[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FUTURE OF FEMA: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-780 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee, Chairman
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Vice Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi,
Chair Ranking Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Eric Swalwell, California
Michael Guest, Mississippi J. Luis Correa, California
Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida Shri Thanedar, Michigan
August Pfluger, Texas Seth Magaziner, Rhode Island
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York Daniel S. Goldman, New York
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Delia C. Ramirez, Illinois
Tony Gonzales, Texas Timothy M. Kennedy, New York
Morgan Luttrell, Texas LaMonica McIver, New Jersey
Dale W. Strong, Alabama Julie Johnson, Texas, Vice Ranking
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma Member
Elijah Crane, Arizona Pablo Jose Hernandez, Puerto Rico
Andrew Ogles, Tennessee Nellie Pou, New Jersey
Sheri Biggs, South Carolina Sylvester Turner, Texas
Gabe Evans, Colorado Vacant
Ryan Mackenzie, Pennsylvania Vacant
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Eric Heighberger, Staff Director
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
Sean Corcoran, Chief Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
Dale W. Strong, Alabama, Chairman
Josh Brecheen, Oklahoma Timothy M. Kennedy, New York,
Gabe Evans, Colorado Ranking Member
Ryan Mackenzie, Pennsylvania Julie Johnson, Texas
Mark E. Green, MD, Tennessee (ex Pablo Jose Hernandez, Puerto Rico
officio) Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
(ex officio)
Diana Bergwin, Subcommittee Staff Director
Lauren McClain, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Dale W. Strong, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Management and Technology:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Timothy M. Kennedy, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Management and Technology:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Witnesses
Mr. Jeffrey ``Jeff'' E. Smitherman, Director, Alabama Emergency
Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Mr. Daniel Kaniewski, Managing Director of the Public Sector,
Marsh McLennan:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Ms. Carrie Speranza, Certified Emergency Manager, President, U.S.
Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers:
Oral Statement................................................. 28
Prepared Statement............................................. 29
Mr. Timothy Manning, Former Deputy Administrator for Protection
and National Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 30
Prepared Statement............................................. 32
For the Record
The Honorable Timothy M. Kennedy, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Management and Technology:
Article, Bloomberg, February 28, 2025.......................... 45
Article, New York Times, February 27, 2025..................... 46
GAO Report..................................................... 48
FUTURE OF FEMA: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Management
and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Dale W. Strong
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Strong, Brecheen, Evans, Moylan,
Kennedy, Johnson, Hernandez, and Moskowitz.
Mr. Strong. The Committee on Homeland Security's
Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology will come
to order. Without objection, the Chair may declare the
subcommittee in recess at any point.
The purpose of this hearing is to assess the current role
of FEMA, including FEMA's expanding mission set, FEMA's
stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and its coordination with the
State and local governments in disaster recovery response.
Without objection, the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan, and the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz, are permitted to sit on
the dais and ask questions to witnesses.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning and thank you to everyone for joining today
for this first hearing of the Committee on Homeland Security's
Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology in the
119th Congress. With over 4 decades of experience as a first
responder, having served the people of Alabama as both an
emergency medical technician and volunteer firefighter, I am
honored to serve as Chairman of this subcommittee. I am
committed to using this subcommittee to advance the cause of
first responders and emergency managers across the Nation,
making sure that they are prepared and resilient against all
challenges.
I also wish to congratulate my colleagues across the aisle,
Mr. Kennedy of New York, on his role as Ranking Member. I look
forward to working with you as we strive to ensure our
communities are prepared to prevent, respond to, and recover
from emergencies and disasters.
I would like to welcome back Mr. Brecheen of Oklahoma.
Finally, I want to welcome the newcomers to the subcommittee
and to Congress: Mr. Evans of Colorado, Mr. Mackenzie of
Pennsylvania, and across the aisle, Ms. Johnson of Texas, and
Mr. Hernandez of Puerto Rico. I look forward to working with
all of you this Congress to do the work securing our homeland.
In the interest of ensuring our homeland is resilient and
prepared for all types of disasters, it is fitting that the
subcommittee's first hearing is on FEMA, the Nation's primary
disaster relief agency. FEMA oversees national preparedness
grants and Federal disaster assistance, coordinates relief
efforts, and ensures our Nation is able to prepare for, respond
to, and recover from disasters. Recent events have overwhelmed
our State and localities and challenged their ability to
mobilize and help their communities. In 2024 alone, FEMA
responded and administered resources for over 100 major
declarations.
According to NOAA, natural disasters last year caused 568
fatalities and damages totaled approximately $182.7 billion.
Hurricane Helene and Milton alone devastated the East Coast,
causing 251 deaths and $113.9 billion in damages. Beginning in
January of this year, fires in Los Angeles County and Southern
California caused damage and economic loss that is projected to
be somewhere between $250 billion and $275 billion, which would
make it the costliest single disaster in our Nation's history,
surpassing the record set by Hurricane Katrina.
Our States and localities deserve all the help they can get
in protecting people's lives and property against deadly
disasters. The aid that FEMA delivers before and after
disasters is greatly appreciated and greatly needed. But as
recent events demonstrate, there is room for improvement. We
must ask what efficiencies can be found? What reforms can be
implemented to create a better emergency management enterprise?
How can FEMA be improved to better support those on the ground
and disaster survivors?
I applaud President Trump's January 24th Executive Order to
convene a FEMA Review Council composed of individuals with
expertise in disaster response and recovery, who will be tasked
with providing recommendations on reform to FEMA. Even the best
Government agencies are in continual need of reform, and FEMA
is no exception. The purpose of this hearing is to solicit
feedback from stakeholders within the emergency management
community that can help guide President Trump's FEMA Review
Council as it explores what aspects of FEMA deserves the most
reform.
I thank the witnesses for their perspective and for being
here today. As we begin our conversation, there are a few areas
of potential reform which I would like to highlight.
FEMA's mission set has expanded greatly in recent years to
include tasks beyond preparing for and responding to
traditional disasters. For example, FEMA assisted the Federal
Government's efforts in providing shelter and supplies to UACs
from the Southwest Border. It also supported the Department of
Homeland Security in the resettling of Afghan refugees by way
of Operation Allies Welcome.
Since 2019, FEMA has been administering funds to local
governments and nonprofit groups to offset the cost of
humanitarian relief efforts of caring for migrants, at first
through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program--Humanitarian,
and since 2023, the Shelter and Service Program. As the border
crisis ballooned during the Biden administration, I wonder how
much time was wasted administering this program when the FEMA
work force was already stretched thin. As we contemplate how
best to reconfigure or establish efficiencies within FEMA to
support its operations, we must ask whether FEMA's expanding
mission set has slowly exhausted the agency's resources and
work force, preventing it from completing its core mission to
the highest level of sufficiency.
In addition to FEMA's mission creep, there are concerns
that FEMA has also enabled a certain degree of waste. A GAO
report found that FEMA mishandled the administration of funds
for its COVID-19 Funeral Assistance program, with at least $4.8
million being approved for duplicate or ineligible applicants.
I look forward to our witnesses' thoughts on how to make FEMA
as efficient as possible while still allowing it to carry out
the fullness of its duties.
It is also of great importance that FEMA avoid any
appearances of partisanship. Following Hurricane Milton last
year, a FEMA employee improperly and illegally instructed
canvassers not to go to houses displaying signs of then-
Presidential candidate Trump, disregarding FEMA's mission of
supporting every disaster survivor. As I am sure we can all
agree, FEMA must be impartial in its performance of all duties.
The FEMA Review Council will also consider various
structural changes to FEMA as indicated in President Trump's
Executive Order. Some have suggested FEMA should be removed
from the Department of Homeland Security, once again making it
an independent agency with direct access to the President of
the United States. I look forward to hearing our witnesses'
perspectives on this matter and whether they think this move
would have a positive effect on FEMA's efficiency and ability
to operate, as well as potential changes that could be created.
Finally, it is evident that State and local governments
have become increasingly reliant on FEMA to meet critical
disaster response needs. I invite our witnesses to offer
suggestions on a more appropriate structure of burden sharing
between Federal Government and State and local government to
best position them to respond to disasters. Again, I thank each
of you for being here today and I look forward to hearing your
testimony on these and other issues to inform the work of the
FEMA Review Council as they seek to reform FEMA to better serve
the American people.
[The statement of Chairman Strong follows:]
Statement of Chairman Dale W. Strong
Good morning and thank you to everyone for joining us today for
this first hearing of the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee
on Emergency Management and Technology in the 119th Congress.
With over 4 decades of experience as a first responder, having
served the people of Alabama as both an EMT and volunteer firefighter,
I am honored to serve as Chairman of this subcommittee.
I am committed to using this subcommittee to advance the cause of
first responders and emergency managers across the Nation, making sure
they are prepared and resilient against all challenges.
I also wish to congratulate my colleague across the aisle, Mr.
Kennedy of New York, on his role as Ranking Member.
I look forward to working with you as we strive to ensure our
communities are prepared to prevent, respond to, and recover from
emergencies and disasters.
I'd like to welcome back Mr. Brecheen of Oklahoma.
And finally, I want to welcome the newcomers to the subcommittee
and to Congress--Mr. Evans of Colorado, Mr. Mackenzie of Pennsylvania,
and across the aisle, Ms. Johnson of Texas, and Mr. Hernandez of Puerto
Rico.
I look forward to working with all of you this Congress to do the
work of securing our homeland.
In the interests of ensuring our homeland is resilient and prepared
for all types of disasters, it is fitting that this subcommittee's
first hearing is on FEMA--the Nation's primary disaster relief agency.
FEMA oversees national preparedness grants and Federal disaster
assistance, coordinates relief efforts, and ensures our Nation is able
to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.
Recent events have overwhelmed our States and localities and
challenged their ability to mobilize and help their communities.
In 2024 alone, FEMA responded to and administered resources for 100
Major Disaster Declarations.
According to NOAA, natural disasters last year caused 568
fatalities and damages totaling approximately $182.7 billion dollars.
Hurricanes Helene and Milton alone devastated the East Coast,
causing 251 deaths and $113.9 billion dollars in damages.
Beginning in January of this year, fires in Los Angeles County and
southern California caused damage and economic loss that is projected
to be between $250 billion and $275 billion dollars, which would make
it the costliest single disaster in our Nation's history, surpassing
the record set by Hurricane Katrina.
Our States and localities deserve all the help they can get in
protecting people's lives and property against deadly disasters.
The aid that FEMA delivers before and after disasters is greatly
appreciated and greatly needed. But as recent events demonstrate, there
is room for improvement . . .
We must ask: what efficiencies can be found and what reforms should
be implemented to create a better emergency management enterprise?
And how can FEMA be improved to better support those on the ground
and disaster survivors?
I applaud President Trump's January 24th Executive Order to convene
a FEMA Review Council composed of individuals with expertise in
disaster response and recovery, who will be tasked with providing
recommendations on reform to FEMA.
Even the best Government agencies are in continual need of reform,
and FEMA is no exception.
The purpose of this hearing is to solicit feedback from
stakeholders within the emergency management community that can help
guide President Trump's FEMA Review Council as it explores what aspects
of FEMA deserve the most reform.
I thank the witnesses for their perspectives and for being here
today.
As we begin our conversation, there are a few areas of potential
reform which I would like to highlight.
FEMA's mission set has expanded greatly in recent years to include
tasks beyond preparing for and responding to traditional disasters.
For example, FEMA assisted the Federal Government's efforts in
providing shelters and supplies to UACs from the Southwest Border.
It also supported the Department of Homeland Security in the
resettling of Afghan refugees via Operation Allies Welcome.
Since 2019, FEMA has been administering funds to local governments
and nonprofit groups to offset the costs of humanitarian relief efforts
of caring for migrants, at first through the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program--Humanitarian, and, since 2023, the Shelter and Services
Program.
As the border crisis ballooned during the Biden administration, I
wonder how much time was wasted administering this program when the
FEMA workforce was already stretched thin.
As we contemplate how best to reconfigure or establish efficiencies
within FEMA to support its operations, we must ask whether FEMA's
expanding mission set has slowly exhausted the agency's resources and
workforce, preventing it from completing its core mission to the
highest level of sufficiency.
In addition to FEMA's ``mission creep,'' there are concerns that
FEMA has also enabled a certain degree of waste.
A GAO report found that FEMA mishandled the administration of funds
for its COVID-19 Funeral Assistance Program, with at least $4.8 million
dollars being approved for duplicate or ineligible applicants.
I look forward to our witnesses' thoughts on how to make FEMA as
efficient as possible while still allowing it to carry out the fullness
of its duties.
It is also of great importance that FEMA avoid any appearance of
partisanship.
Following Hurricane Milton last year, a FEMA employee improperly
and illegally instructed canvassers not to go to houses displaying
signs of then-Presidential candidate Trump, disregarding FEMA's mission
of supporting every disaster survivor.
As I'm sure we can all agree, FEMA must be impartial in the
performance of all its duties.
The FEMA Review Council will also consider various structural
changes to FEMA, as indicated in President Trump's Executive Order.
Some have suggested that FEMA should be removed from the Department
of Homeland Security, once again making it an independent agency with
direct access to the President.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' perspectives on this
matter, and whether they think this move would have a positive effect
on FEMA's efficiency and ability to operate, as well as potential
challenges this could create.
Finally, it is evident that State and local governments have become
increasingly reliant on FEMA to meet critical disaster response needs.
I invite our witnesses to offer suggestions on a more appropriate
structure of burden sharing between the Federal Government and State
and local governments to best position them to respond to disasters.
Again, I thank each of you for being here today, and I look forward
to hearing your testimony on these and other issues to inform the work
of the FEMA Review Council as they seek to reform FEMA to better serve
the American people.
Mr. Strong. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee for his opening statement.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman, and congratulations on
being named Chair of this great subcommittee. I want to also
recognize and congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle for taking part in this subcommittee.
I want to recognize all of the witnesses that are here
today. Thank you for being here and thank you for the important
work that you do for our country.
The topic of today's hearing, unfortunately, is very
timely. Disasters are striking harder and more often from
wildfires that we are seeing today yet again, floods,
hurricanes, extreme snow and ice storms, tornadoes. We have
seen hundreds of lives taken across communities and devastated
nationwide. California, Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina, New
York, and everywhere in between, we need to strengthen our
preparedness, our response, our recovery efforts like never
before. It is ever more critical that we do so.
We have to support them from Congress every step of the way
and I am deeply concerned about the Trump administration's
attack on FEMA and the dedicated public servants in emergency
management at every level. President Trump has threatened to
dismantle the agency, fired 200 employees, pushed out 800 more
under Elon Musk's unfunded resignation scheme. It is a reckless
and dangerous move that undermines disaster response when we
need it the most.
These brave servants attempting to help communities ravaged
by destruction are being fired without cause. It is a shameful,
despicable act, and it is wrong. Unfortunately, the Majority
has chosen not to include any representatives from FEMA to
attend this hearing and testify today about what is truly
happening on the front lines.
Currently, there is no transparency from this
administration on how FEMA, an agency with such a critical
mission, can operate while being dismantled 1 employee at a
time. Even while the Trump administration continues to downplay
the critical role of emergency managers, the truth is that for
decades, FEMA has come to the aid of the American public time
and time again, and they have done so without being
understaffed--I am sorry, they have done so while being
understaffed and underfunded.
In addition to the direct attacks on FEMA, President Trump
is chipping away and weakening the agencies that provide
support to FEMA, like NOAA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Reportedly, the Trump
administration has fired approximately 800 probationary
employees at NOAA, while another 500 resigned, severely
undermining critical weather forecasting and climate monitoring
services. Such mass exoduses from essential agencies not only
weaken our disaster response and preparedness capabilities, but
also jeopardize public safety and economic stability.
Let me be clear. The American people cannot afford to let
President Trump and Elon Musk take a chainsaw to FEMA. I have
seen first-hand how critical FEMA is on a number of occasions.
But in 2022, my community was ravaged by Winter Storm Elliott.
During the week of Christmas 2022, a Category 4 extratropical
cyclone created crippling winter weather conditions, including
blizzards, high winds, snowfall, and record cold temperatures
across the entire country, exacerbated in the Northeast. This
catastrophic storm claimed 47 lives in my hometown of Buffalo
and Western New York. This tragedy overwhelmed our entire
community in the days, weeks, and months following, from the
mourning of loss of loved ones, friends, and community members
to putting the pieces of lives and homes back together.
Following this storm, President Biden ensured that FEMA
assistance was provided, but the devastating blizzard
highlighted outdated FEMA policies that left gaps in support.
Currently, FEMA has a snow assistance and severe winter storm
policy that provides a criteria for assistance following an
extreme snowstorm. However, snow assistance requires a record
or near-record snowfall over 1 to 3 days validated by the
National Weather Service and compared to historical data. For
example, where other storms are judged by the amount of damage
they cause, a snowstorm must be the worst a community has ever
experienced to qualify for assistance. That means up to 6 to 7
feet of snow just to get the attention of FEMA. That is not
acceptable. Where other storms are judged by this damage and we
have to see more snow than ever before in history, we see this
disproportionate impact on how Federal assistance can be
provided.
So Federal assistance for snowstorms must be on par with
other national natural disasters. That is why I introduced the
Snow Act to expand disaster assistance for snowstorms, ensuring
communities get the help that they need. Specifically, my bill
removes outdated snowfall methodology and the State-wide total
damages requirement if the affected response zone and/or region
has determined by State emergency service agencies. It unlocks
Individual Assistance for snow disasters, providing monetary
relief for families who experience substantial damages to their
homes. It unlocks all categories of Public Assistance for snow
disasters, such as assistance in removing debris, rebuilding
roads and bridges, rebuilding and maintaining public utilities,
and melting agents for ice on roads. It adds snow removal
equipment under FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and
raises the Federal cost share to 90 percent Federal and 10
percent State and local if the affected areas are rural or
below the real median household income according to Census
Bureau. This will have an impact on every single community
across the United States.
