Full text of the official published hearing record. Extracted from the source document — verify against the official record for citation.
[House Hearing, 119 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] EXAMINING LOCAL NEEDS IN DISASTER RECOVERY ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE of the COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 10, 2026 __________ Serial No. 119-80 Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] www.govinfo.gov ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 64-482 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES FRENCH HILL, Arkansas, Chairman BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Chairman Member FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas, Vice PETE SESSIONS, Texas Ranking Member ANN WAGNER, Missouri NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York ANDY BARR, Kentucky BRAD SHERMAN, California ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York TOM EMMER, Minnesota STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia AL GREEN, Texas WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin BILL FOSTER, Illinois WILLIAM R. TIMMONS, IV, South JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio Carolina JUAN VARGAS, California MARLIN STUTZMAN, Indiana JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania SEAN CASTEN, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts BYRON DONALDS, Florida RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan ANDREW R. GARBARINO, New York RITCHIE TORRES, New York SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia MIKE FLOOD, Nebraska BRITTANY PETTERSEN, Colorado MICHAEL LAWLER, New York CLEO FIELDS, Louisiana MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas JANELLE BYNUM, Oregon ANDREW OGLES, Tennessee SAM LICCARDO, California ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa LISA McCLAIN, Michigan MARIA SALAZAR, Florida TROY DOWNING, Montana MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida TIM MOORE, North Carolina Ben Johnson, Staff Director ------ SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE MIKE FLOOD, Nebraska, Chairman MONICA DE LA CRUZ, Texas, Vice EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking Chairwoman Member JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York WILLIAM R. TIMMONS, IV, South RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan Carolina AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina RITCHIE TORRES, New York ANDREW R. GARBARINO, New York SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia MICHAEL LAWLER, New York BRITTANY PETTERSEN, Colorado MARIA SALAZAR, Florida JANELLE BYNUM, Oregon TROY DOWNING, Montana C O N T E N T S ---------- Wednesday, June 10, 2026 OPENING STATEMENTS Page Hon. Mike Flood, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, a U.S. Representative from Nebraska................. 1 Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, a U.S. Representative from Missouri..... 3 STATEMENTS Hon. French Hill, Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, a U.S. Representative from Arkansas.................. 4 WITNESSES Mr. Joseph V. Jaroscak, Analyst in Economic Development Policy, Congressional Research Service................................. 4 Prepared Statement........................................... 7 Mr. J. Patrick Cave, Senior Vice President of Policy, Enterprise Community Partners............................................. 14 Prepared Statement........................................... 16 Ms. Heather Lagrone, Senior Deputy Director, Texas General Land Office......................................................... 22 Prepared Statement........................................... 24 Mrs. Stephanie McGarrah, Deputy Secretary, North Carolina Department of Commerce......................................... 26 Prepared Statement........................................... 28 APPENDIX MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Hon. Emanuel Cleaver: National Association of Realtors............................. 62 Hon. Monica De La Cruz: Hidalgo County Judge Richard Cortez.......................... 64 Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, Dawn Buckingham................................................. 66 Hon. Maxine Waters: Jade Shain, Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program (CDBG-DR)................................. 68 National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) and the Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition (DHRC)................. 70 National and Multistate Organizations Statement.............. 85 Carolina Van Horn, Deputy Director for Disaster Recovery and Dave Bowman, Deputy Director, Division of Local Government. 102 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Written responses to questions for the record from Mr. Joseph V. Jaroscak Representative John W. Rose.................................. 107 Representative Scott Fitzgerald.............................. 109 Representative Nikema Williams............................... 112 Written responses to questions from Mr. J. Patrick Cave Representative John W. Rose.................................. 122 Representative Scott Fitzgerald.............................. 123 Written responses to questions for the record from Ms. Heather Lagrone Representative John W. Rose.................................. 125 Representative Scott Fitzgerald.............................. 125 Representative French Hill................................... 126 Written responses to questions for the record from Mrs. Stephanie McGarrah Representative John W. Rose.................................. 128 EXAMINING LOCAL NEEDS IN DISASTER RECOVERY ---------- Wednesday, June 10, 2026 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, Committee on Financial Services Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:59 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Flood [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Flood, De La Cruz, Rose, Timmons, Fitzgerald, Lawler, Downing, Hill, Cleaver, Velazquez, Tlaib, Pressley, Garcia, Pettersen, Bynum, and Waters. Also present: Representatives Moore, Liccardo, and Green. Chairman Flood. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance will come to order. 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 5 legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. I now recognize myself for 4 minutes for an opening statement. OPENING STATMENT OF HON. MIKE FLOOD, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEBRASKA The topic of this hearing is the role that Housing & Urban Development (HUD) plays in disaster recovery through what is called the Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery program, or CDBG-DR. CDBG-DR 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 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) have already been deployed. CDBG-DR is a very unique program. The program is not authorized in statute. Instead, CDBG-DR funds are typically granted through a supplemental appropriations bill following a natural disaster. Because these funds are directed through the CDBG-DR program and not any standing program with a direct 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 $109.8 billion allocated through CDBG-DR since its inception, only $64.7 billion has been spent. In other words, only about 59 percent of CDBG-DR funds have been spent. To be clear, I am not saying only 59 percent of the funds were spent last year or in the last 5 years, only 59 percent of CDBG-DR funds have been spent--ever. If you take a look at some individual allocations the problem looks even more acute. Out of $2 billion allocated to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for the 2018 electrical power outages, only about 4.5 percent has been spent. Out of $16.1 billion allocated for mitigation activities from 2015 to 2018, only about 16 percent of those funds have been spent. These abysmal statistics stem from 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 is a dizzying set of problems for a program that has received over $100 billion since its inception. Now that we have discussed the problems with the status quo, let us 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 do not 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 is the optimal way to disburse 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. With that, I yield back my time. I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Cleaver, for 4 minutes for an opening statement. OPENING STATMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER, RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing. Millions of Americans have faced increasingly catastrophic, life-threatening, extreme weather events. In 2024 and 2025 alone the United States experienced 50 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 form the 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 500 national, State, and local organizations wrote Congress urging the codification of the CDBG-DR program. They echoed what Congress has been told by the HUD, the HUD, HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO); codification, including a rulemaking process, would improve core administrative challenges and increase oversight, transparency, and coordination with other agencies. As of May 1, 2026, there were 272 active CDBG-DR grants totaling $106 billion operating under the requirements of nearly 98 different Federal notices. This has consequences. Communities have unnecessarily waited months or years for support long after families have relocated, businesses have closed, and economies have been permanently altered. In California, as many as 100,000 displaced residents remain unable to return home, and communities are still awaiting CDBG-DR funding and clarity more than 520 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's Review Council 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. Chairman Flood. Without objection, it is accepted. [The information referred to can be found in the appendix on page 62.] Chairman Flood. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hill, for 1 minute for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. FRENCH HILL, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS Chairman Hill. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and Mr. Cleaver having this important hearing. Natural disasters certainly can upend countless lives, leaving families, businesses, and entirety 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 CDBG-DR program has fallen short of that high standard. It lacks permanent authorization, clear objectives, and consistent program rules. GAO has repeatedly cited inconsistent program requirements as a key driver of delays and HUD's own inspector general has documented more than $690 million in spending that lacked adequate documentation. So the CDBG-DR's targeting rules compound that problem. I look forward to this hearing looking for solutions into how to design a program that can actually work. I yield back. Chairman Flood. The gentleman yields back. Today we welcome the testimony of Mr. Joseph Jaroscak, an analyst in economic development policy at the Congressional Research Office; Mr. Pat Cave, the senior vice president of policy at Enterprise Community Partners; Ms. Heather Lagrone, the senior deputy director of the Community Development and Revitalization Department at the Texas General Land Office; and Mrs. Stephanie McGarrah, 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. Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. Without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record. Mr. Jaroscak, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your opening oral remarks. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH V. JAROSCAK, ANALYST IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Mr. Jaroscak. 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 Jaroscak. I am an analyst in economic development policy with the congressional Research Service. The role of CRS is to provide objective, nonpartisan 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 CDBG-DR, and related issues. CDBG-DR is a form of long-term disaster recovery assistance provided at the discretion of Congress through supplemental appropriations. 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. CDBG-DR 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 program's statutory authority and regulatory requirements, plus any waivers established by Congress or HUD. As such, program requirements may vary from grant to grant and allocation to allocation. Some analysts suggest that the ad hoc nature and block grant structure of CDBG-DR 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 payments, among other issues. Both GAO and HUD's Office of Inspector General have recommended broad structural reform to CDBG-DR 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 CDBG-DR processes within the current framework. For example, in 2025, HUD adopted the Universal Notice, which is a uniform rulemaking document designed to accompany CDBG-DR allocations when provided by HUD under congressional authority. Specifically, the Universal Notice is intended to provide increased transparency, consistency, and more timely access to CDBG-DR funds by grantees to help minimize program delays and accelerate recovery. Some Members of Congress have also introduced legislation that would authorize CDBG-DR or a similar program. For example, in the 119th 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 CDBG-DR as a standing program, and establishing a dedicated fund in the Treasury for CDBG-DR. Alternatively, the Natural Disaster Recovery Program Act of 2025 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 or additional approach. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Jaroscak follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Flood. Thank you very much. Mr. Cave, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your oral remarks. STATEMENT OF J. PATRICK CAVE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS Mr. Cave. Thank you, Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Cleaver, Chairman Hill, 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 30 years ago when Rick Lazio chaired the subcommittee. It is an honor to be back to testify. Presently, I am the senior vice president of policy for Enterprise Community Partners. Enterprise is a national nonprofit 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 we build and manage communities ourselves. Since 1982, we have invested $92 billion and created or preserved over 1 million homes. As a Louisianan, I have a personal understanding of the urgency of disaster recovery. In 2005, I co-founded a community development nonprofit committed to building sustainable, affordable communities in vulnerable regions after natural disasters. We developed housing for over 460 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, 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. To date, nearly 240,000 homes have been developed or preserved using these approaches, supporting over 2 million residents. We work at the State and local level in targeted technical assistance. We also work closely with State housing 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 of the most practical opportunity exists. Across the country much of the housing stock is aging and increasingly vulnerable. In States like Nebraska, for example, nearing half of the State's housing stock was built before 1970, over 66 years ago. Retrofitting and preserving these homes is a practical risk management approach that reduces repeat losses, shortens recovery timelines, and helps ensure 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 will see several policy recommendations, such as providing stable funding to disaster- stricken communities, providing flexible financing tools to support nonprofit-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 Cleaver, 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 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 in this subcommittee to advance commonsense solutions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cave follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Flood. Thank you, Mr. Cave. Ms. Lagrone, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your oral remarks. STATEMENT OF HEATHER LAGRONE, SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE Ms. Lagrone. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Heather Lagrone, and I work at the Texas General Land Office as senior deputy director of our disaster recovery programs. The Texas General Land Office is the Texas 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 20 years. Texas operates the largest CDBG-DR program funded by HUD, and we have a strong reputation for being very good at what we do. Today, the Land Office is administering 10 open grants that must follow over 30 different sets of regulations because CDBG- DR has never been codified. For more than 20 years CDBG-DR 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-DR 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 $10 billion, replacing over 40,000 housing units, and supported communities with thousands of infrastructure projects benefiting 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 20 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 remain outside program design. States in need of disaster recovery funds should be granted that maximum 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 adds 6 to 8 months to the start of recovery activities simply for the sake of bureaucracy and regulations that mirror a nondisaster 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 80 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, HUD simply relying on a Presidential declaration established under the Stafford Act would be timelier, more efficient, and fairer 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. [The prepared statement of Ms. Lagrone follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Flood. Mrs. McGarrah, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for your oral remarks. STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE McGARRAH, DEPUTY SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mrs. McGarrah. Thank you, Chairman Flood, Ranking Member Cleaver, Chairman Hill, and members of the committee. My name is Stephanie McGarrah, and I am the deputy secretary of community revitalization for the North Carolina Department of Commerce. I am responsible for the implementation of North Carolina's Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery funds for Hurricane Helene recovery. CDBG-DR has been essential to help the State of North Carolina address unmet needs of low-to moderate-income families and communities in Western North Carolina, and I support the permanent authorization of the CDBG-DR program. While CDBG-DR 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 2024, causing significant damage to the Western part of the State with flooding, landslides, high winds that killed 108 North Carolinians and resulted in $60 billion worth of damage to homes and communities. This was by far the most devastating storm to North Carolina by a factor of 3. In January 2025 we were allocated $1.4 billion in CDBG-DR funds by HUD to address some of this damage inflicted by Helene, and we have made some significant progress in the last 17 months. We have developed and launched recovery programs, received 8,000 applications for single-family housing repair, completed the construction of now 70 homes with another 950 more underway, and we have opened application windows for multi- family housing and commercial district revitalization with infrastructure soon to follow. While we received CDBG-DR funding more quickly this time in comparison to previous disasters, there are additional 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 CDBG-DR to be quicker and more responsive. One, promote 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. 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 low-to moderate-income families, but any additional requirements would reduce our flexibility to meet the needs of survivors and add extra time. We also need flexibility because even within North Carolina what happens in Eastern North Carolina in our recovery there in a flat coastal area is very different than the recovery required in Western North Carolina, which is mountainous. Second, I would suggest that you allow States to leverage our action plans that are already in place. Heather talked about this from Texas' perspective. Our process took at least 4 to 5 months, and I am regularly talking with citizens in Western North Carolina who are sitting in moldy houses. So, the 4-to 5-month process could have been greatly reduced. Third, make data-sharing agreements between Federal agencies and CDBG-DR grantees automatic. It is 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 56,000 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. Fourth, remove overlapping Federal, State, and local requirements. If you are rebuilding houses on the same lots, going through a full Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-compliant environmental review is a very time-consuming process. It took us 7 months to get through a Tier I environmental review, and then for each individual home we are waiting another 80 to 90 days. Again, whatever we can do to streamline these requirements would be helpful, and it will 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 have 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 CDBG-DR funding to speed recovery for low-to moderate-income families and communities while maintaining the flexibility of these funds for States and local governments doing the difficult work of recovery. Thank you, and I welcome any questions. [The prepared statement of Mrs. McGarrah follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Flood. Thank you very much. I will now turn to member questions. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Ms. Lagrone, you provide a unique perspective to our conversation today as a representative from Texas, a State that has seen more than its share of disasters. You have been the subject of several allocations of CDBG-DR funds. Can you provide us with some useful insight into the problems with the current formation of the program? Here is my question. You said in your testimony that CDBG- DR, quote, ``simply does not work well,'' end quote. Can you describe the most significant challenges your State has with CDBG-DR allocations? Ms. Lagrone. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. It literally just takes too long to get to the funding. All of the hoops that we have to jump through to get to the funds is what is delaying recovery efforts. Chairman Flood. Is there any difference in how the funds can be used in a large urban area versus a rural area? Do any of those geographic issues present challenges with the program? Ms. Lagrone. There are always limitations in capacity of the governments that we are working with 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 is definitely required for those communities. Chairman Flood. Have you had an opportunity to review the Senate's amended version of the 21st Century Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing bill? Ms. Lagrone. Yes, sir. Chairman Flood. Are you familiar with Section 501? Ms. Lagrone. Yes, sir. Chairman Flood. And this is the section entitled ``Reforming Disaster Recovery Act.'' Is that right? Ms. Lagrone. Correct. Chairman Flood. Does this provision sufficiently address your underlying concerns with the way the program functions? Ms. Lagrone. No, sir. It is codifying the program that we are operating today, and it adds a few extra regulations on top of that. Chairman Flood. Thank you very much. Next I would 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 Mr. Cave's comments on that. After all, if we are asking taxpayers to allocate funds for these projects, we want to ensure the area that received Federal funds is better prepared in the event of another disaster. Mr. Cave, Ms. Lagrone, Mrs. McGarrah, you have varying views on the effectiveness of the program. My question for each of you is whether 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 us start with you, Mr. Cave. Mr. Cave. Yes. We had a set of policy recommendations in the written testimony. I would say two things. One, CDBG-DR is not enough. We should commit to streamlining the program, and we do support CDBG-DR, and we would invite a conversation about other solutions. Chairman Flood. Ms. Lagrone? Ms. Lagrone. 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. Chairman Flood. Would you keep that at HUD, or would you move it to FEMA? Ms. Lagrone. I think I would keep it at HUD. 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 allocation. Chairman Flood. Mrs. McGarrah? Mrs. McGarrah. I would support a stand-alone disaster recovery program, or the changes that we suggested, making the current CDBG-DR program more flexible. I agree that it needs to be more flexible and more certain and I would keep it with HUD. We have not had the best experience with FEMA with Helene. Chairman Flood. What has been your experience with FEMA? Mrs. McGarrah. Delays, lots of delays. Chairman Flood. Here is just a question on it. The way the program is structured now, does it pay for resilience, or do you have to build what you had? Mr. Jaroscak. Mr. Jaroscak. I can speak to that briefly. Currently, CDBG-DR can be used for rebuilding above and beyond. Also, there is now a percentage, additional funds for CDBG mitigation which can be used even more flexibly for mitigation-type measures. Chairman Flood. Okay. I ran out of time. I yield back. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cleaver, for his opening comments and questions. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. McGarrah, one of the proposals before this committee is the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act led by Congressman Al Green. The bill does many things, including requiring Federal agencies to share all data to improve coordination of the disaster recovery process, as well as increased oversight and data transparency; 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, creating a capacity building and technical assistance set-aside, and a couple other things. Would these changes that I have just mentioned benefit the families and communities that you are serving in North Carolina? Mrs. McGarrah. They would. I am not as certain about the formula. I am not sure how that would play out. I know the current formula that we have has, as Heather spoke about with Texas, we have had problems in North Carolina as well where it left out rural areas. North Carolina is the second-most rural population in the country behind Texas, so we would want to make sure that any formula covers both the rural and urban. The data sharing would be much appreciated. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. Ms. Lagrone, you testified before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee a few years back, 2018, and you said, and I quote, Flexibility of the CDBG program is what makes it really the best program to put these disaster recovery dollars into --and you go on to say that the CDBG program is the right program for this. I think a permanent regulation, keeping all the flexibility possible for the CDBG-DR program, would be the absolute answer. Your testimony today is, Disaster recovery should most definitely be codified into its own program at HUD, but the new program should not simply direct what is happening today with more time-consuming regulations as has been proposed, unquote. Can you help me fix that? I mean, your position today is what? I mean, can you help me? Ms. Lagrone. Sure, sure. Thank you for that. CDBG is definitely one of the most flexible programs in the Federal portfolio of grants, but it could be more flexible. After some time passing and recognizing that 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. The data-sharing issue is definitely something that has come up. 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 6, 9 months to get that data through the Federal process. Our sister agency, the Department of Emergency Management, has been told they are not allowed to give us that information. So, allowing us to just get the data that we have always had access to as a State would make a whole lot of sense and would move the ball considerably. The new proposed language adds proportional funding for the first time. 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 are going to prorate the use of funds, housing, infrastructure, planning, economic development, that is 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. Chairman Flood. So, that is the flexibility. Ms. Lagrone. Correct. Yes, sir. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman Flood. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. The gentleman from Arkansas, Chairman Hill, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Chairman Hill. Thank you, Chairman Flood. Again, I thank the witnesses for being with us today. There is no doubt that your testimony demonstrates that the disaster recovery program is intended to be good and could be a force for good if it were properly structured. I think you have 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 we are not forced to make new and ad hoc rules every time a disaster strikes, and appropriation granted to this account. I think there are three basic objectives that we need to answer about CDBG-DR before we try to legislate its permanent existence. Let us talk about those. Mr. Jaroscak, let me start with you. From your study of this program, I am not sure that HUD has the necessary personnel and the ability to ensure that these dollars are spent efficiently and for the highest 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 and meet one of the statutory obligations of the CDBG program. Is HUD the right agency to do this kind of disaster recovery assistance? Mr. Jaroscak. Congress has definitely considered other options, and I cannot necessarily say what the right fit would be. I would note, yes, that GAO and OIG have consistently raised concerns about staffing capacity at HUD and the time and the guidance provided internally for reviewing CDBG-DR paperwork and grantee documents. Chairman Hill. Okay. Ms. Lagrone, you testified that you have received more CDBG-DR money than anybody else in the country. We do not doubt that. Texas is big, and they do disasters big and recovery big, too. Over your two decades of experience, I mean both you and our witness from North Carolina just talked about serious delays and bureaucracy in the program. If Congress wants disaster funding to really make a difference in helping victims in that disaster context, what should it not do to allow you to get back to the most bang for your buck, do you think? In other words, what is that feature that we really need to codify to make it work more effectively with our State partners? Ms. Lagrone. I believe that we need to step out of disaster recovery at the Federal level and allow as much local control as possible. What you see when nationally mandated proportions do different types of programs is communities choosing their least priorities in recovery. When you see a requirement for certain 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. Chairman Hill. Well, maybe you could compare FEMA's 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 is a debate in Congress about granting the States a lot more discretion about customizing the recovery with some Federal grant money instead of prescribing exactly how it ought to be done, and that would be helpful. Mr. Cave, let me turn to you. 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's Inspector General (IG) has constantly complained about the misuse and misallocation of this program. How could we have better certainty that the funds granted are actually used for the specific purpose? Mr. Cave. Well, that is a good question. It does seem to me a lot of what we read from the inspector general at HUD is, we saw it in the State of Louisiana, they went back and audited, found $670 million that was not tied directly to the ROAD Home grant program. Look, I think we step back and echo what Heather is describing, which is getting the money to the States as quickly as possible and ensuring---- Chairman Hill. I appreciate that. My time has expired but anything you want to expand on the accuracy aspect would be helpful to our work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Flood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentlewoman from California, the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Waters, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. I understand that this hearing is all about looking at the systems and how they work or they do not work. Really, we have been talking about this since Katrina with CDBG-DR and some of the people never got compensated down there in New Orleans. Let me tell you. I want to talk about California today. We have 100,000 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 going to get emergency funds to get that done, to get the work done. He has done nothing. The Cabinet has done nothing. The people have continued to suffer. Look at this. Why is it we have 30 to 45 billion dollars spent on a war in Iran and we do not even know why we are there? Why is it that the President wants to have the largest arch in the country, which costs $100 million. They are already tearing down what we got to replace it. Why is it the President can find $400 million to repair the East Wing that he tore down that he did not even come to the Congress of the United States to talk about doing it. Why is it we cannot get this emergency done? Why is it what the President came out to Los Angeles and promised after he blamed everybody but human nature? I do not want to talk about the system. I do not want to 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 are destroying our city, you have people at each other's throats, you have an election that is in chaos, all about the fact that we do not have the emergency money. That is what I am all about. If I am a little bit upset about this today it is because I have just come from another meeting where we are talking about who is to blame for what. The President of the United States of America can find money to do whatever he wants to do with it. I know one thing that