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





                                 



 EXAMINING THE ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BUILDING CODES IN MITIGATING 
                           AGAINST DISASTERS

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

                                (118-71)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 25, 2024

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure             
             GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

             


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                             
                             
                        _______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 58-133 PDF	      WASHINGTON : 2025                       
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

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

      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                          Emergency Management

    Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman
Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Garret Graves, Louisiana
  District of Columbia               Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Sharice Davids, Kansas,                Puerto Rico
  Vice Ranking Member                Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon,
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana              Vice Chairman
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Anthony D'Esposito, New York
John Garamendi, California           Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)



                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

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

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
  Management, opening statement..................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, 
  opening statement..............................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7

                               WITNESSES

Russell J. Strickland, President, National Emergency Management 
  Association, oral statement....................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Buddy Hughes, First Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, 
  National Association of Home Builders, oral statement..........    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Jordan Krahenbuhl, Executive Director, Plumbing, Heating, Cooling 
  Contractors of Nevada, oral statement..........................    23
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of Building and Fire 
  Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing and Community 
  Development (Retired), on behalf of the International Code 
  Council, oral statement........................................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    30

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of September 24, 2024, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and 
  Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, from 
  the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; the 
  National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; the National Stone, 
  Sand & Gravel Association; and the Portland Cement Association, 
  Submitted for the Record by Hon. Derrick Van Orden.............    51

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Russell J. Strickland, President, National Emergency 
  Management Association, from Hon. Rick Larsen..................    53
Questions to Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of Building 
  and Fire Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing and 
  Community Development (Retired), on behalf of the International 
  Code Council, from Hon. Rick Larsen............................    53




                           September 20, 2024

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Examining the Role and 
Effectiveness of Building Codes in Mitigating Against 
Disasters''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, 
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday, September 25, 2024, at 
10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to 
receive testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Examining the Role 
and Effectiveness of Building Codes in Mitigating Against 
Disasters.'' The purpose of the hearing is to examine how the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is implementing 
existing policies related to building codes across its 
programs, including the Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities (BRIC) predisaster mitigation program. Members will 
receive testimony from the National Association of Home 
Builders, the International Association of Plumbing & 
Mechanical Officials, the National Emergency Management 
Association, and the International Code Council.

                             II. BACKGROUND

THE HISTORY OF BUILDING CODES IN DISASTER RECOVERY

    Building codes have played a role in disaster assistance 
and recovery since before the establishment of FEMA. In 1974, 
the Disaster Relief Act (P.L. 93-288) was signed into law, 
which established the presidential disaster declaration 
process.\1\ Included in the legislation was language that gave 
the President the authority to provide funding to state and 
local governments to help, ``repair, restore, reconstruct, or 
replace public facilities [. . .] which were damaged or 
destroyed by a major disaster.'' \2\ The legislation goes on to 
say that these repairs must be ``in conformity with current 
applicable codes, specifications, and standards.'' \3\ However, 
at that time, FEMA had not yet been created.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pub. L. No. 93-288, 88 Stat. 143.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ William L. Painter, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R45484), The Disaster 
Relief Fund: Overview and Issues, (Jan. 22, 2024), available at https:/
/crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That changed in 1979, when President Carter issued 
Executive Order 12127 to formally establish FEMA.\5\ With this 
Executive Order, Federal disaster assistance and recovery were 
now consolidated into one agency.\6\ Executive Order 12127 
delegated to FEMA many of the authorities that had previously 
been established in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Exec. Order No. 12127, 44 Fed. Reg. 19367 (Mar. 31, 1979), 
available at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/
executive-order/12127.html.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Diane P. Horn and Erica A. Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47612), 
Building Resilience: FEMA's Building Codes Policies and Considerations 
for Congress, (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R47612?source=search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1988, Congress passed the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), which 
amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 to clarify and further 
expand FEMA's authorities.\8\ Like the previous law, the 
Stafford Act included language that stated that the President 
could provide funding to state and local governments to help 
cover ``the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
replacing a public facility or private nonprofit facility [. . 
.] in conformity with current applicable codes, specifications, 
and standards.'' \9\ In 2016, FEMA released FEMA Policy 204-
078-2.\10\ This guidance required that some projects funded by 
FEMA Public Assistance adhere to specific building code 
standards.\11\ Specifically, the International Code Council's 
(ICC) International Building Code (IBC), the International 
Existing Building Code (IEBC), and/or the International 
Residential Code (IRC).\12\ However, it was not until the 
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) that Congress put 
more focus on building codes as they relate to mitigation and 
resiliency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Stafford Act, Pub. L. No. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4689.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ FEMA, ``Public Assistance Required Minimum Standards,'' FEMA 
Recovery Policy FP_104-009-4, (Sept. 30, 2016), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_pa-minimum-standards-
policy.pdf.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Diane P. Horn and Erica A. Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47612), 
Building Resilience: FEMA's Building Codes Policies and Considerations 
for Congress, (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R47612?source=search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISASTER RECOVERY REFORM ACT OF 2018

    In 2018, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) 
was signed into law, which contained 56 different provisions 
that made significant changes to FEMA, including changes to its 
predisaster mitigation programs.\14\ As it relates to building 
codes, Section 1234 of DRRA amended FEMA's predisaster 
mitigation program to provide dedicated funding for predisaster 
mitigation and authorized funding to be used:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ FEMA, Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, (July 6, 2021), 
available at https://www.fema.gov/disaster/disaster-recovery-reform-
act-2018.

        To establish and carry out enforcement activities and implement 
        the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based 
        codes, specifications, and standards that incorporate the 
        latest hazard-resistant designs and establish minimum 
        acceptable criteria for the design, construction, and 
        maintenance of residential structures and facilities that may 
        be eligible for assistance under this Act for the purpose of 
        protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the 
        buildings' users against disasters.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ DRRA, Pub. L. No. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186.

    DRRA also directs FEMA to take at least eleven different 
criteria into account when making predisaster mitigation 
awards, including the extent to which the applicant and sub-
applicant, ``has facilitated the adoption and enforcement of 
the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based 
codes, specifications, and standards, including amendments made 
by state, local, Indian tribal, or territorial governments 
during the adoption process.'' \16\ To comply with 
Congressional directives outlined in Section 1234 of DRAA, FEMA 
established the Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities (BRIC) program in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 to replace 
FEMA's existing predisaster mitigation program.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ FEMA, DRRA Provisions 1230-1239, (Sept. 11, 2023), available 
at https://www.fema.gov/disaster/disaster-recovery-reform-act-2018/
provisions-1230-1239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     III. IMPLEMENTATION OF BUILDING CODES: THE BUILDING RESILIENT 
             INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES (BRIC) PROGRAM

    While FEMA has building code requirements for many of its 
programs (see Appendix 1), in recent years the BRIC program has 
been the clearest example of FEMA's increased emphasis on 
building code implementation. In the first year of BRIC 
funding, FY 2020, one of FEMA's main priorities was, ``to 
support the adoption and enforcement of building codes, 
standards, and policies.'' \18\ For the National BRIC 
Competition, applicants were given additional points if they 
had mandatory building code adoption requirements.\19\ As 
highlighted on FEMA's website, for FY 2020, ``all of the 
projects selected under the national competition came from 
applicants that had mandatory statewide adopted building codes 
of either the 2015 or 2018 International Building Code and 
International Residential Code.'' \20\ In FY 2021, FEMA 
continued to prioritize the adoption and enforcement of 
building codes; however, FEMA began awarding some points in the 
National BRIC Competition for applicants that had adopted the 
2015 versions of the International Building Code and 
International Residential Code.\21\ FEMA held the same criteria 
for FY 2022.\22\ In FY 2023, FEMA further adjusted the scoring 
so that some points were awarded to sub-applicants in 
localities that have adopted the latest editions of building 
codes regardless of whether their state has adopted the latest 
editions of statewide building codes.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ FY 2020 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, 
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_fy20-bric-notice-of-
funding-opportunity_federal-register_August-2020.pdf.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ FY 2021 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, 
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-
building-resilient-infrastructure.pdf.
    \22\ FY 2022 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, 
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_fy22-bric-
nofo_08052022.pdf.
    \23\ FY 2023 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, 
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), available at https://
www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/learn/notice-funding-opportunities/bric-
fma/fy2023-nofo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While FEMA has made changes to the BRIC funding criteria 
since its establishment in FY 2020, many states without 
statewide building codes had raised concerns.\24\ Specifically 
noting that the receipt of additional points in the National 
BRIC Competition if a state has a mandatory statewide adoption 
of building codes, disadvantaged many states.\25\ In fact, the 
majority of states currently do not qualify for those 
additional points.\26\ Beginning in FY 2023, FEMA reduced the 
weight of the building codes score for BRIC program grant 
awards. In the FY 2023 funding cycle, FEMA also added a 
Building Codes Plus Up funding for the BRIC program.\27\ Under 
the Building Codes Plus Up, $2 million is available to each 
state and territory for building code and enforcement 
activities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Diane P. Horn and Erica A. Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47612), 
Building Resilience: FEMA's Building Codes Policies and Considerations 
for Congress, (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R47612?source=search.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              IV. RECENT CHANGES TO FEMA'S BUILDING CODES

    Over the past few years, an increased emphasis has been 
placed on building code adoption and enforcement. In November 
2020, FEMA released the Building Codes Save: A Nationwide 
Study, a nearly decade-long assessment of losses avoided 
through the adoption of hazard-resistant consensus-based 
building codes and standards.\29\ The study found that 65 
percent of United States counties, cities, and towns had not 
yet adopted modern building codes, as defined to be codes 
developed since 2000.\30\ Analysis of the data provides savings 
in multiple hundreds of millions of dollars for disaster 
response and recovery costs across disaster-impacted areas with 
modern codes.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ FEMA, Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study. November 2020, 
available at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/
building-science/building-codes-save-study.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2022, building off the release of FEMA's study in 2020, 
FEMA published the agency's Building Codes Strategy.\32\ 
According to FEMA, the Building Codes Strategy will serve, ``as 
the blueprint for organizing and advancing FEMA's building code 
efforts over the next several years to help people before, 
during, and after disasters.'' \33\ To accomplish this, the 
strategy outlines three main goals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ FEMA, Building Codes Strategy. Mar. 2022, available at https:/
/www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_building-codes-
strategy.pdf.
    \33\ FEMA, Timeline of FEMA Policies and Regulations Related to 
Building Codes and Standards, available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/fema_timeline-policies-regulations-related-
bldg-codes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     LIntegrate building codes and standards across 
FEMA;
     LStrengthen Nationwide capability for superior 
building performance; and
     LDrive public action on building codes.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Id.

    Over the years, studies like FEMA's have supported the 
value of building codes in reducing disaster losses, and FEMA 
has continued to press for the latest edition of the building 
codes.\35\ Experts have noted the importance of building codes 
with the flexibility to focus on the specific hazards in any 
given state, but that also incentivize strong statewide 
standards.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ The Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation: 
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 117th Cong. 
(Mar. 18, 2021).
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the years, studies like FEMA's have supported the 
value of building codes in reducing disaster losses. However, 
there has been some debate surrounding how to best implement 
building codes standards across the country. For their part, 
FEMA, has continued to press for strong statewide standards and 
the adoption of the latest edition of the building codes. In 
response to FEMA, some stakeholders have noted the importance 
of giving states and localities some flexibility to follow 
their own code adoption, while other stakeholders have 
advocated for statewide standards.

                             V. CONCLUSION

    Building codes have played a role in the disaster 
assistance and response space prior to FEMA's establishment. 
Over the years, legislation, including the Stafford Act and 
DRRA, as well as policies adopted by FEMA, have advanced FEMA's 
role in building codes. Given this, the hearing will focus on 
FEMA's implementation of these policies and examine the impact 
and effectiveness of those policies in mitigating against 
disasters.

                             VI. WITNESSES

     LMr. Russell J. Strickland, President, National 
Emergency Management Association (NEMA)
     LMr. Buddy Hughes, First Vice Chairman, National 
Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
     LMr. Jordan Krahenbuhl, Executive Director, 
Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Nevada (PHCC of NV)
     LMs. Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of 
Building and Fire Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing 
and Community Development (Retired), on behalf of The 
International Code Council (ICC)

                            VII. APPENDIX\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Diane P. Horn and Erica A. Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47612), 
Building Resilience: FEMA's Building Codes Policies and Considerations 
for Congress, (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R47612?source=search.

             FEMA Building Code Requirements by Program \37\
                      For eligible funded projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Building Code
    Program Name           Key Authorities            Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual             44 C.F.R. Part   Regulations require, at
 Assistance (IA)--     9                         minimum:
 Individuals and       44 C.F.R. Sec.    FEMA-provided
 Households Program    206-117(b)(1)(ii)(c)      direct housing
 (IHP)                 44 C.F.R. Sec.    assistance to comply
                       Sec.  206-117(b)(1)-(4)   with applicable local
                       FEMA Policy FP-   and/or state codes and
                       206-21-0003               ordinances and Federal
                                                 floodplain management
                                                 regulations.
                                                 FEMA-funded
                                                 permanent or semi-
                                                 permanent housing
                                                 construction to conform
                                                 to applicable local and/
                                                 or state building code
                                                 or industry standards
                                                 and Federal
                                                 environmental laws and
                                                 regulations.
                                                 FEMA guidance:
                                                 Allows FEMA to
                                                 provide home repair
                                                 assistance to cover
                                                 eligible costs of code
                                                 compliance.
                                                 Requires
                                                 compliance with interim
                                                 FFRMS for structures in
                                                 Special Hazard Flood
                                                 Zones (SHFZs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Assistance      Stafford Act,    Statute requires, at
 (PA) for Repair,      Sections 323 and          minimum:
 Restoration, and      406(e), 42 U.S.C. Sec.    FEMA to
 Replacement           5165a and Sec. 5172(e)    estimate awards so that
                       44 C.F.R. Sec.    repair and replacement
                       Sec.  206.226(d) and      projects comply with
                       206.400-402               ``the latest published
                       44 C.F.R. Sec.    editions of relevant
                       Sec.  9.4, 9.6 &          consensus-based codes,
                       9.11(d)                   specifications, and
                       Americans with    standards that
                       Disabilities Act, 42      incorporate the latest
                       U.S.C. Sec.  12101 et     hazard-resistant
                       seq. and related          designs'' for disasters
                       regulations at 28         after August 1, 2017.
                       C.F.R. Sec.  35.151       FEMA to
                                                 estimate awards so that
                                                 repair and replacement
                                                 projects ``meet the
                                                 definition of
                                                 resilient.'' FEMA has
                                                 not yet issued the
                                                 definition.
                                                 Funded projects
                                                 comply with the
                                                 Americans with
                                                 Disabilities Act.
                                                 Regulations
                                                 additionally require:
                                                 Funded projects
                                                 to comply with codes
                                                 that include minimum
                                                 requirements of the
                                                 National Flood
                                                 Insurance Program
                                                 (NFIP) and National
                                                 Earthquake Hazards
                                                 Reduction Program
                                                 (NEHRP).
                                                 Funded projects
                                                 to comply with
                                                 Executive Order 11988,
                                                 Floodplain Management,
                                                 Executive Order 12699,
                                                 Seismic Safety of
                                                 Federal and Federally
                                                 Assisted or Regulated
                                                 New Building
                                                 Construction, and any
                                                 other applicable
                                                 executive orders.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazard Mitigation      Stafford Act     FEMA guidance requires,
 Grant Program         Sections 323 and 404,     to establish minimum
 (HMGP)                42 U.S.C. Sec.  5165a     design and construction
                       and Sec.  5170c           requirements for
                       44 C.F.R. Sec.    structure elevation,
                       206                       dry floodproofing, and
                       FEMA Policy FP-   mitigation
                       206-21-0003               reconstruction:
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Mitigation       National Flood   FEMA guidance requires,
 Assistance (FMA)      Insurance Act             to establish minimum
                       42 U.S.C. Sec.    design and construction
                       4104(c)                   requirements for
                       FEMA Policy FP-   structure elevation,
                       206-21-0003               dry floodproofing, and
                                                 mitigation
                                                 reconstruction:
                                                 The use of ASCE
                                                 24-14, or the latest
                                                 edition.
                                                 The minimum
                                                 standards of FEMA's
                                                 partial implementation
                                                 of the FFRMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Resilient     Stafford Act     FEMA guidance requires,
 Communities and       Sections 323 & 203        to establish minimum
 Infrastructure        42 U.S.C. Sec.    design and construction
 (BRIC)                5165a and Sec.  5133      requirements for
                       FEMA Policy FP-   structure elevation,
                       206-21-0003               dry floodproofing, and
                                                 mitigation
                                                 reconstruction:
                                                 The use of ASCE
                                                 24-14, or the latest
                                                 edition.
                                                 The minimum
                                                 standards of FEMA's
                                                 partial implementation
                                                 of the FFRMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguarding           Stafford Act     The FY2023 Notice of
 Tomorrow Revolving    Sections 323 & 205        Funding Opportunity
 Loan Fund Program     42 U.S.C. Sec.    requires that
 (STRLF)               5165a & Sec.  5135        recipients of loans for
                       FEMA Policy FP-   new construction or
                       206-21-0003               substantial improvement
                                                 must comply with FEMA
                                                 Policy FP-206-21-0003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Flood         42 U.S.C. Sec.   Regulations require, at
 Insurance Program     4102(c) and 44 C.F.R.     minimum, that
 (NFIP)                Sec.  60.3                communities:
                                                 Require permits
                                                 for development in
                                                 SFHAs.
                                                 Require
                                                 elevation of the lowest
                                                 floor of all new
                                                 residential buildings
                                                 in the SFHA to be at or
                                                 above BFE.
                                                 Restrict
                                                 development in the
                                                 regulatory floodway to
                                                 prevent increasing the
                                                 risk of flooding.
                                                 Require certain
                                                 construction materials
                                                 and methods that
                                                 minimize future flood
                                                 damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
 EXAMINING THE ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BUILDING CODES IN MITIGATING 
                           AGAINST DISASTERS

