[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FIXING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: EXAMINING
IMPROVEMENTS TO FEMA'S DISASTER RESPONSE
=======================================================================
(119-28)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-144 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking
Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas,
Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman
John Garamendi, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaomas Massie, Kentucky
Andre Carson, Indiana Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Dina Titus, Nevada Brian Babin, Texas
Jared Huffman, California David Rouzer, North Carolina
Julia Brownley, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Doug LaMalfa, California
Mark DeSaulnier, California Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Salud O. Carbajal, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Greg Stanton, Arizona Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Sharice Davids, Kansas Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Tracey Mann, Kansas
Patrick Ryan, New York Burgess Owens, Utah
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Collins, Georgia
Vice Ranking Member Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Kevin Kiley, California
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Vince Fong, California
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tony Wied, Wisconsin
Robert Garcia, California Tom Barrett, Michigan
Nellie Pou, New Jersey Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Laura Friedman, California Pennsylvania
Laura Gillen, New York Jeff Hurd, Colorado
Shomari Figures, Alabama Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
Vacancy Addison P. McDowell, North
Carolina
David J. Taylor, Ohio
Brad Knott, North Carolina
Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Northern Mariana Islands
Mike Kennedy, Utah
Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
Jimmy Patronis, Florida
------ 7
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania,
Chairman
Greg Stanton, Arizona, Ranking
Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mike Ezell, Mississippi
District of Columbia Kevin Kiley, California
Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Tom Barrett, Michigan
Shomari Figures, Alabama Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
John Garamendi, California Pennsylvania
Dina Titus, Nevada Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
Laura Friedman, California, Northern Mariana Islands
Vice Ranking Member Mike Kennedy, Utah
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri,
Vice Chairman
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Greg Stanton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
opening statement.............................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
WITNESS
David Richardson, Senior Official Performing the Duties of FEMA
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, oral statement................ 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry:
Statement of the National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies.................................................. 3
Letter and Attachment of July 22, 2025, to Hon. Scott Perry,
Chairman, and Hon. Greg Stanton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management, from Jack Waldorf, Executive
Director, Western Governors' Association................... 7
News Coverage of the July 4, 2025, Texas Hill Country Floods,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton.................. 13
Letter of July 16, 2025, to Hon. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, and Hon. David Richardson,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency. from Hon. Greg Landsman
and Hon. Warren Davidson, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike
Ezell.......................................................... 25
FEMA Statutory Authorities, Structural Protections, and Selected
Delegations as Compiled by the Congressional Research Service,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen................... 27
Letter of April 9, 2025, to Cameron Hamilton, Senior Official
Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, from Hon. Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr....... 48
APPENDIX
Questions to David Richardson, Senior Official Performing the
Duties of FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, from:
Hon. Scott Perry............................................. 55
Hon. Mike Ezell.............................................. 58
Hon. Mike Bost............................................... 59
Hon. Greg Stanton............................................ 60
Hon. John Garamendi.......................................... 62
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 18, 2025
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Fixing Emergency
Management: Examining Improvements to FEMA's Disaster
Response''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday July 23, 2025, at 10:00
a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive
testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Fixing Emergency Management:
Examining Improvements to FEMA's Disaster Response.'' This
hearing will examine how FEMA fulfills its mission and enhances
its operations to ensure that ``America is equipped to prepare
for and respond to disasters.'' \1\ At the hearing, Members
will receive testimony from Mr. David Richardson, Senior
Official Performing the Duties of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), About Us, (last
updated Jan. 22, 2025), available at https://www.fema.gov/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. BACKGROUND
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS
FEMA is the Federal Government's lead agency in preparing
for, mitigating against, responding to, and recovering from
disasters and emergencies related to all hazards--whether
natural or man-made.\2\ FEMA's primary authority in carrying
out these functions stems from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; P.L. 100-
707, as amended).\3\ The Stafford Act authorizes three types of
declarations: (1) major disaster declarations; (2) emergency
declarations; and (3) fire management grant (FMAG)
declarations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, (last updated June 10,
2024), available at https://www.dhs.gov/employee-resources/federal-
emergency-management-agency-fema.
