Examining Local Needs in Disaster Recovery

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. This hearing is titled " Examining Local Needs in Disaster Recovery". Without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. I now recognize myself for four minutes for an opening statement. The topic of this hearing is the role that HUD in the disaster recovery through what's called the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program, or CDBGDR. CDBGDR is a supplemental disaster recovery assistance program. It is intended to meet long-term disaster needs that remain unmet after other sources of assistance from FEMA and the S SBA have already been deployed. CDBGDR is a very unique program. The program is not authorized. in statute. Instead, CDBGDR funds are typically granted through a supplemental appropriations bill following a natural disaster. Because these funds are directed through the CDBG program and not any standing program with direct dir disaster recovery nexus, HUD must effectively rewrite the rules around how an affected area can utilize the funds for each disaster. This lack of structure makes this unauthorized program a nightmare for both its administrators at HUD, and the local governments that need the funds. A quick look at some top-line data demonstrates this point clearly. According to a HUD Office of Inspector General report issued in January of this year, of the one hundred and nine point eight billion allocated through CDBG DR, since its inception, only sixty-four point seven billion has been spent. In other words, only about fifty-nine percent of CDBG DR funds have been spent. To be clear, I'm not saying only fifty-nine percent of the funds were spent last year or in the last five years. Only fifty-nine percent of CDBGDR funds have been spent ever. If you take a look at some individual allocations, the problem looks even more acute. Out of two billion allocated to Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands for the twenty-eighteen electrical power outages, only about four point five percent has been spent. Out of sixteen point one billion, allocated for mitigation activities from the twenty fifteen to twenty eighteen, only about sixteen of percent of those funds have been spent. Uh, these abysmal statistics stem from both both HUD's slow allocation of funds and grantees' difficulty in utilizing the funds when they are allocated. Additionally, HUD has struggled to conduct proper oversight to prevent waste fraud and abuse after the funds are spent. To sum it up, we have an unauthorized program for which Number one, HUD has difficulty allocating funds quickly. Number two, grantees have difficulty spending these funds effectively. And number three, HUD has difficulty conducting oversight of those funds. That's a dizzying set of problems for a program that has received over one hundred billion dollars since its inception. Now that we've discussed the problems with the status quo, let's examine the best path forward for disaster recovery. There is a proposal out there that would permanently authorize CDBG-DR. It takes the current structure of the program and seeks to enshrine it in statute, creating a permanent fund. I don't think that approach is prudent, given how things are going. The entire structure of the DR program is one of convenience. Appropriators use it because the allowable uses for CDBG funds most closely resemble long-term recovery needs, not because it's the optimal way to disbur disperse the funds, and this structure creates some inherent flaws within the program. For example, the CDBG program has three national objectives. to principally benefit low and moderate income persons, to aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or to provide an urgent need for the purposes of health and safety. Because CDBG-DR exists within the program of CDBG, these funds must meet one of those national objectives. This creates an odd situation. The intended use of the money, which is to provide recovery dollars in the aftermath of a disaster, must conform with the priorities that have nothing to do with the disaster or the recovery. So, with that, I uh yield back my time. I uh now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mister Kleber, for four minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. Millions of Americans have faced increasingly catastrophic life-threatening extreme weather events. In twenty twenty-four and twenty twenty-five alone, the United States experienced fifty separate billion dollar disasters. Disaster survivors, including in my own home state of Missouri, need assistance today. Disaster management is a multi-agency effort consisting of preparedness, emergency, response, and recovery, with recovery occurring over the short, intermediate, and long term. FEMA, SBA, and HUD formed a core federal disaster recovery system, and many other agencies support recovery in their areas of expertise. FEMA provides emergency and initial recovery assistance, SBA provides disaster loans, and HUD through CDBG-DR addresses longer-term recovery needs, not fully met by FEMA or SBA programs. HUD has extensive expertise in housing and community development, and a longer-term recovery often looks like conventional CDBG activity aimed at disaster impacts. Last month, more than five hundred national, state, and local organizations wrote Congress urging the codification of the CDBGDR program. They echoed what Congress has been told by HUD, the HUD OIG and the GAO. Codification, including a rulemaking process, would improve core administrative challenges and increase oversight, transparency, and coordination with other agencies. As of May one, twenty twenty-six, there were two hundred and seventy-two active CDBG DR grants totaling one hundred and six billion dollars operating under the requirements of nearly ninety-eight different federal notices. This has conco- consequences. Communities have unnecessarily waited months or years for support long after families have relocated businesses have closed, and economies are have been permanently altered. In California, as many as one hundred thousand displaced residents remain unable to return home and communities are still awaiting CDBG DR funding and clarity more than five hundred and twenty days after the fires. It is a disaster of a disaster management system. FEMA challenges exacerbated by the administration are also well documented and FEMA review counsel recommended long-term recovery be outside of FEMA. Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the record a letter from the National Association of Realtors expressing their views on CDBG-DR. I look forward to the hearing. Thank you.

Without objection, it's accepted. I now recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Mister Hill, for one minute for an opening statement.

Well, thank you, Mister Chairman, and I appreciate you and Mister Cleaver having this uh important hearing. Natural disasters certainly can upend countless lives, leaving families, businesses and entire communities. to face the difficult task of rebuilding. I was involved in that personally significantly during the post-Katrina environment. And when disaster strikes, federal assistance programs should deliver timely, transparent and effective support. Unfortunately, in my view, HUD's CDBGDR program has fallen short of that high standard. It lacks permanent authorization, clear objectives and consistent program program rules. And GAO has repeatedly cited inconsistent

Gentlemen, yields back. Today we welcome the testimony of Mister Joseph Josik, Analyst in Economic Development Policy at the Congressional Research Office. Mister Pat Cave, the Senior Vice President of Policy at Enterprise Community Partners. Miss Heather LeGrone, the Senior Deputy Director of the Community Development and Revitalization Department at the Texas General Land Office. And Mrs. Stephanie McGuiera, the Deputy Secretary of Community Revitalization at the North Carolina Department of Commerce. We thank each of you for taking the time to be here today. We each of you will be recognized for five minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. Without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record. Mister Jarosik, you are now recognized for five minutes for your opening oral remarks.

Thank you. Committee Chair Hill, Chair Flood, Vice-Chair de la Cruz, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Joe Jurosik. I'm an analyst in economic development policy with the Congressional Research Service. The role of CRS is to provide objective, non-partisan research and analysis to Congress. CRS takes no position on the desirability of any specific policy. Any arguments presented in my written and oral testimony are intended to inform Congress and not to advocate for a particular policy outcome. This CRS testimony will provide an overview of community development block grants for disaster recovery or CDBGDR and related issues. CDBGDR is a form of long-term disaster recovery assistance provided at the discretion of Congress through supplemental appropriations. CDBGDR is a form of these funds are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and are intended to support needs not met. by other forms of federal disaster aid. CDBGDR is not a standard federal program with its own standing authorization or regulations. Instead, the funds are subject to the conventional HUD community development block grant programs, statutory authority, and regulatory requirements, plus any waivers uh established by Congress or HUD. As such, program requirements may vary from grant to grant and allocation to allocation. Some analysis suggests that the ad-hoc nature and block grant structure of CDBGDR has allowed Congress and HUD to adapt grant requirements to the specific needs of disaster-affected communities. Some other analysis appears to indicate that its structure may have also contributed to challenges in grants management coordination and prevention, or detection, of improper payment. among other issues. Both GAO and HUD's Office of Inspector General have recommended broad structural reform to CDBGDR or similar investments as a means to provide long-term disaster recovery assistance for unmet needs. Such recommendations have included calls for formal statutory authorization by Congress and standardized regulatory codification by HUD. HUD has instituted some measures to standardize CDBGDR processes within the current framework. For example, in twenty twenty five, HUD adopted the universal notice, which is a uniform rulemaking document, designed to accompany CDBGDR allocations when provided by HUD under congressional authority. Specifically, the universal notice is intended to provide increased transparency, consistency, and more timely access to CDBGDR by grantees to help minimize program delays and accelerate recovery. Some members of Congress have also introduced legislation that would authorize CDBGDR or a similar program. For example, in the one hundred nineteenth Congress, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act would formalize HUD's role in disaster management by establishing the Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency within HUD, authorizing CDBGDR as a standing program, and establishing a dedicated fund in the treasury for CDBGDR. Alternatively, an- the Natural Disaster Recovery Program Act of twenty twenty five would establish unmet needs assistance authorities within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Any authorization of unmet needs assistance may require Congress to consider a range of questions, including, but not limited to, what agency might be the best fit to administer this program, what primary objectives would guide the program's design, and what, if any, aspects of the current approach might be retained. Congress could also consider expanding pre-disaster mitigation investments as an alternative alternative or additional approach. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much. Mister Cave, you are now recognized for five minutes for your oral remarks.