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
               Buildings, and Emergency Management,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry 
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
    The Chair now asks unanimous consent that the chairman be 
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's 
hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on 
the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into 
the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an 
opening statement for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks our witnesses for being here 
today to discuss the effectiveness of building codes and the 
Federal Government's role in encouraging their use.
    Currently, FEMA provides direct funding for building code 
adoption and enforcement through the Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities Program, heretofore known as 
BRIC.
    After a major disaster, FEMA encourages the adoption and 
enforcement of consensus-based building codes through the 
Public Assistance Program. FEMA also considers the extent to 
which a community has complied with the building code standards 
set out in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 when making 
decisions about grant awards.
    In short, FEMA spends a lot of taxpayer resources on 
coercing building code adoption and compliance. This includes 
releasing the first-ever Building Codes Strategy in 2022 with 
the objective of, quote, ``amplifying climate science messaging 
to increase public demand for building codes and standards,'' 
end quote.
    I am deeply concerned that under this current 
administration, FEMA continues to attempt to impose these types 
of ideology-based agendas. I believe that building codes should 
be the purview of State and local governments, which will help 
ensure that building code enforcement remains economically 
feasible for communities.
    However, recognizing that since Congress has directed FEMA 
to support building codes as one aspect of pre-disaster 
mitigation, we should at least make sure that these 
requirements are practical, cost-effective, and actually make 
our communities safer and more affordable.
    As it stands, I am concerned that Federal overreach 
regarding building codes is imposing unnecessary burdens on 
business and property owners. It certainly appears that FEMA is 
using a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to take into 
account where different sets of codes that reflect industry 
standards or geography or respond to local hazards might be 
better suited to the needs of a community.
    I am hoping that our witnesses here today will shed light 
on the successes and challenges of FEMA's building code 
policies, particularly as compared to their experience working 
with other Federal agencies that require code adoption.
    I have not seen sufficient data to convince me that 
requiring the adoption of the latest editions of building codes 
saves taxpayer dollars or makes anything more affordable in an 
unaffordable housing market.
    Are the changes between editions significant enough to 
significantly lower disaster costs and protect life and 
property? My understanding is that many of the changes between 
code editions have nothing to do with disaster resiliency, but 
instead are related to things like energy efficiency.
    Additionally, FEMA is expending taxpayer dollars and human 
resources on promoting building codes and standards at the 
expense of other mitigation measures. The Agency is steadily 
increasing the number of pre-disaster mitigation awards funded 
for building code adoption and enforcement. According to the 
CRS, in the first year of BRIC, eight such grants were awarded. 
By last year, it was 93.
    Now, if we are seeing more than a 1,000-percent increase in 
the number of mitigation grants being directed toward building 
codes, is the Agency truly meeting the congressional intent of 
the DRRA?
    So, what I would like to know is what your experience has 
been like from the other side. In your view, has FEMA's 
enforcement of building codes made communities safer and more 
affordable, or has it diverted limited disaster dollars away 
from higher impact projects?
    Has FEMA provided applicants and subapplicants with an 
appropriate spectrum of building codes to choose from that can 
ensure flexibility, or are they being overly rigid and 
prescriptive?
    Is the emphasis on building code adoption limiting pre-
disaster mitigation dollars from going to the 65 percent of 
communities in this country that have not yet adopted the 
latest editions of the building codes?
    Federal regulations often pose unnecessary burdens and 
unaffordable mandates on State and local governments, as well 
as everyday Americans. My hope is that if our tax dollars are 
being used to support building codes, then we are seeing a 
significant return on our investment in the form of safety and 
affordability.
    [Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress 
 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
    Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the 
effectiveness of building codes and the federal government's role in 
encouraging their use.
    Currently, FEMA provides direct funding for building code adoption 
and enforcement through the Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities (BRIC) program.
    After a major disaster, FEMA encourages the adoption and 
enforcement of consensus-based building codes through the Public 
Assistance (PA) program. FEMA also considers the extent to which a 
community has complied with the building code standards set out in the 
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) when making decisions about 
grant awards.
    In short, FEMA spends a lot of taxpayer resources on coercing 
building code adoption and compliance. This includes releasing the 
first-ever Building Codes Strategy in 2022, with the objective of 
``amplifying climate science messaging to increase public demand for 
building codes and standards.''
    I am deeply concerned that under this current administration, FEMA 
continues to push these types of ideology-based agendas. I believe that 
building codes should be the purview of state and local governments, 
which will help ensure that building code enforcement remains 
economically feasible for communities.
    However, recognizing that since Congress has directed FEMA to 
support building codes as one aspect of pre-disaster mitigation, we 
should at least make sure that these requirements are practical, cost-
effective, and actually make our communities safer.
    As it stands, I worry that federal overreach regarding building 
codes is imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses and property 
owners. I fear that FEMA is using a one-size-fits-all approach that 
fails to take into account where different sets of codes that reflect 
industry standards or respond to local hazards might be better suited 
to the needs of a community.
    I am hoping that our witnesses here today will shed light on the 
successes and challenges of FEMA's building code policies, particularly 
as compared to their experience working with other federal agencies 
that require code adoption.
    I have not seen sufficient data to convince me that requiring the 
adoption of the latest editions of building codes saves taxpayer 
dollars. Are the changes between editions significant enough to 
significantly lower disaster costs and protect life and property? My 
understanding is many of the changes between code editions has nothing 
to do with disaster resiliency, but instead are related to things like 
energy efficiency.
    Additionally, FEMA is expending taxpayer dollars and human 
resources on promoting building codes and standards, at the expense of 
other mitigation measures. The agency is steadily increasing the number 
of pre-disaster mitigation awards funded for building code adoption and 
enforcement. According to the Congressional Research Service, in the 
first year of BRIC, eight such grants were awarded. By last year, it 
was 93.
    If we are seeing a more than 1,000 percent increase in the number 
of mitigation grants being directed toward building codes, is the 
agency truly meeting the Congressional intent of DRRA?
    So, what I'd like to know is what your experience has been like 
from the other side. In your view, has FEMA's enforcement of building 
codes made communities safer or has it diverted limited disaster 
dollars away from higher impact projects?
    Has FEMA provided applicants and subapplicants with an appropriate 
spectrum of building codes to choose from that can ensure flexibility, 
or are they being overly rigid and prescriptive?
    Is the emphasis on building code adoption limiting pre-disaster 
mitigation dollars from going to the 65 percent of communities in this 
country that have not yet adopted the latest editions of the building 
codes?
    Federal regulations often pose unnecessary burdens on state and 
local governments, as well as everyday Americans. My hope is that if 
our taxpayer dollars are being used to support building codes, then we 
are seeing a significant return on our investment.

    Mr. Perry. With that, I look forward to hearing from our 
witnesses on this issue.
    The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Titus for 5 minutes 
for her opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER, 
  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 
                      EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to the witnesses for joining us today to 
discuss FEMA's implementation of building codes across all its 
programs in order to help communities prepare for and recover 
from disasters.
    Even before FEMA's creation, building codes have played a 
role in disaster assistance and recovery, beginning with the 
1974 Disaster Relief Act. This act gave the President authority 
to provide funding to State and local governments to help 
repair or reconstruct buildings damaged by a major disaster, 
and this was to be in conformity with applicable codes and 
standards.
    Following the creation of FEMA, then, in 1979 and the 
signing of the Stafford Act in 1988, this practice continued 
for disaster response. The signing of the Disaster Recovery 
Reform Act, DRRA, in 2018 marked an even greater emphasis on 
building codes when it comes to hazard mitigation.
    In this regard, the DRRA directed FEMA to create the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program, which you heard from the chairman 
is now known as BRIC, and to consider 11 different criteria 
when awarding pre-disaster mitigation funds, including the 
extent to which applicants have adopted and enforced the latest 
building codes.
    The incentives and funding provided by the DRRA are 
critical since 35 States have not adopted modern building 
codes. This creates a public safety hazard and unnecessarily 
increases the cost of disaster recovery. Additionally, the 
National Institute of Building Sciences found that designing 
new buildings that exceed the 2015 International Residential 
Code and the International Building Code would result in 87,000 
new, long-term jobs.
    Since the DRRA was enacted, FEMA has adopted a wide range 
of building code requirements across its disaster response 
program. Codes from two of the organizations represented here 
today, the ICC and IAPMO, are referenced in the current 
programs, which is particularly helpful for Nevada because we 
use IAPMO's plumbing and mechanical codes, which form the basis 
of our State's regulations.
    I would also be remiss if I didn't recognize the role that 
the Nevada plumbing, heating, and cooling industry has played 
during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure the efficient use of our 
water supply and to protect the safety of our hospitality 
workers.
    While FEMA has recently recognized a more diverse set of 
codes, including those predominantly used in Nevada, for 
disaster response, it is my understanding that more could be 
done to update education and guidance documents for resilience 
programs, which are essential to helping communities avoid 
physical and economic losses from future disasters.
    So, as we convene this hearing today, I am interested in 
learning more from our panel on the limitations that may be 
placed on States and localities when a more diverse set of 
codes is not recognized and how this impacts disaster 
mitigation, costs, and local workforces.
    I want to be clear: I am not advocating for FEMA to approve 
any particular building code, but rather for there to be 
greater consideration of all building codes that have a basis 
in research, expert scrutiny, and application to State and 
local needs.
    So, again, I thank our witnesses for joining us.
    And I yield back.
    [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress 
from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
        Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for joining 
us today to discuss FEMA's implementation of building codes across its 
programs in order to help communities prepare for and recover from 
disasters.
    Even before FEMA's creation, building codes have played a role in 
disaster assistance and recovery, beginning with the 1974 Disaster 
Relief Act, which gave the President authority to provide funding to 
state and local governments to help repair or reconstruct buildings 
damaged by a major disaster, in conformity with applicable codes and 
standards.
    Following the creation of FEMA in 1979 and the signing of the 
Stafford Act in 1988, this practice continued for disaster response. 
The signing of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018 marked a 
greater emphasis on building codes when it comes to hazard mitigation.
    In this regard, the DRRA directed FEMA to create the pre-disaster 
mitigation program now known as BRIC and consider 11 different criteria 
when awarding pre-disaster mitigation funds including the extent in 
which applicants have adopted and enforced the latest building codes.
    The incentives and funding provided by DRRA are critical since 35 
states have not adopted modern building codes, creating a public safety 
hazard and unnecessarily increasing the costs of disaster recovery. 
Additionally, the National Institute of Building Sciences found that 
designing new buildings that exceed the 2015 International Residential 
Code and International Building Code would result in 87,000 new, long-
term jobs.
    Since the DRRA was enacted, FEMA has adopted a wide range of 
building code requirements across its disaster response programs. Codes 
from two organizations here today, the ICC and IAPMO, are referenced in 
the current programs which is particularly helpful for Nevada as IAPMO 
plumbing and mechanical codes form the basis of our state's 
regulations. And I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the role the 
Nevada plumbing, heating and cooling industry played during the COVID-
19 pandemic to ensure the efficient use of our water supply and to 
protect the safety of our hospitality workers.
    While FEMA has recently recognized a more diverse set of codes, 
including those predominantly utilized in Nevada, for disaster 
response, it is my understanding that more could be done to update 
education and guidance documents for resilience programs which are 
essential for helping communities avoid physical and economic losses 
from future disasters.
    As we convene this hearing today, I am interested to learn more 
from our panel on the limitations to adopting and enforcing hazard 
resistant codes and limitations that may be placed on states and 
localities when a more diverse set of codes is not recognized, and the 
impact this may have on disaster mitigation, costs and local 
workforces.
    I want to be clear--I am not advocating for FEMA to approve any 
particular building code, but rather for there to be greater 
consideration of building codes that have a basis in research, expert 
scrutiny and application to state and local needs.
    I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I yield 
back.

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

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

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, subcommittee Chair 
Perry and subcommittee Ranking Member Titus, for calling 
today's hearing on the effectiveness of building codes in 
mitigating against disasters.
    Before we delve into the topic of building codes, I do want 
to recognize FEMA's current funding crisis. For the second year 
in a row, FEMA is currently operating in Immediate Needs 
Funding.
    For a month, FEMA has been forced to pause all funding for 
recovery and mitigation projects. There are currently over 
2,687 projects on hold. Five of those are in my district.
    This hold slows recovery and hurts communities in their 
time of need. It is especially dangerous that Congress has 
allowed this to happen at the height of disaster season.
    Last fall, the administration submitted a $9 billion 
disaster supplemental to Congress. I am pleased that the 
continuing resolution the House will vote on later today 
includes some money for the Disaster Relief Fund.
    However, I am disappointed it does not include any of the 
funding included in the President's disaster supplemental 
request. Without that funding, communities throughout the 
country will still be denied resources they desperately need, 
and FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund will likely run out of money 
before the start of the next fiscal year.
    So, Congress should approve the President's request for 
supplemental disaster assistance funding before the end of this 
Congress.
    Today, we are focused on reducing the impacts of disaster 
through mitigation. Since 1980, the Insurance Institute for 
Business and Home Safety reports the U.S. has sustained over 
$2.7 trillion in losses due to natural disasters.
    As these disasters grow in intensity and frequency, the 
adoption and enforcement of hazard-resistant building codes is 
essential to prevent future funding shortfalls at FEMA. There 
is a connection here. Investment in hazard-resistant codes is a 
scientifically proven way to save money and to protect 
communities.
    According to FEMA, the adoption and implementation of 
resilient codes is the most effective mitigation measure a 
community can take.
    FEMA has reported that a nationwide adoption of modern 
codes would result in $600 billion in savings from disaster 
impact by 2060, and the National Institute of Building Sciences 
found that hazard-resistant codes saved the taxpayers $11 for 
every $1 invested.
    The implementation of stronger codes helps local 
governments and homeowners alike since they reduce insurance 
premiums and post-disaster financial exposure.
    A recent study by CoreLogic and the Insurance Institute for 
Business and Home Safety also found that modern codes reduced 
the likelihood of mortgage default following extreme weather by 
about 50 percent--5-0 percent.
    Unfortunately, FEMA reports that 65 percent of counties, 
cities, and towns across the U.S. have not adopted modern 
building codes. If we want to support mitigation efforts that 
offer the greatest return on investment, it is common sense to 
provide communities with the resources they need to adopt the 
latest codes.
    Funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for FEMA's 
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Programs, including BRIC and the 
Safeguarding Tomorrow Loan Fund, is making it possible for 
communities without hazard-resistant codes to catch up.
    Last year, FEMA allocated an additional $2 million for each 
State and Territory and up to $25 million for Tribal 
governments for building code improvements. This funding 
reflected policy that bipartisan members of this committee have 
long advocated.
    I hope the Agency will again include building code funding 
in the upcoming BRIC notice of funding opportunity.
    Thank all of you for being here today, and I look forward 
to your testimony.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Perry and Subcommittee Ranking 
Member Titus, for calling today's hearing on the effectiveness of 
building codes in mitigating against disasters.
    Before we delve into the topic of building codes, I want to 
recognize FEMA's current funding crisis. For the second year in a row, 
FEMA is currently operating in Immediate Needs Funding.
    For a month, FEMA has been forced to pause all funding for recovery 
and mitigation projects. There are currently over 2,687 projects on 
hold. Five of those are in my district.
    This slows recovery and hurts communities in their time of need. It 
is especially dangerous that Congress has allowed this to happen at the 
height of disaster season.
    Last fall, the Biden Administration submitted a $9 billion disaster 
supplemental to Congress.
    I am pleased that the Continuing Resolution the House will vote on 
later today includes some money for the Disaster Relief Fund.
    However, I am disappointed that it does not include any of the 
funding included in the President's disaster supplemental request.
    Without that funding, communities like Maui will still be denied 
the resources they desperately need, and FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund 
will likely run out of money before the start of the next fiscal year.
    Congress should approve the President's request for supplemental 
disaster assistance funding before the end of this Congress.
    Today, we are focused on reducing the impacts of disaster through 
mitigation. Since 1980, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home 
Safety reports the United States has sustained over $2.7 trillion in 
losses due to natural disasters.
    As these disasters grow in intensity and frequency, the adoption 
and enforcement of hazard resistant building codes is essential to 
preventing future funding shortfalls at FEMA. There's a connection.
    Investment in hazard resistant codes is a scientifically proven way 
to save money and protect communities.
    According to FEMA, the adoption and implementation of resilient 
codes is the most effective mitigation measure a community can take.
    FEMA has reported that nationwide adoption of modern codes would 
result in $600 billion of savings from disaster impact by 2060. The 
National Institute of Building Sciences found that hazard-resistant 
codes save the taxpayer $11 for every $1 invested.
    The implementation of stronger codes helps local governments and 
homeowners alike since they reduce insurance premiums and post-disaster 
financial exposure.
    A recent study by CoreLogic and the Insurance Institute for 
Business and Home Safety found that modern codes reduce the likelihood 
of mortgage default following extreme weather by about 50 percent.
    Unfortunately, FEMA reports that 65 percent of counties, cities and 
towns across the U.S. have not adopted modern building codes.
    If we want to support mitigation efforts that offer the greatest 
return on investment, it is common sense to provide communities with 
the resources they need to adopt the latest codes.
    Funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for FEMA's pre-
disaster mitigation programs, including BRIC and the Safeguarding 
Tomorrow Loan Fund, is making it possible for communities without 
hazard-resistant codes to catch up.
    Last year, FEMA allocated an additional $2 million for each state 
and territory and up to $25 million for Tribal governments for building 
code improvements.
    This funding reflected policy that bipartisan members of this 
Committee have long advocated for.
    I hope the Agency will again include building code funding in the 
upcoming BRIC notice of funding opportunity.
    Thank you all for being here. I look forward to your testimony.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair would now like to welcome our witnesses and thank 
them for being here today.
    Briefly, the Chair will take a moment to explain our 
lighting system to our witnesses. There are three lights in 
front of you. Green means go, yellow means you are running out 
of time or it is coming to an end, and red means please 
conclude your remarks.
    The Chair asks unanimous consent that the witnesses' full 
statements be included in the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair asks unanimous consent that the record of today's 
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have 
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them 
in writing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record 
remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and 
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in 
the record of today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made part of the record, 
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5 
minutes.
    And at this time, the Chair now recognizes Ranking Member 
Titus for introductions.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is my pleasure to welcome the panel and to introduce two 
of its members.
    I am pleased first to introduce Cindy Davis, who is 
testifying on behalf of the International Code Council.
    Ms. Davis recently retired following a dozen years with the 
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, 9 of 
them as the deputy director of the department following a 3-
year stint as director of Virginia's Building Code Office.
    Before moving to Virginia in 2012, her career in the 
building and fire code profession began in 1988 in western 
Pennsylvania. She has served on the boards of the 
congressionally chartered National Institute of Building 
Sciences, the Building Officials and Code Administrators 
International during the merger of three model code 
organizations that became the International Code Council--it is 
a mouthful--and as president of the International Code 
Council's board in 2022.
    Last month, Governor Youngkin appointed her to the Virginia 
Board of Housing and Community Development.
    I want to thank her for being here, and she certainly 
brings a wealth of experience and knowledge.
    Thank you, Ms. Davis.
    Now it is a special pleasure for me to introduce our next 
witness, who comes from my district in Nevada, Mr. Jordan 
Krahenbuhl, who serves as the executive director of the 
Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors of Nevada, based in 
Henderson.
    A licensed journeyman plumber and master plumber in the 
State of Nevada, Jordan was raised working in his father's 
plumbing and heating company and has been involved in local and 
national code development since 1991.
    He certainly knows this industry from the ground up--and 
maybe below ground.
    Between 1988 and 2018, he worked for the Clark County 
Building Department, starting as a plumbing and mechanical 
inspector, and went on to lead plumbing and mechanical code 
official for about 27 of his 30 years with the department.
    As a lifetime member of the International Association of 
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, Jordan has served on 
multiple code committees for the Association and has been 
extensively involved in its leadership, having served on their 
board of directors for two terms between 2000 and 2006.
    Now, many of you may not know that the IAPMO codes serve as 
the basis for Nevada's regulations when it comes to plumbing 
and mechanical codes, and they played a significant role in 
managing the efficient use of our water supply, which, as I 
mentioned earlier, has protected our hospitality industry, 
especially during the COVID pandemic.
    Jordan's experience and extensive knowledge of code 
development, adoption, and implementation will certainly 
benefit our subcommittee greatly today, and I want to thank him 
also for being here.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady from Nevada, the 
ranking member.
    With that, we are going to start over here and go that way.
    Mr. Strickland, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for 
your testimony.

    TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL J. STRICKLAND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 
  EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; BUDDY HUGHES, FIRST VICE 
  CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
HOME BUILDERS; JORDAN KRAHENBUHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLUMBING, 
  HEATING, COOLING CONTRACTORS OF NEVADA; AND CINDY L. DAVIS, 
   FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE REGULATIONS, 
   VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 
     (RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL

    TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL J. STRICKLAND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 
                EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member 
Titus, and distinguished members of the committee, for allowing 
me to testify today.
    I am proud to testify today representing the State 
emergency management directors of all 50 States, Territories, 
and the District of Columbia.
    I will get to the topic at hand in a minute, but would be 
remiss if I did not first address the markup that occurred just 
before we began here.
    NEMA could not be more pleased with the committee reporting 
of H.R. 7671, the Disaster Management Costs Modernization Act.
    This bill will make it easier to manage and track disaster 
grants, including easing oversight of waste, fraud, and abuse. 
It will incentivize the rapid close-out of disasters, thereby 
reducing the need for a large FEMA footprint and ultimately 
driving down the cost of disasters, and to the topic at hand 
today, give States and localities the flexibility needed to 
enhance the adoption and enforcement of building codes, 
critical steps to ensure resilience.
    And we realize that resilience cannot just be a buzzword 
used to identify a long-term goal. It must be actionable and 
tangible to be effective. NEMA remains focused on identifying 
and promoting methods to ensure that resilience is incorporated 
into all stages of emergency management. This includes updating 
preparedness and mitigation plans, incorporating resilience 
principles into exercises, and rebuilding stronger post-
disaster.
    By making resilience a cornerstone of what we do as 
emergency managers, we can drive improvements that make our 
communities safer and better able to adapt to changing threats.
    As disasters become more frequent and larger in scale, 
scope, and complexity, we know we will never be able to respond 
our way out of the vulnerabilities our communities face. 
Instead, we must invest in strong mitigation projects and 
building resilience. One of the ways we do this is through 
initiatives relating to building codes.
    Two examples come to mind when thinking about the impact of 
code initiatives.
    In 2018, Alaska suffered a 7.0 earthquake that was very 
geographically similar to the famed 1964 earthquake which 
killed more than 100 people. In 2018, however, with the 
adoption of model building codes, there were no reported deaths 
or serious injuries.
    In Pennsylvania, grant-elevated homes were not impacted by 
floodwaters along the Schuylkill River in West Norriton 
Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, during Tropical 
Storm Ida. These homes had been retrofitted to a new code and 
to best available data heights through a FEMA grant, 
experienced no damages on the first floor and below, and thus 
saving a significant amount in rebuilding.
    Despite these success stories, code initiatives cannot be 
one-size-fits-all across our diverse Nation. For States, a 
challenge lies in comparing building code requirements, 
metrics, and implementation on a national scale. At the local 
level, smaller or underresourced jurisdictions may lack the 
expertise, funding, or staff to develop and enforce strong 
building codes, leading to inconsistent protection across the 
State and negatively impacting scoring for programs like BRIC.
    More generally speaking, we as a Nation will never have the 
capacity at the State, local, and Federal levels to achieve all 
that is desired in the business of consequence management. We 
can take small, integral steps, however, that can add 
widespread impacts.
    Investing in mitigation and resilience makes real 
differences in the lives of those affected by disasters and 
allows us to build back smarter to lessen the impacts of future 
events. While every community's approach to mitigation and 
resilience will differ based on vulnerability and risk 
environments, priorities, and areas of vulnerability, the 
cumulative effect will be a stronger Nation better postured to 
adapt to the threats of the future.
    And one note in closing with this. The comments from 
Congressman Larsen we concur with 100 percent. Moving forward 
with the DRF, it must be funded--and funded appropriately--for 
all of us to survive. As a Nation, we must find a way to be 
more deliberate in how we manage the DRF.
    I thank you.
    [Mr. Strickland's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Russell J. Strickland, President, National 
                    Emergency Management Association
    Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished 
members of the Committee for allowing me to testify today.
    I am proud to testify today representing the National Emergency 
Management Association (NEMA). NEMA represents the state emergency 
management directors of all 50 states, territories, and the District of 
Columbia. As Secretary of the Maryland Department of Emergency 
Management, and on behalf of my colleagues in state emergency 
management, we thank you for holding this discussion on the importance 
of strong mitigation through resilience programs and supporting code 
initiatives.
        Understanding the Landscape of Mitigation and Resilience
    As disasters become more frequent and larger in scale, scope, and 
complexity, we know we will never be able to respond our way out of the 
vulnerabilities our communities face. Instead, we must invest in 
mitigation projects that work with our communities to build resilience 
where it is needed most. I am known among my colleagues for saying, 
``mitigation is the center of the universe,'' because these projects 
are imperative as we seek to avert the worst possible impacts of 
disasters and prepare our communities for when the next disaster 
strikes. Investments in mitigation are key to ensuring that when a 
disaster occurs, the communit(ies) affected will be able to withstand 
its impacts and rapidly recover.
    We must also place comprehensive, transformational mitigation at 
the forefront of our national security strategy to reduce risk. For 
that to be effective, communities need to be supported and provided the 
resources to pursue a pathway to increase their resilience. This 
includes support for the full lifecycle of their mitigation projects--
from inception to implementation. We must also be flexible with 
communities across the United States and recognize that each has its 
own set of unique risks, vulnerabilities and opportunities. Only then 
can we implement solutions that overcome various community obstacles 
and continue to build upon our successes.
    As a coastal state, Maryland is prone to a host of water-related 
hazards, including flooding, severe storms, and hurricanes, as well as 
tornadoes, earthquakes, and excessive heat. This is in addition to the 
risks faced across our nation by threats such as pandemics. Just as our 
threats are varied and diverse, so must be the actions we take to 
mitigate those threats. Some mitigation activities can be as simple and 
individual as washing hands and wearing a mask to combat COVID-19 or 
purchasing flood insurance when living in a flood zone. In other cases, 
mitigation activities may be as large as conducting coastal restoration 
to lessen the impacts of climate change in the Chesapeake Bay.
    Resilience cannot just be a ``buzz word'' used to identify a long-
term goal. Rather, it must be actionable and tangible to be effective. 
NEMA remains focused on identifying and promoting methods to ensure 
that resilience is incorporated into all stages of emergency 
management, from updating preparedness and mitigation plans to 
incorporating resiliency principles into exercises and rebuilding 
stronger post-disaster. By making resilience a cornerstone of all that 
we do as emergency managers, we can drive improvements that make our 
communities safer and better able to adapt to changing threats for 
generations to come.
    Maryland and other states across the nation are working to 
inculcate a culture of preparedness and promote resilience through 
increased public awareness of risk, enhancements to critical 
infrastructure, and mitigation projects that incorporate nature-based 
solutions and public-private partnerships.
            Implementation of Consensus-Based Building Codes
    Strong building codes save lives and protect property. Moreover, 
the research is clear that building code adoption and enforcement are 
among the most cost-effective measures that governments can enact. A 
commonly cited statistic (and appropriately so) from a series of 
ongoing National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) studies is that 
mitigation investments return $6 for every $1 invested. Even more 
impressive, the study's authors found that there is a national benefit 
of $11 in return for every $1 invested in designing buildings to model 
building codes.
    In 2020, FEMA released Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study 
which concluded that the U.S. will avoid $132 billion in losses from 
hazard events by 2040 because of buildings built to international 
standards. While not all codes are appropriate in all instances, 
ensuring building codes meet the needs of a locality and its hazard 
profile has a demonstrated impact on community resilience in the event 
of a disaster.
    We have seen this play out nationwide where more modern, research-
based building codes have been implemented. Notably, Alaska underwent a 
7.0 earthquake in late 2018 that was very geographically similar to the 
famed 1964 earthquake which killed more than 100 people. In 2018, 
however, with the adoption of model building codes, there were no 
reported deaths or serious injuries. In addition to life saving, 
utilizing codes can save costs too. In Pennsylvania, grant elevated 
homes were not impacted by flood waters along the Schuylkill River in 
West Norriton Township, Montgomery County (PA) during Tropical Storm 
Ida. These homes had been retrofitted to new code and to best available 
data heights through a FEMA grant, experienced no damages on the first 
floor and below and thus saving a significant amount in rebuilding and 
had no collateral debris impact and first responders did not have to 
operate around these grant funded structures in high velocity waters 
under tree canopies, nor direct precious ancillary resources to this 
local catastrophic event.
      Managing Federal Programs and Building Codes Within Maryland
    Historically, Maryland has not received any awards under FEMA's 
Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs related to building codes. With 
the addition of the Building Code Plus-Up state set-aside within FEMA's 
FY23 Building Resilience Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC) awards, 
Maryland applied for four projects requesting a total of $1,999,998 in 
federal dollars. The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) is the 
sub-applicant for all four projects which have been ``Selected for 
Further Review.'' A brief summary of each project applied for is as 
follows:

      Increase Transparency of & Accessibility to Building 
Codes. MDE will create a central repository of local floodplain 
ordinances and adopted building codes, including identification of 
higher standards, for every community in the State.

      Flood Resilience Through Building Codes--Enhance Building 
Codes Statewide. This project will complete five distinct, but related, 
tasks including code-coordinate the Maryland Model Ordinance; create 
and adopt a State Floodplain Ordinance; completing a needs assessment 
to improve the review of State projects based on FEMA's State 
Assessment; developing elevation certificates for State buildings near 
the floodplain; and train professional staff statewide on the 
provisions in the Maryland Floodplain Ordinance after it is adopted.

      Flood Resilience Through Building Codes--Evaluate Higher 
Standards for Resiliency. This project will help communities and the 
State to understand better the costs and benefits of incorporating 
resilience design through enhanced building codes and higher standards 
outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). In this project, MDE 
will: undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the State adoption of higher 
standards in areas inside and outside of the SFHA for State Facilities; 
use a watershed approach and case study to examine the costs and 
benefits of adopting a local floodplain and higher standards in the 
NFIP community of Westernport and then expand that analysis to the full 
Georges Creek watershed; and create guidance for all communities on the 
benefits of adopting higher standards.

      Flood Resilience Through Building Codes--Building Codes 
Training and Local Land Use Policy Workshops. This project will 
develop, promote, and deliver professional workforce capabilities 
through technical assistance and training by developing and 
implementing a robust state-wide training program for flood provisions 
in building codes, ordinances, higher standards, and regulations. The 
training will be in the form of multiple regional workshops targeted 
for Floodplain Administrators (FPAs) and building inspectors. Training 
will be offered in each region of the state and will include specific 
material that will address the needs and requirements of each 
participating community. A one-stop-shop webpage will be created to 
allow access to course material for future reference and refresher 
training.

    While the FY24 program is not yet released, Maryland has already 
fielded interest in additional building-code related projects.
             Building Codes as a Component of BRIC Scoring
    Building codes are an essential mitigation tool and play a 
significant role in programs such as FEMA's BRIC program scoring. 
Building code initiatives, however, cannot be a ``one-size-fits-all'' 
solution nationwide. When considering local versus state building codes 
as a criterion for BRIC scoring, both levels of adoption and 
enforcement present unique benefits and challenges. For states, a 
challenge lies in comparing building code requirements, metrics, and 
implementation on a national scale. At the local level, smaller or 
under-resourced jurisdictions may lack the expertise, funding, or staff 
to develop and enforce strong building codes, leading to inconsistent 
protection across the state and negatively impacting BRIC scores for 
projects in those areas. Furthermore, it has frequently been noted that 
the adoption process to stay current with code models is a significant 
challenge for both state and local governments, partly because the 
necessary review and approval process can take years to complete.
    Due to the significant differences in risk, capacity, and resources 
across the nation, many states opposed using state building codes as a 
criterion in the BRIC program scoring. While updated building codes are 
an important mitigation consideration, and there may be some benefits 
related to statewide consistency, there are significant downsides to 
comparing building code implementation and enforcement across all 
states. Nearly half of states, for example, do not have a statewide 
building code, so their communities would be at a significant 
disadvantage--particularly the non-coastal, rural states and many of 
our nation's territories. Even in states that do have statewide 
building codes, however, they can be politically charged, and state 
emergency management agencies often lack the ability to influence code 
updates. As a result, using state building codes as a BRIC scoring 
criterion would effectively penalize communities and emergency 
management agencies for decisions of state legislatures, leading to 
missed opportunities to execute critical mitigation projects.
    Many of the issues cited above regarding the use of state building 
codes for BRIC scoring also apply to the use of local building codes. 
Furthermore, there is a misconception that many local jurisdictions do 
not adopt and enforce building codes because they disagree with them, 
or do not want to direct residents on how to handle their property. 
Many communities understand the importance and benefits of building 
code adoption and enforcement, but do not have the financial 
capabilities or capacity to adopt and enforce a building code or run a 
local building code program. Even when local communities are able to 
adopt updated building codes, the frequency with which new codes are 
released makes it unrealistic for many local communities to keep up.
    Congress should also bear in mind that states vary in issues as 
simple as the definition of ``local.'' For example, in several New 
England states, there are no county seats of government. This 
significantly increases the number of local governments working 
directly with the state and penalizes small, rural, and under-resourced 
communities already struggling to receive funding.
    Given FEMA's current preference to ensure equitable access to, and 
equitable delivery of federal programs, having building code adoption 
and enforcement as a scoring criterion within the BRIC program would be 
in conflict. Instead of using building code adoption and enforcement as 
a criterion in BRIC scoring, FEMA should focus on incentivization of 
building code adoption and enforcement. For example, remove 
requirements and incentives from scoring criterion, but provide 
incentives later in the process, such as cost share adjustments for 
adoption and enforcement. If build codes must be a criterion for BRIC 
scoring, both state and local sub-applicants should have opportunities 
to earn additional points for adopting more stringent, hazard-specific 
building codes tailored to their risks--without the penalty of losing 
points. Another proposed approach is a change to a ``state OR local 
code'' approach, in which the community gets to choose whichever awards 
them more points in the scoring process.
    In short, given the important role the BRIC program plays enabling 
communities to reduce their hazard risk and enhance resiliency, FEMA's 
approach to scoring must not make it harder for disadvantaged, rural, 
and highly vulnerable communities to compete.
                         Solutions Beyond BRIC
    The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) included a 
provision entitled Federal Cost-Share Adjustments for Repair, 
Restoration, and Replacement of Damaged Facilities (Sec. 20606). This 
provision allows the President to provide incentives to grantees to 
invest in measures that increase readiness for, and resilience from, a 
major disaster by recognizing those investments through a sliding scale 
that increases the minimum federal share. Implementing the approved 
language would give states concrete actions to incentivize resilience 
and empower them to take proactive steps to drive down disaster costs 
before an incident occurs. Despite the statutory one-year deadline, the 
lack of movement on implementing Sec. 20606 delays an opportunity for 
engagement and innovation to incentivize resilient strategies.
    NEMA remains confident that raising the federal cost share for 
FEMA's post-disaster Public Assistance program from 75% up to 85% for 
proven mitigation measures represents a powerful motivator for all 
communities to invest in resilience. Were FEMA to demonstrate a 
willingness to recognize and reward such investments in mitigation and 
resilience by implementing this now six-year-old provision of law, it 
would inspire communities to harden themselves against future disasters 
by undertaking the prescribed actions.
 Integrating Community Lifelines Into Mitigation and Resilience Efforts
    BRIC is an opportunity to create transformative, community-based 
projects that work with the private sector, homeowners, locals, and 
other stakeholders that incentivize large infrastructure projects for 
community lifelines. Maryland officials have testified before Congress 
in the past on the importance of investing in resilient transportation 
and infrastructure projects which bolster our collective resilience in 
the face of disasters and cyber threats. As a designated community 
lifeline, resilient infrastructure and transportation networks will 
enable areas affected by disaster to more rapidly return to normal 
function.
    Ensuring community lifelines, particularly energy and 
communication, are resilient against hazard impacts is a priority for 
Maryland and many other states to ensure the safety and security of our 
residents post-disaster. Proactive investments in mitigation can help 
enable the quick restoration of these community lifelines when impacted 
by disasters, which aids in response efforts, prevents loss of life and 
property, and decreases the overall cost of recovery. As the assets, 
services, and capabilities that comprise community lifelines are often 
owned and operated by the private sector, this further underscores the 
need to embrace partnerships and educate those outside of traditional 
emergency management on the role everyone can play in mitigation and 
resilience.
                               Conclusion
    On behalf of the state emergency managers, thank you again for 
holding this hearing and drawing attention to the needs of the 
emergency management community. In Maryland, we are acutely aware of 
the need to build upon the momentum from the implementation of the BRIC 
program to further improve mitigation and resilience efforts to ensure 
we effectively support our communities in their time of need. As you 
consider the topics of this hearing, please remember that investing in 
mitigation and resilience makes real differences in the lives of those 
affected by disasters and allows us to build back smarter to lessen the 
impacts of future events. While every community's approach to 
mitigation and resilience building will differ based on their unique 
risk environments, priorities, and areas of vulnerability, the 
cumulative effect will be a stronger nation better postured to adapt to 
the threats of the future.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hughes for your 5 minutes for 
an opening statement.

TESTIMONY OF BUDDY HUGHES, FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 
        DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS

