recognize that low-income communities and rural 
areas, Tribal nations, and others could not necessarily do 
that, we have been providing more direct support. And we are 
seeing the results of that in the application numbers. The 
number of first-time applicants, the communities that feel like 
they can now move forward and take action on their risk is 
growing both for the hazard mitigation grant portfolio, but 
also our nonprofit security grant and our other preparedness 
programs.
    And so, there is certainly a pent-up demand by communities 
across this Nation to be prepared, to be ready, to reduce risk, 
and prevent the preventable.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. In some of the smaller communities, 
you find that they don't have a technical grant writer. It's 
kind of like, well, you're not busy, how about filling out this 
grant for us? And now, in this very competitive world, that is 
just not going to cut it. they are not going to be able to get 
the resources that they may need or even know that they are out 
there. So, when you talk about technical assistance, does that 
help with hiring grant writers? Tell us a little bit more about 
those things.
    Ms. Salinas. Absolutely. Through the technical assistance 
we provide, there are a number of things that we are doing. And 
it is also many of our grant programs, like the Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program, have management costs that States can 
use for the non-Federal capacity they need to build. And so, 
there are certainly different avenues through our programs to 
build that capacity that is needed.
    And the other thing that we are doing is making sure that--
you mentioned, ma'am, the Community Disaster Resilience Zones 
legislation that had bipartisan support. It is also enabling us 
and other Federal agencies to really prioritize those places 
that are most at risk and most in need and provide even more 
proactive customer service and support to those communities to 
navigate both FEMA funding and other funding that will help 
them address their resilience issues. And so, it is a 
multifaceted approach. These communities are facing complex, 
interwoven challenges. We saw it last summer in DC. We had 
extreme heat, but Canada's wildfire smoke. This is a new world 
that we are living in with really interrelated hazards and 
communities are wanting to tackle that holistically.
    Ms. Titus. They don't just stop at the border, do they, the 
problems? Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Representative Graves.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you very much for being here today.
    I am trying to understand how you prioritize. Louisiana 
submitted 113 BRIC project requests before they received the 
first one. And I want to make note, they received the first one 
in year 3.
    I was actually very involved, working with then-Chairman 
Shuster and with DeFazio, in establishing BRIC. I couldn't be 
more supportive of mitigation and resiliency efforts when they 
make sense, which I think is what our chairman was getting to.
    Louisiana is one of the most at-risk States in the Nation. 
I hear administration officials coming down to Louisiana and 
talking about sea rise and our risk all the time. It is very 
difficult for me to understand how it took 3 years and 113 
project submissions before we get our first one. And then 
Washington, DC, is getting one of the highest allocations in 
the country.
    This, I will tell you, wasn't the intent of the program. 
And I am just struggling with understanding how this possibly 
could be fair.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much, sir, for that question. And 
I share your concern for the risks that Louisiana and other 
States and coastal communities are facing. And for your 
question around BRIC in particular, it is one of our 
competitive grant programs, right? As you know, Louisiana--we 
have a suite of grant programs, including the Hazard Mitigation 
Grant Program, which a State administers directly.
    And with BRIC, part of it is a State set-aside, so every 
single State gets a portion that they can use as they see fit 
for their priorities. The other portion has been competitive. 
And that is where we continue to iterate and improve how we 
look at that so that every State--and one will see it in the 
numbers last year--every State will get----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. I hear you. I hear 
you. But I guess it's really difficult for me to understand how 
to reconcile the two things, that we are the most impacted 
State and sea rise is going to destroy our State, and climate 
is going to ruin our future, yet we are getting no recognition.
    And so, under FEMA's strategic plan, they list three goals. 
And I think that this is really the crux of why we are seeing 
these distorted allocations. FEMA talks about trying to address 
equity, climate resilience, and FEMA readiness. Can you tell me 
where in the Stafford Act those three things are?
    Ms. Salinas. Our strategic goals and our strategic plan are 
aimed at better helping us deliver on our mission----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. Hang on. I just 
want to make sure you understand the question.
    Can you tell me where in the Stafford Act those three 
objectives are?
    Ms. Salinas. The Stafford Act requires FEMA to provide our 
support without any discrimination. And these goals help us 
achieve that----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. I appreciate your 
answer. It is not answering the question, though.
    Are those three things in the Stafford Act?
    Ms. Salinas. The Stafford Act requires us to deliver our 
support without discrimination. And these goals are how we 
operationalize that.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I am going to ask you to stop. So, 
you are not answering my question, and I think we both 
understand the answer is, no, these are not in the Stafford 
Act.
    And so, what this does is it results in distorted outcomes. 
Look, this is what I did for a living and committed much of my 
life to resilience of communities. Louisiana has lost 2,000 
square miles of our coast. It's like wiping the State of Rhode 
Island off the map.
    If you come in and you use bad metrics that don't consider 
all of the risk, you are going to result in bad outcomes. You 
are going to miss opportunities.
    Look, I will agree with you, climate is a risk, it is a 
threat. It is not the only one. And if we continue to sit there 
and myopically focus on it, we are going to miss opportunities 
to result in better outcomes, more resilient communities. And I 
think it's a very dangerous trajectory that FEMA is going down 
right now.
    I want to ask you another question. How do you consider 
Risk Rating 2.0 and that methodology in how you prioritize 
grants under the BRIC Program?
    Ms. Salinas. The Risk Rating 2.0 has been the way that we 
now have actuarially sound pricing to make sure that--for our 
National Flood Insurance Program----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. I am familiar with 
what it is. How do you factor it in?
    Ms. Salinas. As I mentioned, we have a portfolio of 
programs, and those two are not interrelated. But what I would 
like to mention----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. So, I am running 
out of time. I apologize for cutting you off, but I just want 
to make sure. So, that is not, that methodology, that criteria 
is not used to prioritize mitigation grants?
    Ms. Salinas. The BRIC Program does not use Risk Rating 2.0.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. OK, thank you. I am just trying to 
understand that. I want to make sure I did.
    So, lastly, does that mean that the mitigation investments 
you make are totally separate from the Risk Rating 2.0 
methodology, to where if you make investments, it is very 
possible that flood insurance rates don't even go down, because 
there is a complete disconnect between the two?
    Ms. Salinas. Communities through our programs are 
addressing their most important disaster risks. And in 
Louisiana, for instance, the Flood Mitigation Assistance 
Program----
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana [interrupting]. I am sorry, I am 
out of time. Is that a yes or a no?
    Ms. Salinas. Our programs reduce disaster risk, and they 
reduce disaster flooding.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Will it lower rates? Will it lower 
rates?
    Ms. Salinas. When communities take action to reduce flood 
risk, it does have an impact through the community rating 
system on lowering the policy premiums.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee.
    Representative Larsen, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So, the Disaster Relief Fund is expected to run out 
sometime this August. Is that correct?
    Ms. Salinas. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. So, if that 
happens, the Agency may be then forced to implement Immediate 
Needs Funding again this summer, if Congress does not pass the 
supplemental?
    Ms. Salinas. This administration submitted a $9 billion 
supplemental request last year to address that estimated 
shortfall in the Disaster Relief Fund, and I fully support that 
request, as it will allow us to maintain the capacity needed 
for fiscal year 2024 levels and ensure we can fulfill our 
mission.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, what is the short-term impact 
to hazard mitigation projects from FEMA having to implement the 
Immediate Needs Funding?
    Ms. Salinas. For the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, like 
the Public Assistance Program, when we are in Immediate Needs 
Funding, the focus is life safety. And that means that 
obligations flow down to those communities that are in active 
recoveries and investing in their resilience, which has 
trickle----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Can I put that in 
English, perhaps, for you? It's a lot of FEMA talk and 
bureaucracy talk. What it will mean is that some projects that 
were slated to get funding otherwise----
    Ms. Salinas [interrupting]. Will be delayed.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [continuing]. Will not get 
funding.
    Ms. Salinas. They will be delayed.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Right, immediately will not get 
funding. They will be delayed until, presumably, until there is 
a supplemental.
    Ms. Salinas. Until there is a supplemental.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, we will be in a position 
where we were sometime last year? We went through this circus 
last year; is that right?
    Ms. Salinas. We were in a situation of Immediate Needs 
Funding last year as well, where payments had to be slowed 
because of the focus on life safety until there was a 
supplemental.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. And there is no way to get around 
that, from FEMA's perspective?
    Ms. Salinas. As the administration has requested, the 
approach for addressing the health of the Disaster Relief Fund 
is the $9 billion supplemental request that was submitted last 
year.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Got it. So, moving a little bit, 
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program recipients are allowed to 
use a percentage of the funding they receive to manage that 
grant. So, hearing from the emergency management folks in my 
State, and presumably others, it takes a while to receive that 
funding. So, they are essentially managing the grant on their 
own costs, as opposed to being able to pay for that management. 
And delays in determining the amount of that funding that will 
be provided may be causing a backlog of projects at FEMA. So, 
what is FEMA doing to work with our States to streamline that 
process, ensure State and locals can access those grant and 
management funds in a more timely manner?
    Ms. Salinas. I, like you, am eager to see these grants 
awarded and to see shovels in the ground. That is a priority 
for us all. And we are----
    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. It's usually 
backhoes, but yes. It's usually backhoes.
    Ms. Salinas. Backhoes. We are making progress, and we are 
expecting to see the pace of the awards continue to increase in 
the near future. And so, there are many things we are doing to 
get those grants out the door faster, from working with 
stakeholders more efficiently and transparently, promoting 
consistent decisions and awards, supporting our regions to 
facilitate that back and forth whenever information is needed, 
and to simplify our cost-effectiveness methods. And so, these 
are all things, given the extreme need, that we have been doing 
to really deliver the programs more effectively. And as I 
mentioned earlier, management costs are one of those things 
that States really rely on to be able to build the capacity 
they need to deliver on the projects funded.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, it is pretty critical, 
because the States are the ones with their locals who are 
really doing the work here. So, if you can continue to focus on 
that, I would appreciate it.
    Given the critical nature of mitigation projects in 
communities at risk for disasters, it is important that these 
grants for projects are provided. Have you looked at the 
average length of time from award to receiving the funding for 
BRIC grants and for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program grants?
    Ms. Salinas. Sorry, can you repeat the question?
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Have you had a look at the time, 
the average length of time, from award to receiving the grants 
for BRIC and for HMGP?
    Ms. Salinas. The timeline for the different grant programs 
varies. And our big focus is trying to expedite and tighten 
those timeframes from selection to review to award to 
implementation, because that is where we see the change in the 
world.
    And for the BRIC Programs, many of the projects that have 
been submitted are transformational in nature, and so, they are 
larger scale projects and have more complexity to the review 
process before they can actually get built.
    Other projects are sometimes very small. We mentioned the 
STORM Revolving Loan Fund earlier. That is able to fund a lot 
of smaller dollar, $5 million and less projects really quickly 
because there is less complexity. So, we have many different 
project types that are eligible across our programs, given the 
needs of communities vary. And the timeline oftentimes is very 
much woven in the type and complexity of the project a 
community is trying to undertake.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. That's fine. Thank you. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Washington.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, 
Representative Ezell.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ms. 
Salinas, for being here today discussing these very important 
matters.
    I grew up in south Mississippi, on the Mississippi gulf 
coast, and unfortunately that is a hot spot for hurricanes. And 
I will say that I have policed every hurricane in south 
Mississippi since 1979. And during my time as a sheriff there, 
I helped many communities try to recover from some of these 
events. And when Katrina hit, I ended up with 4 feet of mud and 
water in my house, so, I understand.
    The effect of FEMA's resiliency programs is critical for my 
district. I would like to start with the grant program that I 
think needs some improvement, the BRIC funding. Many studies 
have shown that States on the gulf and in the Midwest have 
struggled to receive some of the competitive portions of the 
grant. ``Struggled'' may be a nice word, because as we heard 
earlier, and I was going to bring this up anyway, Mississippi 
has received no money from the program whatsoever. I think most 
would agree that Mississippi is a hot spot for natural 
disasters.
    What steps is your Agency taking to ensure these funds are 
distributed more evenly?
    Ms. Salinas. Sir, thank you so much for your question. And 
I know firsthand so many of the challenges Mississippi has been 
facing. I was in Rolling Fork a couple years ago before the 
tornadoes, focused on Mississippi River challenges with 
flooding.
    We have many different programs that are being used to 
reduce disaster risk. And there is progress being made in 
helping States and communities utilize them. Not only for BRIC, 
as you asked about, have we seen every State now be able to 
benefit in recent years and have projects selected. Through our 
Swift Current Program, which is part of the Flood Mitigation 
Assistance Program, we saw Mississippi in particular--it had 
been since 2009 that Mississippi had not benefited from the 
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. But with Swift Current, 
and the incredible partnership between the State of Mississippi 
and our region 6 and headquarters colleagues, they were able to 
access the new Swift Current to address flood risk issues in 
the State.
    And so, the point here is that there are many tools. BRIC 
is one. It is competitive. There are the State set-asides. It 
has a Tribal set-aside. But the Hazard Mitigation Grant 
Program, the flood mitigation assistance, dam safety, there are 
so many tools--STORM--that exist, that we are working to ensure 