Thank you, Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Cleaver, Chairman Hill, and Ranking Member Waters, and the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on examining local needs in disaster recovery. My name is Pat Cave. Know that I served Congressman Richard Baker from Louisiana on this subcommittee over thirty years ago, uh, when Rick Lazio chaired the subcommittee. It's an honor to be back to testify. Presently, I'm the Senior Vice President of Policy for Enterprise Community Partners. Enterprise is a national non-profit that exists to make a good home possible for families across the country. We support community development organizations on the ground, We aggregate and invest capital. We advance housing policy at every level of government and build and manage communities ourselves. Since nineteen eighty-two, we have invested ninety-two billion dollars and created or preserved over one million homes. As a as a Louisianan, I have a personal understanding of the urgency of disaster recovery. In two thousand five, I co-founded a community development non-profit committed to building sustainable, affordable communities in vulnerable regions after natural disasters. We developed housing for over four hundred and sixty Louisiana families, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and built nearly a hundred homes in California after the wildfires, and in Florida after Hurricanes Irma and Michael. My testimony makes three points. We should build resilient housing, to withstand disasters both before and after storms, we should preserve and retrofit existing housing before the next storm, and we must draw lessons learned when disasters strike so we can expedite recovery. Through our Building Resilient Futures initiative, enterprise focuses on advancing cost-effective building practices, showing that resilient and efficient housing can be delivered at scale in a practical way. Our enterprise green communities framework, which is used in both new construction and in rehabilitation, provides a set of standards that promote durability, efficiency, and long-term performance. And to date, nearly two hundred and forty thousand homes have been developed or preserved using these approaches, supporting over two million residents. We work at the state and local level in targeted technical assistance. We also work closely with state, finance agencies to incorporate resilience, for example, in the low-income housing tax credit program. Even as we build stronger homes, a significant portion of recovery happens across the existing housing stock. For many communities, particularly smaller and rural communities, this is where the greatest need and the most practical opportunity exist. Across the country, much of the housing stock is aging and increasingly vulnerable. In states like Nebraska, for example, Nearly half of the state's housing stock was built before nineteen seventy, over sixty-six years ago. Retrofitting and preserving these homes is a practical risk management approach that reduces repeat losses, shortens recovery timelines, and helps insure that investments are used more efficiently. We must draw lessons for future disasters will occur so that we can expedite recovery. We list those lessons in our written testimony, ranging from focusing on long-term housing from the very beginning to streamlining existing regulations and reducing administrative burden. Also in our written testimony, you'll see several policy recommendations, such as providing stable funding to disaster-stricken communities, providing flexible financing tools to support non-profit-led recovery, And employing and improving the delivery of tools, like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, the New Markets Tax Credit program, as well as the Opportunity Zone program. At the core, partnerships between FEMA, HUD, state and local governments, and local stakeholders are key to ensuring the success of these efforts. So on behalf of Enterprise, I want to thank Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Clever, Chairman Hill, and the members of this subcommittee, for your continued attention to these issues and your bipartisan leadership. Here, and I should add, other recent housing legislation, including your recent ho- home reforms. When we invest in resilient housing, we retrofit existing homes, we strengthen local capacity, and we streamline recovery programs, we do much for our local communities when disaster strikes. Enterprise looks forward to working with you and this subcommittee to advance common s- sense solutions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cave. Miss LeGrone, you are now recognized for five minutes for your oral remarks.

Good morning, Mister Chairman and members, thank you for having me here today. My name is Heather LeGrone and I work at the Texas General Land Office as Senior Deputy Director of our disaster recovery programs. agency tasked by Governor Abbott to administer disaster recovery on behalf of the state of Texas. And I have personally been involved in the program for more than twenty years. Texas operates the largest CDBGDR program funded by HUD, and we have a strong reputation for being very good at what we do. Today, the Land Office is administering ten open grants that must follow over thirty different sets of regulations because CDBG D R has never been quantified. For more than twenty years, CDBG D R has benefited the state of Texas one grant and one event at a time, where every event comes with its own set of program rules, regulations and requirements. Texas has used CDBG D R funds to repair and replace housing, build public facilities, restore roads and bridges, create flood and drainage systems, update communication warning systems all to strengthen Texas for the next disaster. During these constantly changing rules and program requirements, Texas has expended over ten billion dollars, replacing over forty thousand housing units and supported communities with thousands of infrastructure projects benefitting millions of Texans. Disaster recovery should most definitely be codified into its own program at HUD, but the new program should not codify a program that has come together over the past twenty years in starts and stops that simply does not work very well. Any program created should allow for every flexibility and local control for the use of what is always limited funding, while ensuring needs unrelated to disaster recovery may remain outside program design. States in need of disaster recovery funds should be granted that maximum flexible flexibility possible With that, disaster recovery is the top priority, unlike annually funded programs that start from a sunny skies perspective, where grantees have the time necessary to jump through the appropriate bureaucratic hoops. The action plan should simply define the programs being offered, and how beneficiaries can access them. The current process has grantees developing action plans to great detail of events, that are certified by the disaster declaration they have been granted from other federal programs. The grantee must then put the action plan out for a month-long public comment period that often yields little to no input followed by a months-long HUD approval and review process that yields also no input. All which easily add six to eight months to the start of recovery activity simply for the sake of bureaucracy and regulations mirror a non-disaster recovery intent. Disaster recovery eligibility should have one definition across all federal programs. HUD currently calculates a secondarily defined HUD most impacted and distressed subset of eligible counties for CDBG DR programs. This calculation looks at unmet need in total dollars which skews eighty percent of disaster recovery funding toward areas of greater population and does disadvantage rural areas. The allocation methodology prioritizes total dollars of losses favoring larger urban jurisdictions while underestimating the relative impact on smaller communities with fewer local resources, smaller tax bases, and limited capacity to absorb every recovery cost. Considering per capita impacts or similar measures as a part of the allocation formula and methodology would give a more complete picture of the needs in both rural and urban counties. Even better, had simply relying on a presidential declaration established under the Stafford Act, would be timelier, more efficient, and fairer without furth- without narrowing the eligibility list. The State of Texas has been a successful participant in CDBG DR funding for a long time, and we are very grateful for the benefits that we have received from this program. It is past time for the program to be codified into something that is directly responsive to disaster recovery needs while not adding more regulatory burdens. I appreciate the opportunity to share these perspectives and would be glad to provide any additional information or answer any questions you may have.

Mrs. McGarra, you are now recognized for five minutes for your oral remarks.

Thank you, Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Cleaver, Chairman Hill, and members of the committee. My name is Stephanie McGarra, and I'm the Deputy Secretary of Community Revitalization for the North Carolina Department of Commerce. I'm responsible for the implementation of North Carolina's Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery funds for Hurricane Helene recovery. CDBGDR has been essential to help the State of North Carolina address the unmet needs of low to moderate income families and communities in Western North Carolina and I support the permanent authorization of the CDBGDR program. While CDBGDR is flexible funding that allows States and local governments to respond to the disasters they have experienced, improvements could be made to the program's requirements and processes via permanent authorizing language. Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina in September of twenty twenty four, causing significant damage to the western part of the state with flooding, landslides, high winds that killed a hundred and eight North Carolinians and resulted in sixty billion dollars worth of damage to homes and communities. This was by far the most devastating storm to North Carolina by a factor of three. In January twenty twenty five, we were allocated one point billion in CDBGDR funds by HUD to address some of this damage inflicted by Helene, and we've made some significant progress in the last seventeen months. We've developed a launch rep- recovery programs, received eight thousand applications for single family housing repair, and completed the construction of now seventy homes with another nine hundred and fifty more underway, and we've opened application windows for multifamily housing, and commercial district revitalization with infrastructure soon to follow. While we receive CDBGDR funding more quickly this time in comparison to previous disasters, there are additional improve improvements that can be made to the program that will facilitate faster and more efficient recovery for disaster survivors and communities. I respectfully propose that the committee consider the following changes to enable CDBGDR to be quicker and more responsive. One, promote a a permanently authorized CDBG DR while promoting flexibility. We waited three and a half months for Hurricane Helene allocations, but in the past we had to wait a year and a half. And permanent authorization would allow HUD to issue a notice of allocations more quickly and make disaster recovery more reliable and faster. We do have a great structure for um low to moderate income families, but any additional requirements would reduce flexibility to meet the survivors needs the survivors and add extra time. We also need flexibility because even within North Carolina, what happens in eastern North Carolina and our recovery there in a flat coastal area is very different than the recovery required in western North Carolina, which is mountainous. Secondly, we would I would suggest that you allow states to leverage our action plans that are already in place. Heather talked about this from Texas's perspective. Um, ours process took at least four to five months, and I'm regularly talking with citizens in Western North Carolina who are sitting in moldy houses. So, the four to five month process could have been greatly reduced. Third, make the data sharing agreements between federal agencies and CDBGDR grantees automatic. It's important that we get the data from these other federal agencies, but it takes months. Again, We have a lot of distrust of government in Western North Carolina, so we had to knock on fifty-six thousand doors in order to get people to know about this program and to be willing to talk to us to register we needed the FEMA data to do it, we just needed it a lot faster. Um fourth, remove overlapping federal, state, and local requirements. If you're rebuilding houses on the same lots, going through a full federal NEPA compliant environmental reviews is a very time-consuming process. It took us seven months to get through a tier one environmental review, and then for each individual home we're waiting another eighty to ninety days. So again, whatever we can do to streamline these requirements um would be helpful, and it'll make sure that more funds are directed to recovery costs as opposed to administrative expenses. I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the HUD grants management staff who've really helped North Carolina as we set up a new state recovery structure. And I appreciate the willingness of this committee to consider permanent authorization of CDBGDR funding to speed recovery for low to moderate income families and communities while maintaining the flexibility of these funds for state and local governments doing the difficult work of recovery. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.

Thank you very much. I'll now uh turn to member questions. I recognize myself for five minutes. Ms. LeGron, you provide a unique to our conversation today. As a representative from Texas, a state that's seen more than its share of disasters, uh, you've been the subject of several allocations of CBDG-DR funds. Uh, can you provide us with some useful insight into the problems with the current formation of the program? Here's my question. Uh, you said in your testimony that CDBG-DR, quote, "simply doesn't work well", end quote. Can you describe the most significant challenges your state has with CDBG DR allocations?

Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. Um, it it literally just takes too long to get to the funding. Um, all of the hoops that we have to jump through to get to the funds is what is delaying recovery efforts.

So, is there any difference in how the funds uh can be used in a large urban area versus a rural area? Uh, Do any of those geographic issues present challenges with the program?

There's always limitations in capacity of the governments that we're working with, um, and their ability to implement the recovery. And in some cases that capacity is not necessarily better in an urban area or less in a rural area. But we definitely see capacity issues with those communities, so a lot of technical assistance, um, is definitely required for those communities.

Have you had an opportunity re to review the Senate's uh amended version of the twenty-first century road to housing bill?

Yes, sir.

Uh, are you familiar with section five O one?

Yes, sir.

And this is the section entitled reforming disaster recovery act, is that right?

Correct.

Uh, does does this provision sufficiently address your underlying concerns with the way the program functions?