Make no mistake about it. There is work to be done to
improve FEMA, but dismantling its experienced work force is
reckless and dangerous. As climate change fuels more frequent
and severe disasters, our focus must be on strengthening FEMA's
ability to respond, not weakening it. It is more crucial than
ever before to have a robust response system. The growing
threats we face demand it.
While a lot of today's conversation is likely to focus on
natural disasters, FEMA does more than disaster response. It
provides critical preparedness grants for communities Nation-
wide. Yet the White House froze these funds, forcing courts to
intervene. Even after a judge's order, reports indicate that
many grants remain blocked, jeopardizing emergency readiness.
This is not just bureaucratic red tape, it puts lives at risk.
This funding, frozen by the administration, supports first
responders and emergency managers in keeping us all safe.
In my district, we know first-hand how vital the
preparedness grant resources are. In just a few short months,
we'll be commemorating the third anniversary of the racist,
white supremacist terrorist attack that robbed 10 lives,
innocent souls from my community on May 14, 2022. That day, our
first responders, our police, our firefighters, our EMS, and so
many others bravely rushed into harm's way, putting their lives
on the line to protect others. They give so much for the well-
being of our community, so the very least we can do is ensure
that they have the funding and support that they need. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses today about all of these
issues and more.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Kennedy follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Timothy M. Kennedy
March 4, 2025
The topic of today's hearing is, unfortunately, very timely.
Disasters are striking harder and more often--from wildfires, floods,
tornadoes, and hurricanes to extreme snow and ice storms, we have seen
hundreds of lives taken and communities devastated nationwide. From
California to Kentucky to Florida, to South Carolina, to New York, the
need to strengthen our preparedness, response, and recovery efforts has
never been more critical. Preparedness, response, and recovery efforts
must be strengthened, and that starts with skilled emergency managers.
Congress must support them at every level.
Yet, I'm deeply concerned about the Trump administration's attack
on FEMA and the dedicated public servants in emergency management at
every level. President Trump has threatened to dismantle the agency,
fired 200 employees, and pushed out 800 more under Elon Musk's unfunded
resignation scheme. This is a reckless, dangerous move that undermines
disaster response when we need it most. These brave public servants,
attempting to help communities ravaged by destruction, are being fired
without cause. It is shameful, it is despicable, and it is wrong.
And, unfortunately, the Majority has chosen not to include any
representatives from FEMA to attend this hearing and to testify today
about what is truly happening on the front lines. Currently, there is
no transparency from this administration on how FEMA, an agency with
such a critical mission, can operate while being dismantled--1 employee
at a time. Even while the Trump administration continues to downplay
the critical role of emergency managers, the truth is that for decades,
FEMA has come to the aid of the American public time and time again.
And they have done so while being understaffed and underfunded.
In addition to the direct attacks on FEMA, President Trump is
chipping away at and weakening the agencies that provide support to
FEMA, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Reportedly, the Trump administration has fired approximately 800
probationary employees at NOAA, while another 500 resigned--severely
undermining critical weather forecasting and climate monitoring
services.
Such mass exoduses from essential agencies not only weaken our
disaster response and preparedness capabilities but also jeopardize
public safety and economic stability. Let me be clear: the American
people cannot afford to let President Trump and Elon Musk take a
chainsaw to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I've seen first-hand how critical FEMA is on a number of occasions,
but in 2022, my community was ravaged by Winter Storm Elliott. During
the week of Christmas in 2022, a category 4 extratropical cyclone
created crippling winter weather conditions including blizzards, high
winds, snowfall, and record cold temperatures across the northeast.
This catastrophic storm claimed 47 lives in my community. This tragedy
overwhelmed our entire community in the days, weeks, and months
following, from mourning the loss of loved ones, friends, and community
members to putting the pieces of lives and homes back together.
Following the storm, President Biden ensured that Federal
assistance was provided, but this devastating blizzard highlighted
outdated FEMA policies that left gaps in support. Currently, FEMA has a
Snow Assistance and Severe Winter Storm Policy that provides the
criteria for assistance following an extreme snowstorm.
However, snow assistance requires a record or near-record snowfall
over 1-3 days, validated by the National Weather Service and compared
to historical data. For example, where other storms are judged on the
amount of damage they cause, a snowstorm must be the worst a community
has ever experienced to qualify for assistance.
Federal assistance for extreme snowstorms must be on par with other
natural disasters. That's why I introduced the SNOW Act to expand
disaster assistance for snowstorms, ensuring communities get the help
they need. Specifically, my bill:
Removes the outdated snowfall methodology and the State-wide
total damages requirement if the affected response zone and/or
region as determined by State emergency service agencies
Unlocks Individual Assistance for snow disasters, providing
monetary relief for families who experience substantial damage
to their homes
Unlocks all categories of Public Assistance for snow
disasters, such as assistance in removing debris, rebuilding
roads and bridges, rebuilding and maintaining public utilities,
and melting agents for ice on roads
Adds snow removal equipment under FEMA's Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program
Raises the Federal cost share to 90 percent Federal and 10
percent State and local IF the affected areas are rural or
below the real median household income according to the Census
Bureau.
Make no mistake about it, there is work to be done to improve FEMA,
but dismantling its experienced workforce is reckless and dangerous. As
climate change fuels more frequent and severe disasters, our focus must
be on strengthening FEMA's ability to respond--not weakening it. It is
more crucial than ever to have a robust response system. The growing
threats we face demand it.
While a lot of today's conversation is likely to focus on natural
disasters, FEMA does more than disaster response; it provides critical
preparedness grants for communities nationwide. Yet, the White House
froze these funds, forcing courts to intervene. Even after a judge's
order, reports indicate that many grants remain blocked, jeopardizing
emergency readiness. This is not just bureaucratic red tape--it puts
lives at risk. This funding, frozen by the administration, supports
first responders and emergency managers in keeping us all safe.
In my district, we know first-hand how vital the preparedness grant
resources are. In just a few short months, we will be commemorating the
third anniversary of the racist, white supremacist terrorist attack
that robbed the lives of 10 innocent souls on May 14, 2022.
That day, our first responders--our police, firefighters, EMS, and
so many others--bravely rushed into harm's way, putting their lives on
the line to protect others. They give so much for the well-being of our
communities, so the very least we can do is ensure they have the
funding and support they need.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member Kennedy.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
March 4, 2025
I want to thank our witnesses for engaging in a vital discussion
regarding the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Our Nation's emergency managers and first responders are our first line
of defense during emergencies and are an integral part of our
communities.
Yet, President Trump continues to dismiss the emergency management
community and has referred to FEMA as a ``disaster,'' and even
suggested he would get ``rid of'' the agency.
Trump has demonstrated his blatant disregard for FEMA by directly
causing a workforce crisis within the agency. At his direction, 200
FEMA employees were fired and more than 800 are resigning--resulting in
a total loss of nearly 1,000 workers, including seasoned emergency
managers. Apparently, firing seasoned emergency managers and forcing
their resignation is Donald Trump's strategy for handling disasters.
In addition to the mass exodus of experienced FEMA staff, Trump has
handed Elon Musk--of all people--a ``special government employee''
appointment, giving him and his minions free rein to access sensitive
FEMA data. This is data that, in the wrong hands, could wreak havoc on
our Nation's security.
Despite Donald Trump and Elon Musk dismissing the importance of the
agency and its mission, FEMA has repeatedly delivered critical aid to
the American public, even amid staffing shortages and retention
challenges.
We have all witnessed the devastating impact of catastrophic
storms. In my own district, FEMA's assistance was indispensable during
the March 2023 tornadoes that ravaged my community. Even now, we
continue to rely on their support during our recovery.
Republicans have called this hearing to examine FEMA's future. I am
worried for FEMA's future, especially with Cameron Hamilton, the Senior
Official Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator leading the
agency.
Mr. Hamilton has little-to-no experience with being in charge of
responding to large-scale disasters. In fact, he is firing employees
with more experience than him. What is worse is that Mr. Hamilton
reportedly promoted misinformation about FEMA after Hurricanes Helene
and Milton on social media. This should be unacceptable to every Member
of Congress and the American public.
I am also gravely concerned about the future of homeland security
grants to our communities. As someone deeply invested in emergency
response, I have consistently advocated for these programs, which
provide funding to State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments to
support everything from training first responders to investing in
infrastructure that strengthens our Nation's resilience against natural
disasters and terrorism.
Even after the White House allegedly rescinded the order to freeze
grants, there are still reports of State and local governments and
nonprofit organizations not being rightfully awarded grant funding--
some of which is needed for disaster recovery.
Over the weekend, it was reported that the Trump administration is
withholding ``at least 140'' grants across the country that is needed
for wildfire prevention, flood mitigation, disaster preparedness, and
programs that support ``essential health, safety, and welfare.''
Withholding this funding undermines our ability to prepare for and
respond to emergencies and puts communities at risk.
Simply put, the Trump administration firing experienced FEMA
workers and withholding critical homeland security funding puts the
future of FEMA in doubt and makes America less safe.
Mr. Strong. I am very pleased to have such an important
panel of witnesses before for us today. I ask that the
witnesses please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Strong. Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record
reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses. Mr.
Jeff Smitherman serves as the director of the Alabama Emergency
Management Agency. Previously, Mr. Smitherman served as the
acting director of Alabama Emergency Management Agency and has
also served as its executive operations officer and State
coordinating officer. Mr. Smitherman also completed a 28-year
military career, retiring in 2015 from the United States Army
and Alabama National Guard. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Daniel Kaniewski is the managing director of public
sector at Marsh McLennan, where he develops innovative
solutions to public-sector challenges and engages 90,000
experts in risk strategy and people. From 2017 to 2020, he
served as the deputy administrator for resilience of FEMA.
Early in his career, Mr. Kaniewski served as special assistant
to the President for Homeland Security and senior director for
response policy in the George W. Bush administration.
Ms. Carrie Speranza is a president of the U.S. Council of
International Association of Emergency Managers and is the
former chair of the FEMA National Advisory Council. Ms.
Speranza is also the director of Emergency Management Solutions
at Esri. Before joining Esri, Ms. Speranza was deputy director
of the District of Columbia's Homeland Security and Emergency
Management Agency. Thank you.
Mr. Timothy Manning is a former deputy administrator for
protection and national preparedness at FEMA. More recently,
Mr. Manning served as the White House COVID-19 supply
coordinator. Prior to joining Federal service, Mr. Manning
served as the cabinet secretary of the New Mexico Department of
Homeland Security and emergency management and homeland
security advisor to Governor Bill Richardson. I thank the
witnesses again for being here today.
I now recognize Mr. Smitherman for 5 minutes to summarize
his opening statement. Mr. Smitherman.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY ``JEFF'' E. SMITHERMAN, DIRECTOR, ALABAMA
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Smitherman. Good morning and thank you, Chairman
Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy, and other distinguished Members
of the committee for the invitation to testify here today. I am
Jeff Smitherman, the director of the Alabama Emergency
Management Agency and a cabinet member to Governor Kay Ivey.
Today I want to share with you all what I believe about
emergency management and the future of FEMA.
At Alabama EMA, we are proud to be one of the premier
emergency management programs in the country. Alabama's success
is directly tied to the professionalism, training, and
experience of our first responders and local emergency
management programs. As director and cabinet member and on
behalf of my colleagues in State and local emergency
management, we thank you for this opportunity to provide a
State perspective on the future of FEMA.
Alabama is no stranger to large-scale disasters. While as a
State we rank 24th in population, we are 7th in major disaster
declarations. During President Trump's first term, we had 6
major disaster declarations and during my time or my tenure at
the agency, from 2015 to present, we've had 17 major disaster
declarations. However, States experienced many other events
that do not rise to a major disaster declaration, but still
required significant commitment of State resources.
I believe disaster preparedness, response, and recovery for
all incidents start and end at the local level and that the
relationship is critical between Federal, State, Tribal, and
local emergency management. Each jurisdiction maintains
separate authorities and capabilities, but must work together
by connecting and supporting one another to effectively and
timely save lives and protect property. States are critical to
successful preparation, response, and recovery within our
communities. To fully understand the critical function of the
State, I believe a State emergency management director must be
included in the review process and on the President's FEMA
Review Council.
I believe we must use this reset opportunity to not just
necessarily look at how to adjust the current system, but to
take a holistic look and approach to its redesign. What do we
want the emergency management system to look like after the
President's Review Council completes their work? This is a
generational opportunity for a rebuilt network with a refined
focus and efficiency.
I believe we can gain some efficiencies through this
process. With no additional Federal funds, I believe we can
build more State and local capacity by adjusting the funding
and redefining and streamlining priorities.
I believe preparedness and resilience are related
functions. The more deliberate focus and effort that goes into
preparedness is realized after an event with a more resilient
population and infrastructure. As such, I believe we can place
increased priority on State and local capacity using existing
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, BRIC,
funding. BRIC is a newer grant program that has not realized
its initial goals. By redesignating a small portion of this
funding to be made available to all States in order to develop
their capacity and the capacity at the local jurisdictions, it
would be a highly efficient and effective way to serve our
citizens who need timely and helpful assistance on their worst
days, not months or years of red tape.
The Homeland Security grants serve to train and certify
existing local first responders, the same resources that
Alabama deployed to North Carolina for Hurricane Helene. One
important system that already exists for the States is the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact, the EMAC. I believe
EMAC is a viable, proven framework and program to execute
State-to-State mutual aid. Increased capacity can be used by
States within the EMAC system to cover requirements that FEMA
formerly tried to cover.
I believe emergency management is a team effort. Sometimes
you rely on one aspect more than the other, such as State
versus FEMA, but everyone still has a role. I think the key
during this critical review will be an important opportunity to
clearly define the role of local, State, Federal, Tribal,
nonprofit, and private-sector partners and create a new dynamic
emergency management that works for everyone.
I believe there is a consensus on the lack of speed,
consistency, and clarity from FEMA and I know many in FEMA
agree and welcome some level of change. The States already
built schools, parks, Government buildings, et cetera. I
believe we can rebuild better, quicker, and more efficiently in
a system more like a block grant than the cumbersome system we
currently use.
As I conclude, I want to thank again the committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I believe emergency
management is critical to the Nation and the time is now to
implement improvements that will change the way we do business
and ultimately better serve the citizens of the United States.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smitherman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey ``Jeff'' E. Smitherman
March 4, 2025
introduction
Thank you, Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy, and other
distinguished Members of the committee for the invitation to testify
here today.
I am Jeff Smitherman, director of Alabama Emergency Management
Agency (AEMA) and cabinet member to Governor Kay Ivey. Today I want to
share with you all what I believe about Emergency Management. At
Alabama EMA we are proud to be one of the premiere emergency management
programs in the country. Alabama's success is directly tied to the
professionalism, training, and experience of our first responders and
local emergency management programs.
Alabama EMA is responsible for the preservation of the lives and
property of the citizens of Alabama through coordination of emergency
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation.
As director and cabinet member, and on behalf of my colleagues in
State and local emergency management, we thank you for this opportunity
to provide a State perspective on the Future of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
disaster history
Alabama is no stranger to large-scale disasters. While as a State
we are 24th in population we rank 7th in major disaster declarations.
During President Trump's first term we had 6 major disaster
declarations and during my tenure at the agency from 2015 to present we
have had 17 major disaster declarations; however, States experience
many other events that do not rise to a major disaster declaration but
required a significant commitment of State resources.
For example, in fiscal year 2023 Alabama supported 14 such events.
In another role, I supported the agency for Hurricane Katrina,
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, the 2011 Tornado Outbreak, and many, many
other disasters. These disasters have allowed us to understand the
challenges that every community and citizen faces when they experience
a disaster.
Over the years, we have tracked Federal dollars for each disaster
and program. The agency has done this work with no significant audit
findings of fraud, waste, or abuse.
state investment in emergency management and building resilient
infrastruction in communities (bric) funding
I believe disaster preparedness, response, and recovery for all
incidents start and end at the local level and that the relationship is
critical between Federal, State, Tribal, and local emergency
management. Each jurisdiction maintains separate authorities and
capabilities but must work together by connecting and supporting one
another to effectively and timely save lives and protect property.
States are critical to successful preparation, response, and
recovery within our communities. To fully understand the critical
function of the State, I believe a State Emergency Management Director
must be included in the review process and on the President's FEMA
Review Council.
I believe we must use this reset opportunity to not necessarily to
look at how to adjust the current system, but we must look at it more
holistically. What do we want the emergency management system to look
like after the President's Review Council completes their work? This is
a generational opportunity for a rebuilt network with a refined focus
and efficiency.
I believe we can gain some efficiencies through this process. With
NO ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS, I believe we can build more State and
local capacity by adjusting the funding and redefining and streamlining
priorities. I believe Preparedness and Resilience are related
functions. The more deliberate focus and effort that goes into
preparedness is realized after an event with a more resilient
population and infrastructure.
As such, I believe we can place increased priority on State and
Local capacity using existing Building Resilient Infrastructure in
Communities (BRIC) funding. BRIC is a newer grant program that has not
realized its initial goals. By redesigning a small portion of this
funding to be made available to all States in order to develop their
capacity and the capacity of the local jurisdictions it would be a
highly efficient and effective way to serve our citizens who need
timely and helpful assistance on their worst days, not months or years
of red tape.
The Homeland Security grants serve to train and certify existing
local first responders, the same resources that Alabama deployed to
North Carolina for Hurricane Helene.
emergency management assistance compact (emac)
One important system that already exists for States is the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). I believe EMAC is a
viable proven framework and program to execute State-to-State mutual
aid. Increased capacity can be used by States within the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) system to cover requirements that
FEMA formerly tried to cover. Some examples are States supporting each
other with Emergency Operations Center (EOC) augmentations, National
Guard assets, swift water rescue teams, or urban search and rescue.