that communities and States and Tribes are accessing to meet 
their unique needs.
    Mr. Ezell. Do you believe the program is working as it was 
intended to in allocating these funds to areas that have been 
most affected by the disasters?
    Ms. Salinas. For the BRIC Program? Or which one in 
particular, sir? Sorry.
    Mr. Ezell. The BRIC. Do you believe it has been working as 
it was intended to?
    Ms. Salinas. BRIC was conceived as an opportunity to do 
more risk reduction before disasters occur. And we are seeing 
so much risk across this Nation. And so, the criteria, the 
approach to the competitive portion of BRIC is certainly 
helping communities do those more transformational projects. 
And the State set-asides are helping States and Tribal nations 
for the Tribal set-aside do that work. We also doubled the 
Tribal set-aside over the last couple of years to enable Tribal 
nations to tackle their resilience issues as well.
    Mr. Ezell. Many of the small, rural communities in my 
district have told me they lack the resources to apply for 
hazard mitigation grants. I understand FEMA recently hired a 
small State and rural advocate. But beyond that, what is the 
Agency doing to ensure rural communities have every opportunity 
to participate in these programs?
    Ms. Salinas. We, too, want to ensure that all communities, 
rural communities included, are able to build and invest in 
their resilience. And so, in addition to an advocate, our 
programs like the BRIC Direct Technical Assistance Program are 
helping many rural communities across this Nation, from the 
South, all the way to rural Alaska, to address their resilience 
needs.
    In addition, FEMA is partnering very closely with the Rural 
Partners Network, the training and education I mentioned 
earlier. We have rural partners that deploy training for 
emergency management and risk reduction to communities 
themselves. And so, we have a comprehensive approach to 
emergency management and resilience building that is inclusive 
of the needs of rural communities. And like I said, we are 
trying to systematically dismantle those barriers that 
communities face, whether it's how to do a benefit-cost 
analysis, whether it's hazard mitigation planning, all those 
essential things. Our teams are building our capacity to enable 
the State and local governments and the communities they serve 
to invest in their resilience.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you for that. And just so you will know, 
we are still struggling to recover some of the funds from 
Katrina in 2005. And so, that just makes it even more difficult 
for our towns when they are having to fork out a lot of money. 
So, we need your help. So, let's get busy. Thank you.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much, sir.
    Mr. Ezell. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District 
of Columbia, Representative Norton, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Salinas, climate change has fueled an alarming increase 
in the number and severity of natural disasters across the 
Nation. To better help communities prepare for the mitigation 
of the climate crisis, FEMA established the first Community 
Disaster Resilience Zones, including here in the District of 
Columbia, which I represent. How will these zones help the 
District of Columbia and other jurisdictions mitigate extreme 
weather events?
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you for that question, Representative.
    We share a desire to see resilience built across this 
Nation. And there are so many needs that prioritization and 
working where there are the highest risk, highest need 
communities is exactly what the Community Disaster Resilience 
Zone Act called on FEMA to do, and what it is enabling us to do 
in partnership with many others.
    So, our intention with implementing the Community Disaster 
Resilience Zones is to build resilience across this Nation in 
those most at-risk places. This new program, we established the 
first set of zones at the end of last year in every State and 
the District of Columbia, as you mentioned. And it is enabling 
us to do a couple of things.
    Not only did the legislation call on a better cost share--
that has come up as a big barrier for many underserved and 
rural communities. So, it is a 90-percent Federal share for 
those projects, similar for all of the CDR Zones. It also 
called on us to collaborate better with other Federal agencies. 
And so, we are seeing other agencies use these resilience zones 
as ways to prioritize technical assistance and grant funding, 
so that together we are driving and supporting resilience 
building in areas that it is most critical.
    We are also partnering with other sectors. And so, it is a 
great opportunity and a forcing function and a force multiplier 
to see the private sector, philanthropy step in. And in the 
Southeast United States, we have already seen certain 
philanthropies begin working with local nonprofits and 
universities to really support communities both better 
understand the risks that they face, develop the plans needed 
to tackle it, and then mobilize the funding for multiple 
sectors to see those plans turn into concrete actions and 
benefits for people and communities. So, it has been an 
incredible opportunity that we give great gratitude for 
Congress for that, for the bipartisan CDRZs legislation, as it 
will certainly be a new tool and a way to make progress in this 
Nation.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you. The Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities Program funds billions of 
dollars in pre-disaster mitigation projects at State and local 
levels. These projects will help our local communities better 
withstand extreme weather events.
    How have BRIC grants helped my district--the District of 
Columbia--and other jurisdictions become more resilient?
    Ms. Salinas. The great opportunity that BRIC and our other 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs have afforded communities is 
an opportunity to really invest in what they see as critical. 
So, even here in the District of Columbia, last year, I had an 
opportunity to visit DC Water, providing many of us perhaps 
sustainability in drinking water in our own homes, where flood 
risk and natural disaster could create major challenges. And 
the District of Columbia wanted to make sure there was energy 
redundancy there. And so, BRIC helped contribute to that 
project.
    And so, around the Nation, we are seeing communities being 
able to access these dollars to make sure their people are 
safe, that critical lifelines don't fail, and that we are 
preventing the preventable. Because particularly when we are 
talking about natural hazards and disaster risk, there is much 
we can do to prevent the human suffering that disasters cause, 
and BRIC and our many other programs are part of that solution.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Utah, 
Representative Maloy, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Salinas, thank you for being here. I have been sitting 
here listening. The nice thing about going last is that all the 
questions I intend to ask always get asked before I get to ask 
any questions. And so, I just want to follow up on some of the 
things that have already been said.
    I was looking at the Stafford Act this morning, and it does 
say that one of the things FEMA is supposed to do, that 
Congress has told FEMA to do, is encourage States, individuals, 
and local governments to protect themselves. And then I am 
sitting here listening. And what I am hearing instead of that 
is flood insurance rates are prohibitively expensive and 
Congress isn't privy to the methodologies that are used to 
determine those rates. And success is being measured by how 
many grant applications are being submitted.
    Of course local governments are applying for Federal 
dollars. They are always looking for more income streams. But I 
don't think that is a measure of how successful the Agency is 
being at meeting their mission and doing what Congress has 
authorized them to do. At-risk areas are not getting the grants 
they need, but Washington, DC, the seat of all bureaucracy, is 
getting grants.
    This feels like it's just an example of what's wrong with 
bureaucracy. An Agency that exists to assist in disasters isn't 
assisting the areas that have the most disasters. State and 
local governments aren't getting the assistance they need to 
protect themselves, which is one of the things that the Agency 
is supposed to do. And rural areas, like a lot of my district, 
aren't qualifying for assistance. So, some of the people who 
are the least resilient and need the most help aren't 
qualifying for it. And then we keep talking about an increase 
in disasters, but the increase in disasters isn't resulting in 
an increase in the quality of assistance, it's just creating 
more bureaucracy.
    And you have done a fairly heroic job here today of 
defending the Agency and talking about what you are doing. But 
I am not hearing answers that are satisfying to me as a Member 
of Congress. We have oversight over the Agency, and we have a 
responsibility to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being 
used appropriately. And all I am hearing is an Agency that 
keeps asking for more and more taxpayer dollars isn't giving 
satisfying answers about how they are being used. And it seems 
like it would be irresponsible for us to keep increasing 
funding for these programs that aren't doing what they were 
intended to do.
    If my colleague, Mr. Graves, was still here, I would yield 
the rest of my time back to him so he could follow up on the 
line of questioning that he didn't get to finish. But I just 
want to say, the most fundamental question we should be asking 
in this kind of a hearing is why should taxpayers, in a Nation 
that's drowning in debt, trust your Agency with more taxpayer 
dollars? And I haven't heard a good answer to that question 
during this hearing.
    And if you want, I will give you a minute to try to answer 
that. But it's going to have to be a different answer than what 
I've already been hearing.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much, Representative. And we, 
too, are committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are 
building resilience across this Nation. And so, what we are 
seeing is that the number of applications coming in far exceeds 
the dollars that we have to invest. And there are a number of 
ways that we are looking at ensuring the benefit and 
streamlining support, because that is also key for us as well.
    And so, across our programs, we have been reducing barriers 
to applying. We have also been making sure that there is 
technical support to many different types of communities to 
access those dollars.
    We also have been committed through lifting up great 
practices and supporting communities in designing projects, 
doing hazard mitigation planning, a whole suite of things that 
really makes it easier to access those dollars. And that is one 
of the fundamental steps, is reducing barriers.
    The other is providing support in communities to help them 
with the planning, both through BRIC DTA, through other 
mechanisms, we do provide that direct support to communities to 
be able to better leverage our dollars.
    Ms. Maloy. I would hope in this kind of hearing, we would 
hear a plan for how these disaster-prone areas are going to get 
higher priority for the grant programs that exist, and some 
actual concrete answers on what barriers are being broken down 
for underserved areas, including rural areas, and not just that 
you are doing it but some proof that it's working.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, 
Representative D'Esposito.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 
morning, Ms. Salinas.
    So, I represent the southwest corner of Long Island. It's 
an area that was not only crushed in Hurricane Sandy, but just 
months prior to that, Tropical Storm Irene devastated it. I 
remember days following Hurricane Sandy, there were homeowners 
who still had the stickers on their appliances from replacing 
them from Irene that were now flooded out during Sandy.
    So, during that time in 2012, I served as chief of the 
Island Park Fire Department. I was the incident commander 
during Hurricane Sandy. And obviously, I know how critical 
access to timely and sufficient funding was such a major 
challenge to emergency managers throughout Long Island.
    So, I know that there has been a program put in place, the 
Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program, which aims 
to remove some of the barriers that communities face when 
seeking mitigation funding. I know that it's a new program 
started in 2021. And understanding that, with any Government 
program, there is often bureaucracy and redtape, especially 
when implementing a new program. And I was wondering if you can 
just briefly explain and tell me how the implementation of this 
program is going, and if you feel that it has been successful 
thus far.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much sir, and great to see you 
again.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Same here.
    Ms. Salinas. The STORM, our new revolving loan fund, is a 
great new tool in the portfolio of our Hazard Mitigation 
Assistance programs. And in the first round of STORM, we had 
multiple jurisdictions, States apply for these revolving loan 
dollars, requesting more dollars than we had actually put out 
in the first notice of funding.
    And so, we certainly--we have been taking a test and learn 
approach, because we are really committed to ensuring we are 
streamlining, reducing barriers, making our programs easier to 
access. And so, there are certainly some lessons learned from 
this first round of funding that we are taking into the second 
round.
    But we are seeing multiple States already begin to use the 
STORM dollars. And some of those benefits that we are 
particularly excited about is that the STORM dollars can be 
used as match for Federal funds, because that is one of the 
biggest barriers many communities face. It puts the cost-
effectiveness requirements on the State so that that part is 
also easier for local governments and the States to manage on 
their own.
    So, the nimbleness of this new revolving loan fund will be 
critical in addressing the many smaller dollar risk reduction 
projects that make a huge impact in communities. So, a lot of 
lessons learned coming, but it is one of those things where 
this next round will be responsive to those changes that we 
have seen and heard from stakeholders.
    Mr. D'Esposito. And how have you done outreach to different 
communities? I mean, obviously, whether you are from 
Pennsylvania, from Utah, from New York, or anywhere else across 
this country, the resources that are needed, although the 
mission is the same when it comes to managing emergencies, very 
often, those resources vary. So, how are you making sure that 
you are connecting with emergency managers and municipalities 
from throughout this country, not just in the big places like 
New York City, but in the smaller communities so that they have 
available the resources that they need in order to keep their 
communities safe?
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Connecting with a broad range of 
stakeholders is key to mission success for us. And so, in the 
numbers and even who is applying and first-time applicants, we 
see success in that we are having many new entities apply for 
funding. And that is due to very robust outreach that has taken 
the form not just of traditional webinars and pushing out 
information, but also proactive approaches.
    We have been talking about grant programs today. But even 
in our exercise and training programs that we offer to local 
governments free of cost, we have been proactively reaching out 
to say, you are a community that is perhaps in a Community 
Disaster Resilience Zone. Have you taken advantage of this? Can 
we help you use these programs more? And so, we are really 
changing our own approach to be more proactive and using risk 
information, using Community Disaster Resilience Zones 
designations, and listening to where there is that need so that 
we are proactively supporting communities to access the 
resources they need. And so, it has been great to see the 
changes in applications come in, as evidence of that outreach.
    Mr. D'Esposito. And I only have a few seconds, but I just 
want to leave you with one last thing. Obviously, during the 
Biden administration, we have seen an obscene amount of 
wasteful spending in this administration that's going to cost 
our children and grandchildren for decades. I would just ask 
that you please make sure that we keep an eye on duplication of 
funds and wastefulness in this program. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    Are there further questions from any members of the 
subcommittee who have not yet been recognized?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Perry. Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for 
today.
    Administrator, we thank you for your testimony, your 
timeliness, and your willingness to be here.
    At that, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                      Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              