    Mr. Hughes. Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and 
esteemed members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National 
Association of Home Builders.
    The recent increase in natural disasters has underscored 
the important role homebuilders serve in constructing safe and 
resilient homes.
    NAHB represents over 140,000 members who construct 
approximately 80 percent of the new housing built in the U.S. 
each year. We are committed to collaborating with all levels of 
Government to develop cost-effective solutions that enhance 
home and community resilience while preserving housing choice 
and affordability.
    While NAHB acknowledges the important role building codes 
play in enhancing resiliency, we are concerned about FEMA's 
disproportionate focus on the adoption of the very latest 
codes. Building codes do little to improve flood control, 
manage stormwater, or address the existing building stock. They 
also fail to strengthen essential infrastructure, like power 
supply and roadways.
    Creating true resiliency requires a holistic approach that 
encompasses all community systems. FEMA's emphasis on building 
codes can divert attention and resources from improvements to 
infrastructure, emergency services, and existing buildings.
    A resilient building is of little value if the supporting 
infrastructure is lacking, and a resilient home offers little 
comfort if it remains unaffordable. Builders know firsthand 
that housing affordability is at the top of mind for 
homebuyers. Adopting the latest building codes can 
significantly impact affordability.
    For example, a study by Home Innovation Research Labs found 
that implementing the 2021 International Residential Code could 
add up to $5,700 to the cost of an average single family home 
compared to the 2018 code. NAHB estimates that 77 percent of 
U.S. households cannot afford a median-priced new home. Even a 
$1,000 increase in price could push over 100,000 households out 
of the market. These challenges only deepen the struggle for 
families seeking affordable housing.
    The ability to customize building codes becomes crucial as 
it ensures not only resilience and relevance, but also cost-
effectiveness.
    NAHB has been an active participant in the ICC's code 
development process since its inception, ensuring that our 
members, who are the primary users of these model codes, bring 
their extensive hands-on experience to the evaluation of 
proposed changes. However, it is crucial that State and local 
governments retain the flexibility to adopt codes that address 
their specific geographic and jurisdictional needs, even if 
those codes are not developed by ICC.
    If FEMA takes an overly prescriptive approach, we risk 
diverting our attention from enhancing community resilience to 
merely navigating the codes that qualify for FEMA funding. FEMA 
should allow jurisdictions to tailor codes to their unique risk 
to avoid imposing unnecessary requirements that can drive up 
costs for builders and homebuyers.
    The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act is vital legislation 
that seeks to permanently codify the definition of ``latest 
published editions'' of building codes, giving State and local 
governments the necessary time to adopt codes tailored to their 
specific needs and economic conditions.
    Without this legislation, FEMA could restrict certain funds 
to only the jurisdictions that have adopted the most recent 
codes, pressuring them into hasty changes that may not enhance 
safety or resilience.
    Thank you to the subcommittee for your unanimous support of 
this important legislation. And I would like to thank you for 
your time and attention today. I look forward to working 
together to forge a path that balances safety, resilience, and 
affordability, ultimately benefiting all Americans.
    Thank you very much for your time.
    [Mr. Hughes' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Buddy Hughes, First Vice Chairman of the Board of 
            Directors, National Association of Home Builders
                              Introduction
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus and members of the committee, 
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of 
the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) to share our view on 
the role and effectiveness of building codes in mitigating against 
disasters. My name is Buddy Hughes, and I serve as NAHB's First Vice 
Chairman of the Board of Directors. I am a home builder and developer 
based in Lexington, North Carolina, with over 45 years of experience in 
the industry.
    NAHB represents more than 140,000 members who are involved in 
building single-family and multifamily housing, remodeling and other 
aspects of residential and light commercial construction. NAHB's 
members, most of whom build 10 or fewer homes per year, construct 
approximately 80% of all new housing in the United States each year.
    The recent rise in major natural disasters serves as a powerful 
reminder of the critical role the residential construction industry 
plays in building safe and resilient homes and communities. It has also 
ignited a broader conversation about risk, resiliency, and mitigation. 
NAHB has long been at the forefront of these discussions, taking a 
leadership role in improving the resilience and performance of both new 
and existing homes. Our organization and its members have a proven 
track record of supporting, developing, and participating in state, 
local, and federal initiatives focused on reducing disaster-related 
losses and enhancing resiliency.
    We have consistently demonstrated our commitment to collaborating 
with all levels of government to promote and implement effective 
disaster and floodplain management policies while improving the 
resiliency of the homes we build and the communities we serve. NAHB 
takes pride in developing cost-effective, market-driven solutions that 
strike a balance between preserving housing affordability and ensuring 
reasonable protection for life and property. We work to address the 
needs of growing communities while promoting safety and resilience in 
home construction.
                  FEMA's Role in Mitigating Disasters
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created in 1979 
to help Americans recover from Presidentially declared natural 
disasters. Its role has since evolved to include actions aimed at 
building, sustaining, and improving the nation's ability and capacity 
to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate 
all types of hazards. Following various authorizations from Congress, 
FEMA relies on a range of policy tools and programs to do so, including 
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program, the NFIP's Community Rating System (CRS) Program, 
and funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, among others.
    While FEMA has promoted the adoption and enforcement of hazard-
resistant building codes, for years, it issued its Building Code 
Strategy, which organizes and prioritizes FEMA activities to advance 
the adoption and enforcement of hazard-resistant building codes and 
standards in March 2022. More recently, FEMA was chosen to lead the 
National Initiative to Advance Building Codes (NIABC)--an effort aimed 
at helping state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments adopt the 
latest building codes and standards, enabling communities to be more 
resilient to hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, and other extreme weather 
events that are intensifying due to climate change.\1\ While NAHB 
agrees that building codes play an important role in improving the 
nation's resiliency, we remain concerned about the outsized focus FEMA 
has given this one aspect of preparedness. Building codes do little to 
improve flood control or manage stormwater. Building codes do not 
notify citizens or move them out of harm's way. Building codes rarely 
touch the existing building stock, which makes up the majority of the 
nation's homes. And building codes are unable to shore up the power 
supply, roadways, or other necessary infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The White House, FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration 
Launches Initiative to Modernize Building Codes, Improve Climate 
Resilience, and Reduce Energy Costs (June 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Creating resiliency is not just about improving buildings' ability 
to weather a storm or other disaster, but a holistic approach to all 
systems within a community. FEMA's undue emphasis on building codes 
skews the attention and support these other systems need to make our 
communities and citizens better able to adapt and respond. A resilient 
building is of little use if the supporting and necessary 
infrastructure (energy, communications, transportation, wastewater, 
etc.) are not in place following an event. Likewise, a resilient home 
provides little comfort if no one can afford to purchase it. Given the 
current housing crisis, instead of placing additional burdens on new 
construction, the emphasis should be on improving the resilience of 
infrastructure, emergency services, and existing buildings.
FEMA's Dependence on the Latest Published Editions of Building Codes to 
                           Enhance Resiliency
    NAHB supports a comprehensive approach to addressing natural 
disasters, advocating for cost-effective solutions that enhance the 
resiliency of the nation's housing stock while safeguarding housing 
affordability. FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs, 
particularly the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities 
(BRIC) program, have the potential to play a pivotal role in this 
effort by empowering communities to take proactive steps toward 
resilience. However, FEMA's heavy emphasis on adopting the latest 
building codes presents significant challenges for states, localities, 
builders and homebuyers.\2\ The short window for reviewing newly 
published codes, coupled with the continuous cycle of code updates, 
leaves builders, contractors, architects, engineers, manufacturers, and 
building officials with little time to fully understand and implement 
the changes effectively. This pace undermines these programs' goals by 
making it harder for communities to adopt and enforce these codes 
without disrupting their operations and increasing administrative and 
enforcement costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See, for example, DHS/FEMA, Fiscal Year 2021 Building Resilient 
Infrastructure and Communities, Notice of Funding Opportunity DHS-21-
MT-047-00-99 (2021) under which FEMA limits BRIC funding for code 
adoptions to those communities that update to hazard resistant codes 
and requires BRIC funded infrastructure adhere to current codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adopting the latest building codes as soon as they are released 
also presents a significant challenge to housing affordability. A study 
by Home Innovation Research Labs found that adopting the 2021 
International Residential Code (IRC) could add up to $5,700 in costs 
for an average single-family home compared to the 2018 IRC, excluding 
energy efficiency provisions.\3\ This increase adds further pressure to 
housing affordability, which is already a growing concern, even before 
factoring in additional price or interest rate hikes. NAHB estimates 
that 103.5 million U.S. households--77% of all households--cannot 
afford a median-priced new home, which was $495,750 as of 2024. 
Moreover, a $1,000 increase in the median home price could price 
106,031 additional households out of the market, while a 25-basis point 
rise in the 30-year fixed mortgage rate could make homeownership 
unaffordable for approximately 1.1 million more households. However, as 
mentioned, complying with many code changes can lead to costs well 
beyond $1,000, pushing even more families out of the housing market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Estimated Costs of the 2021 IRC Code Changes, January 2022, 
https://www.nahb.org/
-/media/NAHB/advocacy/docs/top-priorities/codes/code-adoption/cost-
impact-2021-irc-hirl.pdf?rev=
8b1cda54131d4b328ca4ab99fa7e86b0&hash=578FFBD88B617D87F679BAC9C2B5C2CB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rather than focusing solely on adopting the latest version every 
three years, the priority should be on recognizing the effectiveness of 
current modern codes and ensuring proper enforcement to maximize their 
effectiveness while maintaining flexibility to address regional risks 
and specific needs.
Modern Building Codes are Resilient
    Although most states and localities have enacted building 
regulations that are designed to protect homes and occupants from 
severe weather events and hazards, FEMA has placed a strong emphasis on 
the adoption of the latest building codes as the primary means to 
enhance safety. This focus is unwarranted and unnecessary. Modern 
building codes have proven to be resilient.
    Building codes set the minimum standards for public health and 
safety in both commercial and residential structures. While they have 
existed in various forms for decades, a major milestone occurred in 
2000 when the three regional code organizations in the United States 
consolidated into the International Code Council (ICC), leading to the 
creation of the first set of ``I-Codes.'' These codes, first published 
in 2000, are the most widely adopted model building codes in the 
country. The International Building Code (IBC) is used in all 50 
states, and the International Residential Code (IRC) is adopted in 49 
states. Like most model codes, the I-Codes undergo a formal public 
consensus review and are updated every three years, with new editions 
released in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2021, and 2024.
    When the I-Codes were introduced, significant improvements were 
made to residential building codes to address issues identified after 
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the California earthquakes of 1989 and 
1994. While further enhancements have been made since the I-Codes' 
debut in 2000, the number of changes in newer editions of the IRC that 
significantly impact structural reliability and occupant safety has 
greatly decreased. In other words, modern building codes (post-2000) 
have proven to be highly resilient, and triannual updates are not 
necessary for further enhancing resilience. Homes built to national 
model building codes are designed to withstand major disasters and 
already offer substantial protection against high seismic activity, 
strong winds, heavy snow, wildfires, and flooding.
    Despite this, FEMA's recent strategic focus on mandating the 
adoption of the ``latest published editions'' of certain codes or 
standards to enhance building resilience is concerning. While it is 
often assumed that homes built according to the most recent codes are 
inherently more resilient, this is not always the case when compared to 
homes constructed under previous editions of the IRC. In fact, homes 
built to modern building codes--defined as any edition of the IRC--have 
consistently demonstrated resilience. Evidence from FEMA and other 
sources shows that the IRC has been highly effective throughout its 
history in significantly reducing damage to walls and roof 
coverings.\4\ Likewise, FEMA has recognized, ``Some states have broken 
the chain of destruction by adopting modern building codes that protect 
property and people during natural disasters. Florida and California, 
pioneers in this field, have had modern hazard-resistant building codes 
in place since the 1990s.'' \5\ Additionally, many of today's new homes 
are built ``above code,'' incorporating sustainable and high-
performance features that further enhance their durability. As such, 
mandating the adoption of the latest code editions is often unnecessary 
and overlooks the effectiveness of current building practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ For example, FEMA's Summary Report on Building Performance--
2004 Hurricane Season (FEMA 490, March 2005) indicated that ``no 
structural failures were observed to structures designed and 
constructed to the wind design requirements of . . . the 2000 IBC/
IRC'', and FEMA's Summary Report on Building Performance from Hurricane 
Katrina (FEMA 548, April 2006) stated ``most structural failures 
observed . . . appeared to be the result of inadequate design and 
construction methods commonly used before IBC 2000 and IRC 2000 were 
adopted and enforced.''
    \5\ FEMA, Protecting Communities and Saving Money: The Case for 
Adopting Building Codes (Nov. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, it is unclear whether FEMA's approach to building code 
adoption accounts for the varying risks, building technologies, and 
landforms across the country, or allows for necessary amendments to 
model codes--an essential step to ensure their effectiveness. Each 
state and local government has its own code adoption, implementation, 
and enforcement processes, and often has limited resources with which 
to do so. Many are simply unable to adopt the latest codes within the 
expected timeframes. Evaluating and adopting a new or revised building 
code is a complex and costly process that often requires both 
legislative and administrative action, which can take years to 
complete. Due to the short, three-year turnaround, many localities 
would need to start considering the most recent code even though the 
newest code had not yet been implemented. How can they reasonably 
consider proposed changes when they don't yet know what may or may not 
work? Given these challenges, mandating the adoption of the ``latest 
published editions'' places an unintended burden on many states and 
localities that would otherwise be considered up to date because they 
are following a standard and predictable process for maintaining their 
codes.
    Finally, the strong performance of the IRC over the past 20 years 
reflects the ``maturing'' of building codes through a continual process 
of refinement since 2000. While future adjustments to incorporate 
technological advances are inevitable, it is clear that major changes 
are no longer as crucial as they once were. Certain code provisions are 
approaching or have already crossed a point of diminishing returns, 
where additional updates may not be cost-effective given the current 
cost/benefit ratio. Homes can be constructed to withstand disasters, 
but they cannot consistently be both disaster-resistant and affordable. 
New homes built to modern codes are both safe and resilient. Therefore, 
there is no need to impose more stringent requirements or mandate 
adherence to the latest edition of the code, particularly if that is 
interpreted as the most recent version.
Modern Codes Address Local Conditions
    NAHB has been an active participant in the ICC's code development 
process since its inception. NAHB members, as the primary users of 
these model codes, bring their extensive hands-on experience to 
evaluating the practicality and effectiveness of proposed code changes 
as they help to shape codes that work for state and local governments, 
building officials, builders and homeowners.
    The I-Codes provide a solid foundation to ensure the safety, 
durability, and resilience of the homes we build and have been highly 
effective in reducing damage due to natural disasters. One reason the 
I-codes work is that they are designed to be flexible and amended so 
that they can meet the specific needs of state and local governments. 
We fear that if too much rigidity is imposed, such as the adoption of 
the most recent code, the focus of the building codes conversation may 
shift away from meaningful discussions about enhancing community 
resilience to confusion over which specific code will result in 
eligibility for FEMA funding. It is essential for state and local 
governments to retain the flexibility to adopt the hazard-resistant 
codes that are best for them, even if those codes are outside the ICC's 
suite of model codes. Communities must also be free to tailor those 
codes to their specific geographic and jurisdictional needs, so that 
they may effectively protect and safeguard their citizens.
    State and local governments play a crucial role in the code 
adoption process, assessing the value and necessity of specific code 
requirements. Since model codes are intended to be amended, these 
governments have long been tasked with reviewing each new edition of 
the consensus-based building codes and determining which provisions are 
suitable for their jurisdictions. This involves adding, removing, or 
modifying provisions to align the codes with local construction 
practices, geographical risks, and economic conditions. Without the 
ability to make these essential adjustments, state and local 
governments would be forced to apply a one-size-fits-all national code 
that doesn't account for regional differences. This approach would also 
impose numerous unnecessary requirements on builders, ultimately 
resulting in higher costs for home buyers.
    The ability to customize building codes is essential for ensuring 
their resilience and relevance. Some states make minimal changes to the 
model codes, while others selectively adopt certain provisions or use 
the model code as a foundation to create their own state-specific 
regulations. This flexibility allows jurisdictions to evaluate their 
unique risks--such as seismic activity, wind, flooding, and other local 
conditions--and craft codes that best address those needs. At the same 
time, they can avoid imposing mandates and associated compliance costs 
for provisions that are not applicable or designed to address levels of 
risks that are not present in their areas, such as elevation 
requirements outside the traditional special flood hazard areas or 
increased structural requirements for snow loads in more temperate 
regions.
    Under this rubric, Nevada is free to identify the risks it faces 
and adopt the codes that are best suited to its locale, geography, and 
economic conditions, while North Carolina can do the same. In fact, 
because the model codes are intended to be tailored, amendments are 
made to nearly every code that is adopted at the state or local level, 
whether it applies to only the administrative requirements or a major 
rewrite of the entire document. For example, North Carolina adopted its 
2018 building codes based on the 2015 I-Codes on January 1, 2019, with 
38 pages of amendments. Similarly, Nevada adopts the building codes at 
the local level but collaborates statewide on the amendment process and 
had 14 pages of amendments on the residential code alone. Any federal 
efforts must not alter this vital underpinning and must allow and 
embrace amendments as an important component of ensuring both the 
codes' applicability and resiliency and, in turn, their affordability.
The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act Improves Flexibility
    In 2018, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) was enacted as 
part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization. This 
bipartisan legislation addressed the rising costs of disasters in the 
United States and reformed federal disaster programs to ensure 
communities are better prepared for future hurricanes, flooding, 
earthquakes, wildfires, and other disasters. The DRRA amended the 
Stafford Act, the primary statutory authority for most federal disaster 
response activities, most notably the Pre-disaster Hazard Mitigation 
Funds. These funds are crucial for various resilience efforts, such as 
property elevation, retrofitting existing buildings, stormwater 
management, and other activities designed to enhance community 
resilience against natural disasters. The final language of the DRRA 
defined ``latest published editions'' of building codes to include the 
latest two published editions of relevant codes, specifications, and 
standards, while specifically providing jurisdictions the flexibility 
to amend them as needed. This definition unfortunately sunset in 
October 2023, underscoring the current need for legislative action to 
ensure jurisdictions can retain control over their code adoption 
processes and not be forced into adopting costly and unnecessary 
construction requirements.
    The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act is crucial legislation that 
aims to help jurisdictions maintain local control over the building 
code adoption process while encouraging communities to take proactive 
steps to withstand and recover from extreme events.\6\ The bill seeks 
to permanently codify the previous definition of ``latest published 
editions'' of building codes, giving state and local governments the 
necessary time to engage in comprehensive code adoption processes that 
result in codes tailored to their specific needs and are cost-effective 
for their jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ H.R. 5473, The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act, https://
www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without this legislation, FEMA could consider funding for only 
those jurisdictions that have adopted the very latest editions of 
building codes. This would put jurisdictions in a difficult position, 
pressuring them to adopt the newest codes without a thorough vetting 
and amendment process, potentially resulting in costly code changes 
that do not necessarily enhance safety or resiliency. In the midst of a 
national housing affordability crisis, it is crucial that adding 
further uncertainty and unnecessary costs to the home-building process 
is avoided.
    Thank you to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and 
specifically this Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management for your unanimous support of this 
legislation. Your commitment to this issue plays a vital role in 
ensuring that communities can build resiliency without compromising 
local control or affordability.
Building Codes and the Overlooked Existing Housing Stock
    Currently, most building codes focus solely on new construction or 
existing buildings that are under repair or reconstruction, placing a 
disproportionate burden on new builds while largely overlooking the 
performance and resilience of existing homes. This approach is 
inadequate, especially given the aging American housing stock. With a 
recent decline in new construction, there is increasing pressure to 
keep older homes in service--homes that may not perform as well or be 
as resilient as newer builds. One hundred and thirty million homes out 
of the nation's housing stock of 137 million were built before 2010. 
Equally problematic, the latest Census statistics show the number of 
homes built before 1970 that are taken out of commission is only about 
six out of every 1,000 being retired per year. These low rates of 
replacement mean that the built environment in the U.S. will change 
slowly and continue to be dominated by structures that are at least 
several decades old.
    Advocating for more stringent and costly building requirements for 
new construction overlooks the reality that such changes would offer 
minimal additional protection from natural disasters. An undue focus on 
new builds not only challenges state and local governments but also 
risks making new housing increasingly unaffordable and unattainable for 
many families and thereby encouraging them to remain in lower-
performing homes.
The Need for Retrofitting Older Homes
    Older homes are generally less resilient and energy-efficient than 
their newer counterparts. Built without the rigorous standards of 
modern codes, they typically consume more energy and are more 
vulnerable to natural disasters. Post-disaster investigations support 
this conclusion. For example, FEMA's Mitigation Assessment Team Report 
on Hurricane Sandy noted that ``many of the low-rise and residential 
buildings in coastal areas [that had observable damage] were of older 
construction that pre-dates the NFIP''.\7\ Similarly, the Insurance 
Institute for Business and Home Safety found in its preliminary report 
on Hurricanes Harvey and Irma that ``total destruction from wind 
occurred to mobile homes, as well as older site-built conventional 
homes,'' while ``newer homes generally performed better than older 
buildings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Assessment Team 
Report Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York, November 27, 2013, 
accessed at (https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/44511/
PDF/1/play/) on May 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To enhance the nation's overall resiliency, greater focus is needed 
on upgrading the existing housing stock. Homes built to modern building 
codes have consistently demonstrated their ability to perform well 
during natural disasters. Therefore, the priority should be on 
preparing older homes for such events. This requires more funding and 
guidance on cost-effective retrofit strategies to bring these homes up 
to current standards. The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act offers a 
valuable pathway to do so by including a residential retrofit and 
resilience pilot program, which would allow FEMA's BRIC program to 
better address the resiliency of existing homes. Strengthening the 
current housing stock is essential to reducing the impact of natural 
disasters on our communities, homes, and families.
Flexible and Cost-Effective Options Are Critical
    As policymakers seek to eliminate, reduce, and mitigate the effects 
of future natural disasters, they must offer diverse and flexible 
options for upgrading older homes and infrastructure. Many of these 
buildings were constructed either before national model codes existed 
or under outdated standards, leaving them more vulnerable to damage. 
Improving the resiliency of these structures can take many forms, such 
as sealing roof penetrations, installing hurricane shutters, elevating 
buildings, or enhancing stormwater management systems.
    Effective mitigation strategies depend on various factors, 
including property location and condition, hazard type, level of risk, 
geographic conditions, and available resources. Given this complexity, 
no single solution can address all the issues related to improving 
resiliency. Flexibility in program design and implementation is 
crucial. Federal assistance should be adaptable across diverse 
geographic and economic spectrums, benefiting state-, regional- and 
community-wide efforts and those of individual homeowners. While some 
may require financial support, others may benefit more from technical 
expertise or innovative solutions.
    NAHB strongly urges Congress to recognize and promote voluntary, 
market-driven, and viable green building, high performance, and 
resiliency initiatives for both new and existing homes. Unlike 
mandates, these programs can promote lower total ownership costs 
through insurance savings as well as provide the flexibility builders 
need to construct homes that are recognized as being cost-effective, 
affordable, and appropriate to a home's geographic location.
    Congress has taken several steps over the years to alleviate the 
challenges associated with funding retrofits. NAHB asserts that 
continuing and expanding these programs is necessary to realize 
measurable changes in the resiliency of the housing stock. Indeed, 
covering the upfront costs or increased down payments needed to finance 
resiliency improvements, which are often significant, is one of the 
most difficult aspects of upgrading new or existing homes.
    Tax incentives are a proven way to achieve results and have been 
effective in advancing energy efficiency improvements. Sections 25C for 
qualified improvements in existing homes, 45L for new homes, and 179D 
for commercial buildings have already permeated the market, helping 
many families and building owners invest in efficiency. These 
successful programs could serve as a model for promoting resiliency. 
Creating similar incentives for resiliency efforts would encourage more 
homeowners to take positive action.
Other Incentives
    There are several opportunities to facilitate, incentivize, and 
offset the costs of voluntary above-code construction and pre-disaster 
mitigation through public-private partnerships and other 
collaborations. These options include modifications to property 
valuation and financing protocols, loans, grants, and other funding 
programs, as well as insurance premium reductions within the National 
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), among others.
    Under current practice, mortgage companies, appraisers, assessors, 
and real estate professionals typically do not consider the costs or 
benefits associated with various resiliency upgrades. This creates a 
disincentive for homeowners to take proactive steps to reduce their 
home's exposure, as those expenditures are not necessarily viewed as 
valuable amenities and any return on investment is illusory. If credit 
for the improvements is not included in the appraisal or appraised 
value of the structure, the buyer remains uninformed about the home's 
qualities, and their willingness to pay for a more resilient home can 
be significantly diminished.
    By recognizing and valuing resiliency upgrades, appraisers can 
consistently give weight to these improvements in their valuations. 
Likewise, lenders may reconsider qualifying loan ratios, realtors can 
promote the benefits of these upgrades, and homeowners would receive 
assurances that their investments will retain value and be recognized 
in resale. In addition, homes would receive the necessary upgrades to 
better withstand storm events, reducing future damage, insurance 
payouts, and homeowner displacement.
    Other opportunities to facilitate, incentivize, and offset the 
costs of voluntary above-code construction and pre-disaster mitigation 
include tax incentives, grants, the creation of a weatherization 
assistance-like program for resiliency, and financing programs that 
would allow the costs of retrofits to be added to a mortgage.
    Congress is encouraged to consider a full range of federal 
incentives and funding opportunities, as well as ways to promote and 
facilitate state-level and private efforts to optimize the resiliency 
of new and existing homes. Overcoming the significant hurdles of how to 
finance upgrades and entice homeowners to take action will be key to 
the success of any effort to increase investment in resilience and 
mitigation.
   Strengthening the Residential Construction Workforce for Disaster 
                                Recovery
    Access to a reliable workforce is crucial for increasing the 
resiliency of homes, rebuilding homes after natural disasters, and 
meeting the ongoing demand for housing. When considering resiliency 
upgrades, homeowners need access to experienced remodelers who 
understand structural systems and cost-effective mitigation options. 
After disasters, communities depend on a skilled workforce to quickly 
and effectively restore homes and infrastructure, helping families and 
businesses return to normalcy. The current housing market also faces 
significant labor shortages, making it more difficult to keep up with 
the demand for new construction. To address these challenges, NAHB 
strongly advocates for residential workforce development programs to 
help bridge these labor gaps.
    Building a pipeline of skilled workers requires more than just 
filling current vacancies; it involves ensuring a steady and dependable 
influx of new talent while fostering an environment that encourages 
retention in the residential construction industry. Programs that offer 
training and career development can attract newcomers to the field, 
equipping them with the skills needed to succeed. Furthermore, creating 
opportunities for career advancement and stability within the industry 
will help retain these workers, ensuring that the residential 
construction sector can grow and respond effectively to natural 
disasters and ongoing housing needs.
    NAHB continues to actively push for legislation to address these 
workforce challenges. For example, the CONSTRUCTS Act, introduced by 
Sen. Jacky Rosen (NV), aims to ease the severe labor shortage in the 
home building industry. This legislation supports new and existing 
residential construction education programs, helping ensure a steady 
supply of workers to build the homes our nation needs. Furthermore, 
NAHB strongly supports continued funding for Job Corps, a crucial 
program that helps prepare young adults for rewarding careers in 
construction and other essential trades.
    To further support these efforts, FEMA should encourage 
jurisdictions to establish robust residential workforce development 
programs. By incentivizing the creation and maintenance of a skilled 
workforce, FEMA can play a pivotal role in ensuring that communities 
have the labor force needed to perform pre-disaster mitigation and 
rebuild efficiently after disasters occur. Additionally, a well-trained 
workforce is essential for maintaining a healthy housing market, 
reducing the pressure on housing supply, and keeping construction costs 
in check. Strengthening the residential construction workforce not only 
addresses immediate recovery needs but also contributes to the long-
term resilience and sustainability of communities nationwide.
                               Conclusion
    Sound building codes are already in place in most communities, and 
they are effectively doing their job. The NAHB strongly supports 
voluntary, incentive-driven initiatives to bolster the nation's 
resilience. However, we have significant concerns about any expansion 
of federal authority that could limit the ability of state and local 
governments to adopt building codes tailored to their specific regions. 
Such actions could potentially hinder housing development and restrict 
the availability of affordable housing options. NAHB is troubled by the 
excessive emphasis on adopting the latest versions of building codes, 
which places an undue focus on new construction while neglecting the 
existing housing stock. We strongly believe that expanding mitigation 
opportunities and targeting upgrades to existing structures could help 
manage and reduce risks more evenly.
    We urge this Subcommittee, through its oversight role, to focus 
efforts related to housing on cost-effective, market-driven solutions 
that encourage greater resiliency in the nation's housing stock while 
preserving affordability for both new and existing homes. Given our 
members' knowledge and experience in building homes and communities, we 
stand ready to assist in delivering positive results and helping you 
achieve your goals.
    Thank you, Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Titus, for the 
opportunity to testify today and share NAHB's views. The nation's home 
builders have consistently supported the adoption and implementation of 
cost-effective building codes to ensure the homes we construct are 
solid and safe. With each new home built, we are not only safeguarding 
individual families but also shaping our communities into resilient 
cities of the future.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks Mr. Hughes.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Krahenbuhl for your testimony 
for 5 minutes, sir.