I believe Emergency Management is a team sport, sometimes you rely
on one aspect more than the other (State vs FEMA) like run vs pass in
football, but everyone still has a role. I think the key during this
critical review will be an important opportunity to clearly define the
role of local, State, Federal, Tribal, non-profit, and private-sector
partners and create a new dynamic emergency management that works for
everyone.
state support with programs
I believe there is a consensus on the lack of speed, consistency,
and clarity from FEMA and I know many in FEMA agree and welcome some
level of change.
I believe in an organization dialed in on its mission, the ``WHY''
it exists. The ``why'' should drive every action. As soon as it loses
its focus on ``why'' it begins to have issues with the ``how''. We have
witnessed some of these issues of the ``how''. The core mission needs
to go back to the basics such as ``blocking'' and ``tackling'' in
football. EM must stay focused always on the ``why'' and should ask how
this rule, regulation, policy, task, or process impacts the Disaster
Survivor or Impacted Community.
The States already build schools, parks, Government buildings etc.,
and I believe we can rebuild better, quicker, and more efficiently in a
system more like a block grant than the cumbersome system we currently
use that significantly hindered another State agency as evidenced by
the below example from Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(DCNR).
``FEMA has won. I am finished with this project submittal.
``As you may recall, on November 18, 2021, we were contacted by EMA
that y'all had set aside $1 million for the generator project at The
Lodge at Gulf State Park. I was, and am, very appreciative of your work
on this. However, after 3 years and responses to numerous RFIs and
constantly moving goal posts by FEMA, I feel we have wasted enough time
and money on this project.
``We were asked to provide a load analysis of the critical functions of
the Lodge. As you and FEMA can see by the detailed (and expensive)
analysis that was done, the panels are not separated by just lights, or
just AC or just outlets. Most panels are wired by zone or location that
contain all these type electrical outputs. You can't just power some
items and not others in a panel. That is not reasonable. Two panels
that are powered by the existing generator were excluded. We provided
more load detail than was asked for to be sure FEMA had all the
information.
``To be clear, I think this is a worthy project and would serve Coastal
Alabama well in a large storm event with very long power outages. The
Lodge was built to withstand damage from hurricanes and can be used as
a staging area for first responders, a lodging facility for insurance
adjustors, FEMA and EMA representatives and other personnel that are
critical after an event. To serve this function, nearly all of the
facility would need to be powered. However, this has gone on so long
with FEMA that the allotted $1 million will not be sufficient to
complete this project. The cost of generators, switches, and
construction have gone up substantially since we proposed this project.
I am not prepared to pay the cost difference between the 2021 prices we
estimated and the current costs. Also, the lead time on large
generators is now 18-24 months. That is two more hurricane seasons
without this capability. The multi-year delay on this project by FEMA
has doomed it to failure. I will never again apply for BRIC or Hazzard
Mitigation funds from FEMA. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
``Chris Blankenship, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources.''
The Public Assistance (PA) program is most suited for a block grant
system. PA provides eligible applicants funding to remove debris,
restore bridges, culverts, school buildings, Government buildings etc.
after a disaster. These costs are estimated quickly but the Federal
process to review gets so complicated and works against the best
interests of the community with delays that often last for years. The
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is even worse with unnecessary
complexity and layers of bureaucracy that delays projects like
community safe rooms for years at a time.
The Individual Assistance (IA) program provides direct financial
assistance to disaster survivors and would be more difficult to
decentralize and is probably still best run by FEMA but also needs an
aggressive review to improve efficiency. Including likely a totally new
software that supports rather than hinders the program.
conclusion
As I conclude, I want to again thank the committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today. Emergency Management is
critical, and the time is now to implement improvements that will
change the way we do business and ultimately better serve the citizens
of the United States.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Smitherman.
I now recognize Dr. Kaniewski for 5 minutes to summarize
his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL KANIEWSKI, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PUBLIC
SECTOR, MARSH McLENNAN
Mr. Kaniewski. Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy, my
name is Dan Kaniewski and I focus on the public sector at Marsh
McLennan. It's the world's leading professional services firm
in the areas of risk, strategy, and people. We're a U.S.
company with more than 90,000 colleagues world-wide, advising
public- and private-sector clients in 130 countries.
We have a deep understanding of disaster resilience and
recovery issues, having been engaged with risk management
insurance challenges since our founding more than 150 years
ago. We work with clients, including governments, individuals,
businesses, organizations, and communities, to analyze their
disaster risk exposures; help them implement solutions before,
during, and after an event; address and mitigate the financial
impact of natural disasters through insurance; and other risk
transfer tools.
Before joining Marsh McLennan, I had the pleasure of
serving in the first Trump administration as the second ranking
official at FEMA. I served alongside a dedicated FEMA work
force that managed a barrage of back-to-back disasters from
2017 to 2020. We embraced a locally-executed, State-managed,
and Federally-supported approach. We always operated in support
of the Governor. I believe then and continue to believe now
that FEMA should not be viewed simply as the Federal
Government's ATM reimbursing States for their costs, but
instead positioned as the Nation's risk manager.
My proudest achievement at FEMA was launching and leading
the Agency's Resilience Organization. The pre-disaster mission
of the Resilience Organization is comprised of 3 equally
important parts: preparedness, mitigation, and insurance. Much
of my expertise relates to resilience and we at Marsh McLennan
believe FEMA's mission of supporting State and local
governments before a disaster can be strengthened, making the
agent a trusted risk advisor, much in the way that we see
ourselves at Marsh McLennan.
FEMA is most often associated with disaster response
missions. Recent major disasters such as Hurricane Helene and
Milton and the L.A. wildfires demonstrate why. That is when the
spotlight is on FEMA. It's when what FEMA does matters most in
the moment. But I strongly believe that what FEMA does before a
disaster strikes is equally important.
Today's hearing presents an opportunity to engage in a
long-overdue conversation about potential reforms to FEMA and,
more broadly, appropriate levels of burden sharing between
Federal, State, and local governments and with the private
sector. I personally have seen FEMA reforms. I was the author
of the Bush White House Hurricane Katrina After-Action Report,
``The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned.''
And at FEMA in the first Trump administration we proposed to
Congress and then implemented provisions of the Disaster
Recovery Reform Act of 2018, including the Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, Grant Program.
The strategic plan we developed at FEMA in 2017 contained a
goal of closing the insurance gap. I now work in the property
and casualty insurance industry and continue to focus on that
goal. Just like FEMA, the insurance industry is at a
crossroads. Given the recent deluge of recent disasters, from
flooding to hurricanes to wildfires, there's a pressing need
for proactive measures to mitigate risks and safeguard the
well-being of our communities. Thus, resilience must be our
collective North Star whereby we reduce the physical and
financial impacts of disasters and transfer these risks off the
backs of disaster survivors and the Federal balance sheet. But
to do so, we must be prepared to match the magnitude of risks
we face with the magnitude of effort required to manage them.
FEMA, through its various grant programs both
disincentivizes and incentivizes resilience investments by
State and local governments. The FEMA Public Assistance Program
largely disincentivizes resilience because it amounts to a de
facto insurance policy for State and local governments. In
contrast, FEMA's pre-disaster programs, such as BRIC hazard
mitigation programs, encourage resilience by providing the
funding that saves taxpayer dollars and reduces disaster
suffering.
The private sector can also incentivize resilience,
particularly in the areas of finance, insurance, and real
estate. These sectors should view themselves as co-
beneficiaries of resilience investments and, therefore, should
find ways to encourage individuals, businesses, and governments
to make these investments.
Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to share
how FEMA, together with its State and local emergency
management partners and the private sector, can together make
the Nation more resilient.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaniewski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Kaniewski
tuesday, march 4, 2025
Marsh McLennan is the world's leading professional services firm in
the areas of risk, strategy, and people. Our more than 90,000
colleagues advise clients in 130 countries. We help corporate and
public-sector clients navigate an increasingly dynamic environment and
address the most complex challenges of our time through 4 market-
leading businesses--Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer, and Oliver Wyman.
We have a deep understanding of disaster resilience and recovery
issues, having been engaged with risk management and insurance
challenges since our founding more than 150 years ago. We work with
clients--including individuals, businesses, organizations, governments,
and communities--to analyze their disaster risk exposures, help them
implement solutions before, during, and after an event, and address and
mitigate the financial impact of natural disasters through insurance
and other risk transfer tools.
executive summary
The Nation needs to have a clear vision--across all levels of
government--that balances how best to prepare for and respond to
disasters and foster resilience. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has long been a vital part of that vision.
Resilience
There is an opportunity now to underscore FEMA's mission of
supporting State and local governments before a disaster--as a
risk advisor, steward of a culture of resilience, and a funder
of high-impact community projects.
With the on-going increase in the frequency and severity of
natural disasters, proactive measures are needed to mitigate
risks and safeguard the well-being of communities.
Risk reduction and risk transfer should be the cornerstone
of a resilience-focused approach.
Many States have developed innovative disaster resilience
programs that support a national resilience strategy.
FEMA programs cut both ways
FEMA's pre-disaster programs--such as the Homeland Security
Grant Program (HSGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC), and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)--
incentivize resilience.
Others, such as some aspects of the FEMA Public Assistance
grant program, create disincentives.
FEMA should work to correct the belief among some people
that they do not need to be financially prepared before
disasters because, they wrongly think, the agency will make
them whole.
The agency should also encourage individuals to prioritize
risk-reduction measures.
NFIP and private flood insurance
Flooding remains the most common peril, involved in 90
percent of natural disasters in the United States.
Insurance, including through the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), is a critical aspect of a flood resilience
strategy. However, there is a growing gap in funding flood
losses through insurance, which results in many individuals,
businesses, and communities not having the financial resources
to recover following a flood.
Reasons for low coverage rates include affordability
constraints, limited risk awareness, poor understanding of
insurance, and behavioral biases in decision making. The
continuing flood resilience gap in the United States means that
many individuals, businesses, and communities lack the
financial resources to effectively recover following a flood or
other disaster.
The public and private flood insurance markets could be
improved through strengthening and protecting the NFIP, growing
the private flood insurance market, addressing gaps in
coverage, embracing innovations such as parametric insurance,
and more.
At the same time, local building and zoning laws can go a
long way to creating more resilient communities.
Innovative programs
Programs such as community-based catastrophe insurance
(CBCI) can help enhance financial resilience, provide
affordable coverage, and incentivize risk reduction.
Public-private collaboration will also be essential for
developing solutions and incentivizing resilience to address
the increasing impacts of natural disasters.
introduction
On January 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive
Order (EO) establishing the Council to Assess the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. The EO and associated Council present an opportunity
to have needed conversations about potential FEMA reforms and, more
broadly, appropriate levels of burden-sharing between Federal, State,
and local governments, as well as the private sector.
As stated in the New York Times:
A growing number of Federal emergency managers say FEMA is
overextended. ``The real question is how those burdens should be shared
at all levels of government,'' said Daniel Kaniewski, the second-
highest ranking official at FEMA during Mr. Trump's first
administration and now a managing director at Marsh McLennan, a
consulting firm.
The past 4 administrators of FEMA--2 appointed by Democrats, and 2
appointed by Mr. Trump--have made versions of that argument, calling
for States to do more. But States generally want more help, not less.
The Stafford Act of 1988, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 are the principal statutes
that form the basis of FEMA's mission. Adding in a patchwork of
regulations, policies, and guidance, you can see the challenges facing
recipients of FEMA assistance and FEMA itself.
Numerous potential FEMA reforms have been proposed over the years
by stakeholders, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and
various think tanks. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Maria, policy
makers adopted reforms, such as the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 2006 and the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018.
It's important to underscore that FEMA is not a first responder.
State and local emergency managers are on the front lines of disasters.
Consistent with the Stafford Act, FEMA provides supplemental assistance
when requested by a Governor and approved by the President.
FEMA provides both a coordinating function among Federal agencies
and a funding mechanism through its Disaster Relief Fund. The goal of
the agency is to support State and local governments and disaster
survivors in their time of need.
While recent commentary has largely focused on FEMA's disaster
response and recovery mission, this hearing and the President's EO
provide an opportunity to consider the agency's equally important
mission of helping State and local governments before a disaster
strikes. The agency refers to this pre-disaster mission as
``resilience,'' with FEMA Resilience housing its pre-disaster programs.
Marsh McLennan operates at the nexus of risk management and risk
transfer, and is thus directly aligned with FEMA's resilience mission.
Insurance plays a strong role in both signaling and mitigating risk,
and as such can help inform State and local officials' risk-based
decisions.
Insurance pricing is driven by the level of risk--for today's
discussion, the frequency and severity of disasters. For example, some
are questioning insurance pricing and whether Southern California
communities remain insurable against wildfires. But the real question
is whether we are prepared to match the magnitude of risks we face with
the magnitude of effort required to manage them.
By reducing the physical and financial impacts of disasters, we can
transfer risks off the backs of disaster survivors--and the Federal
balance sheet. To do so we must align on resilience as our collective
North Star.
resilience
Without a long-term commitment to resilience, society faces a
never-ending risk crisis. We must break the cycle of destruction and
instead build stronger and more resilient structures and communities.
FEMA defines resilience as ``the ability to prepare for threats and
hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover
rapidly from disruptions.'' More practically, resilience at FEMA can be
thought of as 3 equally important elements: preparedness, mitigation,
and insurance. Each is a core component of the FEMA Resilience
organization and, more generally, any emergency management resilience
strategy, with each component complementary to the other. For example,
investing in hazard mitigation can make insurance more available or
affordable to a community.
In an era of escalating risks and evolving challenges, the
insurance industry--like FEMA--is at a crossroads. As we witness the
increasing frequency and severity of natural hazards such as flooding
and wildfires, there is a pressing need for proactive measures to
mitigate risks and safeguard the well-being of communities. Embracing
the transformative power of risk reduction in the built environment is
not just a strategy for sustainable development; it is a vital step
toward reducing Federal taxpayer impacts and fortifying insurance
markets against the uncertainties of our changing world.
Resilient reconstruction--rebuilding in a way that reduces future
disaster impacts--also has a role to play. To rebuild following a
disaster using the same guidelines and methods as before would be
shortsighted. For example, California and Los Angeles officials are now
considering how best to reconstruct the homes, businesses, and, in many
cases, entire neighborhoods that were destroyed this year by wildfire.
Incorporating fire-resistant building materials and adopting and
enforcing wildland-urban interface (WUI) building codes would make LA
more resilient to future wildfires. These actions would also encourage
insurers to provide coverage.
By collectively prioritizing resilience, we have an opportunity to
not only reduce the frequency and severity of losses, but also to
foster a more resilient and insurable built environment.
fema incentives and disincentives
FEMA, through its various grant programs, both incentivizes and
disincentivizes resilience investments by State and local governments.
FEMA programs that incentivize resilience
FEMA's pre-disaster programs aimed at incentivizing resilience
include preparedness and hazard mitigation grants. The Homeland
Security Grant Program (HSGP) is one example of a preparedness grant
program, described as ``a suite of risk-based grants to assist State,
local, Tribal, and territorial efforts in preventing, protecting
against, mitigating, responding to, and recovering from acts of
terrorism and other threats.''
Other examples of grants that incentivize resilience include FEMA's
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Flood
Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grant programs. BRIC was created through
the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 with the aim of reducing
disaster losses; both programs provide funding for communities to
reduce risks and build resilience.
FEMA's hazard mitigation grant programs have a demonstrable benefit
to society. The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) study
Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves found that every $1 invested in
disaster mitigation saves $6 in future disaster-related costs.
A 2024 report--The Preparedness Payoff--by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and AllState built on the NIBS findings and found that for
every $1 invested in hazard mitigation, there is a return of $13 in
reduced losses and economic savings.
Following a disaster, FEMA incentivizes resilient reconstruction
through its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which provides
post-disaster hazard mitigation funding based on estimated total
Federal assistance provided following a Presidentially-declared
disaster. This can be up to 15 percent (or 20 percent with a FEMA-
designated enhanced State mitigation plan), which can be spent on
allowable hazard mitigation activities.
And most importantly, mitigation measures not only save money--they
save lives. More resilient homes, businesses, and infrastructure means
individuals, employees, and families will be safe when disaster
strikes.
FEMA programs that disincentivize resilience
There are also FEMA grants that can be seen as disincentivizing
State and local governments from investing in resilience. These are the
post-disaster Public Assistance (PA) grants, particularly those focused
on so-called ``permanent work.'' By providing a minimum reimbursement
of 75 percent of disaster losses related to government infrastructure
and buildings, the Federal Government provides de facto no-cost
insurance to public entities. It does so without regard to any efforts
made by these governments to reduce their risks.
Under the current approach, the Federal Government agrees to
reimburse a State receiving a disaster declaration at a minimum of 75
percent of all costs, without regard to risk. No private insurance
underwriter would agree to such terms. This creates a potential moral
hazard, whereby the Federal Government shifts the costs of disaster
risk from their communities to the Federal taxpayer.
The most glaring of the various categories of Public Assistance is
the so-called ``Category E--Public Buildings and contents.'' In the 20
years from 1999 to 2019, FEMA provided $19 billion to States to
reimburse them for their losses to public buildings and contents. At 22
percent of the total amount obligated during this period, it represents
the largest share of any permanent work category.
FEMA and other stakeholders have long recognized both the burden
such a program places on FEMA and Federal taxpayers and how it
discourages State and local governments from investing in resilience.
Consider this example from 25 years ago, described in a RAND study on
the FEMA PA program:
``In 2000, FEMA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in
the Federal Register outlining potential reforms to the PA program. In
the notice, FEMA argued that, by paying for facility repair costs
regardless of whether the facility had insurance, the PA program
creates a disincentive for the owner to obtain insurance before a
disaster occurs. OIG echoed these concerns several years later,
stating, ``[T]he PA program pays for building repair costs following a
first disaster. This effectively eliminates any incentive to purchase
insurance before a disaster occurs.''
In 2016, FEMA proposed a ``disaster deductible'' concept, which
would have required a predetermined level of financial or other
commitment from a State before providing PA funding.