  Letter of May 1, 2024, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon. Dina 
  Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management, from AEC Science & Technology, LLC 
          et al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
                                                       May 1, 2024.
The Honorable Scott Perry,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
        Management, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 
        20515.
The Honorable Dina Titus,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
        Management, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 
        20515.
    Dear Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Titus:
    As the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 
Emergency Management considers the value of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's (FEMA) mitigation expenditures, we write to call 
your attention to the well-documented return on investment that the 
adoption and effective implementation of resilient building codes 
provides as well as the longstanding bipartisan support that enabled 
and encouraged FEMA to focus on these activities. The Subcommittee's 
May 1st hearing is particularly timely as it marks the beginning of 
Building Safety Month, an international public awareness effort to 
highlight the importance of building safety professionals in ensuring 
the resilience and safety of our built environment.
    Numerous studies confirm that the adoption and implementation of 
current model building codes is one of the best mitigation strategies 
for lessening the impacts of natural hazards, including hurricanes and 
flooding.\1\ \2\ \3\ \4\ \5\ The National Institute of Building 
Sciences (NIBS)--a Congressionally chartered building science 
organization--estimates that building to modern building codes saves 
$11 dollars for every $1 dollar invested through earthquake, flood, and 
wind mitigation benefits, while retrofitting 2.5 million homes in the 
wildland urban interface to wildfire codes could provide a nationwide 
benefit-cost ratio as high as $8 dollars for every $1 dollar 
invested.\6\ FEMA projects that if all future construction adhered to 
current model codes, the nation would avoid more than $600 billion 
dollars in cumulative losses from floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes 
by 2060.\7\ Three U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories 
recently found that during prolonged weather-induced power outages, 
coupled with extreme heat or cold, current codes can reduce deaths due 
to extreme heat by 80% and extreme cold by 30%.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Porter, K. Do Disaster-Resistant Buildings Deliver Climate 
Benefits? SPA Risk LLC (2021).
    \2\ FEMA, Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study (Nov. 2020).
    \3\ Corelogic, Can Modern Building Codes Impact Mortgage 
Delinquency After Hurricanes? (Aug. 2023).
    \4\ Kousky, C., M. Palim, and Y. Pan. Flood Damage and Mortgage 
Credit Risk: A Case Study of Hurricane Harvey, Journal of Housing 
Research v. 29 (Nov. 2020).
    \5\ Corelogic, What Are the Effects of Natural Hazards on Mortgage 
Delinquencies? (Nov. 2021).
    \6\ NIBS, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report 
(2019).
    \7\ FEMA, Protecting Communities and Saving Money: The Case for 
Adopting Building Codes (Nov. 2020).
    \8\ DOE, Enhancing Resilience in Buildings Through Energy 
Efficiency (July 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, contemporary research continues to find that modern 
model building codes have no appreciable implications for housing 
affordability \9\ \10\ \11\--in fact, no peer-reviewed research has 
found otherwise. One study considering the role of government 
regulation on home prices found that construction costs--including 
labor and materials--were flat from 1980 to 2013, a period during which 
construction codes were widely adopted and updated.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Simmons, K. & Kovacs, P., Real Estate Market Response to 
Enhanced Building Codes in Moore, OK, Investigative Journal of Risk 
Reduction (Mar. 2018) (stronger building code had no effect on the 
price per square foot or home sales).
    \10\ NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, Cost Analyses and Benefit 
Studies for Earthquake-Resistant Construction in Memphis, Tennessee, 
NIST GCR 14-917-26 (2013) (adopting stronger codes would add less than 
1-percent to the construction while reducing annualized loss--in terms 
of repair cost, collapse probability, and fatalities--by approximately 
50-percent).
    \11\ Porter, K., Resilience-related building-code changes don't 
affect affordability, SPA Risk LLC Working Paper Series 2019-01 (2019) 
(over the nearly 30-year period studied only increased a home's 
purchase price by around a half a percentage point in earthquake 
country or in an area affected by riverine flood).
    \12\ Gyourko, J. & Molloy, R., Regulation and Housing Supply, 
Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume 5B Chapter 19 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In recognition of their well-documented benefits, FEMA has 
incentivized and encouraged the use of resilient codes at all levels of 
government to ``increase the resilience of communities after a 
disaster,'' ``protect lives and property,'' and to ``reduc[e] the need 
for future Federal disaster recovery funding and other assistance.'' 
\13\ This approach transcends partisanship; it was significantly 
advanced during the Trump Administration through FEMA \14\ as well as 
within the Federal government's National Mitigation Investment 
Strategy--developed by the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group 
(MitFLG) \15\--and continues today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ FEMA, Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards for 
Public Assistance, FEMA Recovery Interim Policy FP-104-009-11 Version 
2.1 (Dec. 2019)
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Mitigation 
Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG), National Mitigation Investment 
Strategy (Aug. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FEMA's efforts have similarly, and consistently, received 
bipartisan support from Congress. The most comprehensive update to 
FEMA's natural hazards response and recovery authorities, the Robert T. 
Stafford Act Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, 
as amended), in the last decade was drafted and advanced by Republican 
leadership in the U.S. House and Senate. That legislation, the Disaster 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2018 (Div. D of P.L. 115-254), for the 
first time authorized FEMA to provide grants pre-disaster to assist 
communities in adopting, updating, and enforcing resilient building 
codes.\16\ Congress' doing so sensibly expanded FEMA's preexisting 
post-disaster support for these same activities, which FEMA has 
supported since the 1990s. These activities principally support the 
evaluation and mitigation of existing risk to the built environment 
through experts, community engagement, and training. Recognizing that 
some jurisdictions have adopted stronger codes than those adopted at 
the state level, FEMA's Fiscal Year 2023 Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program incentivizes both 
state and local adoption and implementation of hazard-resistant codes 
in making mitigation project awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Compare H.R. 4460 (committee-passed), 115th Cong. (2018) 
(authoring grants ``to establish and carry out enforcement activities 
to implement the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based 
codes, specifications, and standards that incorporate the latest 
hazard-resistant designs''), with H.R. 302 (enacted), 115th Cong. 
(2018) (``to establish and carry out enforcement activities and 
implement the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based 
codes, specifications, and standards that incorporate the latest 
hazard-resistant designs'') (clarifying that grants can support both 
the adoption and enforcement of resilient codes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We welcome the Subcommittee's review of FEMA's mitigation 
leadership and encourage continued bipartisan support for the 
development, adoption, and effective implementation of resilient 
building codes and standards.
            Sincerely,