 TESTIMONY OF JORDAN KRAHENBUHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLUMBING, 
             HEATING, COOLING CONTRACTORS OF NEVADA

    Mr. Krahenbuhl. Thank you, Ranking Member Titus, for that 
introduction and for your leadership on construction codes and 
water-related issues.
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Jordan Krahenbuhl. I have been serving as the 
executive director of the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling 
Contractors of Nevada since 2019. Prior to joining the 
association, I worked for the Clark County Building Department 
for 30 years where I was the lead plumbing mechanical code 
official. I am also a member of IAPMO, an organization that 
develops model codes and standards used in our sector.
    The resiliency of America's buildings relies on a robust 
ecosystem of model codes and standards developed by standards 
development organizations. These organizations include but are 
not limited to IAPMO, ICC, NFPA, ASHRAE, and ASCE. The model 
codes and standards developed by these reputable organizations 
contain important hazard-resistant provisions.
    At times, these codes and standards compete with one 
another. Today's buildings are more resilient because of the 
competition, which results in improved safety, affordability, 
and resiliency. Jurisdictions benefit from being able to choose 
which of these model codes best meet their requirements. 
Federal policy should support this effort.
    FEMA's building code policies and guidance can be improved. 
The challenge in our industry has been that FEMA, in its 
building code initiative, seems to only be interested in 
promoting the products and services of one standards 
development organization.
    More than 100 organizations across 15 States have asked 
FEMA and Congress to address this issue. The industry 
appreciates the efforts made by Members of the House, including 
this panel, who have urged FEMA to act on this issue.
    Thanks to these efforts, there has been some movement. 
However, it continues to be a challenge and has created several 
problems that I would like to highlight.
    Number one, it discourages competition and limits options 
for local skilled professionals.
    FEMA's policy states that it does not approve or endorse 
any products or companies. It is concerning that FEMA's 
communications relating to building codes do not seem to follow 
that policy.
    Examples of how FEMA has outright marketed the products of 
a single standards development organization have been provided 
for the record.
    As a Federal agency, FEMA's role is not to weigh in on a 
competitive environment and to usurp the role of skilled 
professionals at a local level who select these codes. FEMA 
does not improve resiliency by telling jurisdictions which 
brand of model codes they should select.
    Number two, it introduces barriers in State and local code 
adoption.
    One of the major unintended consequences of FEMA's singular 
focus is that it has interfered with code adoptions. From New 
Jersey, Texas, and Missouri, we have seen examples where code 
adoptions have been delayed because of confusion over which 
specific national model code meets FEMA's requirements. To 
clarify, these are jurisdictions who are trying to do the right 
thing and update their construction codes, but they are being 
delayed because of the confusion created by FEMA's own 
marketing materials and the stakeholders promoting them.
    Number three, it threatens to negatively impact 
construction trades.
    My organization is one of the largest trainers of plumbing 
professionals in the State. If Nevada, because of FEMA's 
misaligned efforts, were to change its construction code to 
another code, it would be very detrimental. The cost of 
recreating our training and certification programs to address 
the specific provisions of an entirely new construction code 
would be hard to recover from and threaten our existence 
without any benefit to resiliency.
    Finally, the benefits of construction codes come from their 
effective implementation and enforcement, not just adoption. 
FEMA's strategy on resilient building should address the very 
real workforce training and supply chain issues faced by 
communities across the United States.
    In conclusion, implementing hazard-resistant construction 
codes is important to improving the resiliency of communities 
in Nevada and nationwide.
    We appreciate the actions of this committee that you have 
taken to date and continue to seek your assistance in helping 
ensure a level playing field for all major construction codes 
in FEMA's policies, programs, and upcoming strategic efforts.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
    [Mr. Krahenbuhl's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Jordan Krahenbuhl, Executive Director, Plumbing, 
                 Heating, Cooling Contractors of Nevada
                              Introduction
    Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf 
of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of Nevada regarding the 
role and effectiveness of FEMA's focus on building codes in mitigating 
against disasters.
    My name is Jordan Krahenbuhl, and I have been serving as Executive 
Director of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors (PHCC) of Nevada 
since 2019. As an organization, PHCC is dedicated to the education and 
advancement of the plumbing and HVACR industry. The Association's 
members, spread across the state of Nevada, work in the residential, 
commercial, new construction, industrial, and service and repair 
segments of the construction industry. Collectively, they represent a 
key segment of the skilled construction professionals who work to keep 
homes and businesses healthy, safe, comfortable, and efficient. Prior 
to joining PHCC of Nevada, I worked for the Clark County Building 
Department for 30 years, where I was the lead plumbing and mechanical 
code official. I am also a member of IAPMO, an organization that 
develops model codes and standards used in this sector, trains and 
establishes credentialing requirements for the workforce, and tests and 
certifies many of the products used in Nevada's homes and businesses.
                     Overview of Construction Codes
    The resiliency of America's buildings relies on a robust ecosystem 
of model codes and standards developed by standards development 
organizations. These organizations include, but are not limited to, 
IAPMO, the International Code Council (ICC), the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA), the American Society of Heating 
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and the American 
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The model codes and standards 
developed by these reputable organizations contain important hazard-
resistant provisions related to drought, earthquakes, fires, floods, 
storm surges, energy surges, and wind damage.
    At times, these codes and standards compete with one another. 
Today's buildings are more resilient because of this competition and 
the resulting increased involvement of stakeholders interested in 
improving safety, affordability, and resiliency. Building codes 
establish an industry-accepted minimum criteria for the design and 
construction of residential and commercial structures and facilities in 
their communities. Updated every three years, these model codes 
continue to be refined to better address needs of the built community 
in the United States.
  State and Local Jurisdictions Select Construction Codes for a Reason
    It is important to note that skilled professionals in these 
jurisdictions, working through locally defined processes, choose which 
construction codes are adopted based on local needs and preferences.
    Nevada for decades has chosen IAPMO's Uniform Plumbing Code and 
Uniform Mechanical Code to govern its plumbing and mechanical systems. 
Jurisdictions have made this choice for several reasons. First, IAPMO's 
codes are the only model plumbing and mechanical codes that are 
designated as an American National Standard. This means the codes are 
developed through a process accredited by the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI is a process that represents the 
``gold standard'' in the United States for standards development, 
ensuring openness, transparency, due process, and a balance of 
interests. This ensures that all parties have a voice and a vote and 
work together to achieve true consensus on the proper design, 
installation, and inspection of plumbing and mechanical systems.
    Additionally, IAPMO's codes incorporate the latest research and 
innovation. The Uniform series of codes include the most advanced 
provisions available on such critical topics as water and sanitation 
pipe sizing, storm rainfall resiliency, leak detection, minimizing 
Legionella growth, and water treatment technologies. IAPMO's codes 
continue to be an important tool in ensuring the efficient use of much 
of our state's limited water supplies and enhancing the safety and 
resiliency of our buildings. In Nevada, skilled professionals review 
each edition of these model codes to ensure the codes are tailored to 
Nevada's own unique needs.
    The major model building codes benefit public health and safety and 
contain hazard resilient criteria. States and local communities benefit 
from being able to choose which of these model codes best meet their 
requirements. Federal, and in particular FEMA, policy on construction 
codes should promote a competitive environment so that Nevada and other 
jurisdictions have access to all of the tools they need.
       FEMA's Building Code Policies and Guidance Can Be Improved
    As amended by Section 1235(b) of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act 
of 2018 (DRRA), FEMA-funded repair or reconstruction of buildings is 
required to comply with the ``latest published editions of relevant 
consensus-based codes, specifications and standards that incorporate 
the latest hazard-resistant design'' specifications. To meet these 
requirements and to assist communities with the consistent and 
appropriate implementation of consensus-based design, construction and 
maintenance codes, FEMA released Recovery Interim Policy FP-104-009-11, 
Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards for Public 
Assistance (CCSP) in December 2019. I was encouraged by FEMA's draft 
interim update of this policy, dated April 26, 2024, because of the 
inclusion of flexible options that allow jurisdictions to tailor 
resilience solutions to their specific needs and risks by incorporation 
of national model building codes developed by several organizations. 
However, it must be noted there remains inconsistency with FEMA's 
Building Science Resource Library, which currently limits the 
definition of ``building codes'' to those from only one standards 
development organization, contradicting the broader recognition of 
codes from 17 organizations in the CCSSP interim policy. It appears 
that on the disaster response and recovery side of FEMA, competition of 
codes will be recognized, whereas on the resilience side of FEMA, there 
is preferential treatment for one organization, further contributing to 
confusion among States and local communities.
    Specifically, FEMA has created a number of publications promoting 
the adoption of construction codes. Unfortunately, these efforts have 
fallen short as FEMA has repeatedly failed to recognize the ecosystem 
of model construction codes and standards that jurisdictions use, and 
it has continued to promote the products and services of only one 
standards development organization. More than 100 organizations across 
15 states have asked FEMA and Congress to address this issue. The 
industry appreciates the efforts made by members of the House, 
including this panel, and the Senate, who have urged action on this 
issue. However, it continues to be an issue and has created several 
problems. FEMA's failure to include all of the major construction codes 
in its policies and guidance:
1. Discourages competition and innovation
    FEMA's policy states that it does not approve, endorse, or certify 
any products or companies. It is concerning that FEMA's communications 
related to building codes are contrary to that policy. FEMA appears to 
endorse a single vendor's products to the exclusion of and without any 
mention of other model codes and standards that are widely used in the 
marketplace. Failing to be inclusive is causing a negative influence on 
the competitive and innovative environment. Examples of how FEMA has 
specifically promoted the products of only one standards development 
organization include the following FEMA publications:
    1.  Protecting Communities and Saving Money: The Case for Adopting 
Building Codes (November 2020) \1\--Features only one standards 
development organization and its products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/fema_building-
codes-save_brochure.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2.  Building Codes Toolkit (July 2021) \2\--Features the products 
of only one standards development organization throughout the document, 
including color photos of their products. It also advertises where 
these codes can be purchased on the organization's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.scribd.com/document/637320830/Fema-uilding-Codes-
Toolkit-07-19-2021&
ved=2ahUKEwiQ75LF48-IAxVMD1kFHeLFNP4QFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw29vSSW
7Zk3VhezS4p2n10G
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3.  Guide to Expanding Mitigation: Making the Connection to Codes 
and Standards (August 2021) \3\--Highlights only standards development 
organization and features four of its products. No other standards 
development organization is mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_guides-
expanding-mitigation-codes-standards_08052021.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4.  FEMA Resources for Climate Resilience (December 2021) \4\--This 
publication only specifically references construction codes created by 
one standards development organization. No other standards developer is 
mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_resources-climate-resilience.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5.  FEMA Building Codes Strategy (March 2022) \5\--The only 
national plumbing and mechanical codes identified in Appendix D are the 
products of one standards development organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_building-codes-strategy.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6.  Building Codes Adoption Playbook (August 2022) \6\--The model 
codes of only one standards development organization are featured 
throughout. It includes features on this organization's code 
development process and color photos of all 15 of its code book 
products, with a link to where to purchase them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_building-codes-adoption-playbook-for-authorities-having-
jurisdiction.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    7.  Building Codes Toolkit (May 2023) \7\--The products and 
services of only one standards development organization are mentioned 
20 times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_building-codes-toolkit.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    8.  Hazard Mitigation Assistance and Program Policy Guide 
(Effective July 2024) \8\--The products and services of one standards 
development organization are mentioned more than 40 times in the 
document. No other national plumbing or mechanical code is mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_hma_guide_082024.pdf

    FEMA's publications highlighted above stand in stark contrast to 
HUD's Resilient Building Codes Toolkit (June 2022) \9\, in which 
standards development organizations such as ASCE, ASHRAE, IAPMO, ICC 
and NFPA are presented with parity and without preference to one brand 
or another. As a federal agency, FEMA should remember that reduced 
competition frequently leads to monopolies and often results in higher 
prices and less innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Page 37, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/6701/
resilient-building-codes-toolkit/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By including all of the national model construction codes, FEMA 
could directly address this concern and clarify that jurisdictions have 
multiple tools from which to choose when deciding how best to meet 
their resiliency needs. The most important point is that these 
jurisdictions are regularly updating and implementing their 
construction codes with included hazard-resistant provisions.
2. Introduces Barriers in State and Local Code Adoption Processes
    It is very concerning that one of the major unintended consequences 
of FEMA's focus on only one standards development organization is that 
it has interfered with code adoptions across the United States. By not 
including all of the major construction codes, like those widely used 
in the electrical, plumbing, and mechanical sectors, FEMA's policies 
and guidance create significant confusion on what model codes 
jurisdictions can adopt. From New Jersey, Missouri, and Texas we have 
seen examples in our industry where the conversation around code 
adoption has devolved from which code provisions will help our 
communities to be most resilient in an affordable way to a confused 
discussion of which specific national model code will qualify buildings 
for reimbursement following a disaster. To clarify, these are 
jurisdictions who are trying to do the right thing--update their 
construction codes. But, they are being delayed because of the 
confusion created by FEMA's own materials and the stakeholders 
promoting them. More information can be provided for the public record 
that highlight this point should that be needed.
3. Threatens to Negatively Impact the Construction Trades
    My organization is one of the largest trainers of plumbing 
professionals in the state. Plumbing apprenticeships and training 
programs involve structured courses with a formal curriculum in a 
classroom setting in addition to on-the-job training. These courses are 
centered around the hazard design criteria contained in Nevada's 
current plumbing and mechanical codes.
    If Nevada, because of FEMA's misaligned efforts, were to change its 
construction code to another code, it would be extremely detrimental. 
The cost of re-creating our training and certification programs to 
address the specific provisions of an entirely new construction code 
would be hard to recover and threaten our existence. Additionally, the 
existing workforce in Nevada is trained, designs to, installs, and 
inspects product installations in compliance with existing adopted 
codes. Not only would the apprentice channel have to change but the 
entire workforce of designers, technicians, and inspectors would need 
to be educated on the differences in the code.
    FEMA's goal should be making sure that jurisdictions have access to 
all of the tools that they need to strengthen the resilience of our 
communities and not serving as the de facto marketing arm of a private 
sector organization.
4. Excludes Key Stakeholders
    The number of organizations who work with state and local 
jurisdictions to review and adopt their construction codes is a 
relatively small group of stakeholders. They are natural allies and 
partners for FEMA in its building code initiative. Yet, many of these 
stakeholders (such as national standards development organizations, 
labor groups, and local code officials) are not able to engage with 
FEMA on this effort. It is difficult for an organization to use FEMA's 
building code materials when it only references the products and 
services of their competitors, instead of being agnostic to what 
hazard-resistant code they are adopting. It is difficult for many trade 
organizations in the plumbing and mechanical sector that I represent to 
refer to FEMA's Initiative to Advance Building Codes, with its 
supporting toolkits and materials, because it seems to want us to 
promote changing the construction codes used by our industry--an 
expensive change that would not improve the overall resiliency of our 
communities.
    Regularly updating building codes is important to improving the 
resiliency of communities nationwide. As a federal agency, FEMA's 
building codes policies and materials should recognize the diverse 
group of stakeholders, who develop model construction codes and work 
with jurisdictions to implement them, and make it possible for them to 
engage with the agency in this effort.
       Benefits of Construction Codes Come from their Effective 
                   Implementation, Not Just Adoption
    The ability of model construction codes to promote resiliency and 
protect public health is only proven in how they are implemented and 
enforced. This requires skilled workers who are trained and 
credentialed in the design, construction, and maintenance of these 
buildings. It requires a steady supply of quality products and building 
materials that are tested and certified for safety and performance. It 
requires training regulators to consistently apply the provisions of 
these standards uniformly across their jurisdiction. FEMA's programs 
and guidance materials should recognize these very real implementation 
challenges. Adopting the latest construction code is only helpful when 
the community has the capacity and ability to implement and enforce it.
                               Conclusion
    In conclusion, implementing hazard-resistant construction codes is 
important to improving the resiliency of communities in Nevada and 
nationwide. FEMA can play an important role in encouraging and 
incentivizing communities to adopt the latest hazard-resistant design 
criteria. However, as a federal agency, it should explicitly recognize 
the diverse group of codes and standards developers and other 
stakeholders that make this possible. We appreciate actions that the 
Committee has taken to date and continue to seek your assistance in 
helping to ensure a level playing field for all major construction 
codes in FEMA's current policies, programs, and upcoming strategic 
efforts.

    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Krahenbuhl, for your 
testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Davis for 5 minutes for your 
testimony.

TESTIMONY OF CINDY L. DAVIS, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BUILDING 
   AND FIRE REGULATIONS, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
                          CODE COUNCIL