``FEMA believes the deductible model would incentivize Recipients to
make meaningful improvements in disaster planning, fiscal capacity for
disaster response and recovery, and risk mitigation while contributing
to more effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For example,
Recipients could potentially receive credit toward their deductible
requirement through proactive pre-event actions such as adopting
enhanced building codes, establishing and maintaining a disaster relief
fund or self-insurance plan, or adopting other measures that reduce the
Recipient's risk from disaster events. The deductible model would
increase stakeholder investment and participation in disaster recovery
and building for future risk, thereby strengthening our nation's
resilience to disaster events and reducing the cost of disasters in the
long term.''
More recently, in the first Trump administration, the President's
fiscal year 2021 budget request included the following language (page
112):
``FEMA's current program is a no-limit, no-premium insurance policy for
State and local governments, which disincentivizes self-protection and
burdens taxpayers with the risky decisions made by State and local
governments. Eliminating this assistance will encourage State and local
governments to more responsibly manage their risk, including better
land management and planning, purchasing insurance, and/or investing in
mitigation.''
Despite the attention brought to Category E expenses over the past
25 years, no actions were taken.
Local governments own over 3 million buildings. Having the Federal
taxpayer pay for damage to these insurable structures represents a
missed opportunity to transfer risk off the Federal balance sheet and
onto the private insurance markets. Thus, FEMA should consider
eliminating eligibility for Category E projects.
Moreover, with the development of innovative risk transfer
solutions, such as parametric insurance (described below), public
infrastructure once thought to be uninsurable could be covered by the
private insurance markets. This means that FEMA could consider
limiting, over time, other categories of PA beyond Category E as
governments and the insurance industry adjust to a new reality of
public-private burden sharing.
FEMA assistance to individuals vs homeowners/renters insurance
Up to this point, we have focused on programs that provide funding
to governments. But FEMA also provides funding to those impacted by
disasters. The FEMA Individual and Households Program (IA) provides
assistance to disaster survivors following a Presidential declaration.
FEMA IA provides a safety net, nothing more, nothing less. Those with
insurance will recover more quickly and more fully than those who rely
solely on FEMA assistance.
Insurance is a financial shock absorber for disasters. By
purchasing homeowners or renters insurance, individuals are protecting
themselves and their families against the financial trauma they would
otherwise face in the wake of a disaster. This includes not only
repairing or replacing your home and personal belongings, but also
temporary housing and additional living expenses while you are
displaced from your home. According to a recent study, those with
property insurance were 82 percent less likely to have significant
financial burdens after a hurricane than those without.
FEMA should do its best to correct a belief among many Americans
that they do not need insurance because the agency will make them
whole.
The process of buying insurance also forces homeowners (as well as
business owners and governments) to understand their risks, and the
price of these risks. Homeowners can consult home disaster guides
produced by the industry-funded nonprofit Insurance Institute for
Business & Home Safety to learn more about steps they can take to
address these risks. Insurance agents and brokers can also help advise
homeowners how best to mitigate these risks and potentially lower their
premiums.
Similarly, FEMA should encourage homeowners in disaster-prone areas
to invest in hazard mitigation measures, such as retrofitting a home in
a seismically active area or elevating a home in a flood zone. Some of
these actions are relatively easy and affordable, such as reducing the
risk of wildfire losses by removing brush around a home. Taking these
steps can save lives, reduce financial losses, and even reduce
insurance premiums. For more on this topic, see: Americans lack savings
for unrelenting disasters.
FEMA can incentivize individuals to take these actions by
encouraging grant recipients (primarily States) to focus on community-
based programs. States on their own can also incentivize these actions
through grant programs to homeowners.
how fema can further incentivize resilience
As discussed earlier, FEMA preparedness and hazard mitigation
grants incentivize resilience, while post-disaster Public Assistance
grants generally disincentive governments from investing in resilience.
One exception to this rule of thumb is the Public Assistance incentive
authority granted to FEMA in the 2018 Balanced Budget Act.
FEMA Public Assistance Incentive Policy
The Public Assistance Incentive authority amends Section 406(b) of
the Stafford Act to increase the Federal cost share of its PA programs
for communities that take proactive steps to reduce hazards. The
resilience measures identified in the statute--mitigation plans,
insurance, emergency management programs, building codes, risk ratings,
State/local mitigation funding, and tax incentives--aim to reduce
financial losses and human suffering while getting communities up and
running quickly after a disaster. By raising the Federal cost share for
FEMA PA on a sliding scale from 75 percent to 85 percent, a community
that takes proactive steps could receive millions of dollars more in
post-disaster funding.
At the tail end of the last administration, FEMA issued an interim
Public Assistance Mitigation Cost Share Incentives Policy. However, as
noted in a letter from BuildStrong America, signed by our firm and such
organizations as the National Institute of Building Sciences and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
While the law aimed to incentivize proactive State investments in
risk reduction, the interim policy falls short of meeting Congressional
intent, missing critical opportunities to operationalize key measures
of the law.
Instead of encouraging proactive State and local investments in
disaster resilience, the interim policy spends additional taxpayer
funds on post-disaster activities. Rather than encouraging pre-disaster
mitigation, it focuses on post-disaster grant compliance. It disregards
effective State-led resilience programs, neglects critical
infrastructure, ignores the role of insurance, and fails to acknowledge
the tools emergency managers could employ to build resilience.
We encourage FEMA to revise the interim policy to foster a
proactive approach to resilience. The policy should empower States,
recognize successful programs, and prioritize essential mitigation
measures to safeguard our communities from future disaster risks.
Insurance roadblocks
Insurance is just as critical to achieving resilience as are
preparedness and mitigation, yet applicants may not purchase insurance
under existing FEMA grant programs. This poses a challenge for State
and local officials who wish to reduce the financial risks to their
communities. It also stands in contrast to other resilience measures
which are eligible under FEMA grants programs. Thus, a community that
has already taken other resilience actions is not eligible to protect
their (and, in the case of those actions funded by Federal grants, the
Federal taxpayers') investment.
Further, the PA program creates additional challenges. Without
insurance, a community struck by a disaster will be eligible for
Federal assistance following a Presidential disaster declaration. Those
with insurance will not. This creates a disincentive for governments to
use insurance to protect themselves and their communities from the
financial impacts of disasters, resulting in a potential moral hazard
underwritten by the Federal taxpayer.
New challenges
With recent reported staff cuts at FEMA, the agency is being asked
to do more with less and may need to triage where it spends its limited
resources. Historically, when its funding runs low or the agency is
stretched thin due to current disasters, FEMA prioritizes the immediate
needs of disaster survivors. Whether due to staff shortages or other
resource constraints, this could mean a shift away from resilience
activities, which could have significant long-term implications for
communities at risk of disasters.
Such a disruption could mean a larger role for State and local
governments, and the insurance industry. The conversation about burden-
sharing among Federal, State, and local governments will become more
acute. Even if programs continue to exist, staff shortages could mean
delays in the delivery of assistance. Such delays could be financially
untenable for State and local governments with cash-flow needs, making
insurance more necessary for State and local governments.
Thus, the insurance industry should be prepared to support State
and local officials as they consider alternative funding arrangements,
including budgeting for disasters with ``rainy day funds'' and placing
insurance to reduce budget impacts.
nfip and the private flood insurance market
While FEMA takes an all-hazards approach, flooding remains a
persistent peril, with 90 percent of natural disasters in the United
States involving floods. Flooding disproportionately affects lower-
income communities, which are more vulnerable and more exposed to
flooding. One way to help bridge the divide is by increasing
participation in flood insurance. Studies have shown that individuals
and communities with flood insurance recover better and faster than
those without.
It's important to keep in mind that insurance is but one piece of a
flood resilience strategy, along with investment in risk reduction
measures, enhanced access to flood risk data, and smarter land use
planning. But, while insurance is a critical part of recovery from
natural disasters, many households and businesses simply do not have
adequate coverage for repairs and rebuilding.
In fact, as stated in a recent report from Marsh McLennan's Torrent
Technologies: ``There is a persistent and growing gap in funding flood
losses through insurance. Closing this gap is essential for
accelerating recovery, alleviating suffering, and enhancing flood
resilience.''
The reasons for low coverage rates vary and include affordability
constraints, limited risk awareness, poor understanding of insurance,
and behavioral biases in decision making. The continuing flood
resilience gap in the United States means that many individuals,
businesses, and communities do not have the financial resources to
effectively recover following a flood or other disaster.
We believe there are several ways to improve the public and private
flood insurance markets, including:
Strengthen the NFIP.--With current debt of more than $22 billion
and hundreds of millions of dollars in interest payable annually, the
NFIP needs reform and long-term reauthorization to become a sustainable
source of flood insurance. A sound financial framework for the NFIP
authorized by Congress would help reinforce the program.
A key part of FEMA's sound financial framework is its new pricing
methodology, Risk Rating 2.0. The rating program is intended to make
NFIP premiums more actuarially sound to better reflect the underlying
flood risk and recognize loss mitigation efforts. To address
affordability concerns associated with the new risk-adjusted rates,
Congress could consider authorizing targeted assistance, such as a
means-tested assistance program.
Protect the NFIP with reinsurance solutions.--Guy Carpenter, a
business of Marsh McLennan, is FEMA's broker, securing reinsurance for
the NFIP. Reinsurance is backed by professional reinsurers and capital
market investors; these programs help to supplement the financial
resources of the NFIP following significant flooding events, while at
the same time protecting the NFIP and taxpayers by transferring risk.
For example, Hurricane Harvey triggered a full reinsurance payout,
saving taxpayers over $850 million.
Grow the private flood market.--FEMA has proposed a package of NFIP
reforms in which the agency recognizes the role of a private flood
insurance market in supplementing and supporting the government-backed
program. As flood risks increase, so too has the need for the private
flood insurance market, which is expected to keep growing.
At the same time, advances in risk assessment and data analytics
are making the flood peril increasingly predictable and revealing that
many properties--especially those outside FEMA flood zones--are at
greater risk than previously understood.
Private flood insurance can offer options that make purchasing
flood coverage easier and more attractive. Each property that obtains
flood coverage in the private market is a risk the NFIP and U.S.
taxpayers do not have to bear. The private market offers the
possibility for innovation and products to further close the flood
insurance gap.
Address gaps in NFIP coverage.--The NFIP has gaps in coverage for
residential and commercial properties. For residential properties,
additional living expenses (funds to pay living expenses while the
flooded property is repaired) are not included in NFIP policies. For
commercial properties, business interruption is not covered by NFIP. As
we have seen in previous flood events, those homeowners and businesses
without these types of coverage struggled to recover. Of note, private
flood policies often do cover these expenses for homeowners and
businesses.
Embrace innovations such as parametric insurance.--To attract new
stakeholders, the flood insurance market and its regulators must
embrace innovative alternatives that complement the NFIP. One option
that has gained increasing traction in recent years is parametric
insurance, which deploys a measurable index with predefined triggers
for payout.
Unlike most forms of traditional property insurance, pricing is
based primarily on the probability of the loss indexed being triggered,
rather than by the specific risk of damage suffered by the benefit's
recipients. Parametric solutions offer a more expedited contract
payout, typically getting funds into the hands of those who have
suffered a loss in a matter of days, which can accelerate recovery.
This is particularly important when it comes to floods, as a delay in
restoration can result in the proliferation of mold, which over time
contributes to health problems.
Promote excess flood coverage to complement the NFIP.--While the
NFIP remains a valuable source of flood insurance, its coverage limits
are insufficient for many higher-value properties with flood exposure.
Such properties need excess coverage to supplement NFIP protection. For
example, in the third quarter of 2023, the median price of homes sold
in the United States was $431,000, according to Federal Reserve data;
this substantially exceeds the NFIP dwelling limit of $250,000.
Leverage existing NFIP incentive programs such as the Community
Rating System (CRS).--CRS is a voluntary incentive program that
recognizes and encourages community floodplain management practices
that exceed the NFIP's minimum requirements. Over 1,500 communities
participate nationwide.
In CRS communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to
reflect the reduced flood risk that results from community efforts to
address the program's three goals:
1. Reduce and avoid flood damage to insurable property.
2. Strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP.
3. Foster comprehensive floodplain management.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Roseville, California, are the only 2
communities to have achieved the highest rating of Class 1. NFIP policy
holders in these cities receive the CRS program maximum discount of 45
percent. Both communities made concerted efforts to invest in flood
resilience following catastrophic flooding events.
See also: As Floods Become Bigger and More Common, Risks from
Insurance Gaps Also Grow.
innovative state and local resilience programs
As FEMA has put in place resilience programs, States too have
launched programs that build resilience.
While Federal resilience grants often receive the most attention,
several States are allocating State budgets and leveraging other
funding sources to build resilience programs. For example, South
Carolina's Strategic Statewide Resilience and Risk Reduction Plan is
notable because it's not simply a plan; the State provided $200 million
to fund identified project priorities, largely focused on flood
resilience.
Other States offer resilience grant programs directed to
homeowners. Many of these programs are in the southeastern United
States and focus on home retrofits for wind events, such as hurricanes
and tornadoes.
Alabama.--The Strengthen Alabama Homes program provides grants for
homeowners to fund wind mitigation measures for single-family homes.
The grants pay 100 percent of mitigation costs up to $10,000 to meet
the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS)
FORTIFIEDTM standard, designed to reduce wind and wind-
driven water impacts caused by hurricanes. Funding for this program is
provided by the insurance industry, rather than the Government (which
administers the program).
Given the program has been providing homeowners grants for a
decade, researchers from the University of Alabama, Auburn University,
and the University of Mississippi sought to determine the benefits of
the program, and of hazard mitigation investments more broadly. Their
landmark study empirically demonstrated the value of hazard mitigation
investments, providing strong incentives for homeowners to invest in
hazard mitigation:
Lower insurance premiums.--Fortified homes have 16 percent
to 40 percent lower property insurance premiums.
Higher resale value.--Fortified homes sell for 6 percent to
7 percent more than other homes.
This is not a Federal program, but a standard promulgated by a non-
profit organization (IBHS) together with a State statute linked to
insurance premiums and real estate market dynamics. The study's
findings demonstrate that a homeowner can be incentivized to invest in
hazard mitigation even in the absence of Federal funding.
Florida.--My Safe Florida Home Program aims at strengthening homes
against hurricanes. Owners of single-family homes and townhouses may
apply for a free home hurricane inspection. If recommended by the
inspection, homeowners become eligible to apply for financial
assistance for improvements to roofs, doors, and windows. It is a
matching program--for every $1 invested by the homeowner the State will
provide $2 toward the project, equivalent to two-thirds of the project
cost, up to $10,000. The program also waives State sales tax (6
percent) on the retail purchases of impact-resistant doors, garage
doors, and windows. The Florida legislature provided over $176 million
for the program.
South Carolina.--The South Carolina Safe Home program, administered
by the South Carolina Department of Insurance, provides matching and
non-matching grant funds to help coastal property owners retrofit their
homes to make them more resistant to hurricanes and high winds. The
funds provided by the program are for the sole purpose of retrofitting
owner-occupied, single-family homes.
Louisiana.--Louisiana officials launched a $30 million hazard
mitigation grant program for residential and commercial buildings,
modeled on the above-mentioned Alabama program. The grants will provide
up to $10,000 to retrofit roofs to a Fortified home standard, thereby
making Louisiana homes and businesses more resilient to hurricanes.
Unlike the Alabama program, which is funded by the insurance industry,
the Louisiana program is State-funded. Similar to what researchers
found in Alabama, Louisiana residents who retrofit or build their homes
to the Fortified standard could save 20 percent to over 50 percent on
the wind portion of their homeowner's insurance.
Building codes and zoning laws
Local officials have significant influence over the resilience of
their communities because they can determine how and where residential
and commercial structures are sited and built. This is best
demonstrated through zoning and building code ordinances. By requiring
that structures be situated outside disaster-prone areas and built to a
resilient standard, local officials can reduce disaster impacts to
their communities. NIBS has determined that adopting a disaster-
resistant model building code results in a savings of $11 for every $1
spent to adopt and enforce the code.
In the decades since Hurricane Andrew struck southern Florida in
1992, the State has developed some of the country's strongest building
codes, which are credited with significantly reducing the damage from
hurricanes. Among other things, Florida's building codes require new
construction to withstand high winds, floodwaters, and other storm-
related stresses. This has helped protect homes and reduced the overall
impact hurricanes have on communities, avoiding more than $1 billion in
average insured losses for Florida alone.
community-based catastrophe insurance
An innovative approach to boost financial protection for
communities that Marsh McLennan is involved in is known as community-
based catastrophe insurance (CBCI). Essentially, CBCI provides disaster
insurance arranged by a local government, quasi-governmental body, or
community group to cover a group of properties.
The benefits of CBCI fall into 3 main areas: enhancing financial
resilience, providing affordable coverage, and creating incentives for
risk reduction at the community and individual levels (see Figure 1).
This type of program is flexible and can be created to cover a
single hazard or a range of natural disasters for a given community,
including floods, wildfires, earthquakes, and others. Such broad
applications can further incentivize a community's risk management
efforts--risk reduction, risk communication, and risk transfer--across
multiple perils.
One benefit of community-based catastrophe insurance is the
flexibility it allows in defining ``community,'' which can be an agency
or municipal government, a neighborhood association, a business
improvement district, or any number of entities. The primary
requirement is that the involved community has the authority to secure
or facilitate insurance coverage on behalf of multiple properties.
Within broad parameters, CBCI has much flexibility in its structure
and design, with varying degrees of community responsibilities possible
(see Figure 2). These range from a facilitator model, where the
community members contract with insurers, to a captive insurer, in
which the community establishes and operates its own risk-bearing
entity.
To facilitate these types of transactions, it would be helpful for
FEMA to allow eligibility for grant funding for CBCI, and to clarify
whether the proceeds from a parametric insurance policy (specifically
tailored to cover losses not eligible under the Public Assistance
program) can count toward the State's Public Assistance matching
requirement.