I believe about him; he is punishing my State. He is punishing my city. He is punishing my county. People are suffering. We are at each other's throats and 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 is brazen. He does not care about anything or anybody else when he decides to do something. What can we say? Do not tell me about what needs to be tickled in the system. We know that the system is messed up. We have been talking about CDBG-DR since I got involved with Katrina in New Orleans. I want to know why the President of the United States of America will not give the leadership that is needed for the emergency funds in California, in my city, right now. Stop this meeting and let us talk about California right now. [Silence.] Chairman Flood. Does the gentlelady yield back? Ms. Waters. My time is not up. Chairman Flood. No. Ms. Waters. So, if you want to be silent, that tells a story but if you want to talk about California, start the conversation. What do you know, Mr. Chair, about what is happening with emergency needs in California? I am 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 is supposed to do in an emergency. People are homeless. We have 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 that are still trying to find homes to live in. They are asking for help. I have been helping the ministers out there. We had over 10 ministers whose churches and homes had been burned down, and I had friends come all the way from New York with $100,000 to try and help them to at least get some clothing and go on their back, to find someplace to stay. If I am being disruptive, that is exactly what I want to be. I want to be disruptive today, and I want to 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. Chairman Flood. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. De La Cruz, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. De La Cruz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. My goodness, 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 colleague---- Ms. Pressley. That is not germane to this hearing. Ms. De La Cruz. Excuse me, but I am reclaiming my time because this is my time. That being said, we are going to talk about another issue that is very important besides the terrible leadership that California has and that has caused the homelessness that my colleague wanted to talk about that. I want to first give a warm welcome to the same people in Texas where we have good State leadership, and we are not seeing the homelessness and recklessness that we have in California. Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, this is not about---- Ms. De La Cruz. I am reclaiming my time. Chairman Flood. Order. Ms. Garcia. This is not about a partisan issue. I am from Texas and I had a different---- [Inaudible.] Ms. De La Cruz. I want to give a warm welcome to my colleagues and my---- Chairman Flood. Order. Ms. De La Cruz is recognized. Ms. De La Cruz. I want to give a warm Texas welcome to Ms. Heather Lagrone with the Texas General Land Office. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for your leadership and I am thankful to the State of Texas and the State leadership that we have there. We are glad that you are here and we can talk about the great things that Texas is doing. What we are going to talk about today is some of the benefits of codifying the Community Development Block Grant Discovery program and what that has led to in our local communities. As your testimony stated, Ms. Lagrone, you believe that the disaster recovery program should be codified into its own program at HUD but highlighted that we should not simply codify a broken system. In your experience, how long does it generally take from the time Congress authorizes CDBG-DR funds to the time assistance is in the hands of disaster recovery victims? Is it months or is it years? Ms. Lagrone. Thank you for that. It is more than a year in almost every instance. Ms. De La Cruz. Well, as Congress looks for a more efficient system, what reforms to the current CDBG-DR structure would you want to see before codification to ensure that we speed up assistance for the disaster victims? Ms. Lagrone. The State of Texas has done disaster recovery for quite some time, like you mentioned, 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 are offering to our beneficiaries and not go into a litany of rediscussions discussing the event that we have just suffered. Ms. De La Cruz. Ms. Lagrone, to stay with you just a bit longer, the Senate's version of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act included a proposal to codify the CDBG-DR program. I have had extensive outreach on this proposal, including from my largest county, Hidalgo County, and the judge in Hidalgo County, who highlighted concerns with how that section is currently written. One of the specific concerns highlighted is the current formula does not treat rural counties fairly. Would you agree with this? Ms. Lagrone. Yes, ma'am, I agree. Ms. De La Cruz. As a Member representing many rural counties, what would fixing this issue ultimately mean for constituents impacted by disasters? Ms. Lagrone. If the formula that allocated the funds included a per capita-type consideration disaster per person as opposed to just total dollars, that would make a world of difference. Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask by unanimous consent that two letters be entered into the record, one from Hidalgo County Judge Richard Cortez asking me to oppose Section 501 of the Senate bill, and the second from Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, Dawn Buckingham. Chairman Flood. Without objection. [The information referred to can be found in the appendix on pages 64-67.] Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much. I yield back. Chairman Flood. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just reliving the situation that took place in Puerto Rico under Hurricane Maria. Four thousand people died. When disaster, natural disaster strikes, the victims are not Republicans or Democrats. They are Americans and we here in Congress, who have 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. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you referenced the $2 billion 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 has not 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. Here we are, 9 years later, still imposing more restrictive requirements on the use of recovery money, like Secretary Noem's ridiculous directive to have FEMA approve any contract above $100,000, which, as anyone can imagine, has created further roadblocks toward the recovery for an island that continues to suffer from lack of access to essential services, like running water and a reliable electric grid. I am glad that I was given this opportunity to set the record straight, because we, as Americans and as Members of the U.S. Congress, should be ashamed that we allow for the people of Puerto Rico today not to be ready to face even a Category 1 hurricane. Shame on us. These are Puerto Rican Americans. They are our problem because we acquired them in 1898, and until the last day that I am here I will be fighting to make it right. Ms. Lagrone, 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? 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 funds and to capacity issues, technical assistance, imagine, for 3.5 million Puerto Rican Americans whose main language is Spanish. So please. Ms. Lagrone. Thank you for that. Disaster recovery is, like you say, not a one-size-fits-all program, and nor should it be. Recovering from a fire is different than recovering on an island and recovering in the State of Texas is. Again, back to that flexibility that we have been talking about all morning being so very critical to how we move the funds forward; giving the ability to make those decisions on the ground, giving the technical assistance that is 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. Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Flood. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Flood and Ranking Member Cleaver, for holding this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Let me be blunt, the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery, CDBG-DR, kind of a mouthful program, is slow, duplicative, and routinely fails the very people it is supposed to help. Communities do not 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. Mr. Cave, if CDBG-DR 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? Mr. Cave. Well, it is a very good question, Congressman. I think culturally, from what I have seen in our work in Louisiana and Florida, is emergency preparedness personnel are focused on logistics. They serve a Governor and a Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) Office, which is really about emergency preparedness and execution, individual assistance from the get-go. HUD is longer term. It is designed and focused on housing. How do we get an immediate individual assistance focused on principally housing? I think we would say the problem is CDBG does not work well. You can create a permanent authorization, but it is really in the rulemaking where the execution is, and I would bring in emergency personnel. I would bring in the State housing officials, and I would rewrite the rules so that money from day one can show up in housing. Mr. Rose. Thank you. I completely agree with that approach. Mr. Lagrone, you advocate in your written testimony for a unified disaster recovery eligibility standard but, as long as HUD and FEMA run parallel programs, differing rules are inevitable. Does not that contradiction suggest that consolidation at FEMA is the only realistic path to cohesion? Ms. Lagrone. Thank you for that. I agree with Mr. Cave that 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 thought process. Mr. Rose. I think you are more optimistic than you should be about the ability for two Federal agencies to collaborate on something like this. With all due respect, I think the answer is one place or the other. I think, because we are talking about responding to emergencies, FEMA is that place and should be that place. Mr. Jaroscak, giving the ad hoc structure of the CDBG-DR 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 detect fraud, waste, and abuse. Past examples, including over 690 million in questionable spending in Louisiana's ROAD Home Program and continued GAO warnings, underscore these vulnerabilities. Could you briefly explain the key oversight gaps in CDBG-DR and how they contribute to these risks? You have got about 1 minute. Mr. Jaroscak. Thank you for the question. Yes, I think part of the issue is the lack of authorization can create a situation where HUD is essentially standing up a new program each time that Congress provides the funds. Additionally, both OIG and GAO have identified deficiencies in HUD's internal communication, internal guidance on monitoring and assessing grantee capacity, among other issues. Also, OIG has pointed to data collection as a key challenge for HUD and insufficient accounting software tools that HUD uses. These all kinds of can help to contribute to challenges that HUD faces. Mr. Rose. Thank you. I see that my time is about to expire. I appreciate your frank answers, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Flood. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I represent the Massachusetts 7th, which is a frontline community. We have experienced and endured all types of natural disasters, from hurricanes to blizzards, severe flooding. With increasing frequency due to climate change frontline communities thought the country are witnessing firsthand how natural disasters affect public health, personal finances, mental wellness, and even housing affordability. When a natural disaster hits, housing prices rise. This is the economics of supply and demand. Homes are destroyed. People have to move. So, there is greater need, and the cost increases. 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 disruptive event completely outside their control. That is 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 alike following a disaster, prepare homes for mitigation to withstand future disasters, and provide emergency rental payments, like HUD provided during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. One recent study actually found 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. Mr. Jaroscak, can you share CRS' work related to the importance of rental support during disaster recovery and the impacts on affordability in the housing market? Mr. Jaroscak. Yes, CRS has monitored the same sort of research that you are pointing to and a lot of the academic research on CDBG-DR does point to significant benefits for rental. Individuals that live in rental housing tend to benefit more from CDBG-DR assistance than other individuals that did not receive CDBG-DR assistance. Ms. Pressley. Okay, thank you. Mrs. McGarrah, despite the clear benefits of CDBG-DR and this program, it is not permanently signed into law. What does that uncertainty mean for places using those funds to support low-income households and renters? Mrs. McGarrah. 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 do not want when you are trying to recover from a disaster. Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Strengthening CDBG-DR means more people being able to catch their breath financially after disaster when a rental or homeowner, whether they are either of those, CDBG-DR programs support entire communities truly. It is a small business owner who wants to continue living in the same city after a disaster. It is the parents who do not want to switch their child to a new school district. It is the seniors afraid that they will 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 am going to keep fighting, and my Democratic colleagues, to support Community Development Block Grant because it actually helps people. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to do the same. I yield the balance of my time to Ranking Member Waters. Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Let me just ask all of the members whose witnesses are here today. Do you know how much money the State of California puts into the Federal taxes, the Federal Government taxes? Do you know how much? Anybody know? $800 billion in Federal taxes. Do you know that we pay $83 billion more than we receive back in California. Let me just ask this also: Do you know that, despite the fact 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 moldy homes, et cetera, et cetera. Is that true, Mrs. McGarrah? Mrs. McGarrah. Yes, we need more resources to recover from Helene, and our Governor is here today. Ms. Waters. Do you know whether or not he is being received by the President of the United States, who spends all of our money any way that he would like to spend it? Do you know that he has an audience? Mrs. McGarrah. I am not aware of his schedule; I am sorry. Ms. Waters. Did any of you know about the history of Altadena that burned down. Maybe you have heard about Pacific Palisades, but did you hear about Altadena? Do you know what Altadena is? Do you know about the legacy homes there? Well, let me just say this, let us 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. Mr. Flood. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Ms. Waters. Because he does not like us and whoever said, indicated that there was some fraud---- Mr. Flood. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Ms. Waters. That is not true. Mr. Flood. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Ms. Waters. Thank you very much---- Mr. Flood. The gentleman from Montana. Ms. Waters [continuing]. Thank you Ms. Pressley for yielding the time. Mr. Flood. Mr. Downing. Mr. Downing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. Victims of natural disasters expect the deployment of Federal assistance to be as seamless as possible with guardrails as appropriate. 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 disaster aid. I am going to start with Mr. Cade. Do you believe it is appropriate for HUD to have a role in disaster recovery at all when we have FEMA? Mr. Cave. I do. I think the challenge--let me give you an example, post-Katrina we had 100,000 travel trailers as a housing solution, right, because FEMA at the time moved quickly. For many families, that served them well but I do think, if there were more thought given to building materials, possibly stocking small homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), prior, where HUD, who knows housing and building materials, could design a competition, and we would stockpile them early; FEMA and HUD could deliver on a better product immediately. So, I do think there is merit. Mr. Downing. Thank you. Would it make sense or more sense to reform FEMA assistance so it can be a one-stop shop for disaster assistance? It sounds like--well, it just---- Mr. Cave. Well, I think it is both. Like, we could reform CDBG-DR by making it more effective for sure, and we should instruct FEMA to work with HUD on first day housing needs getting met. Mr. Downing. Thank you. Mr. Lagrone, do you have anything to add to that? Ms. Lagrone. No, sir, I agree with all that. Mr. Downing. Excellent. Thank you. Mr. Jaroscak, thank you. I can go on to Ms. Legrone here. I represent Montana's 2nd Congressional District, which is one of the most rural in the country. We have got really long roads. In your written testimony, you discussed how HUDs CDBG-DR calculations can disadvantage disaster-stricken rural communities in favor of urban areas. Can you describe why that is and, more importantly, what Congress can do to address it? Ms. Lagrone. Thank you for that. 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. Obviously, the more rooftops that you have to be damaged, the more likely that number goes up. A county that has 2 million people has more damage in total dollars than a county that has 15,000 people. Mr. Downing. Right. Well, thank you for that. In the interest of time, I am going to move to Mr. Jaroscak here. CDBG-DR funding is intended to support unmet needs following a disaster. Why are permanent sources of disaster aid frequently leaving needs unmet where Congress turns to other sources? Mr. Jaroscak. Yes, thank you for the question. I think there is a broader question on how CDB--well, how disaster recovery assistance is provided and what role the Federal Government plays. I do not know if I can fully answer that question, but I think there have been gaps. CDBG-DR is intended to fill some of those gaps, but with the magnitude of some recent disasters and the cost, CDBG-DR cannot fill all gaps. Mr. Downing. Thanks. Moving on a little bit here, Congress began providing funding for Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery in Fiscal Year 1993. So, how did the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program specifically become a popular pot of money to address unmet disaster related needs? Mr. Jaroscak. Sure. This stems mostly out of a Government Accountability Office recommendation in 1991 after several 1989 disasters where GAO identified some challenges with coordination federally and gaps in the Federal Government's provision of assistance for housing and what agency ought to play the primary role in that. CDBG-DR subsequently was provided, and they utilized CDBG-DR, from my general understanding, primarily because of its flexibility. Mr. Downing. All right, thank you. Unfortunately, I am run out of time so on that, Mr. Chair, I yield. Mr. Flood. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Garcia, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the witnesses. First, let me begin by saying, as Paul Harvey used to say, let us hear the other side of the story. I take exception to some of the comments that were made by Ms. De La Cruz because, for so many of us, especially myself, who comes from the Houston region, which is hit first, hit hardest, and probably had the most damages occurring and fatalities after so many disasters. Obviously, I have been a county commissioner locally. I have been a State senator, and you may have appeared before me when I was in affairs--so I know all of this. It is not just a talking point. It is not just a sound bite, but I have lived it. Ms. Lagrone, it struck me that you said that, in your opinion, it just takes too long to get funding. That is exactly what we used to say when I was in local government about the slowness of the General Land Office (GLO). I am not here to tell you that--your program is a disaster, but it is certainly lacking. When we see that, in 2021, after Harvey, Houston, Harris County, was slated to get zero funding. That means that the formula is fatally flawed. If we are the ones to have $150 billion in damage, the pictures you see on CNN with people on rowboats and motorboats helping people, that was my district, but you all were slow as molasses. I can tell you that, even though GLO has got money, it has not come to the area that I represent, and I am trying to understand. I grew up in south Texas, just like my colleague across the aisle, but I have 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, as I told them--I remember telling one of the State senators when we were having a debate--they do not even get enough wind to fly a kite, but I have got the plants, the port, buildings, apartments just in devastation; I am sorry. You go to the place where there is most need. I do not understand why you think that per capita helps, because a small county like where I grew up where, in my little town, there are less than 100 people; but, in the Houston area, there are about 5 million people. Are rural communities not still going to get less per capita? Ms. Lagrone, it is just a yes or no. You do not need an explanation. I need to move on. It does not really help. Then, when you talk about needing flexibility, what does that really mean? Is it flexibility so that you can violate the Civil Rights Act not only--that y'all have already done not once but twice. You were found to have discriminated based on race in the lawsuit. The finding was made by HUD. Of course, one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was to do away with it, but is that what you mean by flexibility so that you can give money to the Republican rural counties and forget the urban centers that have people of color, people who are poor and helpless? I am sorry. I just cannot get into this whole notion we just need more flexibility. I am not referring to you, ma'am, because I do not know enough about your State. I am talking about Texas because it is not in my judgment a model. There was an article recently that said that President Trump has rejected disaster aid for Democratic-run States at the highest rate in the 47-year history of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I know we are talking CDBG. He approved just 23 percent of disaster funding requests from States with a Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators; and for States with Republican Governors with two Republican Senators, the opposite, 89 percent. Is that the flexibility you want in the State of the Texas so that your Governor can give the money to the Republican rural States rather than the Democratic urban States? Yes or no? Mrs. McGarrah. No, ma'am. Ms. Garcia. All right, thank you. With that, I yield to my colleague and friend, the ranking member. Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. There is very little time left, but I would ask any Republican who has 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 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? Mr. Flood. No, no. Ms. Waters. Let me just say--instead---- Ms. Garcia. I reclaim my time and---- Ms. Waters. If I do not have any more time, you got it back. Mr. Flood. There is no more time remaining. We are out of time. Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized for unanimous consent for two documents. Mr. Flood. Without objection. [The information referred to was not submitted prior to printing.] Ms. Garcia. Thank you. Mr. Flood. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Moore, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would submit to my colleague that natural disasters do not distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. 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. It displaced families and left many of the communities facing a long and difficult rebuilding process. For many of those families, flood insurance was simply not an option. These were mountain communities, not in traditionally what you would think of in a flood area. As a result, the Federal disaster recovery programs have become one of the few remaining pathways to rebuild. The CDBG-DR is often a primary source of assistance for these unmet recovery needs, after FEMA assistance, SBA loans and charitable resources have been exhausted. First off, Mrs. McGarrah, thank you. Glad to have you here in Washington. By the way, you have got to stay in North Carolina for the good barbecue, just saying. You cannot find any good barbecue in Washington, so. The crab cakes are great, though, but no barbecue here. North Carolina has administered the CDBG-DR funding following multiple major disasters, as you know, that we have had. How is North Carolina--how is our State's experience administering those grants after Hurricane Helene differed from the experience say with Hurricanes Matthew and Florence? Of course, we know where those areas are; my colleagues do not. Those were on the coast; Helene was in the mountains. What has been the difference in administering those? Mrs. McGarrah. We have had a quicker turnaround in terms of getting our funds. It was around 3 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. Mr. Moore. The major sources of delay, like if there are any HUD requirements or action plan approvals, duplication of benefit reviews, et cetera, local capacity constraints or anything else. What would you say I guess has been the most challenging for North Carolina this time? Mrs. McGarrah. I think the length of the process for the action plan that is challenging. The environmental reviews have been very time-consuming. I actually spoke with Samaritan's Purse, as you know, is a major nonprofit, and they are headquartered in Boone, North Carolina. They said that areas where they can save time and get their money a lot faster, they do not have to go through the lengthy procurements that we have to go through; their environmental processes are more streamlined; and they do not 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--to streamline those and save time for our survivors. Mr. Moore. I believe GAO and HUD's Inspector Generals, they repeatedly identify some challenges involving data sharing, duplication of benefits, and improper payments. So, we know, unfortunately, those things that happened but your testimony does raise some of the issues that are just out there. I actually have a bill that would require HUD to enter into a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with FEMA and the SBA to include disaster recovery data and information sharing. Do you think if we had greater coordination among these agencies and improved transparency, that would strengthen accountability within the CDBG-DR program? Mrs. McGarrah. 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. Mr. Moore. Just in light of where you are now, how would you describe the response now with the Governor's Recovery Office for Western North Carolina (GROW NC) versus what we had before with a group that is called NCORR, in terms of meeting particularly on the housing side? Mrs. McGarrah. I think we have made improvements in North Carolina that were much needed. Mr. Moore. Very good. Let me switch to Ms. Lagrone 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? Ms. Lagrone. Yes, sir. Mr. Moore. Would this reporting requirement help Congress in fact conduct more effective oversight and make better informed decisions when authorizing and funding future disaster recovery programs? Ms. Lagrone. I think y'all would know where the money was going much better. Ms. Moore. The President has repeatedly emphasized that States should leave disaster recovery efforts. A lot of that principle recognizes reality, and that is that State and local officials are closer to the challenges facing communities than folks in Washington, DC. I can--I was on the plane with the President, and he came to Western North Carolina, and just it is something that I will never forget, that, in the same week that President Trump, Mr. Chairman, that he was sworn into office at the inauguration; the first trip he took outside of Washington, DC. was to Western North Carolina. He came there and told our folks, folks I represent and others, that they would not be forgotten. I can tell you that what I have seen from this administration, from this President, is absolutely commitment to getting relief to Western North Carolina. We have got a lot of challenges, a lot of unique challenges, because you think of hurricanes, you think of a coast. The water comes up; the water goes down. In the mountains, it does not work that way. I just--it has posed a lot of challenges. Mrs. McGarrah, I appreciate the work you have been doing there in the State, and what NC GROW is doing and I appreciate that. Glad to hear from you today. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Flood. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Tlaib. 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 watch and flood warnings all throughout my district. 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 Fix Our Flooded Basement Act because FEMA does not cover flooded basements. It is built on the coastal communities but, in the Midwest, we are now seeing, 2 years after a big flood, toxic mold and so much of things that you just cannot imagine having in your own home. Now it is unsafe for many of my families to live there. In the middle of century, in much of Detroit, we used to consider I think what we called the, quote, ``100-year storms'' are projected to occur every what 16 years. So, any conversation about future of disaster recovery must address the needs of climate resilience. They do not want to call it climate; I do not 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 economies and provide benefits to our communities, even on perfect, sunny days. In fact, investing in resilience--and we know this--actually saves far more money than it costs. Every dollar spent on Federal mitigation grants saves $6 on future disaster losses. Mrs. McGarrah, can you share what you think our Nation is doing well in terms of fostering climate resilience? The second question I have is, what can we do for families already--they survived the storm but now their home is unlivable? Mrs. McGarrah. We are definitely taking the approach of making sure that we build back safely. In Western North Carolina, we have struggled with landslides that is candidly one of the hardest issues to fix. So, we are having to move families in some cases. We are making sure we build outside of the floodplains. The challenge that we have is that Helene moved our rivers. As hard as it is to see with we had a very big rain a few weeks ago, and what was beneficial about that is I think people who thought, ``Oh, this will never happen again,'' started to see oh, yes, well, it could happen again. So, we are getting less resistance from folks as we try to make sure that we mitigate and put their--and there is mitigation money within CDBG-DR that we use for those purposes. Ms. Tlaib. One of the things I mean, I am trying to get as much people's support changing the FEMA guidelines at least to cover basements. Have you heard from advocates and others that work in this area around changing some of what FEMA will cover in natural disasters? Mrs. McGarrah. I have not spent as much time on that. Maybe others could answer that. Ms. Tlaib. Anybody else have any indication around that? Well, one of the things that we also talk about is the fact that often we hear that these measures that we want to put forward are too costly, right. Can you share a little bit about the financial challenge of trying to build resilience in new and existing housing, and who pays the cost when we forego that resilience? Yes, for you. Mrs. McGarrah. I am sorry. I am sorry I missed who you addressed it to. I think, when you do not build it back, then--so one of our counties that in the HUD most impacted distressed areas for Helene is Haywood County. That is where I am actually from. My parents live there and, along the Pigeon River, we had tropical Storm Fred and now Hurricane Helene. We have seen folks just lose their houses, 3 years ago and now, and some of them in 2001. So, the cost is high, and now we are seeing small towns 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 have been in a location for a long time. Ms. Tlaib. Absolutely. Mrs. McGarrah. It is important and I think we must do and mitigate, or, otherwise, we will continue to pay the price. Ms. Tlaib. Mrs. McGarrah, you actually mentioned CDBG-DR assistance. Could permanently authorizing CDBG-DR help address administrative barriers and delays? Mrs. McGarrah. Yes, we would not have as many sets of rules. It would just be easier to work with. I think Ms. Lagrone from Texas mentioned they are working on 30 different sets of allocations. It just makes it easier. Ms. Tlaib. Is it delaying months, years? Ms. Lagrone. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Tlaib. How many--how long is it delaying not having been permanently authorized? Ms. Lagrone. It is easily taking over a year to access the funds by beneficiaries after you all make the allocation. Ms. Tlaib. That is just too long, yes. I hope my colleagues, maybe, we can work on that permanently authorizing CDBG-DR. Thank you very much. I yield. Mr. Flood. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Timmons, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. The purpose of today's hearing is to examine whether the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program is effectively meeting the long-term 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 100 billion through CDBG-DR, yet concerns persist about delays, administrative complexity, overlapping responsibility, and oversight challenges. While CDBG-DR is often described as a flexible tool for addressing unmet recovery needs after FEMA, SBA insurance and other assistance have been exhausted, that flexibility comes with tradeoffs 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. Mr. Jaroscak, the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly identified changing program requirements and inconsistent rules across disaster supplements as a contributor to getting delays and getting assistance to communities. From your analysis of the program, if Congress were to authorize a permanent CDBG-DR framework with standardized rules, which specific parts of HUD's allocation and action plan review process account for the greatest delays today--and where could Congress streamline the process to improve the speed of recovery assistance without sacrificing accountability? Mr. Jaroscak. Sure. There are two things that could happen that could potentially streamline the process. One is that the statute would authorize HUD to establish permanent regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations. It would be more standardized than the current rulemaking process. Additionally, it would authorize or stand up a fund within the Treasury. It 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. Mr. Timmons. Thank you. 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, complying with changing Federal requirements may require significant staff time and administrative capacity. Deputy Secretary McGarrah, based on your experience of administering disaster recovery programs, how much of a burden do the varying requirements associated with different CDBG-DR supplemental appropriations place on grantees? Mrs. McGarrah. They are burdensome to have a different sets of rules for each allocation. Mr. Timmons. 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 and oversight were insufficient to verify the proper use of disaster recovery funds. Ms. Lagrone, Texas has administered one of the largest CDBG-DR 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. Are there oversight reforms Congress should consider that would strengthen accountability while avoiding unnecessary delays and delivering assistance to disaster victims? Ms. Lagrone. From my perspective, disaster recovery has all sorts of hoops in environmental and procurement and duplication of benefit and so on and so forth. 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. Mr. Timmons. Thank you to all the witnesses for 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. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Flood. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Pettersen, is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Pettersen. Thank you, Chairman Flood and Ranking Member Cleaver. I am grateful for all of you being here and having this very important discussion, especially from my State in Colorado. Across the country, disasters are becoming more severe and frequent, and they are more devastating. This especially hurts our mountain and wildland communities and low-income families. There are areas in my district where insurance companies are pulling coverage entirely out of communities because of the increase in risk. We have a responsibility to ensure that Federal support both pre-and post-disaster is easily accessible and available for all of our communities. Since 1992, the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery has been a fixture of that support. I feel frustrated with the discussion today when some are advocating for completely taking away the supplemental support while also dismantling FEMA, coming from a State that is facing so many disasters. Recently President Trump denied multiple requests and 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 awaiting upwards of $45 million from FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to support disaster resiliency. With these funds stuck, communities are left with cascading impacts to their businesses and to individuals who are living in these communities. At HUD, the Community Development Block Grant funding for disaster recovery can only be given to communities after qualifying for Presidential disaster declaration. Mrs. McGarrah, I am 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 are seeing right now in Colorado, how does that compound the challenges HUD faces in delivering long-term recovery support? Mrs. McGarrah. Thank you for your question. Right now, we are delayed in being able to roll out the infrastructure component of CDBG-DR. We have a number of communities for which the FEMA public assistance will not fully meet their needs, and CDBG-DR allows you to build back to what you actually need to make it more resilient. We are still waiting on FEMA. Those delays have been extreme and we cannot--there is no waiver around this. We just have to wait until those funds are administered. Ms. Pettersen. Do you think that the delays have to do with massive firings and the withholding of funding? Could that have an impact on delays in communities actually getting their needs met? Mrs. McGarrah. What we hear from our communities in Western North Carolina is that they are having a lot of turnovers in their FEMA staff. So, they are having to reexplain each time they get a new case manager, they kind of start over and there is quite a bit of frustration with those delays. Ms. Pettersen. So, not only are we facing barriers having to rely on the President to move forward with the funding that is desperately needed but we are also facing significant delays with mass firings. Early last year, the Trump Ms. 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 calls for an 84 percent staffing cut. For all of us who do this work, we know that government efficiency is not firing everybody who is in charge of overseeing and disbursing the funds and supporting communities when they are going through these difficult times. From--they reduced the staffing from 930 to about 150. Mr. Jaroscak, how has this reduction of this magnitude affected the timeline for getting recovery funds out to communities? Mr. Jaroscak. Sure, I do not have direct insight into this specific staffing changes currently. However, historically GAO and OIG have pointed to staffing capacity as a major challenge for HUD's ability to both get the funds out to the grantees as quickly as possible but also to conduct appropriate oversight and monitoring of those funds. Ms. Pettersen. It is deeply disturbing to watch what is happening right now and to see the impacts on my State and the people who are impacted every day. Thank you all for being here and to the chairman for trying to address how we actually make the system work and be efficient and meet the needs of our communities. Shame on the President for withholding these funds from Colorado. Mr. Flood. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Lawler, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Mr. Jaroscak, in the Hudson Valley, we live with the reality that storms do not wait for Washington to sort out its rules. Riverfront towns, like Piermont and Stony Point, and hamlets, like Ossining and Peekskill, need to know before a major storm what recovery will look like. When the Federal 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 repeated flooding? Mr. Jaroscak. Thank you for the question. I guess, in addition to what Mrs. McGarrah and Ms. Lagrone had mentioned, there are also challenges with the ability for grantees to ensure that they are mitigating against duplication of benefits risk. 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 CDBG-DR funds. This could put individual households at risk for eventually unintentionally establishing a duplication of benefit. Mr. Lawler. Mr. Cave, after disasters, families are not asking for multiyear planning exercises. They are asking for a safe roof, dry walls, and a path back home. Yet too often the dollars 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 to a broader planning activity, and how do those pressures ultimately affect communities trying to rebuild? Mr. Cave. Yes, great question and a big one. If you think about FEMA, they go into the community, and they bring a table, and they have got a stack of debit cards. They have a list of Hurricane victims or disaster victims, and they sign and get a $2,500 benefit, which is individual assistance which is broad based, which might repair a roof, might go to food, et cetera. I think we have this designation that, with CDBG-DR, it is waiting for us to measure unmet needs but, when you stack the temporary nature of the program, you are only adding time to that assessment, when you should set it on the front end, permanent authorization. It is really just the structure that then shortens that timeframe. As we think about housing, there is immediate assistance; there is transitional; and then there is permanent. If we could shorten that timeline by setting up a structure, much of this could be improved through rulemaking that gets money to families to serve their home needs. Mr. Lawler. Ms. Lagrone, disasters do not distinguish between a dense block in 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. Ms. Lagrone. Thank you for that. 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 are ready for the recovery that needs to be covered and the number of people that would have to support that, that recovery. Mr. Lawler. Mrs. McGarrah, whether it is 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 and these delays are not tied to any one storm. They are baked into the system. From your vantage point, what systemwide factors most consistently slow long-term recovery for homeowners and small communities regardless of where the disaster occurs? Mrs. McGarrah. I think the initial delay in getting the funding and then some of the crosscutting measures, I think we need to reevaluate whether they are needed in the time of disaster recovery or if there is a way we can still have the same effect without going through the full process. Mr. Lawler. I yield back. Mr. Flood. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California, Mr. Liccardo, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Liccardo. Thank you, Mr. Flood. I just wanted to echo and share my concerns--expressed by my colleague from Colorado that this debate about whether HUD or FEMA should be leading this work, I think that debate is really unproductive when we have the administration attempting to dismantle FEMA. At the same time, there is no one objecting to those decisions. Whether it is FEMA or HUD, neither agency will deliver effectively if they do not have employees. Literally we had a Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announce in March of last year that we are going to eliminate FEMA, quote/ unquote. This is not a productive debate. I think I would like to shift, rather, somewhere that is more productive, which is focused on how and where we are going to invest these scarce taxpayer dollars. The big question is whether we are going to even have those dollars. Mrs. McGarrah, based on your experience in implementing CDBG recovery funds to deal with the devastation after those horrible floods from Hurricane Helene, you clearly have a recommendation in mind about CDBG-DR. First, should it be reauthorized? Mrs. McGarrah. I do think it should be authorized, yes. Mr. Liccardo. Clearly, you want to see some flexibility in the program or more flexibility. Is that fair to say? Mrs. McGarrah. It is. Mr. Liccardo. And that is because local communities have very different needs that we simply cannot anticipate. Is that fair? Mrs. McGarrah. That is also fair, yes. Mr. Liccardo. I certainly agree with that sentiment as a former mayor and appreciate it very much. Mr. Jaroscak, forgive me please if I mispronounce your last name. Mr. Jaroscak. I