AEC Science & Technology, LLC.
American Concrete Institute.
American Property Casualty Insurance Association.
American Society of Civil Engineers.
American Society of Interior Designers.
Applied Technology Council.
ASHRAE.
Association of State Floodplain Managers.
BuildStrong America.
Concrete Foundations Association.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute.
Congressional Fire Services Institute.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
EPDM Roofing Association.
Federal Alliance for Safe Homes--FLASH, Inc.
Flood Mitigation Industry Association.
Habitat for Humanity International.
Institute for Market Transformation.
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety.
International Association of Fire Chiefs.
International Association of Fire Fighters.
International Association of Structural Movers.
International Code Council.
International Institute of Building Enclosure Consultants.
Knauf Insulation.
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
National Association of State Energy Officials.
National Association of State Fire Marshals.
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations.
National Environmental Health Association.
National Fire Protection Association.
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.
Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association.
Portland Cement Association.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.
Reinsurance Association of America.
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association.
Single Ply Roofing Industry.
Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
Structural Engineers Association of California.
Tilt-Up Concrete Association.
U.S. Green Building Council.
U.S. Resiliency Council.
Union of Concerned Scientists.

                                 
 International Code Council's 2024 Building Safety Month Proclamations 
 Prepared for the Subcommittee, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick 
                                 Larsen
        2024 Building Safety Month Proclamations provided by the
                       International Code Council
    Prepared for submission to the T&I Subcommittee on Economic 
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, hearing 
entitled, ``Disaster Mitigation: Reviewing the Effectiveness and Costs 
of FEMA's Resilience Programs.''
                              May 1, 2024

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                    Statewide            Org/AHJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grace F. Napolitano (CA)........  District..........  ICC LA BASIN
                                                       CHAPTER
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/generated/
 ICC_LA_BASIN_CHAPTER-California.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Garamendi (CA).............  District..........  Central Coast ICC
                                                       Chapter of Code
                                                       Officials
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/generated/
 Central_Coast_ICC_Chapter_of_Code_Officials-California.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Huffman (CA)..............  District..........  Redwood Empire
                                                       Association of
                                                       Code Officials
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/generated/
 Redwood_Empire_Association_of_Code_Officials-California.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)......  Statewide.........  D.C. Code
                                                       Officials
                                                       Association
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/generated/
 D_C_Code_Officials_Association_DCCOA-District%20of%20Columbia.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharice Davids (KS).............  District..........  City of Lenexa
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/uploaded/
 2024-Proclamation-_Lenexa-Kansas.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Graves (MO) (ex officio)....  Statewide.........  Missouri
                                                       Association of
                                                       Building
                                                       Officials &
                                                       Inspectors
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/uploaded/
 Chapter-Proclimation-ICC.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dina Titus (NV), Ranking Member.  Both..............  Nevada
                                                       Organization of
                                                       Building
                                                       Officials
                                                      Southern Nevada
                                                       Building
                                                       Officials
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/generated/
 Nevada_Organization_of_Building_Officials-Nevada.pdf.
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/generated/
 Southern_Nevada_Building_Officials-Nevada.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony D'Esposito (NY).........  Both..............  New York State
                                                       Building
                                                       Officials
                                                       Conference
                                                      Building
                                                       Inspectors
                                                       Association of
                                                       Nassau County
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/Xerox-Scan-20240307-
 101524.pdf.
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/BIANCO.BSM_.pdf..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Chavez-DeRemer (OR), Vice    Statewide.........  Oregon Permit
 Chair.                                                Technicians
                                                       Association
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/generated/
 Oregon_Permit_Technicians_Association-Oregon.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Maloy (UT)..............  District..........  City of Millcreek
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/uploaded/
 Building-Safety-Month-Proclamation-2024-MillcreekUT.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Larsen (WA) (ex officio)...  Statewide.........  Washington State
                                                       Association of
                                                       Permit
                                                       Technicians
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/generated/
 Washington_State_Association_of_Permit_Technicians-Washington.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Van Orden (WI)..........  Statewide.........  State of
                                                       Wisconsin--Gubern
                                                       atorial
                                                       Proclamation
                                                      Wisconsin Code
                                                       Officials
                                                       Alliance
https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/
 050124_Proclamation_Building%20Safety%20Month.pdf.
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/proclamations/2024/uploaded/
 2024-ICC-BSM-Proc-WCOA.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garret Graves (LA)..............  Statewide.........  Building Officials
                                                       Association of
                                                       Louisiana
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/BOAL-2024-BSM-Proclamation-
 Louisiana.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy A. Carter (LA).............  Statewide.........  Building Officials
                                                       Association of
                                                       Louisiana
https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/BOAL-2024-BSM-Proclamation-
 Louisiana.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Perry (PA), Chairman......  District..........  City of York
Proclamation wasn't available at https://www.iccsafe.org/advocacy/
 building-safety-month/2024-proclamations/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's note: The proclamations are retained in committee files and 
are available online via the links provided in the table above.]

                               Appendix

                              ----------                              

Questions to Victoria Salinas, Senior Official Performing the Duties of 
     Deputy Administrator, Office of Resilience, Federal Emergency 
  Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. 
                              Scott Perry

    Question 1. Over the past five fiscal years, FEMA has obligated 
more than $9.5 billion in mitigation funding, which includes funding 
through Public Assistance, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities (BRIC) program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant (HMGP) program, 
and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant program.
    Question 1.a. In your estimation, what percentage of that money has 
been drawn down?
    Answer. For the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities 
(BRIC) program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), and their legacy programs, we estimate 
roughly 27 percent of a $6.4B total funds obligated has been drawn down 
in the last five years as of May 2024. FEMA Is unable to report Public 
Assistance (PA) Mitigation funds drawn down as an isolated figure from 
other PA grants.