A CBCI pilot program: Boosting financial resilience in NYC
neighborhoods
Marsh McLennan is currently involved with a project in New York
City, which is the Nation's first CBCI. The project's goal is to
increase the financial resilience of low- and moderate-income
households to flood risk. These communities are increasingly vulnerable
to flooding and are, in many instances, under-insured or uninsured.
Guy Carpenter, a business of Marsh McLennan, is working with the
city of New York; the non-profits Center for NYC Neighborhoods (CNYCN),
Environmental Defense Fund, and SBP; reinsurer Swiss Re; and insurtechs
ICEYE and Raincoat to pilot the program in designated neighborhoods.
The program, which was recently renewed for a second year, is built
on a parametric model, described earlier. Once a qualified event
triggers a payment, homeowners can apply for assistance. Qualified
applicants can then quickly receive a grant up to $15,000 from CNYCN
following a qualified flood event.
The payments will support residents and their broader communities
in getting back to normal faster. We are proud to have helped kickstart
this innovative program and hope it will help other communities to
establish their own CBCI program. Federal grant funding could be a
catalyst here.
public-private partnerships
What the insurance industry can do
Public-private collaboration involving policy makers is essential
for developing sustainable solutions.
Relationships matter in insurance. For example, insurance agents
often have strong connections with homeowners and businesses in their
communities. We believe that agents and brokers talking with clients
about their exposure and ways they can manage the risk and build
resilience is a good way for them to demonstrate their value and
enhance those relationships. Likewise, insurers and reinsurers should
see how resilience actions by their insureds not only reduce risks to
an individual home or business, but also to the (re)insurer's
portfolio.
The insurance industry and FEMA should work with national
stakeholder organizations that advocate and educate on the importance
of resilience as a force multiplier at the State and local levels. For
example, BuildStrong America has advocated for increased investments in
resilience on the Federal and State level for over a decade. Joining
forces with firefighters, emergency responders, insurers, engineers,
architects, contractors, manufacturers, consumer organizations, code
specialists, and many others committed to resilience, BuildStrong
successfully pushed for the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. The
Act created FEMA's BRIC program, as well as additional measures to
enhance BRIC through proposals like the Resilient AMERICA Act, which
would create a set-aside for building code adoption and enforcement and
another set-aside for residential retrofits.
The Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH) is the leading consumer
advocate for strengthening homes and safeguarding families from natural
and manmade disasters. Through programs like Inspect2Protect--which
helps local communities and individuals to understand the building code
where they live--and The Homeowner's Guide to Insurance, FLASH designs
and develops effective and easy-to-use tools and techniques to foster
mitigation behavior change.
The insurance industry and other stakeholders should work with FEMA
and consensus-based model code-developing organizations, such as the
International Code Council (ICC), to encourage additional hazard
mitigation opportunities and investments for communities and
individuals. For example, FEMA and the insurance industry could
encourage modern code adoption and enforcement requirements following a
major disaster. Currently, only repair and reconstruction of public
facilities is required to be done to the latest editions of model
codes.
How the private sector can incentivize resilience
In addition to FEMA's preparedness and hazard mitigation grants,
the finance, insurance, and real estate industries can also incentivize
resilience investments. The National Institute of Building Sciences
(NIBS) developed a road map for resilience incentives, specifically
focused on residential buildings subject to flood. NIBS identified
``co-beneficiaries'' of mitigation investments and highlighted how
these co-beneficiaries can help pay for such investments (see Figures 4
and 5).
Engaging co-beneficiaries is not without its challenges, as the
NIBS report highlights:
1. Mitigation saves, but it doesn't do so in proportion to
individual stakeholder investments.--Investment in disaster
resilience makes financial sense for society--but for
individual stakeholders the cost can seem to exceed the
benefits.
For example, the $5,000 it might cost to retrofit an existing house
benefits the current owner, future owners, insurers (by
limiting the risk of flood-related claims, assuming the
property is insured against flood), financial institutions
holding the property owner's mortgage, and so forth. The
retrofit saves society more than it costs in places with at
least a 1-in-100 chance of basement flooding per year. It saves
up to 13 times the cost in the highest hazard locations.
But, to the homeowner paying the entire cost, the investment can
seem hard to justify. (Building for flood resilience at the
time of initial construction is less expensive and more cost-
effective, and it makes sense even when flooding occurs less
frequently.)
2. Co-beneficiaries can share the cost of such investments--but
they face similar challenges to those of the property owner.--
In the $5,000 basement-flood retrofit example, mortgage holders
and governments would save in the long run by offering a total
of $3,300 in incentives anywhere with at least a 1-in-100
chance of basement flooding per year. Homeowners would end up
paying only $1,700 and saving more than they pay in both
moderate- as well as high-hazard locations. Why don't co-
beneficiaries provide these incentives? Because stakeholders'
interests are intertwined, but not aligned.
3. Public-private coordination is essential.--Co-beneficiaries are
interested in aligning incentives, though it would require
engagement from governments and industry stakeholders.
Engaging industry and government stakeholders to align resilience
incentives is essential, just as we raised with the financial services
sector at a U.S. Department of the Treasury roundtable following
Hurricanes Helene and Milton.
a comprehensive resilience strategy
Federal, State, and local officials need a clear vision that moves
beyond unsustainable paradigms of protection and strikes a balance
between addressing crises and fostering resilience. Insurance and risk
transfer certainly have an important role to play, but must be combined
with a broader, coordinated resilience strategy.
Ideally, insurance would be paired with risk reduction measures
such as hazard mitigation, building codes adoption, enforcement,
retrofits, and community resilience planning. While a few States (such
as those mentioned earlier) have their own resilience grant programs,
the preponderance of resilience grant funding is provided by the
Federal Government, principally FEMA (such as through the BRIC and FMA
programs).
Pairing these Federal and/or State grants with risk transfer
solutions can be a force multiplier. We believe that CBCI projects,
like the NYC pilot, demonstrate the value of risk reduction measures
alongside the benefits of risk transfer. We would like to see FEMA
encourage more such innovation and experimentation.
That said, CBCI and other private risk transfer programs could be
more successful if disincentives present in existing statutes and
regulations are addressed. For example, the Stafford Act contains
disincentives for homeowners and governments from purchasing insurance
because FEMA's recovery programs provide funding to uninsured
individuals and State and local governments after a disaster.
As such, many individuals wrongly believe they will be made whole
by FEMA assistance following a major disaster. Meanwhile, governments
are not inclined to insure their buildings and infrastructure because
they will receive funding that covers most of their losses if the
President declares a disaster. Mitigation investment will fall short of
desired outcomes without corresponding risk transfer strategies.
conclusion
Given the scale and complexity of the challenges presented by
disaster risk, we believe that FEMA plays a vital role in preparing
for, responding to, and mitigating disasters. As with any long-standing
organization, it is good to revisit its mission, tools, and impact at
times, and we are glad to have been asked to participate in this
hearing.
While the effects of disasters are felt most acutely in the States
and communities where they occur, their ripple effects extend more
broadly to human, economic, and social costs such as supply chain
disruptions, infrastructure failure, and hardship to the economy. Over
time, FEMA has had a positive influence in helping to mitigate and
manage the risks.
Today, conventional strategies and policies are insufficient to
address the rapidly-changing risk levels, and it appears we are at a
time in which market forces are helping to drive decision making toward
the social good promoted by resilience.
The Federal Government's unqualified financial support of the
Nation's spiraling disaster recovery costs is unsustainable. FEMA and
emergency management agencies at all levels of government need to
embrace a proactive approach that prioritizes preparedness, hazard
mitigation, and insurance. In short, disaster resilience. But
governments alone cannot solve this challenge.
Achieving resilience will require partnerships between governments
and private industry. Together, the public and private sectors can
incentivize individuals and governments to reduce disaster impacts and
build resilience in their homes, and their communities.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Dr. Kaniewski.
I now recognize Ms. Speranza, there we go, for 5 minutes to
summarize her opening statements.
STATEMENT OF CARRIE SPERANZA, CERTIFIED EMERGENCY MANAGER,
PRESIDENT, U.S. COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGERS
Ms. Speranza. Good morning, Chairman Strong, Ranking Member
Kennedy, and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Carrie
Speranza and I'm appearing before you today as president of the
U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency
Managers, an organization representing emergency management
practitioners world-wide, with over 5,000 U.S. members.
Members of the subcommittee, your local, State, Tribal, and
territorial emergency management agencies ensure your
communities are prepared to respond to and recover from
emergencies and disasters. We create and manage systems that
save lives, minimize damage to property and infrastructure,
mitigate future risks, and help restore communities after a
disaster. We are grateful to be a part of today's conversation
because we know that our efforts are only possible with the
support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
To serve our communities effectively, disaster management
must be Federally supported, State administered, and locally
executed. Together with the private industry, this multi-sector
approach is a necessary partnership, particularly when
disasters overwhelm local and State resources. Reform of
Federal disaster programs is long overdue, but I'd like to
highlight a few FEMA programs that must be sustained through
this process and also speak to opportunities for change.
First, sustainment. FEMA must maintain its role in driving
change through its preparedness programs. These programs serve
as the underlying foundation from which all local and State
emergency management capabilities are derived. Through this
investment, FEMA helps to establish national standards for
State and local personnel so that assets could be provided
through mutual aid. This capability is essential as illustrated
by Hurricanes Helene and Milton, where over 6,300 public safety
personnel deployed for 290 mutual aid missions.
Preparedness is not a matter of insurance before a
disaster. Instead, these FEMA preparedness programs provide
assurances that we can aid each other in times of disaster, and
preparing through planning, training, exercising, and
standardization is crucial.
FEMA's hazard mitigation programs must also be sustained as
they drive long-term change by helping communities safeguard
against future risk. Without FEMA's partnership, communities
will become more vulnerable. As the National Institute of
Building Sciences outlined in its 2019 ``Mitigation Saves''
report, public-sector grant investments in mitigation save $6
for every $1 spent, meaning mitigating risks is simply good
business.
Opportunities for change. First, reform must prioritize
building a disaster-resistant America by incentivizing and
rewarding smart decision making and fiscal responsibility at
the local and State levels. Examples include establishing and
adhering to building codes in all communities and requiring
adequate property and rental insurance.
Additionally, jurisdiction should prioritize emergency
management as a necessary function to invest in. All States
should establish a disaster relief fund as their first line of
defense to provide immediate aid to survivors before calling on
FEMA to help. FEMA can play a role in incentivizing these
actions by increasing preparedness and pre-disaster mitigation
assistance or by reducing the non-Federal cost share
requirements post-disaster.
The second opportunity for reform involves efforts to
minimize long-term recovery costs by adjusting the disaster
declaration process and establishing a Federal long-term
recovery exit strategy. FEMA has the expertise that provides
communities with best practices for long-term recovery planning
and coordination, making them an invaluable partner at the
onset of the recovery process. However, a calculated exit
strategy that transitions leadership to the local jurisdiction
coupled with recovery funds will help everyone when they need
it most and the decrease in extended Federal oversight will
expedite the rebuilding process.
Recent ideas about FEMA reform have included shifting
response and recovery responsibilities and block grant
administration to the States. I want to offer that this
approach will only work if the methodology is transparent and
financial controls are implemented. To reduce long-term
recovery costs, policies must require a mandatory minimum
passthrough to the jurisdictions affected by the disaster. This
will ensure that resources are not redirected to non-disaster-
related activities.
Finally, to implement any of these recommendations,
Congress must amend the Stafford Act, providing a modernized
framework for FEMA to operate more effectively. It is a
necessary step in this process and we need your help.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, the International
Association of Emergency Managers fully supports a
comprehensive review and reform of FEMA. Reform will ultimately
help the people of America. That is what emergency managers do:
we help people before, during, and after disasters.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Speranza follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carrie Speranza
March 4, 2025
Good morning, Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Members
of the subcommittee. My name is Carrie Speranza, and I am appearing
before you today as president of the U.S. Council of the International
Association of Emergency Managers, an organization representing
emergency management practitioners world-wide with more than 5,000 U.S.
members.
Members of the subcommittee, your local, State, Tribal, and
territorial emergency management agencies ensure your communities are
prepared to respond to and recover from emergencies and disasters. We
create and manage systems that save lives, minimize damage to property
and infrastructure, mitigate future risks, and help restore communities
after a disaster. We are grateful to be a part of today's conversation
because we know that our efforts are only possible with the support of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
To serve our communities effectively, disaster management must be
Federally-supported, State-administered, and locally-executed. Together
with private industry, this multi-sector approach is a necessary
partnership, particularly when disasters overwhelm local and State
resources.
Reform of Federal disaster programs is long overdue, but I'd like
to highlight a few FEMA programs that must be sustained through this
process, and also speak to opportunities for change.
First, sustainment. FEMA must maintain its role in driving change
through its preparedness programs. These programs serve as the
underlying foundation from which all local and State emergency
management capabilities are derived. Through this investment, FEMA
helps to establish national standards for State and local personnel so
that assets can be provided through mutual aid. This capability is
essential, as illustrated by Hurricanes Helene and Milton, where over
6,300 public safety personnel deployed for 290 mutual aid missions.
Preparedness is not a matter of insurance before a disaster. Instead,
these FEMA preparedness programs provide assurances that we can aid
each other in times of disaster, and preparing through planning,
training, exercising, and standardization is crucial.
FEMA's hazard mitigation programs must also be sustained, as they
drive long-term change by helping communities safeguard against future
risk. Without FEMA's partnership, communities will become more
vulnerable. As the National Institute of Building Sciences outlined in
its 2019 Mitigation Saves report, public-sector grant investments in
mitigation save $6 for every $1 spent, meaning mitigating risks is
simply good business.
Opportunities for change. First, reform must prioritize building a
disaster-resistant America by incentivizing and rewarding ``smart
decision making'' and fiscal responsibility at the local and State
levels. Examples include establishing and adhering to building codes in
all communities and requiring adequate property and rental insurance.
Additionally, jurisdictions should prioritize emergency management as a
necessary function to invest in, and all States should establish a
disaster relief fund as their first line of defense to provide
immediate aid to survivors before calling on FEMA to help. FEMA can
play a role in incentivizing these actions by increasing preparedness
and pre-disaster mitigation assistance or reducing the non-Federal
cost-share requirements post-disaster.
The second opportunity for reform involves efforts to minimize
long-term recovery costs by adjusting the disaster declaration process
and establishing a Federal long-term recovery exit strategy. FEMA has
the expertise that provides communities with best practices for long-
term recovery planning and coordination, making them an invaluable
partner at the onset of the recovery process. However, a calculated
exit strategy that transitions leadership to the local jurisdiction,
coupled with recovery funds, will help everyone when they need it most,
and the decrease in extended Federal oversight will expedite the
rebuilding process.
Recent ideas about FEMA reform have included shifting response and
recovery responsibilities and block grant administration to the States.
I want to offer that this approach will only work if the methodology is
transparent and financial controls are implemented. To reduce long-term
recovery costs, policies must require a mandatory minimum pass-through
to the jurisdictions affected by the disaster. This will ensure that
resources are not redirected to non-disaster-related activities.
Finally, to implement any of these recommendations, Congress must
amend the Stafford Act, providing a modernized framework for FEMA to
operate more effectively. It is a necessary step in this process, and
we need your help.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, the International Association of
Emergency Managers fully supports a comprehensive review and reform of
FEMA. Reform will ultimately help the people of America, and that is
what emergency managers do. We help people before, during, and after
disasters.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Ms. Speranza.
I now recognize Mr. Manning for 5 minutes to summarize his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY MANNING, FORMER DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR
PROTECTION AND NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Manning. Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy,
Members of the subcommittee, good morning. I'm Tim Manning.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the state of
FEMA.
FEMA is truly at a tipping point, as is our national
emergency management system. The timing of this hearing
couldn't be more critical. Over the past 30 years, I've served
at all levels of emergency management, from county fire and EMS
to the state to FEMA to the White House. FEMA has never been
more called upon and its work force more stretched thin. The
growing frequency of catastrophic disasters and a once-in-a-
century pandemic have had wide-spread impacts on emergency
management writ large. This changing hazard landscape and the
operations tempo is now coupled with indiscriminate firings,
regressive changes in policy, and freezes in funding, all
resulting in significant impacts on the Nation's preparedness
for emergencies, disasters, and terrorist attacks.
These impacts are far wider than just the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. FEMA is but the Federal player in a broader
collective team. In a disaster, when the crisis exceeds the
capabilities of a local government, that local government
requests assistance from the State and when it exceeds the
ability of that State, they request the help of the Federal
Government from the President. FEMA, on behalf of the
President, is the executor of that assistance. FEMA coordinates
the Federal Government's response, but does not assume command
of the overall response. States have always and continue to
bear the primary responsibility and those and who, along with
their local governments, respond to a great deal more
emergencies and disasters than FEMA ever gets involved in.
It was in the 1970's, for example, that after decades of
fragmented and uneven support from the Federal Government that
the southern Governors requested of the President that FEMA be
created. Eliminating or drastically reducing the size and role
of FEMA at this time would be intentionally rolling back hard-
learned lessons, erasing 70 years of reforms rooted in trying
to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Continuing to learn, however, is important. Rebuilding
roads, bridges, hospitals can take time and Government
contracting and oversight rules to prevent fraud, waste, and
abuse can be burdensome. But when the public complains about
disaster response, saying where's FEMA, it's usually individual
assistance that they need. The rules create their challenges
that many Americans struggle to overcome, and misinformation
exacerbates these challenges. Public assistance reforms such as
block grants could benefit State and local government
administrative operations and individual assistance reforms
would benefit disaster survivors more directly and more
visibly.
Reform should also include a review of FEMA's operational
response capabilities, such as the 28 Urban Search and Rescue
teams, the MERS Disaster Emergency Communications units. The
resources provided to these critical assets have not kept up
with the significant increase in the number of disaster
deployments. But FEMA's strongest asset is its work force. For
its mission FEMA is relatively small. It has no helicopters, no
airplanes, no ships. Its strength is in its people. The recent
firing of the agency's CFO and grants management staff for
managing a Congressionally-authorized and -appropriated program
has had a dramatic chilling effect.