    Ms. Davis. Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and 
members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Cindy Davis. I have worked to advance and 
implement building codes for more than 35 years and have served 
as the board president of the International Code Council.
    ICC is a nonprofit organization--driven by its more than 
60,000 members--dedicated to helping communities and the 
building industry provide safe and resilient construction 
through the development of model codes and standards, the I-
Codes, which are the most widely used codes in the United 
States.
    In the U.S., there is no national building code. Our codes 
are developed by standards development organizations which 
develop model codes at no cost to taxpayers. States and 
communities then choose whether to use these models to govern 
construction activities.
    This system aligns with the OMB directive which tells 
Federal agencies to use private sector standards instead of 
expending public resources developing redundant or Government-
unique ones.
    The I-Codes are updated every 3 years through a vigorous 
open consensus process involving all stakeholders and 
interested parties, including valued participation from NAHB, 
PHCC, fire services, architects, engineers, emergency managers, 
and other industry and manufacturer representatives. They are 
the only model codes that expressly consider affordability in 
their development.
    Regular updates ensure the codes reflect the most recent 
developments in building science and technology, new 
construction materials and techniques, and lessons learned from 
building failures and disasters.
    From the start, ICC has prioritized hazard mitigation in 
code development. Studies have confirmed that the adoption and 
implementation of current model codes is one of the best 
mitigation strategies.
    The National Institute of Building Sciences estimates that 
building to recent editions of the I-Codes saves $11 for every 
$1 invested, and FEMA projects $600 billion in cumulative 
savings by 2060 if all future construction adhered to current 
I-Codes.
    Also, research continues to find that these codes have no 
appreciable implications for housing affordability. No peer-
reviewed research has found otherwise, and one analysis found 
that 30 years of code advancements only increased a home's 
purchase price by half a percentage point.
    Up-to-date codes reduce homeowners' net flood insurance 
costs by at least 5 percent, while multiple studies have found 
that current I-Code construction significantly reduced the 
likelihood of mortgage default following a disaster.
    For these reasons, FEMA has incentivized and encouraged the 
use of resilient codes to protect lives and property and to 
reduce the need for future Federal disaster recovery funding.
    This approach has been consistently bipartisan. It was 
advanced through the Trump administration's National Mitigation 
Investment Strategy and continues today. These efforts have 
appropriately focused on codes and standards that are 
comprehensive and have demonstrated mitigation benefits.
    A blanket expansion of FEMA's code recognitions to 
thousands of codes developed in the U.S. is presenting a 
solution in search of a problem, and, respectfully, FEMA should 
not be handing out participation trophies when it comes to 
building safety and community resilience.
    This subcommittee has a lengthy and bipartisan record that 
has recognized the importance of building safety and provided 
vital resources for the adoption and enforcement of current 
model codes.
    DRRA enabled FEMA to help communities implement resilient 
codes pre-disaster and further incentivize these cost-savings 
activities through the mitigation project scoring.
    Virginia secured a BRIC grant to build out a Disaster 
Response Support Network where code officials can quickly 
evaluate impacted properties to accelerate reoccupation. In 
July of 2022, our code officials used this training after 
historic flooding in southwest Virginia.
    This past BRIC cycle saw FEMA create the Code Plus-Up, 
which recognized that BRIC's prior structure was preventing its 
use for code projects.
    Although the Code Plus-Up made progress, code investments 
represent less than two one-hundredths of 1 percent of BRIC 
spending, and this is for an activity that FEMA views as one 
of, if not the most, impactful community mitigation measure.
    ICC's top priority and recommendation is the continuation 
of the Plus-Up program.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
look forward to answering your questions.
    [Ms. Davis' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of 
   Building and Fire Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing and 
 Community Development (Retired), on behalf of the International Code 
                                Council
    Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished 
members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on a 
topic as important as building codes.
    My name is Cindy Davis, and I am here to share my professional 
experiences, attest to the effectiveness of modern building codes and 
standards in mitigating against disasters, and discuss opportunities 
for improvement in code-related programs and policies under the 
jurisdiction of the subcommittee.
    I retired earlier this year after more than 35 years of public 
service in the building safety field, at both the local and state 
levels.
    Most recently, I served for a dozen years at the Virginia 
Department of Housing and Community Development, for three years as the 
Deputy Director following a nine-year stint as the Director of 
Virginia's State Building Code Office. Under my leadership, earlier 
this year Virginia attained the highest score in the Insurance 
Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) ``Rating the States'' 
scorecard, which evaluates code adoption, enforcement, and contractor 
practices in states vulnerable to hurricanes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), Rating 
the States--Hurricane Coast (Apr. 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I started in the building and fire code profession in 1988 in 
Western Pennsylvania, focused on enforcement. There, I worked for two 
different townships as the building official and zoning official before 
moving to Virginia in 2012.
    During my career, I served on the Board of Directors of Building 
Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International, governing 
during the merger of three model code organizations that became the 
International Code Council (ICC).
    My service to ICC includes serving on the Board of Directors from 
2008 through 2011 and again from 2016 through 2023, advancing through 
various board roles and eventually serving as President in 2022.
    I have also served on the board of the Congressionally-chartered 
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), and last month I was 
honored to be appointed to the Virginia Board of Housing and Community 
Development by Governor Glenn Youngkin.
    My engagement with the International Code Council has provided many 
opportunities to extend the success of the building safety ecosystem in 
Virginia by taking advantage of the technology, technical training, 
certifications, professional development, and exchange of experience 
and ideas the Code Council facilitates.
    I'd like to thank the Subcommittee for taking the time to hold 
today's hearing and the invitation to share my perspectives and 
expertise gleaned from a lifetime of service at the local and state 
level, as well as helming the board for one of our nation's preeminent 
standards development organizations.
                  About the International Code Council
    ICC is a nonprofit organization of over 700 employees--driven by 
the engagement of its more than 60,000 members--dedicated to helping 
communities and the building industry provide safe, resilient, and 
sustainable construction through the development and use of model codes 
and standards used in design, construction, and compliance processes 
across the built environment.
    ICC members come from a wide variety of backgrounds--including 
architects, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, government officials 
and students--and play an active and critical role in the ongoing 
development of the International Codes (I-Codes).
    ICC is the largest independent organization engaged in creating 
model building codes in the United States, with over 100 years of 
experience in the building safety industry. The comprehensive suite of 
advanced model building codes published by the International Code 
Council are the most widely used and adopted codes in the United States 
and around the world.
    Most U.S. states and communities, federal agencies, and many global 
markets choose the I-Codes to set the standards for regulating 
construction and major renovations, plumbing and sanitation, fire 
prevention, and energy conservation throughout the built environment. 
The I-Codes are adopted in all 50 states and by the federal government. 
For example, the General Services Administration (GSA),\2\ Department 
of Defense (DOD),\3\ Veterans Administration (VA),\4\ and the Architect 
of the Capitol \5\ all require the International Building Code (IBC), 
International Plumbing Code (IPC), and International Mechanical Code 
(IMC) for federal buildings. The IBC is used in all 50 states, while 
approximately 75% and 87% of the U.S. population live in areas that 
have adopted the IPC and IMC, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Facilities 
Standards for the Public Buildings Service, P100 (May 2024).
    \3\ U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Unified Facilities Criteria: 
DoD Building Code, Policy 1-200, Whole Building Design Guide (Feb. 
2024).
    \4\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Construction 
& Facilities Management, Design & Construction Procedures (PG-18-3) 
(June 2024).
    \5\ Architect of the Capitol (AOC), AOC Design Standards (Dec. 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The I-Codes, which cover different building types and building 
systems, are intentionally correlated--through shared approaches and 
hundreds of cross references--to form an integrated and coherent system 
of building safety. To illustrate, the IPC and IMC contain nearly 500 
total cross references with other I-Codes commonly adopted throughout 
the U.S. These cross-references at the simplest level refer to terms 
used throughout the codes and increase in importance to include life 
safety considerations: combustible materials, roof drainage systems, 
plumbing fixture numbers, fire protection systems, and means of egress. 
Just as proper correlation can ease implementation of construction 
requirements, a lack of correlation can create implementation 
challenges that--from a response and recovery standpoint--could hinder 
efforts and risk confusion, particularly for marginalized or disabled 
populations.
    The International Code Council is unique among its counterparts in 
other countries. In the U.S. system, the responsibility for adoption, 
implementation and enforcement of building codes lies with the states 
and local jurisdictions (Authorities Having Jurisdiction, or AHJs). 
However, there is no central government authority in the U.S. with 
responsibility for a national building code; rather, building codes are 
developed through a public-private partnership led by the Code Council, 
which develops model codes and standards at no cost to taxpayers. AHJs 
then choose whether to adopt these models to govern construction 
activities under their jurisdiction. This system aligns with OMB 
Circular A-119, which establishes core requirements for voluntary 
consensus standards development and directs federal agencies to use 
these standards wherever possible in their procurement and regulatory 
activities in lieu of expending public resources developing government-
unique standards.
    The I-Codes are updated and published every three years through a 
vigorous, open, consensus process that involves all stakeholders and 
interested parties, including valued participation from the National 
Association of Homebuilders; the firefighting community; architects; 
engineers; plumbing, heating, and cooling contractors; and emergency 
managers. This process of regular updates ensures that the I-Codes 
reflect the most recent developments in building science and 
technology, consider the use of new construction materials and 
techniques, evaluate cost impacts of code changes, and incorporate 
lessons learned from building failures and disasters impacting the 
built environment around the world.
    This year marks the Code Council's thirtieth anniversary.
    I want to commend the strong engagement of the federal government 
in I-Code development, sharing the latest research and findings through 
programs like the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), 
the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP), and the 
National Construction Safety Team (NCST). Recognizing and respecting 
Congressional jurisdiction, we hope the valuable contributions of these 
programs will continue. The NEHRP program is due for reauthorization. 
The Code Council would encourage the House Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology to advance reauthorization of this vital program before 
adjourning for the year, and for this Committee to support that effort.
    In the wake of the devastation unleashed upon tens of thousands of 
homes and businesses by Hurricane Andrew across south Florida, the 
International Code Council was formed in 1994 by three regional code 
development organizations in the U.S.--the Building Officials and Code 
Administrators International, Incorporated (BOCA); the International 
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO); and the Southern Building Code 
Congress International, Incorporated (SBCCI). This was done at the 
request of the design and construction industries to consolidate 
previously regional code development processes into a single set of 
comprehensive, national model codes.
    The first I-Code was published by the consolidated group in 1995; 
by 2003, the three legacy organizations dissolved their independent 
operations and merged into one single, incorporated entity, the 
International Code Council. Since then, the Code Council has had a 
lengthy and collaborative relationship with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA), including being led in the early 2000s by 
former FEMA director James Lee Witt.
    From its earliest days, ICC has emphasized the vital role that 
building safety professionals play across the U.S. and the relationship 
between building codes and natural hazard mitigation.
                   Building Codes Protect Life Safety
    Numerous studies confirm that the adoption and implementation of 
current model building codes is one of the best mitigation strategies 
for lessening the impacts of natural hazards, including hurricanes,\\ 
flooding,\\ hail,\\ earthquakes,\\ tornados, and wildfires.\6\ \7\ \8\ 
\9\ \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Porter, K. Do Disaster-Resistant Buildings Deliver Climate 
Benefits? SPA Risk LLC (2021).
    \7\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Building Codes 
Save: A Nationwide Study (Nov. 2020).
    \8\ CoreLogic, Can Modern Building Codes Impact Mortgage 
Delinquency After Hurricanes? (Aug. 2023).
    \9\ Kousky, C., M. Palim, and Y. Pan. Flood Damage and Mortgage 
Credit Risk: A Case Study of Hurricane Harvey, Journal of Housing 
Research v. 29 (Nov. 2020).
    \10\ CoreLogic, What Are the Effects of Natural Hazards on Mortgage 
Delinquencies? (Nov. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NIBS estimates that building to modern I-Codes' editions saves $11 
dollars for every $1 dollar invested through earthquake, flood, and 
wind mitigation benefits, while retrofitting 2.5 million homes in the 
wildland urban interface to wildfire
codes could provide a nationwide benefit-cost ratio as high as $8 
dollars for every $1 dollar invested.\11\ FEMA projects that if all 
future construction adhered to the current editions of the I-Codes, the 
nation would avoid more than $600 billion dollars in cumulative losses 
from floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes by 2060.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Natural Hazard 
Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report (2019).
    \12\ FEMA, Protecting Communities and Saving Money: The Case for 
Adopting Building Codes (Nov. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To have consequence, adopted codes must be effectively implemented 
and enforced in the field. Strong code enforcement includes adequate 
staffing; competence testing that demonstrates an understanding of the 
codes being enforced; and continuing education on code updates, 
improvements in building sciences, and best practices. Strong code 
enforcement ensures that the public safety and resilience benefits 
furthered by the I-Codes are carried through in the field.
    Better trained code officials have a more complete understanding of 
how codes and code provisions interact to effect the intent. This 
ensures more consistent code application and a complete understanding 
of all available compliance pathways, both of which are beneficial to 
industry and the public. These benefits have been quantified in several 
instances. For example, strong code enforcement can help to reduce 
losses from catastrophic weather by 15 to 25 percent.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Jeffrey Czajkowski, Kevin M. Simmons & James M. Done, 
Demonstrating the Intensive Benefit to the Local Implementation of a 
Statewide Building Code, 20 Risk Mgmt. & Ins. Rev. 363 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond mitigation in a traditional sense, as it relates to discrete 
hazards or systems, the I-Codes have been shown to provide broader, 
second-order benefits for community resilience. For instance, three 
U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories recently found that 
during prolonged weather-induced power outages coupled with extreme 
heat or cold, I-Codes governing buildings' envelope can reduce deaths 
due to extreme heat by 80 and extreme cold by 30.\14\ Unfortunately, 
Texas has twice experienced this tragic combination in recent memory: 
first, in February, 2021, during a winter storm, which resulted in 161 
deaths from extreme cold exposure related deaths due to a lengthy power 
outage (of 246 total storm-related deaths); \15\ second, following 
Hurricane Beryl this summer, which resulted in at least ten deaths 
caused by heat exposure due to an extended power outage.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Enhancing Resilience in 
Buildings Through Energy Efficiency (July 2023).
    \15\ Texas Department of State Health Services, February 2021 
Winter Storm-Related Deaths--Texas (Dec. 2021)
    \16\ Houston Public Media, Two more deaths attributed to Hurricane 
Beryl as Houston-area death toll rises to 38 (Aug. 27, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Water conservation provisions within the I-Codes can provide 
analogous protections for communities during droughts or water shutoff 
events. The University of Miami studied provisions in the International 
Water Conservation Provisions (IWCCP) that enable rainwater 
harvesting, gray water reuse, condensate recovery, and the installation 
of more efficient fixtures. Implementing these provisions for new 
residential construction could save over 34 billion gallons of water 
across four major U.S. cities (Houston, TX; Phoenix, AZ; Las Vegas, NV; 
and Des Moines, IA).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ University of Miami, Water Conservation and Codes: Leveraging 
Global Water-Efficient Building Standards to Avert Shortfalls (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The federal government has increasingly moved towards incentivizing 
the adoption and implementation of current codes due to their hazard 
resistance measures. This approach was advanced during the Trump 
Administration through the federal government's National Mitigation 
Investment Strategy (NMIS). The NMIS was developed by the Mitigation 
Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG)--chaired by FEMA and comprised of 
another 13 federal agencies and departments as well as state, tribal, 
and local officials--and made several recommendations concerning the 
use, enforcement, and adoption of building codes: ``[a]rchitects, 
engineers, builders, and regulators should use the latest building 
codes for the most up-to-date requirements for structural integrity, 
mechanical integrity, fire prevention, and energy conservation,'' and 
``[u]p-to-date building codes and standard criteria should be required 
in federal and state grants and programs.'' \18\ This work has been 
continued by the current Administration through the National Initiative 
to Advance Building Codes (NIABC).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG), National 
Mitigation Investment Strategy (Aug. 2019).
    \19\ The White House, FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration 
Launches Initiative to Modernize Building Codes, Improve Climate 
Resilience, and Reduce Energy Costs (June 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Codes Protect Communities without Harming Housing Affordability
    Contemporary research continues to find that modern model building 
codes have no appreciable implications for housing affordability--in 
fact, no peer-reviewed research has found otherwise. Any potential 
impact from codes would primarily affect construction costs. However, 
one study considering the role of government regulation on home prices 
found that construction costs, including labor and materials, were flat 
from 1980 to 2013.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Gyourko, J. & Molloy, R., Regulation and Housing Supply, 
Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume 5B Chapter 19 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted earlier, the International Code Council was formed in 
1994, the I-Codes were adopted across the country in the early 2000s, 
and several significant advancements to better mitigate structures 
against natural hazards were integrated into these codes during the 
period studied. None of these code activities meaningfully impacted 
construction costs.
    After Moore, Oklahoma experienced its third violent tornado in 14 
years, the city significantly strengthened its building codes. The 
Moore Association of Home Builders estimated a $1 to $2 dollar per 
square foot resulting increase in the cost of construction. Yet, 
researchers found that the change to a stronger building code had no 
effect on the price per square foot or home sales.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Simmons, K. & Kovacs, P., Real Estate Market Response to 
Enhanced Building Codes in Moore, OK, Investigative Journal of Risk 
Reduction (March 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similar reductions in disaster damages and total losses have been 
identified elsewhere through FEMA's Mitigation Assessment Team's (MAT) 
reports.
    The most detailed benefit-cost analysis of seismic code adoption to 
date modeled six buildings in Memphis, Tennessee and compared the costs 
of adhering to the seismic provisions of the 2012 edition of model 
building codes as opposed to late 1990s-era codes. The study found that 
adopting the 2012 codes--for the apartment building studied--would add 
less than one percent to the construction cost (and less to the 
purchase price, since construction cost typically amounts to between 
one-third and two-thirds of purchase price), reducing annualized loss--
in terms of repair cost, collapse probability, and fatalities--by 
approximately 50%.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 
Consultants Joint Venture, Cost Analyses and Benefit Studies for 
Earthquake-Resistant Construction in Memphis, Tennessee, NIST GCR 14-
917-26 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The principal investigator for the NIBS report found that 
improvements to model building codes' resilience over the nearly 30-
year period studied only increased a home's purchase price by around a 
half a percentage point in earthquake country or in an area affected by 
riverine flood.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Porter, K., Resilience-related building-code changes don't 
affect affordability, SPA Risk LLC Working Paper Series 2019-01 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to having no appreciable impact on housing cost, up-to-
date codes provide considerable benefits to homeowners. According to 
the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), the insurance 
savings from meeting current codes' flood mitigation requirements can 
reduce homeowners' net monthly mortgage and flood insurance costs by at 
least five percent.\24\ Codes also reduce the risk of damage or full 
loss of housing in the face of hazards, helping maintain the 
availability of housing units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Association of State Floodplain Managers' (ASFPM) Comments in 
Response to FR-6187-N-01, White House Council on Eliminating Barriers 
to Affordable Housing Request for Information (Docket HUD-2019-0092).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The adoption and implementation of building codes also has 
implications for the finance industry. Multiple CoreLogic studies have 
found that buildings built to recent code requirements have a 
significantly reduced likelihood of mortgage default following a 
disaster event. Recent analysis following hurricanes Irma (2017), 
Harvey (2017), Michael (2018) and Laura (2020) in Florida found that 
the adoption of codes had a statistically significant impact in 
reducing mortgage defaults.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ CoreLogic and IBHS, Do Modern Building Codes Mitigate Mortgage 
Delinquency Following Landfalling Hurricanes? The Influence of Building 
Codes on Mortgages (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The cost effectiveness of modern codes is due in no small part to 
the active participation in the code development process of 
stakeholders representing development and property management 
interests. Building owners and managers, home builders, architects, 
design professionals, building trades, the fire service, plumbing and 
sanitation professionals, manufacturers, and others representing the 
housing industry devote considerable time and effort towards ensuring 
code updates are practical, cost effective, and more economical in 
comparison to alternatives. Importantly, the Code Council is the only 
model code developer that requires affordability considerations with 
every update to its residential code.
    Congress' Efforts to Advance Adoption and Enforcement of Hazard-
                        Resistant Building Codes
    This subcommittee has a lengthy and commendable record of oversight 
and lawmaking that have both elevated the recognition of the importance 
of building safety and provided vital resources for the adoption and 
enforcement of modern model building codes.
    For nearly two decades--regardless of House majority--the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and especially this 
subcommittee, has been consistent in its work to examine what is 
driving increasing disaster response and recovery costs while also 
working to reduce impacts to state, local, tribal, and territorial 
governments, and ultimately to taxpayers.
    This focus has resulted in several landmark pieces of legislation 
that have improved upon the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended), which 
this subcommittee stewards.
    It's worth noting that the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 
Act (PKEMRA, P.L. 109-295, Title VI), Sandy Recovery Improvement Act 
(SRIA, P.L. 113-2, Division B), Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA, 
P.L. 115-254, Division D), and the Resilient AMERICA Act (RAA, H.R. 
5689)--the latter of which the House passed overwhelmingly last 
Congress \26\--were all bipartisan, and each included provisions 
related to the importance of mitigation. Further, all included 
provisions bolstering the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of 
current building codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Roll Call 113, 
Bill Number: H.R. 5689 (Apr. 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FEMA has affirmed the importance of code adoption and 
implementation in its Mitigation Action Portfolio by highlighting that 
building codes represent ``low cost, high impact hazard mitigation.'' 
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance, Mitigation Action 
Portfolio (Aug. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DRRA has been the most impactful of the four major packages of 
Stafford Act enhancements.
    It recognized that disasters were increasing rapidly in frequency 
and severity, with untenable costs for the federal government and 
communities across the U.S., and that mitigation measures provide $8 
dollars in mitigation benefits for every $1 dollar spent.\28\ 
Consequently, and as noted by the House Report that accompanied it, 
``strengthen[ing] disaster mitigation'' is a ``major focus'' of 
DRRA.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ NIBS, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report (Dec. 
2019).
    \29\ H.Rept. 115-1098 (Dec. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following years of unpredictable appropriations for pre-disaster 
mitigation (PDM), DRRA established a steady stream of funding for these 
vital mitigation activities and explicitly called out establishing and 
carrying out enforcement of codes as an eligible activity under the 
redesigned PDM authorities.\30\ FEMA took this authorization and 
established the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities 
(BRIC) grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Pub.L. 115-254 (DRRA), Sec. 1234 National Public 
Infrastructure Predisaster Hazard Mitigation (Oct. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another DRRA provision allows for FEMA to reimburse state, local, 
tribal, and territorial governments surging capacity to support the 
spike in construction, reconstruction, and accompanying code 
enforcement activities following a disaster.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Pub.L. 115-254 (DRRA), Sec. 1206 Eligibility for Code 
Implementation and Enforcement (Oct. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DRRA also calls for more stringent repair and reconstruction of 
damaged or destroyed structures in conformity with ``the latest 
published editions of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications, 
and standards that incorporate the latest hazard-resistant design and 
establish minimum acceptable criteria for the design, construction, and 
maintenance of residential structures and facilities that may be 
eligible for assistance under this Act for the purposes of protecting 
the health, safety, and general welfare of a facility's users against 
disasters.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Pub.L. 115-254 (DRRA), Sec. 1235(b) Additional Mitigation 
Activities (Oct. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, a provision in the original House draft of DRRA was deemed 
so important by both Senate and House leadership earlier in 2018 that 
it was pulled from DRRA and carried as part of the Bipartisan Budget 
Act of 2018. This authorization gives FEMA the ability to raise the 
federal share of Public Assistance costs--reducing the fiscal burden on 
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments--for states that have 
adopted ``the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based 
codes, specifications, and standards that incorporate the latest 
hazard-resistant designs and establish minimum acceptable criteria for 
the design, construction, and maintenance of residential structures and 
facilities that may be eligible for assistance under this Act for the 
purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the 
buildings' users against disasters.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Pub.L. 115-123 (BBA18), Sec. 20606 (Feb. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Statutorily, FEMA was required to have this cost share adjustment 
implemented within one year of enactment of BBA18. To date--five and a 
half years after enactment--and despite significant engagement on the 
part of external and congressional stakeholders advocating for the 
Agency to roll out program guidance for this additional federal 
assistance, FEMA has failed to do so.
    The mitigation benefits this provision would have otherwise 
encouraged, would have saved lives, homes, businesses, along with 
millions of dollars in avoidable losses. Inaction represents an 
enormous missed opportunity.
                              BRIC by BRIC
    In less than five years, the BRIC program has been wildly 
successful at funding a record number of PDM projects, including 
several code-focused projects. But this has not been without some 
controversy regarding geographic distribution of awards, as well as how 
FEMA has integrated code adoption and enforcement within its 
application scoring formula.
    Initial rounds of BRIC limited code-specific project applications 
to a fixed-amount-per-state/territory through a Capacity & Capability 
Building (C&CB) Set Aside. For Fiscal Year 2020 (FY202) BRIC--the first 
round of the program--C&CB was up to $600,000 dollars per state/
territory. That increased to $1 million dollars per state/territory in 
FY21, and $2 million dollars for each state/territory in FY22 (each 
cycle also included a separate bucket of dollars for federally 
recognized tribes). FEMA's publicly released data indicates that C&CB 
funding was utilized for code-related projects across the first three 
BRIC cycles as follows:
      FY20: 14 state/local and 4 tribal code projects, totaling 
$2,293,395 dollars;
      FY21: 5 state/local and 6 tribal code projects, totaling 
$2,207,502 dollars; and
      FY22: 9 state/local and 2 tribal code projects, 
$3,323,675 dollars.