    Question 1.b. Once a mitigation project has been approved by FEMA, 
what is the average amount of time it takes for a project to be 
completed?
    Answer. The average timeline for project completion and closeout 
for BRIC, FMA, and HMGP programs from the date of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) approval varies widely depending on the 
project type, ranging from, for example, 35 months for Generator 
projects, to 52 months for Saferooms and Wind Shelters. A common issue 
we most see which can impact project timelines is:
      Capacity of our applicants--HMA project applicants often 
need to spend time and effort pulling together the resources they 
need--whether in administrative, planning, or personnel costs, to 
adequately prepare and execute a project plan.

    Question 1.c. How much of that time is spent waiting for an 
Environmental and Historic Preservation review?
    Answer. Since the Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) 
review is completed prior to the award/obligation, there is no 
additional time associated with the EHP review post award.

    Question 2. In Fiscal Year 2020, the first year that BRIC funding 
was available, FEMA received 991 subapplications for funding. Of those 
subapplications, 406 were selected for further review.
    Question 2.a. How many of those subapplications were eventually 
funded?
    Answer. As of April 30, 2024, 86 percent (351) of Fiscal Year (FY) 
2020 BRIC subapplications received an initial obligation. Of the 
remaining subapplications, 6.9 percent (28) were pending an initial 
obligation, and 7.1 percent (29) had been withdrawn by the Applicant. 
FEMA and BRIC Applicants are making progress towards implementing the 
vast majority of subapplications and are in line with historic 
obligation trends for FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants. 
However, there are still 28 FY 2020 BRIC subapplications that have yet 
to receive an initial obligation. Often these delays are seen in 
infrastructure projects that have multi-year implementation timelines, 
complex EHP compliance pre-award work, and/or permitting processes to 
complete prior to implementation.
    FEMA is focused on working with Applicants to complete pre-award 
work so that awards can be made and work started. In support of this, 
FEMA is putting more resources into Regional Offices to work through 
prioritized subapplications and move them closer to award.

    Question 2.b. To date, how many of those projects have been 
completed?
    Answer. BRIC seeks to fund transformational projects that are 
generally multi-year in nature and provide communities the opportunity 
to transform their risk profile and make investments to increase their 
resilience in the face of increasing hazards and climate change. Often 
times, these types of projects require significant time to complete 
feasibility reviews, clear the EHP review process, and position the 
project for award, construction, and ultimately project closeout.
    Although, FEMA has not completed closeout for any FY 2020 BRIC 
grants, which is the final step of project completion, it is estimated 
that approximately 25 percent of subgrants are nearly complete. For 
context, the FY 2020 BRIC application period closed on January 29, 
2021, and selections were announced on July 1, 2021. Each grant had a 
period of performance of at least three years, with FEMA having the 
ability to provide extensions.

    Question 2.c. When do you estimate that the remaining Fiscal Year 
2020 BRIC projects will be completed?
    Answer. For the remaining FY 2020 BRIC projects, we can only 
estimate the remaining time to complete these projects based on 
historic averages. Historically, FEMA HMA projects take on average 48 
months from the date of project approval to grant closeout. This 
includes the standard 36 months allowed for project completion, with a 
12 month extension. This figure varies widely depending on project 
type. Numerous factors such as scope, complexity, geographic location, 
and timeframe have impacts on the completion of an individual project.
    For example, capability and capacity building projects may be 
completed more quickly than infrastructure projects.
    FEMA and Applicants work together throughout the pre-award stage to 
move projects forward and get construction started. This requires 
strong coordination between FEMA and Applicants, as well as between 
Applicants and Subapplicants to ensure the project satisfies all 
requirements and can be awarded and then move through the construction 
phase in a timely manner.
    FEMA is working with Applicants to complete Requests for 
Information (RFI) and other pre-award activities to obligate funds as 
quickly as possible. To help expedite this part of the process, 
additional resources are being provided to FEMA regions to target 
prioritized projects for obligation in pursuit of completing projects. 
FEMA also works closely with applicants through the EHP compliance 
review process. During this phase, projects are reviewed to determine 
the potential effects on the environment and historic properties to 
ensure all activities funded by FEMA comply with Federal EHP 
regulations, laws, and Executive Orders. The EHP review must be 
completed before funds are obligated. Infrastructure and other projects 
involving construction with the potential to impact natural or cultural 
resources will be on the longer end of the review timeline , while 
other funded subapplications for capability and capacity building 
activities are generally shorter in timeframes to obligate funds.

    Question 3. FEMA has consistently highlighted that the BRIC program 
is oversubscribed. For example, in the Fiscal Year 2022 grant cycle, 
FEMA made $2.3 billion in funding available, but received applications 
for more than $4.6 billion in funding.
    Does FEMA make all the potential BRIC funding available each year, 
or does FEMA hold back some funding each grant cycle? Please describe 
the rationale for FEMA's decision.
    Answer. With the BRIC Program, FEMA has always worked to best 
balance funding communities' resilience goals with long-term stability 
of the program. Relative consistency on amount of dollars available 
year-after-year for the BRIC program allows for communities to make 
long-term investments in reducing not only their current risk, but also 
their future risks to natural disasters. The funding level made 
available each year accounts for both the need to continue to build 
momentum in addressing a portion of the unmet mitigation needs, with 
reserving funding from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) set-aside to 
continue to make resilience investments for communities.
    Section 203(i) of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.  5133(i)) 
authorizes FEMA to fund BRIC activities under section 203 by setting 
aside from the DRF, with respect to each major disaster, an amount 
equal to 6 percent of the estimated aggregate amount of grants for 
major disaster assistance under the Stafford Act. This authority is 
discretionary and does not include a specific methodology to be used 
when calculating the estimated aggregate amount of disaster grant 
funding. FEMA implements this authority using a methodology determined 
to be appropriate by FEMA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer that 
manages the health of the DRF and addresses stakeholder feedback 
requesting consistency in funding levels year to year. The 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or better known as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) appropriated an additional $1 
billion for BRIC, with $200 million in each fiscal year from 2022 until 
2026. FEMA has announced the additional $200 million each fiscal year 
in addition to the BRIC funding set aside as a result of disaster 
activity.

    Question 4. It is my understanding that FEMA mitigation funding has 
been going to projects that utilize terms like ``nature based-
solutions'' or ``climate resistant.'' Furthermore, in the past FEMA 
funds have been used to plant trees to allegedly address ``heat 
islands.''
    When it comes to the benefit-cost analysis, how does FEMA determine 
the numbers assigned as pre-calculated benefits for mitigating against 
things like heat islands?
    Answer. Pre-calculated benefits are a streamlined methodology where 
FEMA calculated pre-determined cost-effectiveness, eliminating the 
requirement for a separate benefit-cost analysis (BCA). Pre-calculated 
benefits are values that FEMA calculates based on research and 
statistical analysis or computer modeling of hazard mitigation 
projects.
    Currently, FEMA does not have pre-calculated benefits for 
addressing heat islands. Heat mitigation projects must be cost-
effective and applicants or FEMA complete a full benefit-cost analysis 
to ensure compliance.

Questions to Victoria Salinas, Senior Official Performing the Duties of 
     Deputy Administrator, Office of Resilience, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. Rick 
                                 Larsen

    Question 1. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 included a provision 
requiring FEMA to increase the Public Assistance federal cost share for 
states that have implemented hazard mitigation measures including the 
enforcement of hazard resistant building codes and funding mitigation 
projects. This law creates a great incentive for states to proactively 
fund mitigation measures. This provision, however, still has not been 
implemented.
    In 2023 responses submitted for the hearing record, FEMA committed 
to implementing this provision in the calendar year 2024. Can you 
confirm that timeline?
    Answer. FEMA remains committed to implementing this provision.

    Question 2. Do FEMA's regional offices have the staff necessary to 
support the obligation of mitigation grants given the substantial 
increase in funding for such grants in recent years?Do all regions have 
dedicated staff working on mitigation grants? If not, are there plans 
to hire additional full-time staff in the regions?
    Answer. FEMA and our Applicants greatly appreciate the historic 
increases in funding for much-needed investments in resilience 
nationwide. Through the BIL, signed into law in November 2021, Congress 
appropriated $6.8 billion to FEMA to further the agency's resilience 
efforts through the funding of five programs. This law is a once-in-a-
generation investment which provided additional funding for each FY 
until 2026. Given the temporary nature of this funding and to ensure 
the expedited delivery of this assistance to communities, FEMA has been 
working with HQ and Regional Offices nationwide to increase the number 
of staff to support HMA program through additional hiring of 4-year 
temporary full time (TFT) employees. Currently, FEMA has hired more 
than 200 TFT and Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees (CORE) 
staff to support and expedite the additional BIL funding at 
Headquarters and the Regions. Each FEMA Region has dedicated staff 
working on HMA grant programs. In addition to positions paid for out of 
BIL,since 2019 FEMA has increased both permanent (Operations and 
Support) staff and Disaster Relief Fund CORE staff supporting the BRIC 
and HMGP programs from 87 to 474 at the end of FY 2023. Additionally, 
FEMA aims to more than double the number of FMA permanent staff by the 
end of FY 2025. FEMA continually assesses needs (which can vary from 
Region to Region) and, requests additional staff as appropriate to 
right-size staffing to meet the need. FEMA is also seeking to employ 
innovative solutions to update and streamline our operations and 
processes to better meet expanded program requirements. Some of these 
initiatives include deploying staff in strike teams to increase the 
speed of reviews and project approvals, improving, and streamlining 
data tracking and assessment, strengthening technical assistance, and 
improving training processes and effectiveness.