No, sir, it is codifying the program that we're operating today and it adds a

Thank you very much. Next, I'd like to pivot to what some alternative ideas on this matter may be. As I think about what we should prioritize in disaster recovery, I think we need funding that is flexible, works quickly, and prioritizes mitigation and resilience. I appreciated Mister Cave's comments on that. After all, if we're asking taxpayers to allocate funds for these projects, we want to insure the area that uh received federal funds is better prepared, in the event of an another disaster. Uh, Mister Cave, Miss LeGron, Miss McGuire, Mrs. McGuire, you have varying views on the effectiveness of the program. My question for each of you is whether uh you would be open to ideas for disaster recovery that seek to replace the current structure of the program with an, alternative operating outside the structure of CDBG. Let's start with you uh, Mister Cave.

Yeah, we would, we had a set of policy recommendations and the written testimony, I would say two things, one, um, CDBG DR is not enough, right? We we should commit to streamlining the program and we do support CDBG DR, and we would invite a conversation about other solutions.

Ms. LeGron?

Uh, yes sir, similarly I would suggest that CDBG is a sunny skies program, and shoving a disaster recovery program under a sunny skies program is not working well. So a stand-alone disaster recovery program would make a lot of sense.

And would you keep that at HUD or would you move it to FEMA?

Um, I think I would keep it at HUD. Uh, FEMA's regulations and FEMA's teams, in my opinion, are definitely more in the response of a recovery as opposed to the longer term recovery efforts that come from the CDBG type.

Uh, Mrs. McGuire.

I would support a CDB I would support a s- stand-alone disaster recovery program or the changes that we suggested making the current CDBGDR program more flexible. I agree that it needs to be more flexible and and more certain. And I would keep it with Fem- um, HUD. We have not had the best experience with FEMA with the lien.

What what has been your experience with FEMA?

Delays, lots of delays.

So here's just a question. Uh, the way the program's structured now, can you build, does it pay for resilience or do you have to build what you had? Uh, mister uh, Jer-

Uh, yes.

Yeah.

Uh, I, Jerosic.

Jer- yeah.

So I can, I can speak to that briefly. Uh, currently CDBGDR can be used for rebuilding uh above and beyond. Um, and also there are now uh a percentage uh additional funds for CDBG mitigation which can be

Okay.

used even more flexibly for mitigation type uh measures.

Okay, I ran out of time, I yield back. I now recognize the ranking member, Mister Kleber, for his opening uh comments and questions. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, this is M- uh, McGarrah. Um, one of the proposals before This committee is the reforming Disaster Recovery Act, led by uh Congressman Al Green. Uh, the bill does many things, including requiring federal agencies to share all data to improve coordination of the disaster recovery process, uh, as well as increased oversight and data transparency. Uh, uh, and another, authorizing the creation of a CDBG DR reserve fund that can quickly disburse initial recovery funding post-disaster without waiting for a new congressional action. Also, developing a formula to allocate assistance to the most impacted areas, uh creating a capacity building and technical assistance set-aside, and a couple other things. Would would these changes that I've just ment- mentioned uh benefit the families and communities that uh you're serving in North Carolina?

They would. I'm not as certain about the formula. I haven't I'm not sure how that would play out. And I know the current formula that we have has, as Heather spoke about with Texas, we've had problems in North Carolina as well, where it's left out rural areas. North Carolina is the second most rural population in the country behind Texas. So we would wanna make sure that any formula covers both the rural and urban. But the data sharing would be much appreciated.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. LeGrand, um, you you testified before uh the oversight and investigations subcommittee a few years back twenty eighteen. Um, and you said, and I quote, " The flexibility of the CDBG program is what makes it really the best uh programs to put these disaster recovery dollars into." Um, and uh s- so that you go on to say that CDBG program is the right program for this. I think a permanent regulation keeping all the flexibility possible for the CD CDBG DR program would be the absolute answer. Uh, your testimony today, uh, is disaster recovery should most definitely be codified into its own program at HUD. Uh, but the new program should not simply direct what is happening today with more time-consuming regulations as has been proposed, unquote. Uh, can you help me fix that? I mean, uh um your p- your position today is which what? I mean, can you help me uh uh

Sure, sure. Thank you for that. So, CDBG is definitely one of the most flexible programs in the federal portfolio of grants. Um, but it could be more flexible. And after some some time passing and recognizing that those those layers could be peeled back a bit. I think that it would make sense to follow maybe the CDBG program as initiation point from a regulatory perspective but pull back on some of the requirements that are in it right now. Um the data sharing issue is definitely something that has come up. Um it we were able in the state of Texas to go to our department of emergency management and get that very same data in a matter of hours before this went into place. Now it takes six, nine months to get that data through the federal process. And our sister agency, the Department of Emergency Management, has been told they're not allowed to give us that information. So allowing us to just get the data that we've always had access to as a state would make a whole lot of sense and would move the ball considerably. The new the new um proposed language adds proportional funding for the first time, so you would absolutely have to take a point in time, immediately following an event, look at all of the numbers related to the different types of recovery, and then impose that over your program for the full term of your program. So a snapshot in time defining how you're going to prorate the use of funds, housing, infrastructure, planning, economic development. That's not an ideal way to allocate the funds. You need to be allowed to move the funds where the need is to the best of your ability, as the program progresses. The bill right now has the secretary as the only entity allowed to waive that proportionality, and waivers through HUD are quite frankly tough to get.

So that's the flexibility. That's that

Correct. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Kleber. The gentleman from Arkansas, Chairman.

Thank you, Chairman Flood, and again thank the witnesses for being with us today. Uh, there's no doubt that uh your testimony demonstrates that uh the disaster recovery program is intended to be good and could be a force for good if it were properly structured I think you've made that clear in a number of different ways. However, over the years the lack of a formal authorization is yet another missed opportunity to create certainty and structure in normal times so that to make new and ad-hoc rules every time there's a disaster, strikes, and appropriation granted to this account. But I think there are three basic objectives that we need to answer about CDBGDR uh before we try to legislate its permanent existence. So let's talk about those. Mr. Jurasek, let me start with you. Uh from your study of this program, I'm not sure that HUD has the necessary personnel and the ability to ensure that these dollars are spent efficiently and for the highest uh need. Also, by routing the dollars through the CDBG program, DR funding is required not only to have a disaster-oriented impact, but also to be a CDBG eligible activity, uh which and meet one of the statutory obligations of the CDBG uh program. So is HUD the right agency to do this kind of disaster recovery assistance?

So, Congress has definitely considered other options and I can't necessarily say what the right fit would be I I would note yes that uh GAO and OIG have consistently raised concerns about staffing capacity at HUD and the time and the guidance provided internally for reviewing CDBGDR uh paperwork and grantee documents.

Right. Uh, Miss Legron, you've you s- testify that you've received more CDBGDR money than anybody else in the country. We don't doubt that. Texas is big and they do disasters big and recovery big too. But over your two decades of experience, I mean, both you and our witness from North Carolina just talked about serious uh delays and bureaucracy in the program. So if Carvers wants disaster funding to really make a difference in helping victims in that disaster context, what should it uh not do to allow you to get, you know, back to uh the most bang for your buck, do you think? In other words, how, what what is that feature that we really need to codify to make it work more effectively with our state partners?

I believe that we need to step out of disaster recovery at the federal level, and la allow as much local control as possible. Um, what you see when nationally mandated proportions to different types of programs, is communities choosing um their their least priorities in recovery. When you see a requirement for certain um types of activities, then communities are going to use the funds for those types of activities, though they may not be their best benefit. In Texas we do get hit by a lot of disasters, and we are always oversubscribed in our programs, and our communities are forced to choose projects or recovery efforts that fit into those requirements that you just listed.

Well maybe maybe you could compare FEMA's, you know, emergency day one assistance and short-term lending, and then the SBA programs, and isolate things that relate to housing recovery or housing community development recovery, and send us a list of what those priorities are, because obviously there's a debate in Congress about granting the states a lot more discretion about customizing the recovery with some federal grant money instead of in prescribing exactly how it oughta be done and and that would be helpful. Um, Mr. Cave, let me turn to you. Uh, using federal grant money to repay federal loans, strikes to me as misguided but also a violation and maybe prohibited under other federal statutes. Likewise, HUD O IG has constantly complained about the misuse and misallocation of this program. Um, how could we better have better certainty about that the funds granted are actually used for the specific purpose?

Well, that's a good question. Um, it It does seem to me, a lot of what we read from the Inspector General at HUD is um, uh, we saw in the state of Louisiana. They went back and audited, found six hundred and seventy million that uh, was not tied directly to the um, Road Home Grant program. Look I, I think we step back and and echo what Heather is describing, which is uh, getting the money to the States as quickly as possible, and ensuring that

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentlewoman from California, the ranking member of the full committee, uh, Miss Waters, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, uh, and members, uh, I understand, uh, that, uh, this hearing is all about looking at the systems and how they work or they don't work, and it really, uh, uh, w- we've been talking about this since Katrina. with CDBGR and uh some of the people never got compensated uh down there in New Orleans, but let me tell you, I wanna talk about California today. We have one hundred thousand displaced people in California, in Pacific Palisades, in Altadena. Homes have been burned down, lost everything, and the President of the United States came out there and said that he was gonna get emergency funds to get that done, to get the work done. He has done nothing. The cabinet has done nothing. The people are continue to suffer. But look at this. Why is it we have thirty to forty-five billion dollars spent on a war in Iran, and we don't even know why we're there? Why is it that the president wants to have the largest arch in the country, which costs one hundred million, They're already tearing down what we got to replace it. Why is it we, the president can find four hundred million uh to repair the east wing that he tore down that he didn't even come to the Congress of the United States, uh to talk about doing it. Why is it we can't get this emergency done? Why is it what the president came out to Los Angeles and Promise after he blamed everybody, uh but you know, human nature I don't wanna talk about the system. I don't wanna talk about what HUD has not been done. What are Republicans doing? What is the President of the United States doing to get that money out to California? You're destroying our city. You have people at each other's throat. You have an election that's in chaos, all about the fact that we don't have the emergency money. That's what I'm all about. And so, if I'm a little bit upset about this today, It is because I've just come from another meeting where we're talking about who's to blame for what. The President of the United States of America can find money to do whatever he wants to do with it but I know one thing that I believe about him he's punishing my state he's punishing my city he's punishing my county people are suffering we're at each other's throats all of those who are taking the blame in the city are taking the blame for what the President of the United States is not doing. He can provide the leadership on this. He's brazen. He doesn't care about anything or anybody else when he decides to do something. So, what can we say? Don't tell me about what needs to be tickled in the system. We know that the system is messed up. We've been talking about CDBGR since I got involved with Katrina. in New Orleans. I wanna know why the President of the United States of America will not give the leadership that is needed for the emergency fund in California in my city right now. Stop this m- this meeting and let's talk about California right now.