The indiscriminate firing of a wide range of people and
expectations of more has hurt morale and operational capacity.
Its whole work force is critical. As is true across the
emergency management profession, every FEMA employee has a
disaster response role. Whether someone's day job is managing a
terrorism grant or flood insurance, everyone in FEMA also has a
second responsibility in which they support a disaster
response. They work in an EOC or deploy downrange to support
survivors. Everyone is critical.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the subcommittee,
almost 20 years ago, I was here testifying on almost this exact
same issue, were FEMA and DHS structured correctly and were the
dramatic unilateral changes put in at that time responsible for
poor response? Congress passed reforms and the administration
at that time listened.
In the ensuing decades, the Nation has made dramatic
improvements. Congress' investments and capabilities through
grants and legislative reform have resulted in more prepared
communities. Mitigated disasters provided a more effective
response. It's saved lives. Recovery is still challenging and
slow to implement. The individual assistance provided to people
and families is complicated and often less than anticipated by
the public. Reforms to those programs would be greatly
beneficial, but there should be no question of the need for a
single Federal coordinating agency working with Governors in
support of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity this morning. I
look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manning follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Manning
March 4, 2025
Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy, Members of the
subcommittee; good morning. I am Tim Manning, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the state of FEMA and emergency
management in America. From 2009 to 2017 I served as the deputy
administrator of FEMA for Protection and National Preparedness,
coordinating the Nation's efforts to build capabilities to prevent,
protect against, mitigate, response, and recover from all emergencies
and disasters and acts of terrorism. Prior to joining FEMA, I served in
the State of New Mexico's emergency management agency, where after
joining as a career civil servant, I later served as State director of
emergency management, secretary of homeland security and emergency
management, and homeland security advisor to the Governor. I've been a
local government wildland and urban firefighter and EMT and served in
non-governmental emergency response organizations. More recently I
served in the White House helping coordinate the response to the COVID-
19 pandemic. Now, among other roles, I am on the faculty at Georgetown
University where I teach courses in the theory and legal frameworks of
emergency management. In short, over the past 30 years I have served at
all levels of emergency management in operational, policy, and academic
roles.
FEMA has never been more called upon and its workforce stretched
more thin. A growing frequency of catastrophic disasters and a once-in-
a-century pandemic have had wide-spread impacts on emergency management
writ large. This changing hazard landscape and operations tempo is now
coupled with indiscriminate firings, regressive changes in policy, and
freezes in funding resulting in significant impacts on the Nation's
preparedness for emergencies, disasters, and potential terrorist
attacks and the impacts are far wider than just the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
We're here today to discuss whether FEMA and its programs are
adequate to serve the needs of the American people. We're considering
the future of FEMA, but I think it is valuable to consider it as the
state of emergency management in the United States. It's tempting to
look at FEMA as a typical distinct Federal agency, with unitary
programs and operational capabilities, in a severable fashion. Most
Federal agencies operate solely within discrete Federal authority. FEMA
however, does not work in that kind of environment. As we discuss the
future of FEMA, I believe we must take a wider, holistic look at the
key role FEMA plays Nation's preparedness, the President's directive to
study it's potential elimination, the impacts to the workforce from
recent and planned indiscriminate firings, the dangers posed by the
freezing of critical preparedness assistance, and the blind eye turned
to the impacts of a changing climate.
It is important to understand these impacts to FEMA in the context
of the American system of emergency management. Unique in our local,
State, and Federal Government relationships, emergency management is a
collaborative, mutually supporting system, one where unlike any other
crisis response, when the Federal Government becomes involved, it does
not assume command and control or exert Federal preeminence. In most
other crisis situations, for example the FBI in an act of terrorism or
the U.S. Coast Guard in an oil spill, the Federal Government response
is exerting Federal authority and assumes legal command and control. In
disaster response however, each additional level of governmental
involvement comes in support of the impacted community. FEMA's
involvement following a Presidential declaration is one of support to
the State, working in partnership. FEMA coordinates the Federal
Government's response, but does not assume command of the overall
response. When a crisis exceeds the capabilities of a local government,
and they need assistance from beyond their capacity, they request help
from the State. And when it exceeds the ability and resources of a
State, and the State needs capabilities beyond what any one State can
support, they request that help from the President. And on behalf of
the President, FEMA is the executor of that assistance.
the future of fema as an agency
There has been much discussion of late of eliminating FEMA and
shifting the responsibility to the States. Aside from the point that
the States have always and continue to bear the primary responsibility
for disaster response, and who along with their local governments
respond to a great deal more emergencies and disasters than FEMA ever
gets involved with, an unwinding of FEMA would be an erasing of more
than 70 years of learning from mistakes. Our American system of
emergency management is born of learning from prior disasters. Prior to
the 1950's, Federal support to States in disasters was ad-hoc and
financial support was strictly the result of Congressional emergency
action. Following the enaction of the Civil Defense Act and the Federal
Disaster Relief Act in 1950, the U.S. Government began to be more
thoughtful and coordinated in its response, but preparedness and
response were still separate, and the structure put the majority of the
burden on the States. By the 1970's disaster assistance was still
spread among a variety of agencies and Federal support was fragmented.
This decentralized system was challenging and led to poor responses, so
at the urging of southern Governors, FEMA was created. Again, learning
from what worked and what didn't, a lessons-learned approach, drove the
Federal Government to centralize the coordination efforts, creating a
more efficient system and empowering an agency to act on behalf of the
President in marshaling the resources of the Federal. Eliminating or
drastically reducing the size and role of FEMA would be intentionally
rolling back hard-learned lessons, erasing 70 years of reforms rooted
in trying to avoid the mistakes of the past.
The very nature of emergency management is preparing for events for
which no one level of government or one jurisdiction can manage, either
operationally or financially. It was created out of necessity through
tragedy and a commitment to learn from the hard-won lessons of the
past. The American emergency management system of 2025 is one of
intergovernmental collaboration and cooperation to combine forces and
efforts to provide for those most in need. If one were to eliminate any
one element of that system, one would simply need to recreate it, in
whole or in part, and in the mean time suffer the inefficiency and
suboptimization that would result.
In recent months, FEMA has undergone unrelenting criticism of its
disaster assistance efforts, much of it rooted in misunderstanding and
rumors, but also intentional misinformation. This criticism and
misinformation has led the administration to discuss eliminating the
agency altogether. Identifying those specific elements of law, policy,
or grant guidance in need of reform are critical. But it is also
important to step back and examine what those impacted by disasters see
and what they're dissatisfied with.
In this Federalized system, local, State, and Federal Governments
work together, but that is largely transparent and unrecognized by the
public. As with every complicated and professional endeavor, the
intergovernmental structures and systems of how it all comes together
is complicated and nuanced. And that often results in muddled
narratives and communication.
disaster assistance reforms and public perception
Administratively, emergency managers discuss disaster assistance as
``public assistance'' (funds to rebuild public infrastructure) or
``individual assistance'' (funds given to individuals and families to
help support their recovery). In many cases, public assistance can be
very expensive and take many years; rebuilding roads, bridges,
hospitals, and schools can take time, and Government contracting and
oversite rules to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse can be burdensome.
But often when the public complains about disaster response,
``where's FEMA,'' what they are referring to is help to them personally
and their property. It's debris removal, its direct assistance, and its
financial assistance, it is individual assistance. Many of the
administrative and legal rules, for example the prohibition on
duplication of benefits creates challenges many Americans struggle to
overcome.
FEMA's response and recovery programs could be improved with a
potential broad review of authorities and limitations, and an overall
simplification. While public assistance reforms would benefit State and
local government administrative operations, individual assistance
reforms would benefit disaster survivors more directly and visibly. The
need for reform at FEMA should also include a review of FEMA's Response
assets. FEMA's operations response capability, its logistics
distribution and its field teams such as the 28 Urban Search and Rescue
teams it sponsors and Mobile Emergency Response System disaster
emergency communications units need augmentation. The significant
increase in the amount of disasters that require these assets has not
kept up with resources provided for maintenance, replacement, training,
and staffing. As a Nation we have benefited from the dedication,
professionalism, and technical skills of these professionals to always
make it work.
fema's workforce
Another lesson learned from previous disasters is reflected in
FEMA's workforce structure. For its mission, FEMA is relatively small.
According to OPM data, FEMA is roughly half the size of ICE and a
quarter the size of Customs and Border Protection. FEMA has no
helicopters, airplanes, or heavy machinery, its strength is in its
people. FEMA's role is that of a conductor of an orchestra, marshaling
the whole of the Federal Government's resources to support the needs of
a State. The recent firing of the agency's chief financial officer and
line-level grants management staff for simply managing a
Congressionally-authorized and -appropriated program had a dramatic
chilling effect. And the indiscriminate firing of a wide range of
people on probationary status impacted moral and operational capacity
even more. With statements from the administration of even more firings
forthcoming, rumored to be targeting the Resilience side of the agency
in particular, FEMA is truly at a tipping point. There have been
suggestions that non-response personnel may not be critical. However,
as is true across the emergency management profession, every FEMA
employee has a disaster response role--whether someone's day job is
managing terrorism grants, or flood insurance, or instructing classes
in bioterrorism response, everyone in FEMA has a second job assignment
in which they support a disaster response. They may work in the
National Response Coordination Center, or deploy down range to support
survivors, or work hand-in-hand with State and local officials.
grant funding
Recent freezes and slowdowns in grant funding is also hurting
American preparedness for terrorist attacks and disasters. FEMA acts as
the U.S. Government's channel of fiscal support to State and local
governments. FEMA's grants program directorate is how the Department of
Homeland Security supports State and local terrorism preparedness,
border security, and law enforcement efforts through the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, and Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. For years, DHS's support to
State homeland security border security efforts, through Operation
Stonegarden, came through FEMA. More recently, as DHS's granting arm to
State and local governments, FEMA was asked to operate a CBP program in
support of State and local government migrant operations. Like the
Urban Area Security grants, these funds are appropriated and managed
separately from the Disaster Relief Fund and administered by different
parts of the organization. Nevertheless, those differences were
blurred, intentionally or unintentionally, resulting in doubt being
sowed in the public eye, and the firing of long-serving, highly-
qualified, and critical personnel. Freezes and uncertainty in FEMA
grant funding and impacts to its people harms our security.
In the disaster risk reduction space, FEMA's mitigation grants such
as the pre-disaster BRIC program and the post-disaster Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program support communities' efforts to lessen their
vulnerability to disasters, and have dramatic returns on investment,
saving up to $13 on disaster costs for every dollar invested according
to a 2020 National Institute of Building Sciences study.
Another program administered by FEMA is the Emergency Management
Performance Grant, a 50/50 match grant that's been described as the
backbone of emergency management in America. EMPG is the program that
supports the vast majority of State and local government emergency
management programs from emergency operations centers to preparedness
and response teams, and disaster training and exercises. Without it,
few States and local governments could support the level of
preparedness and response that America currently enjoys. And in the
context of current policy debates of a smaller or no FEMA, it's hard to
envision a greater share of the operational responsibility being
undertaken by States in its absence.
climate change adaptation
There are also a number of policy changes that have and will
continue to have wide-reaching impacts. A core part of any emergency
management system, indeed any public administrative or budgeting
effort, is a understanding of the environment in which one is working
and the base-level requirements. As simple as how many fire companies
or ambulances do I need or how many police officers: what are the
operational expectations of me, what hazards I am dealing with, and
what do I need to respond. Understanding the population size, road
networks, and hospital locations will drive the number of ambulance
crews a city would support. Change to any of those variables will
change how many ambulances. In emergency management, core to that
effort is an understanding of the impacts of natural hazards on our
communities. We often think of those events in terms of ``return
periods'', often referred to as ``100-year'' events, or those storms
that have a 1-percent chance of occurring in any year. Those
calculations are based on the number of events of similar scale over
the period of record, converted to a probability, and forecasted into
the future. Our challenge is the base data of those calculations are
changing. A changing climate is resulting in a growing number of more
intense storms and greater rainfall. The result is, as we see over and
over in the media, more storms of greater intensity than would be
predicted by historic data. We see over and over headlines of record
events, multiple 100-year storms a year, and even 500-year and 1,000-
year events. Consideration of these changing storm patterns is
considered ``climate change'' and prohibited by policy and threat of
termination. To maintain a policy that the emergency management
community cannot plan for the world in which we live, where lives at
are risk, is tantamount to instructing the Department of Defense to
ignore strategic threats and intentionally underprepare.
Mr. Chairman, in 2007, almost 20 years ago, I was here testifying
before a different House committee on this same issue--was FEMA and DHS
structured correctly and were the dramatic unilateral changes put in at
that time responsible for poor emergency cooperation and coordination.
Was there a more optimal way for States and the Federal Government to
work together to protect our fellow citizens. Congress passed reforms,
and the administration at that time listened. In the ensuing decades
the Nation has in fact made dramatic improvements. We developed more
cooperative national doctrine. Congresses' investments in capabilities
through grants and legislative reform has resulted in a more prepared
communities, mitigated disasters, and provide more effective response.
It's saved lives. The administrative burden on State and local
governments in public assistance is still challenging and slow to
implement, and the individual assistance provided to people and
families is complicated and often less than anticipated by the public.
Reforms to those programs could be greatly beneficial. But there should
be no question of the need for a single Federal coordinating agency,
working with Governors and their single State-level coordinating
agencies. Progress in emergency management is based on learning lessons
and adapting and growing capabilities. We have both the opportunity and
responsibility at this point in time to learn from recent disasters,
and grow our ability to support each other, not regress to the
uncoordinated and chaotic early 1970's and before.
Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Manning.
Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their
5 minutes of questioning. An additional round of questioning
may be called after all Members have been recognized. I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Smitherman, it is good to see you here representing the
great State of Alabama. Since 1980, Alabama has faced 116
weather-related disasters averaging 1 to 2 incidents per year.
As a result, emergency management leaders throughout the State
have forged strong partnerships with the Federal Government,
particularly FEMA, to support community recovery and aid
individuals in their greatest time of need.
As you all know, the President recently announced FEMA's
Review Council aimed at identifying areas of improvement within
the agency and suggest changes to help State agency emergency
management agencies respond to the aftermath of crisis.
Mr. Smitherman, based on your experience, what do you think
is the appropriate level of FEMA involvement that enables
States to maintain the lead in disaster response?
Mr. Smitherman. Thank you, Chairman Strong.
Well, to start with, from my experience we have a lot of
disasters and we've dealt--had FEMA come in and we established
a joint force, joint field headquarters. We've done--or joint
field office. We've done that many times and often that's
really not necessary.
For Alabama, we were one of the pilot States that piloted
the State-managed disaster. We did that for Hurricane Nate in
Alabama. So we've already managed a disaster at the State
level. I think with proper resourcing and considerations we
could do that for many of the disasters we experienced and save
the limited FEMA resources for the most catastrophic of events.
So like what you see in Katrina and Helene, when we've had our
tornado outbreak 2011, we kind-of rank up there with that in
terms of when we would ask FEMA to come in.
We are not a State that relies on FEMA during the response
phase. We bring them in, they're there. We have the Regional
Incident Management Assistance teams in there with us. They're
integrated into our EOC and we keep the FEMA Headquarters
informed of what we're doing through that process. But as far
as the need, the biggest value to us from FEMA is during the
recovery phase. When they come in, we just have got to figure
out a way to make that more responsive, less complex, less
bureaucratic and actually get the funds down to the locals who
are trying so desperately to get their communities put back in
in order from--after that disaster or incident.
Mr. Strong. You got it. I saw it first-hand as the chairman
of the second-largest county in the State of Alabama, 350 homes
totally destroyed. That tornado EF5/4 was on the ground for 126
miles. Thousands of homes totally destroyed and we were without
power for 10 to 12 days in some areas. But it was definitely
something that we will never forget.
How can coordination be improved between Federal and State
components and disaster response and recovery?
Mr. Smitherman. So I would say right now, so the
communication, I think the communication flow works fairly
well. It's just that there's so much that goes on day-to-day
that has limited impact. I think, as one of my panel colleagues
here stated, one of the critical components of that is that
being in the preparation and the preparedness phase really, so
what they can do to help identify and get consistency
throughout the States.
So, one area that I would say is in the EMAC system. The
more we can empower and encourage the use of the EMAC system
where the States can provide the mutual aid back and forth. As
a particular State is able to use resources, pre-event
resources, funding from FEMA to establish capability and
capacity at that local level and at the State level, it gives
us a venue to be able to share that so that not everybody has
to have everything. We can empower what we already have and
train and certify and equip it.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, FEMA has been tasked with managing an increasingly
diverse mission set. Mr. Kaniewski, in your opinion, how has
FEMA, the expanded missions affected its ability to fully
respond to any singular disaster?
Mr. Kaniewski. Well, I think certainly at various times
we've seen FEMA stretched thin. That most often takes place
when there's a major disaster, especially when there are
multiple major disasters or like what we saw in 2017, when I
was at FEMA, with hurricanes that--back-to-back, back-to-back
hurricanes. When you have that, you simply can't recover. So
this--and that applies both to FEMA, which manages a variety of
these disasters, as well as the State and local governments
that they themselves have been directly impacted.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. My time has expired.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Kennedy, for his 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman.
Last month, President Trump and Elon Musk fired at least
200 FEMA employees. Now, under the Trump administration's
deferred resignation program, over 800 FEMA employees,
including highly-skilled emergency professionals, are leaving.
Mr. Manning, how will these reckless staff firings impact
FEMA's disaster response? What will happen to the communities
that rely on FEMA support?
Mr. Manning. Thank you, Member. Thank you for the question.