    Question 3.a. What is the average length of time from award 
announcement to the applicant receiving funding for BRIC grants?
    Answer. FEMA recognizes the importance of applicants receiving 
funding as quickly as possible. The sooner selections are made and 
funds are awarded, the sooner we can change the resilience trajectory 
for these entities. The amount of time it takes to award selected BRIC 
subapplications depends on several factors, primary amongst them being 
the completeness of the subapplication upon submission. In our 
commitment to assisting under-resourced communities in applying for our 
grants, FEMA also works with applicants to obtain all needed 
information prior to the award as well, which can affect overall 
timeline. FEMA has been tracking the time to initial obligation from 
the application close date. As of May 1, 2024, an analysis of a subset 
of BRIC subgrants showed that conservatively, 30 percent of subgrants 
received an initial obligation within 12 months of the application 
close date. There is about a 4-5-month gap between the application 
close date and selection. Of note, this figure represents initial 
obligations only and not complete awards. FEMA is actively working to 
improve its ability to track obligation data more granularly in the 
future. Like most complex projects, pre-award activities may take from 
one to two years. In some cases, with communities that have less 
capacity to implement more complex projects, this may take longer. The 
construction phase typically takes from two to three years. Given the 
scale and complexity of some projects and capacity of the applicant, 
this could take longer. FEMA expects construction on most projects to 
be completed within five to seven years. Closeout activities are 
performed during the final stages of the project.
    The projects that are typically awarded the fastest have some 
similar characteristics, including less complex engineering and fewer 
EHP requirements.

    Question 3.b. What is the average length of time from eligible 
project submission to the applicant receiving funding for HMGP grants?
    Answer. HMGP provides funds to states, Tribes, and territories to 
implement projects that provide long-term hazard reduction after a 
major disaster. The purpose is to reduce the loss of life and property 
due to future natural disasters. On average, the median number of 
months from disaster declaration date (i.e., eligible project 
submission) to applicant receiving HMGP grant funding is 15 months. The 
amount of time it takes to award HMGP subapplications depends on 
several factors. In a typical process, states, Tribes, and territories 
prioritize subapplications for FEMA review and approval based on their 
FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan. FEMA reviews the subapplications 
to ensure they meet all HMA eligibility criteria. FEMA assumes that 
``eligible project submission'' refers to the major disaster 
declaration date, as this is when applicants can begin submitting 
applications. However, based on a number of factors outlined below, 
using this milestone as the time to begin measurement may include time 
during which no applications have been submitted. Furthermore, some 
applicants may request an application deadline extension. One factor 
that impacts time to obligate includes the process of developing and 
submitting a subapplication for review, which is unique to each 
disaster and applicant. For applicants with existing HMGP funding, 
oversubscribed subapplications may be carried over to new disasters, 
allowing for the review process to begin immediately. Applicants may 
also work with subapplicants throughout the year to have ``shelf 
ready'' projects available for submission as soon as a disaster is 
declared.
    Another factor that impacts time to obligation includes the 
applicant strategies around submission timing. Some applicants choose 
to submit projects as soon as they are able post-disaster, however this 
is not always the case. Other applicants do not submit projects until 
just prior to the deadline. These differences are due to several 
factors including impacts of the disaster, capability and capacity, 
project complexity, and mitigation priorities. HMGP is a FEMA-funded, 
state-managed mitigation program. The state hazard mitigation office 
has various internal state timelines and may have areas of focus for 
the mitigation grant funds based on the expected amount of mitigation 
funding because of the disaster. Additionally, the HMGP funding 
estimates are provided across three points in time within the open 
application period, with the first occurring within 35 calendar days of 
the major disaster declaration or soon thereafter. Depending on the 
severity of the disaster and accuracy of preliminary damage 
assessments, early funding estimates may only represent a portion of 
the total HMGP funding that is ultimately approved for a given 
disaster. At 12 months after the major disaster declaration, FEMA locks 
in the HMGP funding. Because of this, applicants may choose to delay 
submitting and wait to determine which subapplications to put forward 
based on more refined projections of available funding.

    Question 4. Management costs on the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 
are calculated based on actual Federal funds expended on a disaster. 
There are original estimates, but, until the federal funds are 
obligated and expended states cannot draw against those management 
costs. This causes a significant backlog at FEMA and the appearance 
that applicants and sub-applicants are not utilizing the allowable 
management costs.
    What can FEMA do to streamline this process and ensure states and 
locals can access these grant funds?
    Answer. FEMA is committed to working quickly to assist recipients 
(states, Tribal nations and territories) as well as subrecipients 
(state agencies, local governments, federally recognized Tribal 
governments, and certain private nonprofit organizations) to receive 
management costs to implement HMGP projects. It is important to note 
that obligations under HMGP can occur at any point after the recipient 
has submitted an SF-424 and an Administrative Plan, and FEMA has issued 
the 30-day lock-in. A recipient may submit a management costs 
subapplication at any point during the open application period and can 
request a portion of the available management costs to be obligated 
(which is discussed in more detail below).
    FEMA has taken steps to continue to assist recipients in receiving 
management costs. In the 2023 HMA Program and Policy Guide, FEMA 
changed its management cost policy to fix the amount of management 
costs available to recipients based on the amount of subapplications 
submitted by the end of the application period or when the total HMGP 
ceiling is calculated, whichever is later. FEMA made this policy change 
to give recipients certainty on the amount of management costs 
available to manage through the life of the award.
    The total amount of management costs made available to a recipient 
and its subrecipients is based on the disaster's lock-in value, which 
is defined as the maximum amount of funding FEMA can obligate for 
eligible activities under the disaster. While lock-in ceilings are 
established 12 months after a major disaster declaration, recipients 
may request management costs as soon as they receive their 30-day lock-
in estimates, which are provided within 35 calendar days of the major 
disaster declaration, or soon thereafter. Once FEMA reviews and 
approves these requests, the recipient may begin spending these funds. 
FEMA has seen that applicants take an average of 15 months post-
declaration to submit both project funding and management costs 
requests. For management costs, partial funding is available as early 
as 30-days post-declaration. Review of management costs requests can be 
faster than requests to fund mitigation projects (due to the greater 
complexity associated with project reviews). A recipient may submit a 
management costs subapplication at any point during the open 
application period and can request a portion of the available 
management costs to be obligated. Recipients may request up to 25 
percent of their estimated management cost amount after receiving their 
30-day assistance estimate and up to 50 percent after the 6-month 
estimate. States with a Program Administration by States (PAS) 
designation may request up to 35 percent for the 30-day estimate and 75 
percent for the six-month estimate. At the end of the application 
period--typically 12 months after the declaration date, unless an 
extension is requested--recipients may request the full management cost 
amount, minus a withholding amount of three percent (or two percent for 
PAS states) that becomes available at closeout.
    For SLTT governments to receive subrecipient management costs from 
the funding awarded to the applicant, they must apply for management 
costs by including a management cost budget and narrative in their sub 
application. When the subapplication is submitted, subrecipient 
management cost is then reviewed and approved by the state and FEMA. As 
a matter of policy, FEMA does not permit the advancing of management 
cost payments, however if pre-award management costs are identified in 
the subapplication and are approved, reimbursement of those expenses 
are allowed.

    Question 5. We understand from discussions with stakeholders that 
FEMA does not award the state set-aside for BRIC prior to beginning the 
evaluation of the nationally competitive projects, which may create a 
delay for grantees and subgrantees to begin pre-planned work prior to 
FEMA starting a separate application process.
    What can be done to streamline this BRIC application process and 
ensure the state set-aside does not experience unnecessary delays?
    Answer. FEMA understands the importance of making selections 
quickly so that funds can be awarded quickly. FEMA is focused on 
awarding all BRIC subapplications, to include those within the State 
and Territory Allocations and the Tribal Set-Aside, as quickly as 
possible. FEMA's goal is to make selections (and the awards that 
follow), as soon as possible, so subapplicants can begin implementing 
projects and activities to reduce risk and increase their resiliency.
    In pursuit of a streamlined review process and to help ensure that 
applicants and subapplicants can maximize all available BRIC funding, 
FEMA is undertaking a national review process for competitive and non-
competitive subapplications (under the State/Territory Allocations and 
the Tribal Set-Aside). For FY 2021 and FY 2022, BRIC made selections 
for the BRIC State and Territory Allocation and the Tribal Set-Aside 
months before making selections in the national competition. Funds are 
awarded from these selections once projects clear all pre-award 
activities.