Does the gentlelady yield back?

My time is not up.

No.

If you wanna be silent, that tells a story. But if you wanna talk about California, start the conversation. What do you know, Mister Chair, about what is happening with emergency needs in California? I'm not blaming you for anything, but if you know something, do you have a relationship with your president? Can you talk with him about it? California wants to have their government of the United States of America do what it's supposed to do in an emergency. People are homeless. We've been waiting and waiting and waiting. Anybody got anything to say? Today about California? About Los Angeles? About Pacific Palisades? About Altadena? People are on the ground. They're still trying to find um, you know, homes to live in, they're asking for help. I've been helping the ministers out there. We had over ten ministers whose churches and homes had been burned down. And I had friends come all the way from New York with a hundred thousand dollars to try and help them or to at least get some clothing to go on their back, to find some place to stay. And so, if I'm being disruptive, that's exactly what I wanna be. I wanna be disruptive today, and I wanna talk about California and the needs that we have that are not being met, and what the President of the United States is not doing.

The gentlewoman from Texas, Miss Dala Cruz, is now recognized for five minutes.

Well, thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, for holding this hearing today and my goodness, uh, my colleague wanted some answers about California and she asked, does anybody have anything to say about California? I sure do when it comes to election fraud and the terrible state leadership that has caused the homelessness that my colleagues wanted to talk about.

That's not germane to this hearing.

Excuse me, but I'm reclaiming my time because this is my time. So, that being said, we're gonna talk about another issue that is very important, uh, besides the terrible leadership that California has and that has caused the homelessness, that my colleague wanted to talk about that. So, I will want to first give a warm welcome to the same people in Texas where we have good state leadership and we're not seeing the homelessness and recklessness that we have in California.

Mr. Chairman, this isn't about

I'm reclaiming my time.

Order.

This isn't about a partisan issue.

I want to give a warm welcome to my colleague and my

Order.

I'm from Texas and I have a different

So this De La Cruz is recognized.

This De La Cruz is recognized.

I wanna give a warm Texas welcome to Miss Heather LeGron with the Texas General Land Office. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for your leadership, and I'm thankful to the state of Texas and the state leadership that we have there. We're glad that you are here, and we can talk all about the great things that Texas is doing. So, what we're gonna talk about today is, um, some of the benefits of codifying the Community Dele- Development Block Granted Discovery Program, and um what that has um what that has led to in our local communities. As your testimony stated, Miss LeGron, you believe that the disaster recovery program should be codified into its own program at HUD, but highlighted that we could, that we should not simply codify a broken system. In your experience, how long does it generally take from the time Congress authorizes CDBGDR funds to the time assistance is in the hands of dis- disaster recovery victims? Is it months or is it years?

Thank you for that. Um, it is more than a year in almost every instance. So the state of Texas has done disaster recovery for quite some time like you mentioned.

Uh-huh.

But every time we have a disaster event, we have to go through a months-long process to prove that we have the capacity to administer a program. That capacity could be abbreviated greatly by default of a current relationship with the HUD programs. The action plan development that we do could just be about the programs that we're offering to our beneficiaries, and not go into a litany of rediscussion discussing the event that we've just suffered.

So, um, Miss LeGron, to stay with you just a bit longer, the Senate's version of the twenty-first Century Road to Housing Act included a proposal to codify the CDBGDR program. I've had extensive outreach on this proposal, including from my largest county, Hidalgo County, um and the judge in Hidalgo County, who highlighted concerns with how that section is currently written. One of the specific concerns highlighted is the cur formula does not treat rural counties

Yes ma'am, I agree.

And as a member representing many rural counties, what would fixing this issue ulti- ultimately mean for constituents impacted by disasters?

If the formula that allocated the funds included a per capita type consideration, um disaster per person, as opposed to just total dollars, that would make a world of difference.

Thank you. Mister Chairman, I would like to ask by unanimous consent that two letters be entered into the record. Uh, one from Hildago County Judge Richard Cortez, asking me to oppose section five zero one of the Senate bill. And the second from Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, Don Buckingham.

Without objection.

Thank you so much. I yield back.

General Lady yields back. The General Woman from New York, Miss Velasquez, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I am just relieving uh the situation that took place in Puerto Rico under Hurricane Maria. Four thousand people die. When disaster, natural disaster strikes, the victims are not Republicans or Democrats. They are Americans. And we, here in Congress, who has the power of the purse, and the President, whose basic, most fundamental responsibility is to show up and assist when Americans are suffering. We must come together and look for solutions. So, Mister Chairman, I am glad that you referenced the two billion dollars allocated to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, because it gives me an opportunity to set the record straight. You want to know why Puerto Rico's hasn't been able to adequately spend the money? Because this president instructed FEMA during his first administration to block the disbursement of any recovery funds for Puerto Rico's recovery. After Maria, I requested an investigation to the IG. The report concluded that the obstructions to the disbursement were intentional. And here we are. Nine years later, still imposing more restrictive requirements on the use of recovery money, like Secretary Nuln's ridiculous directive to have FEMA approve any contract above a hundred thousand dollars, which, as anyone can imagine, has created further roadblocks towards the recovery for an island that continues to suffers from lack of access to essential services like running water and a reliable electric grid. So, I'm glad that I was given this opportunity to set the record straight because we, as Americans and as members of the US Congress, should be ashamed that we allow for the people of Puerto Rico today not to be ready to face even a category one hurricane. Shame on us. These are Puerto Rican Americans. They are our problem because we acquired them in eighteen ninety eight. And until the last day that I'm here, I will be fighting to make it right. So, Miss Le Gros. I think that we can all agree that funding for disaster recovery should be delivered as quickly as possible yet during previous attempts to codify the CDBG-DR program, I have maintained that states, localities, and territories need the flexibility to utilize federal resources in ways that best serve their needs. After all, not every disaster is the same. How do you think we strike that appropriate balance? And I heard you loud and clear when you say that one of the biggest issues that we have is that it takes too long to get to the phones and two, capacity issues. Technical assistance. Imagine for three point five million Puerto Rican Americans, who main language is Spanish. So please.

Thank you for that. Um, disaster recovery is like you say not a one size fits all program, and nor should it be. Um, recovering from a fire is different than recovering on an island than recovering in the state of Texas is. So, again, back to that flexibility that we've been talking about all morning, it being so very critical to how we move the funds forward. Giving th- the ability to make those decisions on the ground, giving the technical assistance that's necessary from HUD very timely, as opposed to waiting for answers or having to do the best that we can with the information that we have. All of those things would definitely move us forward in the ability to respond in a recovery event much more quickly.

Thank you. I yield back.

And only yields back, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Rose, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Flood, and and Ranking Member Cleaver for holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses uh for being here today. Let me be blunt. The Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery, CDBGDR, kind of a mouthful program, is slow, duplicative, and routinely fails the very people it is supposed to help. Communities don't need a second clunkier system layered on top of the first. They need help that actually shows up on time. That is why it is so baffling to watch our colleagues in the Senate look at this track record and conclude that the answer is, more of it. Disaster recovery should be handled in one place, by one agency that is built for it. Instead, we have drifted into a fragmented approach that slows everything down. It is time to end the experiment, consolidate recovery where it belongs, at FEMA, and let housing officials focus on housing again. Mister Cave, if CDBGRDR funding is often used for broad recovery efforts beyond housing, what is the justification for keeping it under HUD instead of moving it to FEMA to reduce fragmentation and improve efficiency?

Well, it's a very good question, Congressman. Um, look I I think culturally from what I've seen in our work in Louisiana and Florida, is emergency preparedness personnel are focused on logistics. Um, and they serve a governor in a GOSEP office, which is really about emergency preparedness and execution, uh, individual assistance from the get-go. HUD is longer term. It's designed and focused on housing. So how do we get uh a an immediate individual assistance focus on principally housing? I think we would say the the the problem is um CDBG doesn't work well. You can create a permanent authorization, but it's really in the rule making where the execution is, and I would bring in emergency personnel, I'd bring in the state housing officials, And I'd rewrite the rules so that money from day one can show up in housing.

Thank you, I completely agree with that approach. Uh, Miss L Miss Legron, you uh you advocate in your written testimony f testimony for a unified disaster recovery eligibility standard. But as long as HUD and FEMA run parallel programs, differing rules are inevitable. Doesn't that contradiction suggest that consolidation at FEMA is the only realistic path to cohesion?

Thank you for that. I agree with Mister Cave that um FEMA's current mission is more about that immediate response whereas HUD is more equipped for a long-term operation. We just need to drag HUD a little closer to that response um thought process.

I think you're more optimistic than you should be about the ability for two federal agencies to collaborate on something like this. So with all due respect, I think the answer is one place or the other. because we are talking about responding to emergencies, FEMA is that place and should be that place. Uh, Mister Jurasek, given the ad-hoc structure of the CBDGR uh, CB CDBGDR program, HUD's Office of Inspector General has identified persistent weaknesses in grantee guidance, oversight, and data collection that heighten the risk of improper payments and make it more difficult to defect fraud, uh, waste and abuse. Past examples, including over six hundred and nine,

Thank you for the question. Yes, um, I think part of the issue is the, well the lack of authorization can, you know, create a situation where HUD is essentially standing up a new program each time that Congress provides the funds. Additionally, O both OIG and GAO have identified deficiencies in HUD's internal communication, internal uh guidance on monitoring and assessing grantee uh capacity, among other issues. Um, also OIG has pointed to data collection, as a key challenge for HUD and uh you know insufficient uh accounting software tools that HUD uses, uh these these all kind of can help to contribute to challenges that HUD faces.