It's really devastating to the FEMA work force to lose the
broad swath of team members that they have. You know, the
firings, the original indiscriminate firings, were challenging
enough and that they were targeting probationary employees, but
not just beginning-of-career employees, people throughout the
organization, including senior leaders and people who have been
there for a long time and recently promoted. The additional
departure of a wide number of very senior, very influential and
important career leaders within the organization is going to
slow its decision making, inhibit its effectiveness, and will
have real implications in preparedness and disaster response.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Earlier this year, the
administration chose to illegally freeze funding previously
appropriated by Congress, including FEMA funding. Despite court
orders to release disaster relief funds, at least 140 FEMA
grants remain frozen, impacting wildfire protection, flood
mitigation, disaster preparedness efforts. A coalition of
attorneys general has now filed a motion urging the court to
enforce its ruling, arguing that FEMA's manual review process
is simply a freeze by another name.
Mr. Smitherman, are FEMA's preparedness grants and disaster
relief funding important to your operation?
Mr. Smitherman. Yes, Congressman, they are. To date,
Alabama has only experienced small delays with receipt of those
funding, with exception of, I think, a couple of grants that
the Notice of Opportunity for Funding has been withdrawn. I
think they're rewriting some of them and put it back out. But
to date, we've not been impacted by that freeze. The money that
we're able to draw down where we're obligated, we've been able
to draw down. The process has become a little bit slower due to
the review, but we have not missed any payments at the State
level based on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Would funding cuts to FEMA grants help or hurt
your operation in your community?
Mr. Smitherman. I think the answer is obvious anytime you
cut funding to an item. But I think you really have to take a
look holistically at the entire emergency management system.
What is it that--the answer isn't always the Federal system.
What are we doing at the State? What are we doing at the local?
How are we managing the funds that we're given? Are we
efficient at that? Are we effective at that? I think that would
be the true measure, you know, and reward those who
demonstrated financial solvency in the way that they handle the
money.
I think I would venture that Alabama, we have--Alabama has
a committee. In 2019, our legislature established something not
too dissimilar from the DOGE. It's called the Alabama
Commission on Efficiency and Services. So we have to--and I get
audited every year. We've passed our audits. We track our
money. We know where it's at, we keep up with it and we spend
it, I think, effectively and efficiently.
Mr. Kennedy. But cutting funding would not be helpful.
Mr. Smitherman. Excuse me, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Cutting funding would not be helpful.
Mr. Smitherman. I think there's readiness that can be
gained across the Nation as long as funding's available to
attain that readiness. Now, we would discuss at what level we
place that.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. DHA's grant funding has been
essential for first responders, providing local agencies with
the resources needed to handle disasters and emergencies. We
know that first responders nationwide have stressed how
critical these needs are. Yet during his first term, President
Trump pushed major cuts and forced a 10 percent reduction in
fiscal year 2024.
Mr. Manning, with climate change driving more frequent and
severe disasters, how crucial is it to sustain or increase
funding to ensure first responders can protect vulnerable
communities?
Mr. Manning. I believe the Homeland Security Grant Program,
all of FEMA's Grant Preparedness Program, from the Emergency
Management Performance Grant through the Resilience Grants that
Dr. Kaniewski was mentioning earlier, have been absolutely
critical in building capacity for the Nation. Any reduction in
the resources available from the Federal Government to build
the Nation's response capacity to build preparedness will have
a detrimental impact on our ability to prepare and respond to
disasters and acts of terrorism.
Mr. Kennedy. If you cut that funding from the Federal level
to FEMA that would otherwise go to the States, the States have
to make up for that funding in the moment?
Mr. Manning. Correct.
Mr. Kennedy. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Brecheen.
Mr. Brecheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have expressed to
the Chairman privately, I want to say publicly, how grateful I
am for this hearing. I think this is something that is, to many
of your comments, long overdue.
I don't think most people realize that prior to 1979 there
was no FEMA and it was established by an Executive Order by
Jimmy Carter. So I think it would well serve us if we go back
40 years. I would love to find the people that were in
emergency management 40 and 50 years ago to get their
experience about the ease of not having to adhere to the
regulatory burden.
Last year 50 percent of our supplemental funding, and I say
``our,'' I need to rephrase that. The taxpayer-financed
spending taken from the taxpayer, whether it's a direct tax or
an indirect tax of inflation because of our deficit spending,
last year, 50 percent of our supplemental spending, all
borrowed money, was FEMA-directed. In 1980 it was 1 percent of
the total supplemental funding that Congress allocated went to
FEMA.
So for some of you that are experts, if you look at the
chart of the growth of FEMA it is unbelievable. It way
surpasses, it passes inflation. We now have a FEMA that has
become the Uber service for illegal immigrants in the last 2
and 3 years. It is way outside of its bounds. FEMA is involved
with 30 different Federal agencies now. So we have a major
mission creep that has to be reined in, it has to be bridled,
and somebody has to holler whoa. So I am grateful that this
conversation is happening.
I want to give you a personal example because I want to tie
it into my questions. I have a ag and dirt-moving background.
When I was serving on the State level, a friend of mine, Mark
Allen, a State senator at the same time I was a State senator,
after a 2012 tornado hit an area I represented, he was kind
enough to say, hey, I will bring my dozer down. You get on the
dozer, I will get on the skid steer, and we will do some clean-
up to help people that don't have the ability to finance it. So
we did that.
So I am moving this dozer. I am in a very rural setting,
Tushka, Oklahoma, and I am moving material. I am separating the
vegetative from the nonvegetative to make sure we abide by the
FEMA regulations, many brush piles over. I watched because of
Federal regulations, because I was in the dirt works business,
I was in the dozer excavator trucking business. What could have
been something that in a country setting could have been solved
like that, that is done every day today where people in the
country pull timber together, they light it on fire, we were
not allowed to do that. We had to multiply the cost 4 times
over. You had to bring in a half-round, which is a bathtub on
the back of a semi, and you had to take an excavator track hoe,
and you had to load that material that I had pushed up into a
brush pile, dismantle it, load it in a half round, haul it off
miles and miles, whether to be incinerated, major cost, or to
be buried by another bulldozer.
I can tell you because I turned in estimates to many
customers that I served when I was out of the Government in the
free market, you multiplied that cost at least by 4. It didn't
make any sense. We have had stories come before this committee
of not allowing snow to be moved, snow that melts, because of
FEMA and environmental regulations in tandem.
So I am setting you up because I would love to hear, Mr.
Smitherman, from your experience, the waste that you have seen
because of Federal--let me ask you a simple question. I love
what you said, we piloted a State response. How freeing was
that for you all to be able to make your own decisions and make
a decision that you knew would save taxpayer money and
immediately respond in Alabama?
Mr. Smitherman. Of course, I'm a fan of our performance
during that. I think if you take a look at FEMA's evaluation of
our performance, you'll see an alignment with that. So, you
know, we have had one small disaster where the cost of FEMA
coming in and establishing the joint field office almost
exceeded the cost of the disaster itself. So I think that would
be my one example.
Now, that's not to say that--or an attack on FEMA being
wasteful. It's the process they use. I think if you look at a
State-managed disaster, for those that we can handle, just help
us handle it and let us go. So I think that's one example of
efficiency.
Sir, if I may, let me refine my answer on funding that the
Ranking Member asked. Of course, if there's funding cuts, but
really what I want to talk about is where you cut and where you
put the resources. Because if you're talking about the first
responders that are responding during the disaster, by no means
am I talking cutting them. I'm talking reallocating funding
that you save elsewhere to put at the capacity level so that
you have those capabilities that are so needed across the
States and the region and the United States. That's really what
I meant with where to allocate the funding.
Mr. Brecheen. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since you answered
another Member's question, if I could have a little leniency on
my time. Yes. Glad you were able to respond to him. Years ago,
U.S. senator in Oklahoma, Tom Coburn asked for our State
director of transportation to build a mile of road under
Federal regulations and use an apple-to-apple comparison and
build a mile of--or what turned into be a mile-and-a-half under
State regulations. Apples-to-apples comparison. This is about
10, 15 years ago. He could build a mile of road at the same
cost he could build a mile-and-a-half under State authority.
This was quality work.
The dollars will go farther, you will have more decision
making and control and in a rate of inflation that deals with
everything that FEMA is involved with, especially when you are
talking about the large equipment that comes in under disaster
recovery. This is a solution that we have to make happen given
where we are at financially as a country.
I yield.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In February 2021, Texas was hit with our biggest winter
storm to date, killing over 240 Texans. Texans were left
without power, busted pipes, drinkable water, and freezing to
death, not to mention the millions of property damage all
across our State. Throughout this disaster, support from FEMA
was critical in saving the lives across North Texas
communities. Simply put, without FEMA, this disaster would have
been 10 times worse. Look, not all of us could flee to Cancun.
But abandoning FEMA now would mean abandoning Texas and would
serve to set up our State for even worse disasters in the
future.
FEMA's rapid response provided Texans with 70,000 gallons
of gasoline, 5 million liters of water, 60 generators, and
helped over 650 households retain power. These resources proved
to be invaluable and likely saved thousands of Texans from the
worst-case scenario.
We all remember back in 2017, when Texas was destroyed by
Hurricane Harvey. Thirty-five hundred FEMA employees, along
with 31,000 members of the National Guard were deployed to
provide assistance to our Gulf Coast. Almost 800,000 homes had
at least 18 inches of water inside and 24 hospitals were
evacuated. Within 30 days of Hurricane Harvey, over 270,000
households were provided with $1.5 billion from FEMA that
covered temporary housing, advancement pay for flood insurance,
and repairs to keep their homes safe. All of this was approved
by President Trump.
We know that climate change is an escalating threat to our
homeland security and we would be lying to ourselves if we said
a catastrophe like this is not on the rise and will not ever
happen again. Last May, tornadoes tore through North Texas,
killing 7 people, including 3 children, and injuring over 100
of my neighboring residents. FEMA stepped in and provided
displacement and home repair assistance at a very critical
time.
President Trump's decision to fire over 200 FEMA employees
last month was not only irresponsible, but will overwhelm
current employees who are already burned out and, most
importantly, it will endanger the lives of Texans and many
people throughout this entire country. I am all for cutting
waste, fraud, and abuse, but we can't lose sight of the
humanity the time of crisis needs that FEMA provides. Elon Musk
may not think that saving lives is an efficient use of Federal
dollars, but I know that it is and I know that my neighbors
would agree with me.
At this very moment, the people of North Carolina, who are
just now starting to get on their feet from the catastrophic
floods last year, are currently on fire. Parts of California
were just burned to the ground, and my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have the audacity to support the President's
unconstitutional behavior and allow him to dismantle this
important Federal agency. Just last night the Dallas area was
hit by yet another round of tornadoes and the damage is now
still being calculated.
FEMA is not the end-all and be-all. But with an unreliable
grid in Texas and natural disasters becoming more frequent,
Americans cannot afford to lose the life-saving services that
FEMA provides.
Mr. Manning, how can Federal, State, and local governments
effectively prepare for and respond to the growing climate
threats without Federal support? What consequences will these
cuts have on underserved communities?
Mr. Manning. Thank you for that question. The inability or
at least the change in policy to disincentivize or even
prohibit the consideration of climate change will have a
incredibly detrimental effect on preparedness across the
country. It is changing the complexion of hazards in America.
There are more severe storms, more severe impacts than we have
seen historically. If we only plan forward based on what we've
experienced historically, we will be drastically underpreparing
going forward and people will be in danger and may lose lives.
Texas has a very strong emergency management system, but
even Texas needs the assistance of FEMA over and over again. A
strong collaborative partnership between FEMA and the States is
how we move America forward and how we assure that our most
vulnerable communities have the protection that they need.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much for your answer. I believe I
am out of time and I yield back.
Mr. Strong. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, for
5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking
Members, and thank you, of course, to the witnesses for taking
the time to come today.
So I spent 2 decades in between military and law
enforcement. On the military side as a Blackhawk helicopter
pilot in the National Guard in Colorado. So I have commanded
all National Guard aviation assets in the State of Colorado
responding to wildfires. As a police officer for a decade I was
pretty integrally involved in a lot of these disaster response
and emergency management things. So have a couple of questions
here.
Mr., and I apologize if I butcher it, Kaniewski, did I get
it? Mr. Kaniewski, just looking through your bio here, it looks
like you have some experience in the insurance space. So one of
the things that I hear specifically with regard to wildfire
from a lot of my electric utility providers is the exploding
insurance rates that they have to pay to be able to provide
electrical services through some of these high wildfire risk
areas. So looking through your comments here, you are talking
about effectively how an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure.
Can you expound a little bit on how being able to do some
of these preemptive mitigation strategies might potentially be
able to help alleviate some of the insurance burden that my
electric utilities are facing as they try to provide
electricity through some of these high wildfire risk areas?
Mr. Kaniewski. Yes, wildfire is a risk that requires a
partnership. It requires partnerships, not just those
traditional partners that we think of, maybe those of us in
emergency management or those of us that were first responders,
but it requires partnerships from critical infrastructure, as
you highlighted. And as critical infrastructure owners and
operators, you've mentioned the power industry, they need to
understand what their risks are and what they can do about it.
Unfortunately, all of that has now come to the fore because
when someone loses power, questions are raised, fingers are
pointed, blame is placed, and the reality is it's no one
stakeholder. It's not just that critical infrastructure owner
and operator. There's only so much they can do themselves.
By working with the local community, as well as working
with the State and local governments and looking at regulations
that may inhibit or enhance the resilience of critical
infrastructure, we can hopefully make that infrastructure, No.
1, more resilient and, No. 2, reduce the risks that everyone
faces. So that wildfire risk that might threaten a power line
also threatens homes. So taking a community-based approach and
understanding that by reducing that wildfire risk, it actually
benefits everyone, whether it be their home, which is the most
obvious I think all of us think about when we think of wildfire
risk, but we also think about the loss of power.
Now, I would say our company works very closely and our
clients include major energy companies, and this certainly is
top of mind with them and making sure that there are insurance
products available to protect them. But I would say it requires
a partnership on the regulatory side with those State
regulators to make that feasible.
Mr. Evans. So what are some of those specific partnerships
that currently exist? Then are there any regulatory barriers
that we can look to reduce to be able to build that Federal,
State, to local partnership ultimately with the goal of being
able to reduce some of the insurance burden that a lot of my
rural electric co-ops are facing by being able to lower the
risk, specifically in my area for wildfires? What are some of
those partnerships? What are the barriers that we need to work
on to make those more accessible?
Mr. Kaniewski. So, first, a general statement, insurance is
just a reflection of the risk. So when we talk about insurance
premiums going up, it's because the risk has gone up. So
anything we can do to reduce that risk, again, it can be as
simple as removing combustible materials around, whether it be
power lines or homes. That's wildfire risk. But the interesting
thing about wildfire risk, it's not just what you do, it's what
your neighbors do or what that community does.
So building codes play a preeminent role here. So making
sure that the building code, it's a wildland urban interface
fire code, would be really--a building code would be very
important to protect that community, whether it be, again,
power lines or homes. At the State level, because insurance is
regulated at the State level, there's really no one answer I
can give you. It depends on the State. So it's really a
partnership, whether it be emergency managers working with
insurance commissioners or with energy regulators in that
State, I think would be a very advisable way to go to build
those partnerships. So that we all see the term I used in my
opening statement that we're all cobeneficiaries of that
investment. We all benefit from that investment in resilience.
Mr. Evans. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Strong. The gentleman from Colorado's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr.
Hernandez, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I bet if I ask my constituents to name one Federal agency,
they will all say FEMA. FEMA has had a huge role in Puerto Rico
following Hurricane Maria. I will be the first to acknowledge
FEMA has serious problems with efficiency and bureaucracy. You
know, out of tens of billions of dollars that were assigned to
Puerto Rico by FEMA, we have only seen a fraction. Our electric
grid is probably worse off today than it was the day before
Hurricane Maria struck. So there is a lot of work to be done
with regards to FEMA.
So my first question. Mr. Manning, what concrete
legislative changes could we enact to make sure that Federal
funds that are obligated under FEMA are dispersed more
efficiently?
Mr. Manning. Thank you, Congressman. You know, if we talk
about the pre-disaster side of the mitigation preparedness
grants and the post-disaster side, there are slightly different
answers. But it comes down to FEMA administers a broad swath of
legal requirements both out of the Stafford Act, but also a
myriad of grants laws and fiscal law. So there are going to be
reforms that need to be looked at in public assistance to
streamline the provision of resources and the approval of
projects, which is where a lot of delays I believe in Puerto
Rico are experiencing. It's the negotiation between the
Commonwealth, Puerto Rico, and FEMA in the context of all of
these fiscal and Stafford Act laws.
In the mitigation side and some of the pre-disaster and
post-disaster mitigation, a lot of those are coming through.
There are some delays now in the current administration's
review process that could be fast-tracked as well if they were
to rescind some of those. But there is, I think, that
collaboration and that view through the Stafford Act reforms
that we're discussing today are the most important.
Mr. Hernandez. Great, thank you.
My second question is, and this is for Mr. Smitherman,
let's assume that Congress moves toward dismantling or
decentralizing FEMA to promote more interstate cooperation.
Should it consider some sort of special treatment for non-
Continental United States jurisdictions? Because I am concerned
Alabama can get help from Florida, from Tennessee, from
Georgia. Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, the USVI, the
Mariana Islands, American Samoa, I hope I left nobody out, can
have a harder time. We got a lot of help from the States. I
don't want to undermine that, but it obviously it takes a lot
longer to send a few trucks to an island in the Caribbean or
the Pacific than it does from one State to a neighboring State.
So how could we reconcile that with these views of
decentralizing FEMA and giving more support to the States to
help each other?
Mr. Smitherman. Thank you for that question. So
unabashedly, yes, States that are in the Continental United
States obviously have an advantage in that regard. I think you
have to look at it just totally from a different approach with
regards to an island support. Yes, you have to find those
different Federal agencies, whether it be a DOD or maybe
incorporate some additional way to pre-stage some of the State-
to-State assistance.
I particularly had a situation this past week or I think 2
weeks ago, I was out at the U.S. Northern Command working on a
course and we had a member from Guam there and they talked
about the challenges they're having with both disaster--you
know, taking care of the planning for disaster support and any
nation-state threats. I think they've seen some specific
nation-state threats here recently and it's a challenge for
them. They talk specifically to that, how do we get this
assistance? They are looking at more of a DOD approach.