have heard it all. Mr. Liccardo. Okay, I will try to avoid that. Mr. Jaroscak. No worries. Mr. Liccardo. We have a program, CDBG-DR, funding that can be used for disaster recovery. Can it be used for mitigating disasters in the future? Mr. Jaroscak. Yes. CDBG-DR funds could be used for mitigation type activities. Also, there is an additional percentage under recent supplemental appropriations that are provided specifically for mitigation activities. Mr. Liccardo. But, under those current structure in Congress, we only get the current structure of the statute that Congress has established. Those dollars are only appropriated if there is a disaster. Is that fair to say? Mr. Jaroscak. Correct, that is correct. Mr. Liccardo. Essentially we are only offering mitigation to local communities if the disaster has already hit. Mr. Jaroscak. There are some FEMA mitigation programs that are pre-disaster. I am not as familiar with those, but I have a colleague that covers those. Mr. Liccardo. But not part of CDBG. Mr. Jaroscak. Correct. Mr. Liccardo. Obviously CDBG has very specific purposes that communities may need for mitigation. This is a little bit like trying to sell the flood insurance while you are under water. Mr. Jaroscak. I cannot comment. Mr. Liccardo. Okay. Is it fair to say it is not going to mitigate the disaster if aid is delivered after the disaster? Mr. Jaroscak. Sure, I think that argument could be made that disaster mitigation funds 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. Mr. Liccardo. Is there evidence out there from studies that would establish that mitigation is a good investment of taxpayer dollars? Mr. Jaroscak. I cannot point to a specific study, but generally I think that is discussed. Mr. Liccardo. I will suggest a couple. I think the Chamber of Commerce and AllState last year did a study that said a $1 investment in disaster mitigation saved $23 in future loss economic output. I think National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had a study: $1 invested in disaster mitigation saves about $13--you are familiar with the general notion, I assume. Is that fair? Mr. Jaroscak. Yes. Mr. Liccardo. Okay. I am hoping to soon introduce a bill, which is now--and I appreciate your assistance, technical assistance, in helping us fashion this bill. I am calling it the Ounce of Prevention Act, that would allow the flexibility to use the CDBG-DR funds by States and local communities in high-risk areas to use CDBG for disaster mitigation and to do so in advance of the disaster, when it is needed. That is the standard CDBG funding. That would be a departure from the current approach, which would only allow you to use CDBG funds that are allocated after the disaster. Is that fair? Mr. Jaroscak. Yes. Mr. Liccardo. Part of the challenge we saw, for example, in the most recent allocation, I think it was the last time we had Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funding allocated was 2019. Is that right? Mr. Jaroscak. Well, yes, that specific designation. However, essentially, Congress has moved to a different way-- manner in which they provide the mitigation funds. Essentially, now, they direct HUD to add an additional set-aside for mitigation purposes---- Mr. Flood. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Jaroscak [continuing]. percentage. Mr. Liccardo. Thank you. I will yield. Mr. Flood. The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bynam, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to our witnesses. I wanted to start with discrete questions, yes or no, if you are able to. If your home and your community burn down in a devastating wildfire, would you say that rebuilding your home is an urgent priority? Mr. Jaroscak, yes or no? Mr. Jaroscak. Sure. Ms. Bynum. Mr. Cave? Mr. Cave. Sure. Ms. Bynum. Ms. Legrone? Ms. Legrone. Yes. Ms. Bynum. Mrs. McGarrah? Mrs. McGarrah. Yes. Ms. Bynum. I agree with you. Whether it is wildfires like I have in my district or hurricanes and flooding, 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 cannot wait for years for that to happen. Now it should be the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. HUD's job is to deliver on that. I have some questions for HUD too, but, respectfully, Mr. Chair, I find it curious that we did not really have that offered and so I will ask the questions anyway. Does HUD think it is reasonable for it to take years to deliver funding for the victims of wildfires? 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 2020 Labor Day fires, which burned over 1 million acres across the State, destroyed over 4,000 homes, and claimed 11 lives. The cities of Phoenix, Talent, Detroit, Idanha, and Gates saw catastrophic damage. I will argue even my own family had to escape from the wildfires, and I recall a tender moment in mothering. I told the kids to pack up things that they felt were important. 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 17 or 18--she said, ``Well, Mom, 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.'' It was one of those moments I will never forget, because I never had imagined having to escape from wildfires getting close to our home. Despite the sweeping destruction of those fires across Oregon, Congress did not appropriate funding to rebuild homes in my district until September 2021, which was over a year later. After that, HUD had to set requirements for the 422 million of recovery funds designated for my State. Then, by the time they finished, the State was able to meet those burden requirements. Federal funding did not begin flowing to Oregon until February 2023; so, 2020, 2023. I think that is unacceptable. My constituents and all Americans impacted by disaster cannot afford to wait over 2 and a half years before the rebuilding process even begins. Because those families who lived in Detroit and Gates did not come back in large numbers, they could not sit around and just wait for the Feds, hoping that Federal funding would come and show up. Now I will close with this: In Oregon, we have ice storms and wildfires, the strangest kinds of disasters. 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. We had Douglas firs in our backyard, and they are 100-foot trees. I remember talking to her watching the tree go down, down, down, boom, and just barely missed our house by this much. We called the city. The city came out within 2 hours. Told us what to do. Told us we did not need a permit. Told us we could call a couple of companies in the area, and they told us to have a good day. That was the perfect response for the city. They came when we called within just a couple of hours. They provided the resources we needed, and they left and that to me is what the government should be able to do: Come when you call, when they are needed, give the information, offer the resources and go away. That is what we are asking, that is all we are asking. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Mr. Flood. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking member as well. I thank the witnesses for appearing today, especially the witnesses from Texas. Welcome. I would like to start with a brief vignette that will not be nearly as soul stirring as the one that Ms. Bynum gave us. It touched my heart to hear her say that the children selected photographs; they wanted memories. Thank you for that. My vignette has to do with the necessity to permanently authorize CDBG-DR. I can recall, when acquiring my first motor vehicle, Mr. Cleaver, and I wanted it to be loaded. I wanted everything, 8-track--4-track was out, but 8-track was in; it was the new thing. I wanted 8 track, diamond in the back, sunroof top, digging the scene, you know the rest, gangsta lean. Wiser persons told me that ``you really need transportation; you can get a loaded vehicle later, but now you need transportation.'' We got transportation. Today I am proud to say that I have a fairly decent vehicle, no diamond in the back, but it is something that I consider loaded. My point in making this point is I think that we should sort of settle down and let us decide that we will just permanently reauthorize CDBG-DR. We can load it later. I have all of the things that I would like to see in the bill, and you have seen many of them. I think that we can permanently pass it, and that gets us on the road to doing many of these other things that we would like to do. I can say to you that we passed it in the House once. We passed it in the Senate but we have not passed it in the House and the Senate at the same time, which is a challenge but I believe that, if we were to go to a less loaded CDBG-DR 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. The necessity would probably require us to look at many of these other things that we would have in the bill. I would like to mention Ms. Wagner before I finish this soliloquy. Ms. Wagner has been outstanding. I want to protect her intellectual property. She brought the idea to me. she and I worked together on this for some years and I have had the opportunity to move with it, but she really was a person that introduced me to this concept, and she should receive an inordinate amount of credit for what she has done. My hope today is to simply say, ``Let us establish this bill,'' that, Mr. Chairman, if we do this, Mr. Chairman, would let people know where the jurisdiction really lies because, as you know, there is this desire to have jurisdiction in various places. It would be in one place if we permanently established it. HUD would still be in the loop. We would not have to reinvent the wheel on every occasion and lose the benefit of the institutional knowledge that some people have that have long gone and made their lives in other places. This would be a good start. Now there are many things that I would like to see in it, but I am not going to go through those things because I think it would spoil the argument that I am making about making it permanent. 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. I welcome all of the ideas to be on the table but let us at some point take whatever we can do together and run with that. Mr. Green. Now I would ask persons who would like to respond--I will not pick on anybody--but persons from GLO might want to be first. What do you say to permanently moving forward with something that we can say, ``It is here; now let us improve it''? Could you kindly? Yes. Thank you. Ms. Lagrone. Yes, sir. I agree with you that a barebones CDBG-DR program that we could then add to over time would make sense at this point. Mr. Green. Okay. Now I am reminded that the best time to plant a tree was 25 years ago. Let us not, 25 years from now, is what you and I seem to agree on, 25 years from now say, ``God, I wish that we planted that tree 25 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 else would like to respond? The lady smiling at the end. I cannot see your name from here. Mrs. McGarrah. Yes, sir. I agree. Mr. Green. Okay. The gentleman is smiling to the left of my GLO representative. Mr. Cave. Yes, we agree, and streamlining the program is important as well. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back reluctantly. Chairman Flood. The gentleman yields back. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for your testimony today. Without objection, all members will have 5 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 15, 2026. [The information referred to can be found in the appendix.] With that, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ---------- MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]