Thank you, I see that my time's about to expire. Appreciate your your frank answers and I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentleman yields back, the gentleman gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Miss Presley is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I represent the the Massachusetts Seventh, uh, which is a front-line community. We've experienced and endured all types of natural disasters from hurricanes to blizzards severe flooding. And with increasing frequency due to climate change, front-line communities throughout the country are witnessing firsthand how natural disasters affect public health uh, personal finances, mental wellness, and even housing affordability. When a natural disaster hits, housing prices rise. This is the econ the economics of supply and demand. Homes are destroyed, people have to move, so there is greater need and the costs increase. The cost of housing is already too high, we all can agree on that, so we need policies and budgets that truly help people, especially when they are trying to recover from a catastrophic, a disruptive event completely outside their control. That's why HUD's Community Development Block Grant for disaster recovery, CDBG DR, is so critical. These funds can be used to support renters and homeowners like following a disaster, prepare homes for mitigation to withstand future disasters, and provide emergency rental payments like HUD provided during the COVID-nineteen pandemic. One recent study actually found that zip codes that had access to HUD's disaster recovery funds saw more stable rent prices compared to zip codes, without HUD's funding supports. Mister Juricic, can you share CS CRS's work related to the importance of rental support during disaster recovery, and the impacts on affordability in the housing market.

Yes, CRS has, you know, monitored the same sort of research that you're pointing to and it, uh, a lot of the academic research on CDBGDR does point to significant benefits for, um, you know, rental, uh, uh, individuals that live in rental housing tend to benefit more from CDBGDR assistance than other um individuals that did not receive CDBGDR assistance.

Okay, thank you. Um, Mrs. Maguire, despite the clear benefits of CDBGDR and this this program, is not permanently signed into law. So what does that uncertainty mean for places using those funds to support low income households and renters?

Thank you for the question. It just means that there are a lot of delays and a lot of uncertainty, which are two things you really don't want when you're trying to recover from a disaster.

Thank you. Uh, strengthening CDBGDR means more people being able to catch their breath, financially after a disaster. When a renter or homeowner, whether they're either of those, CDBGDR program supports entire communities truly. It's a small business owner who wants to continue living in the same city after a disaster. It's the parents who don't wanna switch their child to a new school district. It's the seniors afraid that they'll be priced out of their unit if rental prices increase. So this supports the whole community. While the Trump administration is working actively to cut this program, I'm gonna keep fighting, and my Democratic colleagues, to support community development block grants because it actually helps people. And I urge my colleagues across the aisle to do the same. I yield uh the balance of my time to ranking member waters.

Thank you very much. Let me just ask all of the members, the witnesses are here today. Do you know how much money the state of California uh puts into the federal taxes, federal government taxes? You know how much? Anybody know? Eight hundred billion in federal taxes. Do you know that we pay uh eighty-three billion more than we received back uh in uh California. Um let me just ask this also. Do you know uh that despite the fact uh that we are paying for everything and everybody along with others, I understand North Carolina, I think your governor is here today begging for resources. And I understand that people are living in molded homes, et cetera, et cetera. Is that true, uh, uh, Miss McGraw?

Yes, we are we need more resources to recover from Helene, and our Governor is here today.

Do you know whether or not he is being received by the President of the United States, who spends all of our money in a way that he'd like to spend it? Do you know that he has an audience?

I'm not aware of his schedule. I'm sorry.

Did any of you know about the history of Altadena that burned down? Maybe you've heard about Pacific Palisades, but do you heard about Altadena? Do you know what Altadena is? Do you know about the legacy homes there? Well, let me just say this. Let's all join in this fight together, so that we can stop this president from picking and choosing. He hates California. He is absolutely punishing us,

The gentlewoman's time is expired.

uh because he does not like us. And whoever said, uh indicated that there was some fraud,

The gentlewoman's time is expired.

but that is not true.

The gentlewoman's time is expired.

Thank you very much,

The gentleman from Montana,

especially for yielding the time.

Mister Downey, needs to come up.

Thank you, Mister Chair, uh thank you for holding this chair and thank you to the witnesses for being here. Um Victims of natural disasters, they expect the deployment of federal assistance to be as seamless as possible, with guardrails a as appropriate. And like most federal programs, there are inefficiencies that need to be addressed with how the federal government handles disaster recovery. However, some in Congress have taken this to mean that we must make permanent a new program entirely, one of which has already been shown to be an inefficient complement to traditional da- disaster aid. So uh, I'm gonna start with Mister Cave, uh do you believe it's appropriate for HUD to have a role in disaster recovery at all when we have FEMA?

So, I I do, and I think the challenge, let me give you an example. Um, post-Katrina, we had a hundred thousand travel trailers as a housing solution, right? Because FEMA at the time moved quickly. And for many families that serve them well. But I do think if they were more thought given to the building materials, possibly uh stocking small homes, ADU's prior, where HUD who knows housing and building materials could uh design an a competition and we'd stockpile them early, FEMA and HUD could deliver on a better product immediately. So I I do think there's merit.

Thank you. Would it make sense or more sense to reform FEMA assistance? So it can be a one-stop shop or um for disaster assistance or I I it sounds like well it just

Well, I I I think it's both. Like, we could reform CDBG DR by uh making it more effective for sure, and we should instruct FEMA to work with HUD on first day housing needs getting met.

Thank you. Uh, Ms. LeGron, you have anything to add to that?

No, sorry, I agree with all that.

Excellent, thank you uh uh Mister uh um Jurisdict. Thank you. Um, so I'm gonna go on to uh Miss Legron here. I I represent Montana's second congressional district, which is one of the most uh rural in the country. We've got really long roads. In your written testimony you discussed how HUD's uh CDBGR uh CDBGDR calculations can disadvantage disaster-stricken rural communities in favor of urban areas. So can you describe why that is and, more importantly, what Congress can do to address it?

Thank you for that. Um, yes, so when HUD does the calculation to decide most impacted and distressed, they look at a total dollar value associated with damage or unmet needs. So obviously the more rooftops that you have to be damaged, the more likely that number goes up. So a county that has two million people has more damage in total dollars than a county that has fifteen thousand people.

Right. Well, thank you for that. Um, in the interest of time, I'm gonna move to Mister Juricic here. Uh, CDBG DR funding is intended to support unmet needs following a disaster.

Sure.

So, why are permanent sources of disaster aid frequently leaving needs unmet to where Congress turns to other sources?

Yeah, thank thank you for the question. I think there's a broader question on how CDB well, how disaster recovery assistance is provided and what role the federal government plays and and I don't know that I can fully answer that question, but but I think there there have been gaps, C CDBGDR has intended to fill some of those gaps, but with the magnitude of some recent disasters and the costs, um, CTVGGR, it cannot fill all gaps.

Thanks. So, moving on a little bit here, Congress began providing funding for community development block grant block grant disaster recovery in fiscal year nineteen ninety three. So how did the community development block grant disaster recovery program specifically become a popular pot of money to address unmet disaster related needs?

Sure. So this stemmed mostly out of a, uh, Government accountability office recommendation in nineteen ninety one, after several nineteen eighty nine disasters, where GAO identified some challenges with coordination federally, and um gaps in the federal government's provision of assistance for housing, and what agency ought to play the primary role in that. Uh so CDBGDR subsequently was provided, uh, and and they utilize CDBG from my general understanding primarily because of its flexibility.

Right, thank you. Unfortunately, I've run out of time. So on that, Mister Chair, I yield.

Gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Texas, Miss Garcia, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses. First, let me begin by saying that as Paul Harvey used to say, let's hear the other side of the story. I take acceptance of some of the comments that were made by Mr. Lachrouskas for so many of us, especially myself who comes from the Houston region, uh, which has hit first, hit hardest, and probably has had the most damages, uh, occurring in fatalities and, um, after after so many disasters. Um, obviously, I've been a county commissioner locally. I've been a state senator and you may have appeared before me when I was running for affairs. So I know all this. It's not just a a talking point, it's not just a sound bite. But I lived it and and in Miss Alicrona it it struck me that you said um that in your opinion it just takes too long to get funding. That's exactly what we used to say when I was in local government about the slowness of the GLO. So I'm not here to tell you that the um your program is a disaster, but it's certainly lacking. Uh, and when we see that in ni- in twenty twenty one, uh, after Harvey, Houston, Harris County was slated to get zero funding. That means that the formula is fatally flawed. If we're the ones that have a hundred and fifty billion dollars in damages, the pictures you sh- see on CNN with people on rowboats and and uh uh motorboats, helping people, that was my district. But you all were slow as molasses. And I can tell you that even though GLO has gotten money, it has not come to the area that I represent. And I'm trying to understand, I mean, I grew up in South Texas, just like my colleague across the aisle, but I've been in local government unlike her. I can tell you that I believe in making sure rural communities get money too. But when a rural community is, I told um, I remember telling um One of the state senators, we were having a debate. They don't even get enough wind to fly a kite, but I've got the plants, the port, buildings, apartments, just in devastation, I'm sorry, you go to the f- place where there's most need. So I don't understand why you think that per capita helps. Because a small county like where I grew up, uh, where, you know, in my little town it was less than a hundred people, But in in the Houston area, it's about five million people. Aren't rural communities still gonna get less per capita? Miss LeGround? It's just a yes or no. You don't need an explanation. I need to move on. It does it doesn't really help. And then when you talk about needing flexibility, what does that really mean? Is it flexibility so that you can vi violate the Civil Rights Act, not only that you all have already done not once, but twice? And you were you were found to have discriminated based based on race in a lawsuit. The finding was made by HUD. And of course, one of the first things Trump did when he came into office uh was to do away with it. But is that what you mean by flexibility? So that you can give money to the Republican uh rural counties and forget the urban centers and have people of color people who are poor and help and helpless? So I'm sorry, I I just can't get into this whole notion. Uh, we just need more flexibility and no de- and I'm not referring to you, ma'am, cuz I don't know enough about your state. I'm talking about Texas, because it's not, in my judgment, a model. And you know, um, there was a article recently that said that President Trump has suggested disaster aid for democratic-run states at the highest rate in the forty-seven year history of the federal emergency management. I know we're talking CTPG. He approved just twenty-three percent of disaster funding requests from states with democratic governor and two democratic senators, and for states with republican governors with two republican senators, the opposite, eighty-nine percent. Is that the flexibility you want in the state of Texas so that your governor can give the money t to the republican rural states rather than the democratic urban states yes or no?