    Question 6. We have heard from various stakeholders that despite 
FEMA's best efforts, programs such as BRIC, HMGP, and other mitigation 
programs have high entry costs which are prohibitively expensive to 
rural and disadvantaged communities. These costs come in the form of 
planning and review requirements, complicated applications, and 
protracted processes that quickly become expensive to severely 
understaffed organizations.
    We realize FEMA recently hired a Small State and Rural Advocate, 
but beyond that, what can the agency do to ensure these states and 
communities have every opportunity to participate in these programs?
    Answer. As the number of natural disasters and the severity of the 
impacts continues to increase, there is a need to support communities, 
families, and businesses with the financial resources they need to 
build resilience and reduce disaster suffering prior to the next event. 
FEMA has taken several actions to increase equitable access to HMA 
grant funding, through increasing technical assistance and other 
capacity building activities, reducing burdens of the application 
process and conditions for entry, and enhancing outreach through 
engagements and updated materials.
    FEMA offers non-financial direct technical assistance (DTA) through 
the BRIC grant program. It provides direct support to selected 
communities and Tribal Nations (through a letter of interest that they 
send to FEMA) for broad assistance to help improve resiliency to 
natural hazards, sustain successful mitigation programs, submit high-
quality subapplications for hazard mitigation, and/or implement 
innovative projects to reduce risk. FEMA offers a wide range of non-
financial support to BRIC DTA communities, including climate risk 
assessments, community engagement, partnership building, and mitigation 
and climate adaptation planning. Support for BRIC DTA communities can 
range from pre-application activities to grant closeout. Applicants 
submit requests for assistance during the annual application period.
    FEMA currently supports 74 communities and Tribal Nations through 
BRIC DTA. For the FY 2023 submission period, FEMA received an 
additional 170 requests for assistance--31 of which were from federally 
recognized Tribal Nations, 135 communities and four territories across 
all 10 FEMA regions. FEMA will be selecting at least 80 new 
communities, including Tribal Nations, from the FY 2023 submissions, 
which will bring the total number of BRIC DTA recipients to over 154. 
For those not selected via this round of assistance, FEMA, through 
regional offices, will provide communities, Tribal nations, and 
territories with information about technical assistance offerings from 
other entities to help them meet their resilience needs. Of note, the 
FMA grant program also provides grants to states for technical 
assistance to local governments.
    FMA is a competitive program that provides funding to states, 
federally recognized Tribal governments, U.S. territories, and local 
governments. Since the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 was 
signed into law, funds are used for projects that reduce or eliminate 
the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA also delivers technical 
assistance through HMGP that focuses on making mitigation dollars more 
accessible for communities that are less equipped to navigate the grant 
process. We work with states, local, Tribal and territories' 
governments to provide targeted technical assistance directly to 
underserved communities that often struggle with limited technical 
resources and programmatic knowledge so they can develop applications. 
This targeted technical assistance may include support with initiatives 
such as developing mitigations strategies or supporting planning-
related activities. This technical assistance is provided through 
Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program contracts rather than a 
specific technical assistance initiative, like BRIC.
    Recognizing that not all Applicants and subapplicants have the 
capability and/or capacity to apply for and manage a BRIC project 
grant, capability and capacity building activities are also activities 
eligible for funding under BRIC. In addition to hazard mitigation 
planning activities, this can also include activities that support the 
development of future projects, such as project scoping activities or a 
phased project approach, both of which could help bridge the gap in the 
level of detail between a project concept and a complete project 
subapplication.
    FEMA is making access to programs more equitable for highly 
disadvantaged communities by addressing one of the challenges 
identified by our partners: the successful completion of a project 
BCA--previously a required part of the application process for HMA 
funding. While mitigation measures must still meet cost-effectiveness 
requirements, as of May 2024, FEMA removed the requirement of a BCA as 
a condition to apply for HMA funding for Economically Disadvantaged 
Rural Communities, small and impoverished communities, federally 
recognized Tribal governments, or subapplicants with a hazard 
mitigation project within or primarily benefiting a Community Disaster 
Resilience Zone. FEMA will review the hazard mitigation project 
subapplications that are competitive and otherwise eligible for 
selection and may assist such communities or tribal governments with 
developing a BCA. In addition, all subapplicants may submit a cost 
effectiveness narrative, rather than a BCA, for projects costing less 
than $1 million. FEMA will conduct the BCA for these projects less than 
$1 million to ensure cost effectiveness.
    FEMA adheres to OMB Circular A-94, which reduced the discount rate 
from seven percent to 3.1 percent in November 2023. FEMA also 
incorporated distributional weights, and updated the pre-calculated 
benefit amounts that can be readily used to determine hazard mitigation 
project cost-effectiveness in our BCA toolkit. We have streamlined 
cost-effectiveness in its mitigation grant programs making it easier to 
approve hazard mitigation projects, especially those that are 
innovative in nature, build climate resilience, and benefit underserved 
communities.
    Another way FEMA helps to reduce the burden on Applicants and 
subapplicants is by providing reimbursement for some pre-award costs. 
Applicants and subapplicants may be able to get reimbursed for certain 
types of pre-award costs that are directly related to developing a BRIC 
subapplication that is awarded. Such costs may have been incurred prior 
to application submission, for example gathering data to be used for 
preparing environmental reviews required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act or developing a BCA, preparing design specifications, or 
conducting workshops or meetings related to development and submission 
of subapplications.
    FEMA made adjustments to the point scoring criteria for the BRIC 
and FMA grant programs to make it easier for disadvantaged and/or 
traditionally underserved communities to receive funding. For BRIC, in 
addition to Economically Disadvantaged Rural Communities, priority 
points are now offered to federally recognized tribal governments and 
for subapplications for a project within or primarily benefitting a 
Community Disaster Resilience Zone to be more competitive in the 
national competition. For FMA, it increased the final priority scoring 
points and federal cost share to 90 percent for socially vulnerable 
communities (using the CDC Social Vulnerability Index, specifically 
Socioeconomic Status, Household Characteristics, and Housing Type and 
Transportation).
    These two programs are also part of the Justice40 Initiative to 
deliver at least 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal 
climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, and other 
investments to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by 
underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.
    We will deliver nearly $1.6 billion to disadvantaged communities, 
accounting for over 53 percent of the almost $3 billion total in FY 
2022 funding.
    Through the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation 
Revolving Loan Fund program, FEMA works closely with applicants to 
learn better ways to make administrative tasks easier, increase 
capability, reach resilience and equity goals, and identify common 
projects and activities for loans under the program. Based on feedback 
and lessons learned from the first year of the program, FEMA has 
updated the grant application forms and supporting materials to ensure 
the application process is as streamlined as possible. FEMA aims to 
reduce complexity and barriers for applicants to better understand the 
information required for a selection and allocation.
    FEMA addresses the disaster survivor experience by speeding up the 
delivery of flood mitigation funding through the FMA Swift Current 
opportunity. FEMA released $300 million in FY 2023 to reduce or 
eliminate the impacts of flooding for repetitively or substantially 
flood-damaged properties insured through the NFIP. FEMA offers tailored 
pre-application support to assist FMA Swift Current applicants and 
subapplicants with subapplication development. FEMA will continue to 
evaluate and solicit feedback from its customers to build from the 
success of the prior funding opportunities through future grant cycles.
    In FY 2022, FEMA made available $60 million that was distributed 
across 326 properties in four states impacted by Hurricane Ida. Within 
one year from the close of the application period, over 80 percent of 
the funding was awarded to Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania.
    For the second announcement in 2023, FEMA made available a total of 
$300 million and expanded criteria to benefit more places, which as of 
May 30 includes 20 states and one Tribal Nation.
    FEMA is ensuring that stakeholders have straightforward and 
equitable access to HMA programs, which includes reducing barriers to 
access and providing focused assistance to underserved communities. For 
example:
      Hosted several national webinars and posting recordings 
on FEMA.gov and FEMA's YouTube channel.
      Updated our HMA Program and Policy Guide through reducing 
complexity to make it easier for customers to know how to successfully 
apply for funding.
      Developed program and application support materials to 
help customers navigate the grant processes.
      We recently hosted our Hazard Mitigation Partners 
Workshop which brought nearly 1,000 attendees virtually together in a 
highly education-focused grant forum to talk through our hazard 
mitigation and floodplain management work to build capacity to 
withstand tomorrow's hazards.

    The Community Disaster Resilience Zones initiative, which is part 
of implementing the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022, is 
designed to prioritize support for the most at-risk communities in the 
country, including those that are severely understaffed, under-
resourced, and overburdened. In addition to providing technical and 
financial assistance to these communities through FEMA's BRIC and FMA 
programs, the zone designations can also help the private sector, 
nonprofits, philanthropies, and other non-federal partners target 
investments in community resilience.
    FEMA has developed a network of support of 11 programs from 8 other 
federal agencies to support and prioritize Community Disaster 
Resilience Zones. Seven of these programs provide technical assistance 
to disadvantaged communities. One example is the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's Thriving Communities Network, which provides technical 
assistance to disadvantaged communities to help plan and build 
transformative transportation projects that improve mobility, 
sustainability, and resilience.
    Another example is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural 
Partners Network (RPN), an all-of-government program that assists rural 
communities identify resources and funding to create jobs, build 
infrastructure, and support long-term economic stability on their own 
terms. Twenty-three federal departments, agencies, and commissions, 
including the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Denali 
Commission, are members of the network. The RPN is leveraging its 
critical networked assistance to support the 178 Community Disaster 
Resilience Zones identified in rural areas.
    A third example is the Economic Development Administration's new 
Economic Recovery Corps, designed to accelerate recovery from the 
COVID-19 pandemic in distressed communities and regions throughout the 
U.S. by connecting organizations with the talent and capacity needed to 
advance new ways of doing economic development that promote economic 
resilience and transformative change.