    The first three BRIC cycles cumulatively saw 40 code projects 
totaling $7,824,572 dollars or 0.002% of the total BRIC expenditure 
during this period ($500 million dollars for FY20, $1 billion dollars 
for FY21, and $2.295 billion dollars for FY22). The total amount 
requested overall far outstripped dollars available. While grants 
constituted nearly $8 million dollars more than the PDM program had 
ever invested in building code activities previously--for efforts that 
FEMA and mitigation experts unanimously view as one of if not the most 
impactful resilience measures a community can undertake--they were 
still grossly insufficient.
    Code departments identify lack of resources (staff time and 
personnel, training, etc.) and political opposition to new construction 
requirements as the top two impediments to adopting and implementing 
resilient codes. Political considerations play out in grant 
applications. Programs like BRIC historically capped grant amounts, 
which forces jurisdictions to prioritize among eligible projects. Code 
officials have long reported that it is nearly impossible for code 
activities to compete for grants with other eligible activities, like 
infrastructure and redevelopment efforts, which are tangible, have 
greater visibility, and lack political opposition.
    For FY23, FEMA revised BRIC in two significant ways: first, 
applications were scored higher based on local codes adoption, aiding 
communities adopting resilient codes in states that had not and, 
second, FEMA created a Building Codes Plus Up similar to what the House 
passed in the Resilient AMERICA Act in 2022 to focus directly on code-
related projects. The Building Codes Plus Up provided $2 million 
dollars per state/territory and an additional $25 million dollars for 
federally recognized tribes, atop of the prior C&CB dollars 
available.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ FEMA, FY 2023 BRIC Notice of Funding Opportunity (Oct. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because of its late and unanticipated release, several state BRIC 
pre-application deadlines limited the Codes Plus Up's reach. But, that 
hurdle notwithstanding, the effort was still incredibly popular and 
effective at providing necessary resources that help communities 
advance the adoption and effective implementation of hazard-resistant 
codes:
      43 states/territories took advantage of the Codes Plus 
Up;
      This resulted in $52.8 million dollars in code projects 
for FY23 (more than six times the combined total of the first three 
cycles and bringing the overall total of resources for state, local, 
tribal, and territorial code projects to more than $60.5 million 
dollars in four years, or just shy of .016% of the total BRIC 
expenditure during this period);
      42 sub applications came from 29 state agencies 
representing 70% of the FY23 awards with six state agency applicants 
maxing out their Codes Plus Up allocations (Alabama, Hawaii, Louisiana, 
Idaho, Michigan, and Iowa); and
      94% of sub-applicants were successful (137 applications 
resulted in 129 successes and 8 rejections).

    ICC is proud to have provided technical support to 51 applications, 
representing $29 million dollars in anticipated awards across 27 
states/territories. These funds will support underfunded departments' 
transition from paper-based to digital permitting, allowing them to 
increase efficiency and accomplish more with limited resources, and 
provide training, competence testing, and professional development 
activities. Additionally, several municipalities are seeking to improve 
community awareness of building safety requirements through public 
awareness efforts.
    My own experience with BRIC while serving at Virginia DHCD was 
generally positive, but I recognize that the Commonwealth may have more 
resources than some other eligible applicants. Our FY 2020 award is 
providing post-disaster building assessment training throughout the 
Commonwealth through a program called, When Disaster Strikes. This 
effort helped advance Virginia towards creating a Disaster Response 
Support Network, where code officials can act as ``second responders'' 
and quickly evaluate impacted properties to accelerate building and 
housing reoccupation. In July 2022, our network of code officials 
utilized this training after historic flooding in Tazewell and Buchanan 
Counties. The applications pending from the FY 2023 Building Codes Plus 
Up will fund training and competence testing on the Commonwealth's 
building safety requirements, including Virginia's adoption of ICC/
Modular Building Institute's development of standards for offsite 
construction. I participated in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and FEMA workgroups on offsite construction and believe 
there are many benefits that apply to post-disaster housing.
    As for the scoring criteria changing to focus less on statewide 
adoption and more favorably on local adoptions, the Code Council--an 
early supporter of the now-nascent Resilient AMERICA Act--joined with 
others in supporting this change, with a hope of seeing greater 
geographic dispersal of BRIC awards. That said, the Code Council 
discourages efforts that would remove or weaken BRIC's scoring emphasis 
on resilient code adoption and implementation. Arguments that would 
alter BRIC's scoring in this way are based on the premise that BRIC 
awards should be handed out to any and all applicants. But BRIC is not 
a block grant; it was never intended to be an entitlement for states 
facing hazard risk, and receiving extensive federal recovery resources, 
that have not taken meaningful actions to mitigate their communities. 
It was crafted to incentivize the most impactful resilience efforts--
including current building codes.
    Despite these even-more-readily available resources, eleven states 
did not seek to use their designated Codes Plus Up funding in FY23. One 
state has never used its set-aside award across any BRIC cycle, and 
five other states have yet to submit any code projects whatsoever.
    Given the BRIC program's growing, but incomplete success, FEMA data 
showing that two thirds of communities facing hazard risk have still 
not adopted hazard-resistant building codes,\35\ and the Agency's 
view--which itself its backed by rigorous scientific documentation--
that current code adoption and implementation represent the most 
effective mitigation measure a community can undertake, the Code 
Council strongly supports the Building Codes Plus Up Program and 
believes FEMA should continue it. As noted above, ICC also supports 
continued usage of the FY23 revised scoring criteria in future BRIC 
Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs), especially in the absence of 
enactment of the Resilient AMERICA Act, which the Code Council 
continues to strongly support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ FEMA, Resistant Code Adoption Statistics, Nationwide Building 
Code Adoption Tracking (Dec. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal Support for Consensus Based Codes and Standards
    The Code Council believes that federal policies that leverage 
consensus-based codes and standards should work to raise the bar for 
building resiliency uniformly. Greater use of consistent, more 
resilient construction codes advances hazard resistance but also eases 
implementation for both FEMA and state, local, tribal, and territorial 
governments. Greater consistency promotes market efficiency and cost 
savings. In contrast, a patchwork approach would complicate and hinder 
implementation and encourage balkanization of construction 
requirements, which is not in the public interest.
    As noted above, the Code Council encourages federal policy on codes 
and standards to encourage coordination. Proper correlation of codes 
and standards can ease implementation of construction requirements, 
while a lack of correlation can create implementation challenges.
    The Code Council strongly believes that federal government should 
prioritize the use of codes that incorporate the latest hazard 
resistant design and are consensus-based, nationally utilized, 
coordinated, and cost effective to maximize resilience and minimize 
implementation challenges.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ ICC, comments to FEMA re: Public Assistance Consensus-Based 
Codes, Specifications, and Standards Policy Update Public Comment 
Period (April 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Conclusion and Recommendations
    Without a doubt, building code adoption and enforcement are 
effective at reducing disaster response and recovery costs, and this 
Committee should be commended for finding a novel and bipartisan 
solution to providing FEMA with the authorities necessary to provide 
federal assistance to AHJs interested in bolstering their community's 
resilience through adoption and enforcement of more modern codes. 
Further, modern model building codes are market-based mechanisms that 
drive innovation across the building and construction sector and are 
core solutions to the housing affordability and availability crisis.
    Despite the clear benefits of modern model code adoption and 
enforcement, FEMA's Building Code Adoption Tracker still illustrates 
that current construction across nearly two thirds of the U.S. is not 
required to be built to current hazard resistant codes.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ FEMA, Building Code Adoption Tracking (Q2 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee should continue promoting programs and policies 
that emphasize and support the incredible return on investment to the 
public from robust building code adoption and enforcement, including 
through:
      Supporting continuation of FEMA's Building Codes Plus Up 
and FY23 BRIC scoring structure, and ultimately, enactment of the 
Resilient America Act; and
      Encourage FEMA to implement BBA18 Sec. 20606 to encourage 
states to ensure resilient construction and post-disaster rebuilding.

    As a standards development organization--built on the legacy and 
objectives of three organizations committed to building safety--the 
International Code Council stands ready as a private-sector, non-profit 
partner dedicated to protecting communities in the face of growing 
hazards.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to share this perspective.