No, ma'am.

Alright, thank you. Without a yield to my colleague and friend, the chair, the ranking member.

Uh, thank you very much. Uh, there's very little time left, but I would ask any Republican who has um the nerve to request a meeting with the President of the United States today, to talk about California and the fact that people are suffering, and the fact that he came to California and he promised that he was going to do everything that he could to get the emergency money there. I know uh that asking Republicans to confront the President is a difficult thing for you to do but somebody have the nerve to do it that is my request today. I yield back any time that Do I still have a few minutes? Let me just say that instead of yielding back I yield back.

Nope.

Nope.

You're right.

But, Mister Chairman, I'll reclaim my time and the,

Then if I don't have any more time you got it back.

Mister Chairman

There is no more time remaining. We are out of time.

Mister Chairman, I'd like to be Recognized for uh unanimous consent to re- for two documents.

For what purpose?

Oh, without objection.

Uh, thank you.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mister Moore, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh I would submit to my colleagues that natural disasters do not distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. Uh, in Western North Carolina, I will tell you the communities are still recovering after the devastation of Hurricane Helene. The storm damaged Tens of thousands of homes that displaced families, left many communities facing a long and difficult rebuilding process. For many of those families, flood insurance was simply not an option. Uh, these were mountain communities, not in traditionally what you would think of in a flood area. And so as a result, the federal disaster recovery programs have become one of the few remaining pathways to rebuild. Uh, the CDBGR is often a primary source of assistance for these unmet recovery deeds, after FEMA assistance, SBA loans, and charitable resources. Had me exhausted. First off, Miss McGarrett, thank you. Glad to have you here in Washington. Um, uh, by the way, you gotta stay in North Carolina for the good of barbeque. Just saying, you can't find any good barbeque in Washington, so. Uh, crab cakes were great though, but uh, but no barbeque here.

It's true.

Uh, North Carolina has administered the CDBGR DR funding following multiple major disasters as you as you know that we've had. Uh, how has North Carolina, how has our state's experience administering those grants uh after Hurricane Helene differed from the experience say with hurricanes Matthew and Florence, of course which we know where those areas are, my colleagues don't, those were on the coast, Helene was in the mountains. What's been the difference administering those?

Um, we have had a quicker turn around in terms of getting our funds. It was around three and a half months for our allocation from HUD after Helene, and I think we waited a year and a half after Florence and Matthew.

Okay. And so the major sources delay like if there's any HUD requirements or action plan approvals, duplication of benefit reviews, et cetera, local capacity constraints, or anything else, what what would you say I guess has been the most challenging for North Carolina this time?

I think the length of the process for the action plan, that's that's challenging. The environmental reviews have been very time-consuming. I actually spoke with Samaritan's Purse, as you know, is a major non-profit and they're headquartered in Boone, North Carolina. And they said the areas where they can save time, they get their money a lot faster. They don't have to go through the lengthy procurements that we have to go through. Their environmental processes are more streamlined. And um, they don't have all the requirements we have. Obviously, some of the requirements we need to have in place, but I think there are ways to be uh, to streamline those and save time for our survivors.

Yeah, I I believe GAO and and HUD's inspector generals have, you know, they've repeatedly identified some challenges involving data sharing, you know, duplication of benefits, uh, and improper payments. And we know unfortunately Those things have happened. Uh, but your testimony does raise some of the issues that that that are just out there. I actually have a bill that would require HUD to enter into for a formal MOU with FEMA and the SBA to improve disaster recovery data and information sharing. Do you think if we had greater coordination among these agencies in improving transparency that would strengthen accountability within the CDBGR DR program?

I do. I think data sharing is important. And it certainly took us several months to get those in place. So that coordination would help.

And just um in light of where where you are now, how would you describe the the response now with with the Grow with Grow NC versus what we had before with the the what's called NCOR in terms of meeting particularly on the housing side?

I think we've made um improvements in North Carolina that were much needed.

Very good. The um uh let me let me switch to uh Ms. Legron just a moment as well. Do you think that greater transparency into HUD's allocation methodology would provide states with more certainty as they plan recovery efforts?

Yes, sir.

Yeah. Uh, would this reporting requirement help Congress, in fact, uh, conduct more effective oversight and make better informed decisions when authorizing and funding future disaster recovery programs?

I think y'all would know where the money was going much better.

Think so. You know, the President has repeatedly emphasized that states should leave disaster recovery efforts. Um, and a lot of that principle recognizes a reality and that is that state and local officials are closer to the challenges facing communities than folks in Washington, D. C. And and I can, you know, I I was on the plane with the president when he came to Western North Carolina. It just it it it's something that I will never forget that in the same week that President Trump, Mister Chairman, that he was that he was sworn into office at the inauguration. The first trip he took outside of Washington, D. C. was to Western North Carolina. where he came there and told told our folks, the folks I represent and others, that that that they would not be forgotten. And I can tell you that what I've seen from this administration, from this president, is an absolute commitment to getting relief to Western North Carolina. We've had we've got a lot of challenges, a lot of unique challenges, cuz you think of hurricanes, you think of a coast, the water comes up, the water goes down. In the mountains it doesn't work that way. And so I just it it it has posed a lot of challenges. Miss McGuire, I appreciate the work you've been doing there.

Gentleman yields back, the gentlewoman from Michigan, Miss Tlaib is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you so much, Chairman. We all know that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of disasters. Just alone yesterday there was a tornado, a watch and flood um warnings all throughout my district. Um, and in my district I know devastating rainstorms have increased in their intensity. volume and regularity. And I know many of my colleagues know here, I even introduced a Fix Our Flooded Basement Act, uh, because FEMA doesn't cover flooded basements, you know, it's built on, you know, the the coastal uh communities, but Midwest, um, we are now seeing two years after a big flood, you know, toxic mold, um, and so much of uh things that you just can't imagine having in your own home, and now it's unsafe for many of my families to live there. But you know in the middle of the century in Metro Detroit we used to consider, I think, what we called the quote " hundred year storms" are projected to occur every what sixteen years? So any conversation about future of disaster recovery must address the need of climate resilience. They don't wanna call it climate, I don't care. I just want them to acknowledge there are more floods than ever. Increasing our climate resilience can save lives and property during a disaster. It can protect our homes. It can strengthen our local local economies and provide benefits to our communities. even on perfect sunny days. In fact, investing in resilience, and we know this, um, actually saves far more money than it costs. Every dollar spent on federal mitigation grants, saves six dollars on future disaster losses. Um, Miss, uh, McGregor, uh, you know, can you share what you think our nation is doing well in terms of fostering climate resilience? And the second question I have is, what can we do for families already? Um, you know, they survived the storm, but now their home is unlivable.

Well, we're definitely taking the approach of uh making sure that we build back safely. And so in North Car- in Western North Carolina, we've struggled with landslides. That's candidly one of the hardest um issues to fix. So we're having to move families in some cases. We're making sure we build outside of the flood plains. The challenge that we have is that Helene moved our rivers. So um as as hard as it is to see, we had a very big rain a few weeks ago. And what was beneficial about that is I think people who thought, no, this will never happen again, started to see,

That's great.

oh yeah, well it could happen again. So we're getting less resistance from folks as we try to make sure that we mitigate and put their and there is mitigation money within CDBGDR that we use for those purposes.

And, you know, one of the things, I mean, I'm trying to get as much people to support changing the FIBA guidelines, at least to cover basements. Um, have you heard from, you know, advocates and others?

I have not spent as much time on that. Maybe others could answer that a little bit.

Anybody else have any indication around that? Well, um, one of the things that we also talk about is the fact that yet often we hear that these measures that we wanted to put forward are too costly, right? Um, but Miss Keith, can you share a little bit about the financial channels that are trying to build resilience in new existing housing and who pays the cost when we forego the resilience? Yeah, for you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm so sorry.

It's okay. I'm sorry. I missed who you who you addressed it to. Um, I think when you don't build it back, then so one of our counties that's in the most impacted and distressed areas for Helene is Haywood County. That's where I'm actually from. My parents lived there. And along the Pigeon River we had tropical storm Fred and now Hurricane Helene. And so we have seen folks just lose their houses ag three years ago and now, and some of them in two thousand and one.

Mm-hmm.

So the cost is is high, and now we're seeing small towns um agree to move those people and give them a way to move their houses to a different location which is really tough for people who've been in a location for a long time but it's important and I think we we must do,

Absolutely. Yeah.

and mitigate, or otherwise we will continue to pay the price.

Now, Miss McCarley, you actually mentioned CDBG DR um uh assistance. Could permanently authorizing CDBG DR help address administrative barriers and delays?

Yes, we would not have as many sets of rules. It would just be easier to work with. I think Miss LeGrun from Texas mentioned they're working with thirty different sets of allocations. It just makes it easier.

Is it delaying months, years?

Yes, ma'am.

How many, how how long is it delaying not having it permanently authorized?

Um, it is easily taking over a year to access the funds by beneficiaries after you all make the allocation.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's just too long. Yeah. I hope my colleagues, maybe we can work on that, uh permanently authorizing CDPGDR. Thank you very much, I yield.