Questions to Victoria Salinas, Senior Official Performing the Duties of 
     Deputy Administrator, Office of Resilience, Federal Emergency 
  Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. 
                        Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon

    Question 1. Six and a half years after Hurricane Maria, four years 
after the 2020 earthquakes, Puerto Rico is STILL in the process of 
approving and performing recovery work for municipalities, nonprofits, 
faith institutions, individuals.
    The next disaster is not a matter of ``if'' but of ``when'' and 
``how much''. Effective plans measures to provide hazard mitigation and 
a resilient infrastructure in all its modalities are critical to face 
this reality. I AM an advocate of preventive measures that are not 
limited to mere ``hardening'' of infrastructure or paying to rebuild 
the same thing over and over, but making it possible for communities to 
recover more quickly or to have flexible courses of action.
    Question 1.a. The FEMA funding programs right now are also facing 
issues regarding rising costs not just due to inflation but to supply 
chain and workforce availability issues and the expected effect of 
delays or prolonged projects. There are many projects that were 
approved based on estimates that by now have been far outstripped. How 
does this affect the mitigation plans? How does the Agency address 
this?
    Answer. FEMA has been and continues to work closely with community 
officials in Puerto Rico to help rebuild after these catastrophic 
events. Hurricane Maria is the largest disaster for FEMA's HMGP. Over 
time, cost overruns may indeed occur as a result of infeasible cost 
estimates, underestimated complexity, prolonged schedules, labor 
availability, supply chain issues, or other reasons.
    When managing grants under the HMGP, the recipient must notify FEMA 
as soon as a cost underrun or overrun is identified. The recipient may 
request additional federal assistance for identified overruns, which 
FEMA may approve if program assistance is available under the grant 
award. Because there is an overall cap on the HMGP grant award, the 
recipient the Puerto Rico Central Office for Recovery, Reconstruction, 
and Resiliency (COR3) can manage individual subgrants within that cap 
amount but cannot exceed the overall cap on the grant award. The 
subaward must continue to meet cost share and eligibility requirements. 
In essence, applicants may use funding from cost underruns on a given 
project to apply to cost overruns on another project.
    Also, as per regulation 2 CFR 200.433, inflation costs can be an 
eligible cost for project budgets. Inflation can be included as a 
separate line item if the applicant provides appropriate justification. 
Specifically, 2 CFR 200.433(a) states ``a budget estimate of future 
costs which is associated with possible events or conditions arising 
from causes the precise outcome of which is indeterminable at the time 
of estimate, and that experience shows will likely result, in 
aggregate, in additional costs'' and ``It is permissible for 
contingency amounts other than those excluded in paragraph (a) of this 
section to be explicitly included in budget estimates, to the extent 
they are necessary to improve the precision of those estimates.'' In 
addition, applicants can account for potential project cost increases 
by using recognized national construction and building cost estimation 
guides such as Marshall & Swift, R.S. Means, and similar publications.
    Finally, though not specifically for cost overruns, project budgets 
can also include contingency costs of 1-7 percent depending upon 
specific circumstances. Such costs could be used to cover cost overruns 
if necessary.
    Hazard mitigation plans help state, local, Tribal, and territorial 
(SLTT) governments build long-term, equitable solutions that reduce 
risk from natural hazards. Mitigation plans describe and prioritize 
hazard mitigation actions and establish a strategy to implement those 
actions, including identifying responsible offices and potential 
funding sources to implement those actions. Mitigation plans are 
required to be reviewed and updated every five years to reflect changes 
in risk as well as mitigation priorities.
    Updates to the mitigation plans must consider changes in the 
community's capabilities to implement their mitigation strategy, and 
may include changes in project costs or changes to available funding. 
However, mitigation plans are not required to include the level of 
detail for fully scoped projects with cost estimates that are required 
for grant applications.

    Question 1.b. What has been FEMA's experience working with the 
Puerto Rico Central Office of Recovery Rebuilding and Resiliency, COR3, 
in the approval and obligation of mitigation funding?
    Answer. FEMA's Mitigation team in the Joint Recovery Office works 
with COR3 to ensure the submitted subapplications are eligible, 
complete, and feasible. FEMA and COR3 meet regularly to establish 
priorities and to follow up on milestones and action items. Also, both 
agencies deliver continuous technical assistance to Subapplicants 
helping to respond to additional information requests on a project 
scope or provide subject matter expertise on a proposed mitigation 
project.

    Question 1.c. In the specific case of Puerto Rico's electric power 
grid, can you provide us a breakdown of how the FEMA mitigation support 
has been utilized, including what if any changes have been necessary in 
procedures or guidance over the past few years?
    Answer. Puerto Rico's electrical grid is interdependent and 
requires a holistic approach for Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 
(PREPA) infrastructure projects to mitigate against future disasters. 
As such, FEMA undertook a significant effort to revise the approach for 
determining cost effectiveness for projects designed to mitigate future 
risks to the overall electrical grid. Demonstrating cost effectiveness, 
typically done with the BCA toolkit provided by FEMA, can be a 
impediment for applicants in developing quality mitigation grant 
applications. A concerted effort was made by FEMA Headquarters and the 
PR Joint Recovery Office to develop the first ever Island Wide Benefit 
Cost Analysis (IWBCA) that is supporting PREPA's efforts toward 
reconstructing a more resilient electrical grid that will reduce the 
impacts of future disasters.
    The IWBCA aligns with the Public Assistance (PA) FEMA Accelerated 
Awards Strategy (FAASt) (announced in 2020), in which critical 
infrastructure programs are grouped together to expedite critical 
energy work in PR. The PA FAASt project treats all PREPA infrastructure 
as a single, island-wide set of interconnected and interdependent 
components. The aggregated IWBCA applies the same approach for purposes 
of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of proposed hazard mitigation 
measures, with one BCA applied to the entire FAASt project that 
includes benefits based on future costs avoided of physical damage to 
the infrastructure, costs related to the response and reconnection 
effort, and the loss of function for electric service caused by the 
storm. The IWBCA approach streamlines the cost-effectiveness review of 
mitigation projects under one IWBCA umbrella. Defining the maximum 
benefit in this way greatly simplifies funding and cost-effectiveness 
requirements. The IWBCA enables FEMA to avoid double counting of 
benefits and allows for coordination across the PREPA infrastructure on 
PA Mitigation and HMGP implementation, thereby avoiding both 
duplication of programs and gaps in the system's disaster resilience. 
The IWBCA applies to all mitigation measures associated with PREPA 
funded by the PA and HMGP programs. To ensure that, following system 
reconstruction, PREPA infrastructure is resilient and meets all 
applicable codes and standards, PA and HMGP will fund hazard mitigation 
measures that meet all program requirements, including a cost-
effectiveness evaluation using the IWBCA.
    FEMA approved the use of aggregated benefits defined in the IWBCA 
to all PA Mitigation and HMGP PREPA projects under DR-4339-PR, helping 
to expedite the funding of, and satisfying the cost-effectiveness 
requirements for, projects eligible under Sections 404 and 406 of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  5170c and 5172). The projects still must meet 
applicable legal and programmatic eligibility requirements. These 
efforts resulted in $7.6 billion in Total Hazard Mitigation Benefits 
(Estimated total benefits for both 404 and 406 Mitigation (FEMA Public 
Assistance Mitigation)). This is a novel and impactful approach to 
demonstrating cost effectiveness which should facilitate a more 
streamlined application review and approval process. This approach 
takes a holistic viewpoint of the electrical grid so as to avoid 
individual, piecemeal cost effectiveness determinations on every 
project. This is the largest project of its kind and FEMA will continue 
to investigate ways where this approach may benefit other 
infrastructure types.

Question to Victoria Salinas, Senior Official Performing the Duties of 
     Deputy Administrator, Office of Resilience, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. Mike 
                                 Ezell

    Question 1. In recent community engagements across various regions, 
constituents and stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding the 
apparent disparity in the disbursement of BRIC (Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities) funding from state aside dollars. BRIC 
funding, designed to bolster resilience and mitigate risks in 
communities, is expected to be one of the faster-flowing financial 
resources. However, reports suggest that certain regions are 
experiencing delays or inadequate allocation, hindering their ability 
to implement crucial resilience measures.
    To address these concerns comprehensively, please provide the total 
dollars obligated and allocated (paid) under BRIC funding, 
disaggregated by state set-aside, tribal set-aside, building code plus-
up, and competitive program. Please provide the total dollars obligated 
and allocated (paid), deobligated and reasons for deobligations for 
each state by fiscal year beginning with Fiscal Year 2020. Please 
segment by the designated categories: state set-aside, tribal set-
aside, building code plus-up, and competitive program.
    Answer. The BRIC program's state and territory allocations help to 
ensure that all states and territories have an opportunity to apply for 
and receive BRIC funding. This allocation, combined with the separate 
set-aside specifically for Tribes, contributes to geographically 
disbursed awards.
    Under the state/territory allocations, Applicants (States and 
Territories) establish criteria and rank subapplications from local 
communities. FEMA then takes the selections of the state/territory to 
move them through the award process. Given that the set-aside is to 
state and territories, FEMA does not have mechanism in place for 
subapplicants (such as municipalities or communities) to grieve or 
contest the applicant rankings. This would be handled at the applicant 
level. In rare circumstances, FEMA may fund eligible subapplications 
out of priority order due to insufficient funding, duplicate 
subapplications, program priorities, and/or other pertinent 
information. During the FY 2023 BRIC funding cycle FEMA allocated $2 
million to each state/territory and set aside $50 million for tribal 
applicants. New in 2023, FEMA also allocated $2 million to each state/
territory to carry out eligible building code adoption and enforcement 
activities and set aside $25 million for tribal applicants to do the 
same. This is in addition to the more than $700 million in funding made 
available under the national competition. FEMA recognizes the 
importance of obligating BRIC funds to communities as quickly as 
possible, so that communities can start their own path towards 
resilience.
    Please see Attachment A which includes publicly available data that 
can be found on the OpenFEMA platform. Of note, the requested data is 
not available yet for the building code plus up, as the FY 2023 grant 
cycle was the first year to include the building code plus up. Overall, 
this attachment shows:
      Approximate Obligations as a Percent of Total Selected 
Amount:
      +  2020: 47 percent
      +  2021: 32 percent
      +  2022: Seven percent
      Approximate Obligations as a Percent of Total Selected 
Amount (By Type):
      +  National Competition: 18 percent
      +  State/Territory Allocation: 73 percent
      +  Tribal Set-Aside: 34 percent
      +  Management Costs: 12 percent

    Attachment A includes data related to de obligated funds. FEMA does 
not actively track reasons for de-obligations in its system.
    [Editor's note: Attachment A is retained in committee files.]
    
                                    [all]
```