    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
    And thank you all for your testimony.
    We will now turn to questions. The Chair recognizes himself 
for 5 minutes of questions. And I am going to go off my own 
script just based on some of your testimony today.
    Of course, we are talking about FEMA and codes and how they 
are used. And we were told with the creation of the 2018 Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program under FEMA that we were going to 
save taxpayers anywhere from $4 to $11 for every dollar 
invested. And that has been mentioned by folks on the dais 
here.
    Ms. Davis, you mentioned it as well. You also said that it 
doesn't cost taxpayers any money. And I understand that this is 
an organization that does it on its own, that Government maybe 
doesn't pay for the construction of the codes.
    But I know when I was serving at the township level as a 
volunteer, we saw codes go from something that were literally 
this thick to now we have got volumes on the table, volumes of 
stuff to wade through. And of course the township has to buy 
that. The township has to update that every single time. The 
township is supported by taxpayers. Taxpayers do fund this.
    And with all due respect to kind of everybody, I don't know 
where the figures $4 to $11 saved for every dollar come from. I 
would love to see the math on that other than just the claim, 
as well as the math on that it has actually reduced mortgage 
costs or flood insurance costs.
    I lived in a home as a young child that my mother still 
lives in that was flooded completely out twice. That was before 
FEMA existed. We toughed it out and rebuilt the house, and so 
on and so forth. But I just question all those things.
    And I would ask you this. In your testimony, you talked 
about enforcement. Does your organization, if you can speak on 
behalf of it, see it as the proper role of the Federal 
Government to enforce these building codes on the 350-plus 
million Americans that live in our country? Is it the proper 
role of the Federal Government to do that?
    Yes, ma'am, that is to you, Ms. Davis.
    Ms. Davis. So, I think the proper role of the Federal 
Government is to provide mitigation efforts to keep their 
citizens safe.
    Mr. Perry. When you say ``provide,'' so, that would be, 
``it is here if you want to use it'' as opposed to ``you will 
use it or you are not going to build your home'' or ``you are 
not going to rebuild your home''? That is essentially where I 
am headed with that question.
    Ms. Davis. Yes. I don't think anybody is suggesting a 
mandatory requirement, but I do think that incentivizing States 
and governments in helping them to recognize the benefits and 
the cost savings that could be had by implementing mitigation 
measures as opposed to suffering after climatic disasters, man-
made disasters, whatever disaster, helps where you have to 
rebuild. It simply makes no sense to rebuild something over and 
over again----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Oh, I agree with you completely, 
and I don't think the Federal Government should be in that 
business. My mother still lives in the house by the creek. She 
has flood insurance. She likes to live by the creek. But there 
is a cost that comes with that every time--if it floods, you 
have got to live with that. And I don't think and she doesn't 
think that that should be a cost burden borne by every single 
American citizen who doesn't have access to the nice home with 
the view of the creek.
    Mr. Krahenbuhl, I am just curious, these codes exist and of 
course they get updated. Now, you are a master plumber. If a 
home is destroyed in Nevada due to some disaster, and FEMA 
comes in and says here is the code that has to be enforced--
let's say it has leaded joints on the sanitary line and you are 
tearing that stuff out.
    Does anybody do leaded joints anymore? Do you need FEMA and 
the ICC to tell you to not put in leaded joints? You are going 
to go get some PVC and glue and redo that piping that way. How 
is that going to go?
    Mr. Krahenbuhl. Chairman Perry, thank you for that 
question.
    We believe we know what is best in our State and in our 
communities, and the uniform codes are up to date on the latest 
technologies.
    So, you are absolutely right. No, we are not going to put 
in lead joints. No, we are not going to put that back. We are 
going to put in the latest materials that fit best to the 
approved codes that work best for----
    Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Are you going to do that because 
the Federal Government mandates that you do that, or are you 
going to do that because that is the best practice and you know 
it because it works?
    Mr. Krahenbuhl. That is the best practice for our 
jurisdiction and where we live in our State. We don't believe 
that FEMA and the Federal Government should tell us what we 
should be doing as far as the plumbing and HVAC codes in 
Nevada. We feel we know better than they do.
    Mr. Perry. I would agree with you.
    And with the committee's indulgence, I just want to refer 
to this chart here.
    [Chart shown.]
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Hughes, I want to talk to you about the 
impact of building codes on how FEMA money is distributed.
    This shows the distribution here, and you can see the dark 
blue area for the Federal share.
    Look, I am from Pennsylvania. Dark blue. So, Pennsylvania 
is getting a pile of the Federal share. Some of my committee 
members: Louisiana, California, New York, North Carolina; but 
Mr. Ezell, Mississippi, not so much.
    Now, if I look in the criteria for building code adoption 
enforcement, you get five points additional if you are having a 
disaster, but to attain those points you have to be up-to-date 
on the 2018 or 2021 ICC Council Code. Another five points--you 
get five points over and over again if you are up to date with 
the ICC, but you don't get it if not.
    Now, look, this is great for Pennsylvania, Louisiana, 
California, but the other States, I don't know if they are just 
not as good at grant writing or what the deal is.
    But can you speak to how you feel the money is distributed, 
if you do know, based on these points awarded by FEMA, which I 
would contend not only incentivize but also coerce 
municipalities to adopt these codes?
    Mr. Hughes. Well, admittedly, I am not well versed on the 
subject, and we can provide more information later. But there 
is no question that there is some diversity on how these funds 
are disbursed. I guess I can address more specifically how it 
affects us in North Carolina.
    I agree with some of the other comments that things simply 
are not a one-size-fits-all. We feel like it is very unfair 
that these funds are distributed based on that.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
    And with that, I have extended my time. I yield. And I 
yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Titus from 
Nevada.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    I just want to be real clear that when you all say that you 
don't think FEMA should impose a one-size-fits-all code and 
that you know what is best for Nevada, for North Carolina, you 
are not suggesting that you don't have any codes, are you? You 
are just suggesting that you have your own code.
    Because I believe that builders don't put these in place 
because they know they are the best. We just heard Mr. 
Strickland talk about how cost was a big factor.
    So, let's make that clear for the record. You are not 
saying no code. You are just saying you want the regional codes 
that you all decide on. Is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. Correct. Could I address that?
    We are very diverse in North Carolina with topography and 
geography. We have coastal areas with high winds. We have 
mountainous areas where we have literally had problems with new 
homesites sliding off the side of mountains. I live in the 
Piedmont area, which is easier to build to.
    But absolutely not, we have to have codes.
    Ms. Titus. I just want to make that clear.
    And, Mr. Krahenbuhl, the same?
    Mr. Krahenbuhl. Yes, ma'am. We have codes that cover our 
entire State, and they are tailored and amended to our needs. 
In the South, it focuses on hot, dry climates, and in the 
North, snow and ice and cold. So, absolutely, we want codes 
adopted, yes.
    Ms. Titus. OK. Because it was starting to sound like we 
don't want no codes, we don't like codes, don't tell us what to 
do. And I don't believe that is the point that you were trying 
to make. So, let's be clear about that.
    In 2018, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, and it 
included a provision that allowed for an increased Federal cost 
share from FEMA for States, Territories, and Tribes that have 
undertaken mitigation measures, including the adoption of the 
most recent hazard-resistant codes.
    Now, that provision was supposed to have been enacted in 
early 2019, but FEMA still hasn't released any policy guidance.
    I would ask you all how impactful you think this incentive 
would be to encouraging States to increase their own mitigation 
investments, and which investments should FEMA prioritize when 
implementing this law to have the greatest impact on reducing 
Federal disaster responses?
    Maybe we can start with Mr. Strickland.
    Mr. Strickland. Thank you very much for the question.
    And we do support the idea of incentivizing, and we, too, 
have been looking forward to FEMA's policy on it and how it 
would be implemented. Incentivizing will, in our opinion, move 
preparedness forward and response to disaster capabilities 
forward with additional and improved assets and resources to do 
that.
    And from the mitigation perspective, we look strongly at 
transformational mitigation that will change a community's 
threats and vulnerabilities to natural hazards as we would 
approach that, and that particularly is an area that the codes 
are going to be very significant.
    Ms. Titus. Ms. Davis?
    Ms. Davis. So, I think one of the most effective things 
that FEMA can do for State and local governments is to support 
action that enhances our capabilities and minimizes frequent 
dependence on the Federal Government.
    As a State, Virginia for 50 years has taken our 
responsibilities seriously and had a statewide building code 
and did that to protect our citizens. But without having any 
ability of having recognition for the work that we did without 
taking any Federal money, we have no way to incentivize 
continuing to do that.
    I think it is important that FEMA recognizes and rewards in 
the event of a disaster helping to give States who do do the 
right thing more benefit.
    Ms. Titus. Mr. Krahenbuhl, you heard mention the Code Plus-
Up program. Has that been successful? Do you think that is a 
good idea? Should it be continued?
    Mr. Krahenbuhl. I have heard that, yes. Providing 
resources, we think it is a good thing. But the key issue here 
is providing resources for the adoption and implementation of 
codes. And one way that Code Plus-Up can be strengthened by 
FEMA is to recognize and treat with parity all major 
construction codes.
    To bring this to point, of the 17 Members of Congress that 
sit on this subcommittee, 9 Members--most of the subcommittee--
live in States where IAPMO's codes or State-authorized codes 
are used by the industry.
    So, the recognition of all codes would help strengthen this 
effort and get more people involved that want to participate 
rather than if their codes aren't recognized, they are not 
going to participate.
    Ms. Titus. Just real briefly, I would mention that in some 
of this code changing and changing courses by FEMA, unions and 
contractors were on the same page on this.
    Mr. Krahenbuhl. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Perry. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Ezell.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for being here today.
    Having been through Hurricane Katrina, my home in 2005, 4 
feet of mud and water and you name in it my house. It was 
miserable. And I wasn't the only person in my hometown that 
went through this. Many others did.
    And we all know that good building codes make better and 
safer homes and places to live and to rebuild in a better way. 
But what I can tell you is, after the storm--and in south 
Mississippi we say storm.
    Before Katrina it was Camille. When you said the storm, we 
knew you were talking about Hurricane Camille. Now we are 
talking about Katrina.
    What I would like to say is just yesterday, I was on the 
phone with the FEMA administration still trying to get funding 
for the city of Biloxi, and this is back in 2005. And we have 
had a great deal of frustration trying to get these things done 
because of various issues that continue to come up.
    So, what I would like to say is that we have got to get 
this together. We have got to get this straightened out.
    And one size doesn't fit all. One community is not the same 
as the other. And I want to work with you, and I want to try to 
get some things done, but we have got to do a better job at 
what is going on with this FEMA and the way that they operate. 
One size does not fit all, and we can do better.
    Ms. Davis, different building codes and standards cover 
different systems. How are these codes and standards 
coordinated so that there aren't conflicts or confusion in the 
implementation?
    Ms. Davis. So, the I-Codes overall are a highly 
coordinated set of codes. They work together so that, 
particularly when you are talking about resiliency and 
mitigation efforts, you are looking at a building as a whole, 
from foundation to final.
    You are not looking at just a piece of pipe or a mechanical 
system. They have to work together and they have to reference 
other parts of the code. You have to be looking at means of 
egress. You have to be looking at fire combustion. You have to 
be looking at ventilation requirements.
    ICC's codes, as an example, I believe the IPC and IMC 
references over 500 times the requirements in their other codes 
that have to be complied with.
    So, it is critically important that all of the codes for 
the entire building, from the foundation to the final, from the 
building envelope, and everything inside, be coordinated so 
that it all works together. If you have conflicting codes, it 
can cause at a minimum, confusion, and at the worst, problems.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    Mr. Krahenbuhl, do you think it is appropriate for a 
governing body who sets the codes and standards to also have a 
business interest in the codes they produce? Doesn't this risk 
some conflict of interest?
    Mr. Krahenbuhl. Chairman Perry, to you, I think it can be 
an issue if there are businesses or private industry. But 
everyone is involved in the code process, whether it be 
jurisdictional, whether it be contractors, labor, engineering, 
whatever.
    Can it be a conflict of interest? Maybe. But I think that 
one-size-fits-all does not work. And the point is what 
different States do in different regions, like Louisiana, where 
the levee protected areas, they have reasons, that they do 
things for a reason. We do things in Nevada for a reason.
    And so, I guess that would be my response.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    Mr. Strickland, I would like for you to expand just a 
little bit on your support for H.R. 7671, which I was a proud 
original cosponsor, we just passed this morning.
    Can you talk about that just a little bit and how it is 
going to affect things going forward?
    Mr. Strickland. What it will end up doing is allow eligible 
expenses that came from that disaster to be used beyond the 
time of the close-out of the disaster, which then will allow 
the State and the local jurisdiction to build capacity as well 
as projects within that particular arena forward.
    It basically is--it is a plus to the community to, again, 
be able to build capacity and do additional transformational 
mitigation and options like that.
    Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I would just like to go on the record to say 
that in south Mississippi, we are still dealing with trying to 
get some recovery done since Hurricane Katrina, and that is 
just really not acceptable.
    Thank you for that. I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The gentleman yields.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District 
of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Last Congress, Democrats passed several major laws to 
combat climate change and to mitigate the impacts of climate 
change. However, Congress must do much more to combat and 
prepare for climate change.
    Mr. Strickland, what are the most important things Congress 
can do to help communities strengthen their climate resilience?
    Mr. Strickland. There are probably several different areas, 
but I think one of them is the ability for the local 
jurisdiction to identify and understand what the climate change 
is going to do, what additional threats and hazards it builds 
for that area or creates for that area, and then allow them 
through their planning, training, and exercise perspective to 
better prepare for it and be aware of it.
    Congress could assist us greatly, just as they have with 
the management cost, in allowing us to be able to utilize that 
money into the future.
    One of the greatest challenges at the local jurisdiction is 
there is not the capacity to do that type of planning, 
training, and exercise as we move forward.
    And that is even before we get into the conversation about 
doing transformational mitigation in an area which could 
improve it so that the climate change can be eradicated 
basically or served better than it would have originally been.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you.
    Disadvantaged communities often bear the brunt of climate 
change and take the longest to recover from disasters.
    Ms. Davis, how could the Building Resilience Infrastructure 
and Communities Building Code Plus-Up program help 
disadvantaged communities mitigate the impacts of and recover 
quicker from climate disasters?
    Ms. Davis. So, the ability of communities to recover and to 
prevent disasters in the first place rests primarily in the 
communities.
    If those communities do not have the resources to adopt and 
enforce important building codes that keep people safe and 
allow them to recover after a disaster, they will obviously not 
have the same protection as communities that do have that.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The chairman thanks the gentlelady.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, 
Representative Graves.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Perry, Mr. 
Chairman. Appreciate that.
    Number one, I want to start in saying that over the past 
several years, I think the committee has made a lot of progress 
in sort of pivoting or making a paradigm shift in that the 
Federal Government used to just throw billions and billions of 
dollars in the aftermath of a disaster and didn't pay 
appropriate attention, in my opinion, on the front end of what 
we can do to actually avert disasters.
    The chair has been tireless in his efforts to try and save 
the Federal Government money, but study after study have shown, 
as Mr. Strickland's organization knows, that you can spend $1 
on the front end, and depending on which study you want to 
choose, you can get anywhere from $2.50 of savings to I have 
seen studies showing $14 to $17 in savings.
    And whatever the number is, there is no question that the 
right principal investments on the front end result in cost 
savings on the back end.
    And coming from a disaster-prone State, the bigger thing is 
that we are not picking up the pieces in our community. We are 
not watching devastated families, businesses, homes, which, 
that's priceless.
    And the DRRA reforms that we did--and got to give a shout-
out to some people on our team, Paul Sawyer and Jennifer 
Bollinger and Loganza and Peggy Ayrea and others that were a 
big help in getting some of these things done. We have made a 
lot of progress. But looking at what the Federal Government is 
doing today with their new CISA, which is Climate Informed--
what is it? Climate Informed--dang it. I don't remember now. 
Science Approach. Climate Informed Science Approach, which is 
basically looking at what elevation standard you are supposed 
to be using.
    I want to make note that there is a Federal agency called 
CISA. Maybe they could have chosen a better acronym. But we 
will put that on the shelf for a minute.
    But you have a scenario now to where CISA, I think, is 
supposed to be the uniform standard, but you don't have 
appropriate data for the country to know--for it to apply all 
the way across the country.
    And so, what may happen in a situation is that the CISA 
data may say, all right, well, you need to do BFE plus 1, that 
is what the CISA data says, it is supposed to be the most 
accurate data. But then the law says that you have got to do 
BFE plus 2, so, then you are back up to plus 2. Two different 
standards right there. Then you have a third standard that the 
Corps of Engineers uses in some cases. So, effectively you 
don't have a uniform standard.
    What happens--and we had a markup in here earlier talking a 
lot about the Community Development Block Grant Disaster 
Recovery program--you may have somebody who gets funds and they 
are going to rebuild their home and they think they are 
complying with this standard whenever they go and apply, but 
then later on you may have a different standard in place.
    You have a 3-year uniform code adoption period, but CISA 
data may come in and evolve on a monthly basis or every 6 
months or every year.
    The bottom line is you don't have a uniform standard, and 
all you are doing is causing greater uncertainty for the folks 
that are out there in the community trying to rebuild.
    Mr. Strickland, do you have any thoughts or reaction to 
this in how we truly provide certainty and how we make a 
science-informed decision and communicate that to communities?
    Mr. Strickland. That is a really tough question.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But is having disparate standards 
appropriate?
    Mr. Strickland. Well, and I don't know that there are, 
quote/unquote, disparate standards. I think it is important 
that each State and the communities accept the standard and the 
most recent edition of that standard and put their efforts into 
that.
    I think it is going to take us time, of which none of us 
will be here when that data will be present for us to review, 
and as codes and standards change and improve and the 
technology improves and I think the quality of life as we apply 
all of that will improve. But it is not necessarily going to be 
a light switch kind of operation.
    We have one community in our State, Frederick, if any of 
you have had the opportunity to visit downtown Frederick, 
severe, severe flooding with Agnes in 1972. It went through 
almost a 20-year project to channel the water and move it to 
where it would be safe, not flood businesses, not kill lives. 
And it wasn't until three summers ago that that system proved 
that it was worth every dime of it.
    So, we can only predict so much.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Quick other question for you, and 
I want to follow up with questions in the record on that one. 
But quick other questions.
    So, we were involved in creating the BRIC Program, big 
proponent, but we have watched as it has been incredibly 
oversubscribed, watching as FEMA is coming in and awarding 
funds for code adoption versus actual mitigation projects.
    Do you think that is an appropriate approach and 
utilization of funds?
    Mr. Strickland. I think there has to be a balance with 
that, because there are areas that are severely lacking with 
codes. I mean, there has to be some standard for them to work 
toward.
    Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. Hughes, I have got questions 
on building codes for you, and I apologize, I am out of time. 
But I will follow up questions in writing.
    But thanks again. I appreciate you all being here.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady, Mrs. Napolitano, 
Representative Napolitano, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Davis, please discuss any difficulties jurisdictions 
have or may face using Stafford Act assistance with building 
code adoption and enforcement activities within the first 180 
days of a major disaster. How, if any at all, would you modify 
authorities providing the assistance to ensure they are 
utilized effectively?
    Mr. Perry. If you could--I couldn't tell. Can you get a 
little closer to the mic, ma'am? I don't think we can tell what 
the question is.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
    How, if at all, would you modify authorities providing this 
assistance to ensure they are utilized effectively? Is there 
any difficulty jurisdictions may have using Stafford Act 
assistance for building code adoption and enforcement 
activities within the first 180 days of a major disaster? How, 
if at all, would you modify authorities providing this 
assistance to ensure they are utilized effectively?
    Mr. Perry. And that is for Ms. Davis, ma'am, that question?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
    Ms. Davis. So, I think if I understood the question right, 
it is: should there be a requirement for adoption and 
enforcement of a building code after 6 months of a disaster in 
order to get FEMA dollars. Is that correct?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
    Ms. Davis. I think you should not be building back to a 
lesser standard using Federal taxpayer dollars. I think it is 
important in the recovery efforts to build back to current 
codes.
    And if I could just expand on that a little bit to clarify. 
I think everybody here has said--and I want to make it very 
clear that ICC and myself included for the State of Virginia 
has always encouraged amendments that references local needs.
    It is very clearly not a one-size-fits-all. It is every 
community, every State, every jurisdiction has to do what is in 
their own best interest.
    And ICC has long recognized the need to amend the codes. 
The model codes is a beginning point, not an end. And as long 
as the amendments don't affect structural integrity and 
resiliency and looks only at affordability and some of the 
other things, I think it is perfectly fine.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
    Mr. Strickland, what authorities and resources would be 
needed in order for FEMA or other Federal agencies to provide 
funding, education, and support needed to increase building 
code compliance by individuals and households following a 
disaster as well as before a disaster occurs?
    Mr. Perry. Did you understand, Mr. Strickland?
    Mr. Strickland. I got part of it.
    Mr. Perry. Ms. Titus is going to----
    Ms. Titus [interrupting]. I think what the Congresswoman is 
asking is what kind of resources are needed to educate the 
public about what it can do to avoid a disaster situation or 
prepare.
    Mr. Strickland. And I think that is part of the effort that 
FEMA is attempting, is that across the board and from a whole 
community perspective that we do educate everyone involved with 
it.
    From a personal perspective, and I think many of my 
colleagues would say, this is an educational process that needs 
to start, just like ``stop, drop and roll'' does in the school 
systems when you are on fire kind of thing.
    This is a change and a cultural improvement that has got to 
be made that we carry this through our society for the future. 
I mean, it is not going it to happen overnight. And it needs to 
start sooner than later from an educational perspective.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
    I know that--I believe you are right, one size does not fit 
all. And I am certain that some of the States that don't have 
regulations are probably wishing they did if they have a 
disaster hitting them.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
    The Chair now recognizes Representative Huffman for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Titus, for holding today's hearing. It is an important 
discussion about how we can encourage more communities to adopt 
and implement hazard-resistant building codes that will 
increase resilience, save lives, and lower costs in the face of 
a growing climate crisis. We need to consider cost-effective 
ways to help communities adapt to, mitigate, and recover from 
natural disasters.
    I also want to address the urgent need to update our 
building codes to prevent a disaster of a different kind: a 
little known building safety flaw that has killed thousands of 
people around the country, including a child in my district.
    In 2019, 7-year-old Alex Quanbeck was tragically killed by 
a poorly designed, ill-maintained gate while he was playing 
with friends during recess. I am talking about the heavy iron 
gates that slide open and closed usually on rollers.
    Alex was tossing a football when he attempted to stop the 
ball from rolling away by closing the schoolyard gate. However, 
as he pushed it closed, it detached from its supporting 
hardware and collapsed on him.
    Alex was crushed by 300 pounds of metal in a shocking 
accident which could have been prevented had the gate been 
equipped with a simple safety feature that costs no more than 
$50.
    Unfortunately, Alex is one of many children and adults who 
have been killed or injured by a faulty gate while at school, 
work, home, or other settings.
    To address these issues, I have been working closely with 
concerned parents, consumer advocates, and industry 
stakeholders to update building codes and product safety 
standards.
    I plan to introduce legislation to direct the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission to promulgate a mandatory rule and to 
run an awareness campaign to ensure new gates are equipped with 
an inexpensive safety feature.
    I also support the ongoing effort to incorporate new gate 
safety standards into building codes, including a proposal from 
The Hummingbird Alliance, American Fence Association, and 
others to update the ICC's model building codes.
    So, Ms. Davis, I wonder if I could ask you to please speak 
to the importance of gate safety.
    Ms. Davis. Thank you for that question. And I recognize the 
tragedy of that event, and it is heartbreaking.
    I know that our staff has been engaged with this and that 
they have met and discussed this. I believe that ICC is working 
with the American Fence Association, and they are working 
closely on this matter, along with Alex's father, toward a code 
change proposal next year.
    I think they met last week with the Building Code Action 
Committee and the idea seemed to receive high levels of support 
from key members of the Building Code Action Committee, or 
BCAC, as we know them.
    So, as such, I believe that this will be an important issue 
to be discussed moving forward in the code.
    Mr. Huffman. I do appreciate that.
    I wonder if you could speak to the specific steps that the 
ICC is taking to ensure that modern gate safety standards are 
incorporated in the next edition of the codes and whether you 
would support an updated gate safety standard.
    I also am interested in knowing about any challenges that 
the ICC may face in incorporating new safety standards, such as 
mandatory gate safety standards, into model building codes.
    Ms. Davis. I would be in support of that.
    And off the top of my head, I cannot think of any negative 
reason why it wouldn't receive--I can't think of any argument 
that anyone would have against implementing a standard like 
that. I believe it is an ASTM standard on the gate safety that 
could be implemented into the code requirement process.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    Any thoughts on how Congress can support these efforts?
    Ms. Davis. We can provide information as to the code 
process. And if you are interested in writing a letter of 
support or providing testimony during the code update process, 
certainly we would welcome that.
    We would also be happy to make introductions to the 
California Building Officials association, CALBO, if you are 
not familiar with them. I think they would be a huge help in 
shepherding this forward.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. I really want to thank you for 
that.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to have this 
exchange. I know it is a little bit outside of the main topic 
of conversation, but it is a very important issue and a simple 
fix. And I appreciate those who are already coming together to 
hopefully find a solution and save some lives.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman 
does yield back.
    Are there further questions from any members of the 
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
    Seeing none, that does conclude our hearing for today. I 
would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony, 
your time to travel here.
    This subcommittee now stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


 Letter of September 24, 2024, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon. 
   Dina Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
     Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, from the National 
  Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; the National Ready Mixed 
 Concrete Association; the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; 
 and the Portland Cement Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. 
                           Derrick Van Orden
                                                September 24, 2024.
The Honorable Scott Perry,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
        Management, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. 
        House, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Dina Titus,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency 
        Management, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. 
        House, Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Titus,
    The undersigned organizations strongly support the adoption of 
updated building codes. Enforcement of up-to-date building codes and 
high-performance building standards is an important step to achieving 
disaster resilience.
    According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), the number of billion-dollar disaster events in the United 
States is increasing and the cost of these disaster events is also 
increasing.
    Adopting and strengthening building codes is an effective strategy 
that policymakers and the building design and construction industry 
must employ to reduce the impacts of disaster events, including loss of 
life, property damage, and displacement of families and businesses.
    The building code sets standards that guide design and construction 
of structures for minimum life safety, the first step toward 
resilience. There are multiple benefits to the adoption of strong and 
up-to-date building codes. Minimum standards for construction preserve 
our communities and livelihoods by ensuring that our homes, schools, 
and businesses can survive major catastrophes. Stronger homes and 
buildings mean people will have places to live and work after a 
disaster. Communities with disaster resilient buildings are more likely 
to be able to operate schools and businesses after a disaster. Less 
disruption for a community means robust commerce and consistent tax 
revenue.
    Adopting strong building codes also provides economic benefits. 
Building codes promote cost effective construction by providing for 
economies of scale in the production of building materials. Building 
codes also facilitate measurable performance. Building codes are 
developed by architects, engineers, contractors, product manufacturers, 
and public officials and are grounded in sound engineering principles 
that have been thoroughly tested.
    In its study entitled ``Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves,'' the 
National Institute of Building Sciences found that adopting the latest 
building code requirements is affordable and saves $11 per $1 invested. 
Building codes have improved society's disaster resilience, while 
adding only about 1% to the construction codes when compared to 1990 
building codes and standards. The greatest benefits are realized by 
jurisdictions adopting the most recent code editions. While building 
codes set minimum requirements to protect life safety, above-code 
design can save $4 for every $1 invested. Stronger requirements cost-
effectively boost life safety and support shorter functional recovery 
times following a disaster event.
    Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
            Sincerely,
        National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
                 National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
                 National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.
                               Portland Cement Association.

References:
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (2019). Natural Hazard Mitigation 
    Saves: 2019 Report. Principal Investigator Porter, K.; Co-Principal 
    Investigators Dash, N., Huyck, C., Santos, J., Scawthorn, C.; 
    Investigators: Eguchi, M., Eguchi, R., Ghosh., S., Isteita, M., 
    Mickey, K., Rashed, T., Reeder, A.; Schneider, P.; and Yuan, J., 
    Directors, MMC. Investigator Intern: Cohen-Porter, A. National 
    Institute of Building Sciences. Washington, DC. www.nibs.org

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (2007). NRMCA Position 
    Statement on Building Codes.

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. 
    Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2024). https://
    www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/, DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73



                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


   Questions to Russell J. Strickland, President, National Emergency 
             Management Association, from Hon. Rick Larsen

    Question 1. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA18) included a 
provision requiring FEMA to increase the Public Assistance federal cost 
share for states that have implemented hazard mitigation measures 
including the enforcement of hazard resistant building codes and 
funding mitigation projects. This law was intended as an incentive for 
states to proactively fund mitigation measures. This month, FEMA 
released the interim policy (FP-104-24-002) for this provision.
    Are you satisfied with the interim policy as drafted? If no, what 
changes should be made to the interim policy to better reflect the 
intent of BBA18?
    Answer. The interim policy should (1) incentivize applicants to 
consider and submit section 406 projects, and (2) reduce non-Federal 
costs to disasters. Since passage of the provision, NEMA remained 
supportive of the concept of rewarding state-level mitigation 
investments but fear the final product from this rulemaking may fall 
short.
    First of all, this rulemaking should have included robust 
stakeholder input throughout the development process. Given the six 
years of development, the agency had ample time to conduct outreach. 
Furthermore, many states may be unaware or ill-equipped to develop and 
execute Section 406 Public Assistance mitigation projects and more 
responsibility should be placed on FEMA to train state staff, identify 
potential opportunities, and provide necessary technical assistance.
    As our members have more time to digest the interim police as 
drafted, initial reactions may evolve, but we hope FEMA will take the 
time to ensure the final rule fully meets Congressional intent.

  Questions to Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of Building and 
    Fire Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing and Community 
  Development (Retired), on behalf of the International Code Council, 
                         from Hon. Rick Larsen

    Question 1. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA18) included a 
provision requiring FEMA to increase the Public Assistance federal cost 
share for states that have implemented hazard mitigation measures 
including the enforcement of hazard resistant building codes and 
funding mitigation projects. This law was intended as an incentive for 
states to proactively fund mitigation measures. This month, FEMA 
released the interim policy (FP-104-24-002) for this provision.
    Are you satisfied with the interim policy as drafted? If no, what 
changes should be made to the interim policy to better reflect the 
intent of BBA18?
    Answer. As noted in the written testimony, the Code Council 
believes that the five-and-a-half-year delay in implementing this 
single provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 represented an 
enormous, missed opportunity to help bolster community and national 
resilience over the last half decade. As enacted in early 2018, FEMA 
was required to have this recovery cost share adjustment implemented 
within one year. The mitigation benefits this provision would have 
otherwise encouraged would have saved lives, homes, businesses, along 
with tens of millions of dollars in avoidable losses over the last few 
years.
    Given the public comment period for the interim policy closes 
nearly two months after this response is due back to the Committee, 
I'll preface my answer that the Code Council expects to submit comments 
via regulations.gov that will be publicly available.
    That said, the Code Council supports the hazard-resistant code 
pieces of the interim Public Assistance Policy on Mitigation Cost Share 
Incentives, especially the codes recognized, the editions captured, and 
the weighting provided. Providing additional recovery funding for 
jurisdictions that adopt updated codes recognizes the importance of 
their mitigation benefits and will incentivize smart planning before 
disaster strikes.
    Our membership has seen firsthand how building codes and standards 
ensure public health, safety, and sustainability. Up-to-date codes and 
standards contribute to individual, community, and national resilience 
as well as dramatically reduce disaster-related losses of life and 
property.
    It requires significant work for authorities having jurisdiction 
(AHJs) to regularly adopt current codes, not to mention the effort 
required by those who implement and enforce codes to stay up to date 
with training. With model codes updated every three years to consider 
advancements in building science, technology, best practices, and 
lessons learned from disasters, the ``two most recent editions'' in the 
interim policy recognizes the importance of using current codes and 
also provides flexibility for AHJ's individualized adoption processes. 
The weighting given to resilient codes is needed to further incentivize 
update efforts and will help sustain existing and effective practices 
against efforts to weaken model codes.
    Finally, FEMA's Building Codes Save report noted the International 
Building Code (IBC) helped avoid more than $600 billion dollars in 
losses, while three national labs found the International Energy 
Conservation Code (IECC) can reduce extreme heat deaths associated with 
disaster-induced power outrages by 80 percent.
    FEMA already requires the use of these codes when paying for repair 
and reconstruction of public facilities, and they are adopted in all 50 
states to ensure building safety and an effective building envelope. 
The weighting the interim policy assigned these measures rightly 
recognizes the mitigation benefits resulting from more widespread 
adoption and enforcement.
    As the interim policy approaches a more final form, ICC expects 
that it will capture additional mitigation activities and would urge 
the Agency to ensure that any changes not dilute the existing resilient 
codes provisions of the interim policy.