The lady yields back, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mister Timmins, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Uh, the purpose of today's hearing is to examine whether the Community Develop Development Block Grant disaster recovery program is effectively meeting the long-term rec- recovery needs of disaster affected communities and whether the program's current structure is helping or hindering those efforts. Over the last three decades, Congress has appropriated more than a hundred billion through CDBGDR, yet concerns persist about delays, administrative complexity, overlapping responsibility, and oversight challenges. While CDBGDR is often described as a flexible tool for addressing unmet recovery needs, after FEMA, SBA, insurance, and other assistants have been exhausted, that flexibility comes with trade-offs. Because the program lacks a standing authorization and permanent regulations, each supplemental appropriation can bring a different set of requirements, waivers, timelines, and reporting obligations. The question before us is whether that approach is producing better outcomes for disaster victims. or creating additional barriers to recovery. Uh uh, Mister uh Jarosik, the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly identified changing program requirements and inconsistent rules across disaster supplements as a contributor to delays in getting assistance to communities. From your analysis of the program, if Congress were to authorize a permanent CD BG DR framework with standardized rules which specific parts of HUD's allocation and action plan review process

Sure. So there are two things that could happen that could potentially uh you know streamline the process. One is that the the statute would authorize HUD to establish permanent regulations in the Code of Federal federal regulations that would be more standardized than the current rule making process. Additionally, it would authorize a, or stand up a fund within the treasury that would be, essentially HUD would be able to draw down on that fund and distribute funds to grantees, as soon as enough data were available to assess unmet needs.

Thank you. Uh, one concern we often hear from states and localities is that the complexity of federal disaster programs can consume resources that would otherwise be directed toward recovery efforts on the ground. Particularly for smaller jurisdictions, uh complying with changing federal requirements may require significant staff time and administrative capacity. Uh Deputy Secretary Maguire, uh based on your experience administering disaster recovery programs, how much of a burden do the varying requirements associated with different CDBGDR supplemental appropriations place on grantees?

They are burdensome to have different sets of rules for each allocation.

Thank you. As Congress evaluates potential reforms, it is equally important that taxpayer dollars are protected and that recovery funds are used for their intended purposes. HUD's Office of Inspector General has reported instances where documentation at an oversight were insufficient to verify the proper use of disaster recovery funds. Uh, Miss LeGron, Texas has administered one of the largest CDBGDR portfolios in the country and has extensive experience managing disaster recovery grants. Based on that experience, what internal controls, monitoring systems, and accountability measures are most effective at identifying and preventing the misallocation of funds and are there oversight reforms Congress should consider that would strengthen accountability while avoiding unnecessary delays, in delivering assistance to disaster victims?

From my perspective, disaster recovery has all sorts of hoops, environmental and procurement. duplication of benefit and so on and so forth. And being sure that every single application is reviewed for all of those criteria, one by one, is something that we do on a daily basis in our program.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony. As we consider the future of federal disaster recovery policy, Congress should focus on reforms that improve efficiency, reduce duplication, strengthen accountability, and ensure assistance reaches communities in need as quickly as possible. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back, the gentlewoman from Colorado, Miss Pedersen is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Flood and Ranking Member Cleaver. I grateful for all of you being here having this very important discussion, especially for my state in Colorado. Across the country, disasters are becoming more severe and frequent, and they're more devastating. This especially hurts our mountain and wildland communities and low income families. And there are areas in my district where insurance companies are pulling coverage entirely out of communities because of the increase in risk. So we have a responsibility to insure that federal support, both pre- and post-disaster, is easily accessible and available for all of our communities. And since nineteen ninety-two, the Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery has been a fixture of that support. So I feel frustrated with the discussion today uh when some are advocating for completely taking away the supplemental support, while also dismantling FEMA, uh coming from a state that is facing so many disasters. Recently, President Trump denied multiple requests in appeals for disaster relief to Colorado with no basis or explanation. Refusing to sign a disaster declaration that would have opened up federal funding to support recovery. That means that communities in Colorado will have fewer resources and options to rebuild. Even now, Colorado is weighting upwards of forty-five million dollars from FEMA's hazard mitigation grant program to support disaster resiliency. So with these funds stuck, communities are left with cascading impacts to their businesses and to individuals who are living in these communities. And at HUD, the Community Development Block Grant funding for disaster recovery can only be to communities after qualifying for presidential disaster declaration. So, Miss McGarry McGara, I'm curious about your perspective here, since you come from a state that has been impacted by this as well. When the president delays or withholds disaster recovery funding like we're seeing right now in Colorado, how does that compound the challenges HUD faces in delivering long-term recovery support?

Thank you for your question. Right now we are delayed in being able to roll out the infrastructure component of CDBGDR, so we have a number of communities for which the FEMA public assistance will not fully meet their need. And CDBGDR allows you to build back to what you actually need and make it more resilient. And so we are still waiting on FEMA. Those delays have been extreme and we cannot uh there's no waiver around this, we just have to wait until those funds are administered.

And do you think that those delays have to do with the massive firings and the withholding of funding? Could that have an impact on delays and communities actually getting their needs met?

What we hear from our communities in Western North Carolina is that they are having a lot of turnover in their FEMA staff so they're having to re-explain. Um, each time they get a new case manager they kinda start over. And there's quite a bit of frustration with those delays.

So not only are we facing, you know, barriers, having to rely on the president to to move forward with funding that's desperately needed, uh we're also facing significant delays with mass firings. So early last year the Trump administration announced plans to scale back the Office of Community Planning and Development which plays a central role in long-term disaster recovery. The proposal called for an eighty-four percent staffing cut and Uh, for all of us who do this work, we know that government efficiency is not firing everybody who is in charge of overseeing and dispersing the funds and supporting communities when they're going through uh these difficult times. From, they reduced the staffing from nine hundred and thirty to about a hundred and fifty. Mister Jaroskak, how have has this reduction of this magnitude affected the timeline for getting recovery funds out to communities?

Sure. I don't have direct insight into this specific uh staffing changes currently. However, historically GAO and OIG have pointed to staffing capacity as a major challenge um for HUD's ability to both get the funds out uh to the grantees as quickly as possible, but also to conduct appropriate oversight and monitoring of those funds.

It's deeply disturbing to watch

Gentlelady yields back.

Thank you. Thank you.

The gentleman from New York, Mister Lawler, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, the witnesses, for being here today. Uh, Mister Juricic, the in the, uh, Hudson Valley, uh, we live with the reality that storms don't wait for Washington to sort out its rules. Riverfront towns like Pyrmont and Stony Point and Hamlets like Ossining and Peekskill, uh, need to know before a major storm what recovery will look like. When the federal, uh, playbook changes after every disaster, local officials are left guessing at the moment they need certainty. How does the lack of consistent standing recovery rules affect the predictability and overall effectiveness of long-term recovery efforts nationwide, particularly for communities that face a repeated flooding?

Thank you for the question. And I guess addition in addition to what Ms. McGarrah, Ms. Legron had mentioned, um there are are also challenges with the ability for grantees to ensure that there is, they're mitigating against duplication of benefits risk. Um, with the unpredictability of funding, grantees and states and localities need to begin to plan how they are going to use their funds without potentially clear insight into whether they will receive CDBGDR funds. And this could put a individual households at risk for eventually uh unintentionally uh unintentionally establishing a a duplication of benefit.

Mr. Cave, after disasters, families aren't asking for multi-year planning exercises, they're asking for a safe roof, dry walls, and a path back home. Yet too often the dollars uh meant to stabilize households get diverted into long planning cycles that delay. the very help people are counting on. What pressures tend to shift recovery funding away from urgent household level repairs and toward broader planning activities and how do those pressures ultimately affect communities trying to rebuild?

Yeah, great question, and a big one. Um, it If you if you think about FEMA, you know, you they they go into the community, they bring a table, and they've got a stack of debit cards. and they have a list of hur hurricane victims or disaster victims, and they sign and get a twenty five hundred dollar benefit, which is individual assistance, which is broad-based, which might repair a roof, might go to food, et cetera. Um, I think we have this designation that with CDBGDR, it is waiting for us to measure unmet needs. But when you stack the temporary nature of the program, you're only adding time to that assessment when you should set it on the front-end, the permanent authorization is really just a structure that then shortens that time frame. So as we think about housing, there's immediate assistance, there's transitional, and then there's permanent. If we can shorten that time line by setting up a structure, much of this can be improved through rule making that gets money to families to serve their home needs.

Mr. LeGron, disasters don't distinguish between a dense block and yonkers. and a more rural road in Putnam County, but sometimes our federal formulas do. Smaller working class and rural communities often face the same damage, with fewer staff, fewer resources, and less capacity to navigate complex programs. What high level changes are needed to ensure that all impacted communities, including rural, working class, and capacity constrained areas are treated equitably in long-term recovery programs?

Thank you for that. Um, I think that the formula that allocates the funds in the first place needs to consider exactly that. The resources that exist in the community already for the recovery that it that needs to be covered. And the number of people that would have to support that that recovery.

Miss uh Magara, whether it's a hurricane on the Gulf Coast or a flash flood in the Hudson Valley, the same bottlenecks keep showing up. Slow approvals, complex reviews, and long waits before families see real help. These delays aren't tied to anyone's dorm, they're baked into the system. From your vantage point, what system-wide factors most consistently slow long-term recovery for homeowners and small communities, regardless of where the disaster occurs?

I think the initial delays in getting the funding and then some of the cross-cutting measures um I think we need to re-evaluate whether they're needed in the time of disaster recovery or if we can still have the same effect without going through the full process.

Yield back.

Gentleman yields back, the gentleman from California, Mister Liccardo, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Flood. I I just wanted to echo and share my concerns exp or the exp uh concerns rather expressed by my colleague uh from Colorado that this debate about whether HUD or FEMA should be leading this work I think that debate is really unproductive. uh when we have an administration attempting to dismantle FEMA, at the same time there's no one objecting to those uh decisions, uh whether it's FEMA or HUD, uh neither agency will deliver aid effectively if they don't have employees. Literally we had a secretary of DHS announce in March of last year, that we are going to eliminate FEMA quote unquote. Uh this is not a productive debate. Uh I think I'd like to shift rather to somewhere that is more productive, which is Focus on how and where we're gonna invest these scarce taxpayer dollars. The the big question is are we going to even have those dollars? Miss McGarrett, based on your experience in implementing the CDBG recovery funds uh to deal with the devastation, uh after those horrible floods from Hurricane Helene, um uh you clearly have a recommendation in mind about CDBG DR. Uh first, should it be reauthorized?

I do think it should be authorized, yes.

Clearly you want to see some flexibility in the program, or more flexibility. Is that fair to say?

It is.