So maybe, I think, when we talk about looking, looking
holistically at redesign, you know, FEMA is just one part of a
larger emergency management system. Any time you make an
adjustment on one area of a system, you've got to account for
other areas in that system to make up that shortfall or that
change. So if you move away something from FEMA, somebody
somewhere has got to take that up.
So I think regardless of what the broad outcomes of the
FEMA Review Council that the President's putting together,
whatever their recommendations are, I think you have to follow
on with that--is what functions have moved, before you
establish what form that's going to look like. So where are you
moving that requirement? Who's going to pick up the response
for island response and someone's got to pick that up and who
is that going to be? Unless if a move that function, let's
resource that function.
Mr. Hernandez. I am sorry to interrupt because I have very
few seconds left. I am not fully convinced of DOD taking over
FEMA, but I look forward to working, you know, to find
bipartisan solutions should that be the approach that the
majority in my--in what I think would be unfortunate, but
should that be the approach to find some bipartisan solution to
address the needs of the non-Continental U.S. jurisdictions.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Strong. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Does the Ranking Member seek recognition?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Chairman, thank you very much. I would
just like to ask for unanimous consent to offer these 3
documents into the record: Bloomberg article on disaster relief
funds asking the attorneys general, asking that the wildfire
aid be released; senior leaders leaving an already depleted
disaster agency; the New York Times article regarding FEMA and
the rank-and-file workers that have already left before the
cuts; and a GAO report on FEMA staffing challenges from 2023.
Mr. Strong. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Article From Bloomberg Submitted by Ranking Member Kennedy
trump must release wildfire aid, disaster relief funds, ags say
By Maia Spoto/February 28, 2025 8:39PM ET
States have been unable to access millions of dollars in disaster
relief funding since Feb. 7, a coalition of attorneys general said in a
Friday court filing, asking a judge to force Trump to unlock the funds.
The freeze on Federal Emergency Management Agency spending is
impacting wildfire prevention, flood mitigation, disaster preparedness,
and other programs that support ``essential health, safety, and
welfare,'' the coalition wrote in a motion.
They asked, for a second time, that Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of
the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island enforce his Jan.
31 restraining order temporarily blocking Trump's funding freeze.
At least 140 FEMA grants are still frozen, the coalition said,
despite McConnell ordering the administration Feb. 10 to immediately
release all funds after finding that the Trump administration violated
his Jan. 31 order.
FEMA has said it is manually reviewing the grants, which the motion
says is ``simply a freeze by another name.''
The States aren't moving to hold Trump in contempt, according to a
footnote, though attorneys general said Feb. 11 it was a possibility if
he continues to defy court orders.
The case is State of New York v. Trump, D.R.I., No. 1:25-cv-00039,
2/28/25.
To contact the reporter on this story: Maia Spoto in Los Angeles at
[email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephanie Gleason
at [email protected].
______
Article From the New York Times Submitted by Ranking Member Kennedy
senior leaders are leaving an already-depleted disaster agency
By Christopher Flavelle
Feb. 27, 2025
Christopher Flavelle has covered FEMA for a decade.
More than a dozen of the senior leaders at the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, including those with the most experience in leading
disaster recovery, have either been fired or have resigned, thinning
its management ranks weeks ahead of hurricane season.
The departures in the senior ranks are in addition to job cuts and
resignations of about 1,000 of the agency's roughly 17,000 employees.
Those changes represent a significant loss at an agency that was
already struggling with personnel shortages as it tried to help
communities recover from catastrophic storms and wildfires in western
North Carolina and Los Angeles, among other missions.
Soon after his return to the White House, President Trump mused
about formally disbanding FEMA. The departures suggest that the agency
is already being thinned out.
``The massive reduction in staff at FEMA will have dangerous ripple
effects for communities across the country,'' said Shana Udvardy,
senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned
Scientists. ``At a time when FEMA staff is low capacity, this is going
in the wrong direction.''
Under the Trump administration's so-called deferred resignation
offer, more than 800 FEMA employees are leaving, according to several
people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. They
include the agency's top lawyer and his deputy, as well as senior
officials in charge of human resources, information technology and
reducing the risk communities face from future disasters.
The agency's leadership plans to hold a ``clap out'' on Friday for
the employees who are leaving, according to a document viewed by The
New York Times. FEMA staff members are encouraged to gather in the
lobby of the Washington headquarters on Friday afternoon and applaud as
their colleagues leave the building.
The administration fired FEMA's chief financial officer, as well as
a senior official responsible for the Federal flood insurance program,
along with more than 200 probationary employees.
In addition, the administration has indicated it will eliminate the
jobs of an unknown number of other FEMA employees who work on issues
related to climate change or equity.
FEMA's press office referred a request for comment to the
Department of Homeland Security, which includes FEMA. A spokeswoman for
the department declined to comment.
Before Mr. Trump's return, the agency was already struggling to
fill its positions. In 2023, the nonpartisan U.S. Government
Accountability Office reported that FEMA had managed to staff two-
thirds of its allotted positions. That gap partly reflected the toll
posed by FEMA's need to respond to a growing number of disasters made
worse by climate change.
In his first week back in office, Mr. Trump said states should
manage disasters on their own and established a council led by the
secretaries of defense and homeland security to consider FEMA's future.
``I think we're going to recommend that FEMA go away,'' Mr. Trump said.
It is unclear whether that council has met.
Among the top managers who are departing is Adrian Sevier, who has
worked as FEMA's chief counsel for 10 years, and as deputy chief
counsel for 8 years before that. On Tuesday, Mr. Sevier wrote on
LinkedIn that he was leaving and thanked the people who worked for him.
``You have all supported and defended the constitution,'' he wrote,
``and well and faithfully discharged your duties.''
Mr. Sevier's deputy, Michael Cameron, is also leaving, according to
three people familiar with his decision, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity out of a fear of retaliation.
Neither Mr. Sevier nor Mr. Cameron could be reached for comment.
The role of top lawyer at FEMA carries particular importance at an
agency where a fast response is required and often hundreds of millions
of dollars in emergency assistance are involved. FEMA's top lawyers
guide the staff in quickly and appropriately spending money in ways
that avoid fraud, waste and abuse.
In addition to those executives, FEMA is losing at least seven
staff members responsible for managing disaster recovery operations,
according to people inside the agency. Those workers, called ``Federal
coordinating officers,'' are both extremely valuable and in short
supply: As of Thursday morning, 54 of those officers were already
deployed, leaving just three available to be sent to manage any new
disasters that might happen.
Other departing senior managers include FEMA's acting chief human
capital officer, the deputy chief human capital officer for operations,
and the deputy assistant administrator for mitigation, who oversees
programs designed to reduce communities' exposure to disasters. Two of
FEMA's deputy chief information officers, who are responsible for
information technology--including computers, software and
cybersecurity--are also departing.
Two weeks ago, the agency fired its chief financial officer, Mary
Comans, after Elon Musk claimed misleadingly that FEMA had spent money
to shelter migrants in ``high end hotels'' in New York City. Ms. Comans
had overseen payments allocated by Congress for emergency housing,
which was part of her job.
A week later, Christopher Page, who worked on the National Flood
Insurance Program, was fired from his job. Mr. Page wrote on LinkedIn
that he had worked at FEMA since 2010 but had recently been promoted;
his new role meant he was technically on probation and therefore easier
to terminate.
The flood insurance program insures millions of homes around the
United States that otherwise cannot get coverage. That insurance is
what allows the real estate market to function in those areas: Without
insurance, banks won't issue mortgages; without a mortgage, most people
can't afford to buy a house. Mr. Page's job was to look for ways to
improve the program.
``I wanted to be there for disaster survivors on their worst day,''
Mr. Page wrote.
______
GAO Report Submitted by Ranking Member Kennedy
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Strong. The gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan, is
recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Chairman Strong, and Ranking Member
Kennedy for allowing me to waive and speak on the importance of
FEMA to my district.
As Guam continues to recover from typhoons and prepares for
other disasters, FEMA's assistance is still needed. To
demonstrate the need of FEMA and its deficiencies in the
territories, I will use FEMA's 4 phases of emergency
management.
The first 2 are mitigation and preparedness. No one can
predict how future disasters will affect us. But FEMA has
provided the tools to reduce the damage from the next--for the
next emergency. Utilizing bottom-up approaches, FEMA has
ensured that readiness begins at the local level. FEMA provides
assessments, early warning, and awareness methods that are
vital to disaster preparedness. While Guam and many other U.S.
locations face difficulties in hardening infrastructure and
telecommunications, Guam's partnership with FEMA has been
extremely fruitful.
The other 2 phrases in FEMA's preparedness management here
is response and recovery. For all the success we can achieve
before disasters come, FEMA's true value is seen during
emergencies and the recovery efforts after. Stretched thin,
FEMA is often limited to how they can respond to disasters. It
has been 2 years since Typhoon Mawar destroyed our island and
we are still recovering. Funding opportunities, like Emergency
Operations Center Grants and recovery funds ensure that Guam
can respond efficiently in disasters.
Now, despite these successes, we have a long way to go for
streamlined emergency responses and recovery. Guam's disaster-
prone location is burdened with outdated grant criteria,
limited funds, and other administrative challenges. FEMA's
Region 9 is also associated with multiple pressing emergencies:
typhoons, wildfires, and flash floods. While successes in the
most recent disaster relief fund represent a meaningful step
toward full recovery, we can't rely on legislative wins for the
next emergency.
The battle against disasters is a never-ending effort.
Let's not forget that the work we do today, whether in
Government, law enforcement, or in communities, will protect
our country from the unpredictable nature of emergencies. So
together we can ensure that the future of FEMA remains an
organization committed to mitigating, preparing, and responding
and recovering from disasters.
Mr. Manning, as I already mentioned, FEMA's bottom-up
approach is crucial to an integrated and effective disaster
response. Yet, the spirit of integration has only traveled so
far in the previous administration. While my colleague from
Puerto Rico could elaborate more on the controversies
associated with this, could you speak more about how FEMA has
looked at the Jones Act waivers when preparing for future
disasters?
Mr. Manning. Thank you for that question. That is a
perennially challenging issue. I can't, of course, speak to the
previous administration of FEMA's operations in either Puerto
Rico or Guam, not having been at FEMA at the time, but I know
that that is--provision of assistance, the logistics delivery
of assistance to our island territories and Hawaii are always
challenging. I know the logistics organization within FEMA pays
special attention to that, in particular the Pacific Area
Office, FEMA's Pacific Area Office in Hawaii. I know that
there's plans in between Guam, American Samoa, and Hawaii as
well.
Going forward, as we discuss the revisions to the public
assistance process, that would absolutely, I believe--
considerations of Jones Act challenges should absolutely be
considered in any of those planning going forward.
Mr. Moylan. Very good. Thank you.
Ms. Speranza, your organization has regional councils in
every major region across the world. For Guam specifically, we
often suffer from the same disasters that affect Pacific Island
countries or Asia. In terms of coordinated emergency
management, how can the United States promote disaster response
interoperability across every region?
Ms. Speranza. That's a really great question. So I think
one of the ways that we can better coordinate across all
regions is through the standardization that I talked about in
my testimony. Right. That's through the preparedness programs.
That's making sure that every emergency manager at the State,
local, Tribal, territorial, and even private-sector levels have
the training available to them to make sure that they can
respond through mutual aid should the need arise.
That's why those programs are really important, is because
it ensures that every emergency manager or public safety
official is trained to the same criteria. So if something
happens in your region and perhaps all of your resources have
exceeded capacity, you can reach back to another region for
help. In theory, the people that come to your region are also
qualified in that.
So I think that that is the primary priority for reform, is
to ensure that our preparedness programs can make sure that
mutual aid is provided from region to region, including in the
Islands.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strong. The gentleman from Guam's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz,
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for
allowing me to waive on today.
In a previous life, I was the State emergency management
director of Florida for Governor Ron DeSantis as the State
coordinating officer where an emergency is declared in Florida,
almost all of the Governor's powers are also invested in the
emergency management director. All secretaries of all
departments report to the State coordinating officer. So, yes,
it was a little awkward to have all these other Republican
appointees having to listen to a Democrat. But I got that job
because I was qualified.
I got to work with both Brock Long, who was the director,
the administrator of FEMA during the Trump administration, and
Pete Gaynor when I was there. I was there for the Category 5
Hurricane Michael recovery. I ran the Hurricane Irma public
assistance reimbursement process, the citrus block grant
program, the timber block grant program, and Florida's COVID
response.
Let me first say this. Any day that we are talking about
emergency management is a good day because we are often
overlooked and we are often under-invested in. No one cares
about us during blue skies, but when gray skies hit, that is
when we get all of the attention.
During Hurricane Michael in the Panhandle, I was deeply
concerned about fiscally-constrained areas. This is a
Republican area. Some of these towns had only $5 million city
budgets. Their city budgets were $5 million a year, but they
had $35 million of cost. Those cities would have failed. Those
residents would have had to leave. Those towns would have not
have been rebuilt.
Actually, who helped save them? It was President Trump.
President Trump helped save them because what he did was, is he
expedited the reimbursement to those towns and he increased the
reimbursement rate to 90 percent. Without that, these towns of
the panhandle would have absolutely never recovered.
Another piece of disaster management that a lot of people
don't know is a lot of it is done by the private sector. It is
not done by government. Right? The private sector does all
sorts of functions: technical assistance, monitoring,
logistics, debris removal, all done by the private sector.
Mr. Smitherman, and thank you for your service because I
know what that job is like, you rely heavily on the private
sector through vendors to go and complete a mission. It is not
done by Government.
Mr. Kaniewski, you talked about resiliency and mitigation.
You are 100 percent right. It would be great if we could be
more proactive with the disasters. But the problem is, is that
a lot of people don't want to change the building code. A lot
of people don't want to do these things. Why? Because it makes
the cost of houses more expensive. After Hurricane Andrew, when
we redid the building code in Florida, which by the way, has
saved us a lot of money in disasters, many people didn't want
to do that because they said the cost of homes in Florida would
go up.
So, sure, can we make homes more resilient to fire in
California? We can. It is going to slow the rebuilding process.
It is going to slow recovery. Can we elevate homes in Florida?
We can. It is going to slow down the rebuilding process. So
there is a give and take with all of that stuff.
I want to talk about FEMA reimbursement. It is super
critical. Right? Mr. Smitherman, you would know this, Alabama
could not have afforded the Tuscaloosa tornado on their own if
there was no Federal reimbursement. It is a $2\1/2\ billion
disaster. Oklahoma gets 68 tornadoes a year. OK. Oklahoma and
Alabama have, what, a $12-, $15 billion budget? Right? These
aren't budgets like Texas or California or Florida or New York.
A lot of these red States cannot afford a major disaster if
there was no Federal reimbursement. So the idea of FEMA going
away would dramatically hurt red States.
Could you survive a Category 4 coming in from the Gulf of
America without Federal reimbursement? I know the answer. Your
State would have to raise taxes, it would have to raid the
education fund, it would have to raid DOT. If it didn't do
that, it would have to raid taxes. People would say to me,
well, Jared, how do the power companies do it? How can the
power companies come in? How can they amass all these huge
forces? It's very simple. They pass that cost off to the
consumer.
So when my power companies come in and spend $300- or $400
million getting the power up, and, thank God, they do because
getting power up is the most important thing after life,
health, and safety in a disaster, how do they do it so quickly?
Cost doesn't matter because they push that cost off to the
consumer in a surcharge.
So listen, what do we do? How do we fix FEMA? First of all,
I support the President's EO. I think the President coming out
and forming a commission is the right idea. Let's put experts
on there that know what they are doing.
I have been proposing for years now to take FEMA out of
Homeland. That is my bill and I am doing that with Byron
Donalds of Florida in the House and we got Thom Tillis coming
out in the Senate. We will be announcing that bill again, but I
have been doing it for 2 years. Why? Homeland is a great
agency. It is, but it has become too big and FEMA cannot
function there. For an agency that needs to be fast, it can't
function in an agency of 22 others.
Talking about them getting involved in immigration, they
shouldn't be involved in immigration. But why are they? Because
Homeland is using FEMA to run every grant of every agency, all
within Homeland. Half of FEMA's personnel now is running
grants. They are not doing response. So we got to get them out
of that.
The second thing we can do is we can block grant money
down. We absolutely can do that. I did citrus block grant--Mr.
Chairman, would you allow me just a couple of----
Mr. Strong. Yield 45 seconds----
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Strong [continuing]. Because balance the clock. Thank
you.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, sir. I did citrus block grants, I
did timber block grants. We can block grant down the public
assistance money. We can get FEMA out of the housing business.
They are terrible at housing. We can block grant that down to
local governments and to States to do that stuff. That would
shrink the size of FEMA. It would. It would also allow FEMA to
refocus on response. When we say response, FEMA doesn't have
much. They coordinate other Federal resources. In fact, that is
what Mr. Smitherman does. He coordinates the other, the other
State resources that he has.
So EMAC is great, but we got to make sure they get the
reimbursement. Police, fire, the National Guard, they are all
great resources. They can't--they will not come and help from
other States on EMAC if they don't get their reimbursement.
So I implore my colleagues, let's not politicize disaster
aid. That will not help blue States or red States. You are
going to be punishing your constituents, Americans, patriots,
soldiers, first responders, police departments, fire
departments. But we can fix FEMA, we can reform it, we can save
it.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brecheen. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent to
enter Republican applause for some of his comments to my
Democrat colleague----
Mr. Moskowitz. You got it.
Mr. Brecheen [continuing]. Into the record?
Mr. Strong. The gentleman from Florida's time has expired.
Mr. Brecheen. Some of his comments.
Mr. Strong. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of
the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses, and we could ask the witnesses to respond to these
in writing. Pursuant to the committee rule VII(E), the hearing
record will be held open for 10 days.
Without objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]