And and that's because local communities uh have very different needs that we simply can't anticipate. Is that fair?

That is also fair, yes.

I I certainly agree with that sentiment uh as a former mayor, and appreciate it very much. Um Mister Juryszkak, I'm forgive me please if I've mispronounced your last name.

I've heard it all.

Okay, I'll uh I'll try to avoid that.

No worries.

Um, you know, we have a program, CDBGR CDB CDBGDR funding that can be used for disaster recovery. Uh, can it be used for mitigating disasters in the future?

Yes. So, CDBGDR funds could be used for mitigation type activities. Um, also there's a an additional percentage under recent so supplemental appropriations that is provided specifically for mitigation activities.

But under the current structure in Congress, we only get those current structure of the statute that Congress established, those dollars are only appropriated uh if there is a disaster.

Correct.

Is that what you're saying?

That's correct.

So essentially, we are only offering mitigation to local communities if the disaster is already hit.

Yeah, there are some FEMA uh mitigation programs that are pre-disaster.

Yes.

I'm not as familiar with those, but I have a colleague that covers those.

But not part of CDBG.

Correct.

And obviously CDBG has very specific purposes that communities may need for mitigation. Uh, so this is a little bit like trying to sell the flood insurance while you're underwater.

I can't comment

Okay,

on

fair to say that it's not gonna mitigate the disaster if the aid is delivered after the disaster.

on that character. Sure, I think that that argument could be made that disaster mitigation funds uh may be best served prior to the disaster, and I think that is the purpose of some of the FEMA assistance that is intended for that.

And is there evidence out there from studies that would establish that mitigation's a good investment in taxpayer dollars?

I can't point to a specific study, but generally I think that's discussed.

I'll I'll suggest a couple. I I think the Chamber of Commerce and Allstate last year did a study that said one dollar investment in disaster mitigation saves twenty-three dollars in future loss ec economic uh uh output uh I think NOAA had a study one dollar invested in disaster mitigation saves about thirteen dollars in future costs. You're familiar with the general notion, I assume. Is that fair?

Yes.

OK. So I I'm uh Hoping to soon introduce a bill which is now, uh, and I appreciate your assistance, uh, technical assistance in helping us, uh, fashion this bill. Uh, I'm calling it the Ounce of Prevention Act, that would allow flexibility in the use of CDBG funds by states and local communities, in high-risk areas, to use CDBG for disaster mitigation, uh, and to do so in advance of the disaster, uh, when it's needed, that is with standard CDBG funding. Um, that would be a departure from the current approach, which would only allow you to use CDBG funds that is, that are allocated after disasters. Is that is that fair?

Yes.

And part of the challenge we saw, for example, in the most recent allocation, I think it was the last time we had CDBG MIT funding allocated was twenty nineteen. Is that right?

Well, yes, uh the that specific designation, however, um essentially congress has moved to a different way, a manner in which they provide the mitigation funds. Essentially now they direct HUD to add an additional um uh set aside for mitigation purposes,

The gentleman's time has expired.

a certain percentage.

Uh thank you, I yield.

Gentleman yields. The gentlewoman from Oregon, Miss Bindham, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Um, welcome to our witnesses. I wanted to start with some discrete Questions, um yes or no, if you're able to. If your home and your community burns down in a devastating wildfire, would you say that rebuilding your home is an urgent priority? Mister Juricic, yes or no? Okay. Mister Cave.

Sure.

Miss Legrand.

Yes.

Mrs. McGarrah.

Yes.

And I agree with you, whether it's wildfires like I have in my district or hurricanes and flooding in like some of my colleagues' communities, I believe the American people need the support of the federal government to help them rebuild in the wake of a disaster. And I would argue they can't wait for years for that to happen. Now, it should be the the the the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, HUD's job is to deliver on that. And so I have some questions for HUD too. But, um, respectfully, Mister Chair, I find it curious that, um, you know, we didn't really have that offered. And so I'll ask the questions anyway. Um, does HUD think it's reasonable for it to take years to deliver hund uh funding for the victims of wildfires? And what does HUD recommend a constituent of mine do in the meantime, while they wait years for assistance to build their home? Now unfortunately, this is a reality for thousands of families in Oregon who lost their homes during the devastating twenty twenty Labor Day fires, which burned over one million acres across the state, destroyed over four thousand homes, and claimed eleven lives. The cities of Phoenix, Talent, Detroit, Idana, and Gates saw catastrophic damage. And I will argue, um, even my own family had to escape from the wildfires and I recall as a a tender moment in in mothering, I told the kids to pack up things that they felt were important. And the the kids packed up all of our pictures, and I told them to pack some clothes, and my daughter, my oldest daughter, I think she was about seventeen or eighteen, she said, well mom I I packed some clothes but I also packed a dress, just in case we end up in the south and we have to go to church. And it was one of those moments I'll never forget, because I never imagined having to escape from wildfires getting close to our home. So, despite the sweeping destruction of those fires across Oregon, Congress didn't appropriate funding to rebuild homes in my district until September twenty twenty one, which was over a year later. And after that, HUD had to set requirements for the four hundred twenty-two million of recovery funds designated for my state. And then by the time they finished, the state was able to meet those burden requirements. Federal funding didn't begin flowing to Oregon until February, twenty twenty three. So, twenty twenty, twenty twenty three. And I think that's unacceptable. My constituents and all Americans impacted by disaster can't afford to wait over two and a half years before the rebuilding process even begins. And because those families who lived in Detroit and Gates didn't come back in large numbers. They couldn't sit around and just wait for the feds, hoping that federal funding would come and show up. Now, I'll close with this. In Oregon we have ice storms and wildfires, the strangest kinds of disasters. And the one thing I remember from the most recent storm that our family was affected by, I was on the phone with my best friend and I was looking outside and I think we had an ice storm. And we have Douglas firs in our backyard and they're hundred foot trees. And I remember talking to her, watching the tree go down, down, down, boom, and just barely missed our house by this much. And we called the city. The city came out within two hours, told us what to do, told us we didn't need a permit, told us we could call a couple of companies in the area, and they told us to have a good day. And that was the perfect response for the city. They came when we called within just a couple of hours, they provided the resources we need, and they left. And that to me is what the government should be able to do. Come when you when when you call, when when they're needed, give the information, offer the resources, and go away. And that is what we're asking. That's all we're asking. Thank you, Mister Chair, I yield back.

General Lady yields back. The gentleman from Texas, Mister Green, is now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking member as well. Thank the witnesses for appearing today, especially the witnesses from Texas. Welcome. And I'd like to start with a brief vignette that will not be nearly as soul-stirring as the one that Miss Bynum gave us. It touched my heart to hear her say that the children's selected photographs, uh, they wanted memories. So thank you for that. Uh, my vignette has to do with the necessity to permanently authorize CDBG DR. Um, I can recall when I was acquiring my first motor vehicle, um, it was the Cleaver, and I wanted it to be loaded. I wanted everything, eight track, four four track was out, uh eight track was in, it was a new thing. I wanted eight track, diamond in the back, sunroof top. Digging the seam, you know the rest, gangsterly. But um, you know, wiser persons told me that you really need transportation. Uh, you can get a loaded vehicle later, but now you need transportation. So we got transportation, and today I'm proud to say that I have a fairly decent vehicle, no diamond in the back, but it's uh something that I consider loaded. My point in making this uh point is I think that we should sort of settle down and let's decide that we will just permanently reauthorize CDBG DR. And we can load it later. I I have all of the things that I would like to see in the bill, and you've seen many of them. But I think that we can permanently pass it, and that gets us on the road to doing many of these other things that we'd like to do. Um, I can say to you that we passed it in the house once. Uh, we passed it in the Senate, but we haven't passed it in the House and the Senate at the same time, uh, which is a challenge. But I believe that if we would go to a less loaded CDBGDR and make it permanent, I think then that we can revisit a lot of the things that we would like to have in the bill. And the necessity will probably require us to look at many of these other things that we would have in the bill. Uh, I would like to m- mention Miss Wagner before I, um, finish this soliloquy. Uh, Miss Wagner has been outstanding. I I wanna protect her intellectual property. She brought the idea to me. She and I worked together on this for some years, and uh, I have had the opportunity to move with it. But uh, she really was the person that introduced me to this concept, and uh, she should receive an inordinate amount of credit for what she's done. So my hope today is to simply say, let's establish um this bill that, Mister Chairman, if we do this, Mister Chairman, would uh let people know where the jurisdiction really lies. Uh, because as you know there is this this desire to have jurisdiction in various places. It and it would be in one place if we permanently establish it. HUD would still be in the loop. uh we would not have to reinvent the wheel on every occasion and lose uh the benefit of the institutional knowledge that some persons had that have no- long gone and made their lives in other places this would be a good start now there are many things that i'd like to see in it but i'm not gonna go through those things because i think that it would spoil the argument that i'm making about making it permanent uh i think we can try to find the common ground that we all agree on, just to make it permanent If we can do that, I think we can move forward. And I welcome all of the ideas uh to be on the table, but let's at some point take whatever we can do together and run with that. Now uh I would ask um persons who would like to respond, uh I won't pick on anybody, but people from GLO might wanna be first. So well what do you say to uh permanently moving forward with something that we can say it's here, now let's improve it. Could you kindly, yes, thank you.

Yes, sir, I agree with you that a bare bones CDBGDR program that we could then add to over time would make sense at this point.

OK, now I'm reminded that the best time to plant a tree is twenty five years ago. So let's not twenty five years from now, is what you and I seem to agree on, twenty five years from now say, God, I wish that we'd planted that tree twenty five years ago, because we can bicker over this ad infinitum. But this is the means by which we can move forward and start the process. Who who else would like to respond? Uh, uh, the lady is smiling at the end. I can't see your name from here.

Yes, sir, I agree.

OK. Uh, the gentleman is smiling to the left of my GLO representative.

Yeah, we agree, and streamlining the program is is important.

As well. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back reluctantly.

The gentleman yields back. I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for your testimony today.

Yes, bye.

Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair. The questions will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. Witnesses, please respond no later than July fifteenth, twenty twenty six. With that, this hearing is adjourned.