\3\ Stafford Act, Pub. L. No. 93-288.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED MAJOR DISASTER
When communities are overwhelmed and the ``situation is
beyond the capability of the State and affected local
governments or Indian tribal government and that supplemental
federal emergency assistance is necessary to save lives and
protect property, public health and safety, or to lesson or
avert the threat of a disaster,'' \5\ the Governor of the
affected state may request the President declare a major
disaster.\6\ FEMA's primary Stafford Act programs for disaster
recovery in the aftermath of a major disaster are in the Public
Assistance Program and the Individual Assistance and Households
Program (IHP).\7\ Following a major disaster declaration, FEMA
may also provide Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
funds.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FEMA, How a Disaster Gets Declared, (last updated July 22,
2024), available at http://fema.gov/disaster/how-declared.
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Assistance Program, authorized primarily by
Sections 403, 406, and 428 of the Stafford Act, reimburses
state, tribal, and territorial governments as well as certain
private non-profits for repairing and rebuilding disaster
damaged buildings and infrastructure.\9\ Additionally, the
Public Assistance Program also reimburses for costs associated
with debris removal and emergency protective measures
undertaken to reduce threats to public health and safety. The
Public Assistance Program does not provide direct services to
citizens for private property damage. The Federal cost-share
for Public Assistance is 75 percent, but may be increased by
the President.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ FEMA, Assistance for Governments and Private Non-Profits After
a Disaster, (last updated Jan. 8, 2025), available at https://
www.fema.gov/assistance/public.
\10\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IHP is authorized primarily by Section 408 of the
Stafford Act. The IHP includes the Individuals and Households
Program, Mass Care and Emergency Assistance, the Crisis
Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance, Disaster Legal Services, and Disaster
Case Management.\11\ IHP is the primary FEMA program used to
assist disaster survivors; it includes housing assistance and
other needs assistance. Housing assistance includes money for
repair, rental assistance, or ``direct assistance,'' such as
the provision of temporary housing.\12\ The limit for IHP
assistance adjusted annually for inflation, and the current
limit is $43,600 for housing assistance and $43,600 for other
needs assistance.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FEMA, Individuals and Households Program, (last updated June
4, 2025), available at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/individual.
\12\ FEMA, Assistance for Housing and Other Needs, (last updated
June 18, 2025), available at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/
individual/housing.
\13\ Notice of Maximum Amount of Assistance Under the Individuals
and Household Program, 89 Fed. Reg. 84923 (Oct. 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 404 of the Stafford Act authorizes HMGP, which
provides grants based on a percentage of PA funding to state,
tribal, and territorial governments to fund mitigation projects
that: (1) are cost effective and (2) reduce the risk of future
damage, hardship, and loss from natural hazards.\14\ The
purpose of this grant program is to fund practical mitigation
measures that effectively reduce the risk of loss of life and
property from future disasters. State, tribal, and territorial
governments may use their HMGP funds to assist families in
reducing the risk to their homes from natural disasters. The
Federal cost share for HMGP is 75 percent and the remaining 25
percent can come from a variety of sources (i.e. a cash payment
from the state or local government).\15\ HMGP has not been
approved on the most recent 18 declared major disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), (May 22, 2025),
available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stafford Act programs are funded by the Disaster Relief
Fund (DRF), which is a no-year appropriation against which FEMA
can direct, coordinate, manage, and fund eligible response and
recovery efforts associated with domestic major disasters and
emergencies that overwhelm state resources.\16\ Through the
DRF, FEMA can fund authorized Federal disaster support
activities, as well as eligible state, territorial, tribal, and
local actions such as providing emergency protection and debris
removal.\17\ The DRF also funds the repair and restoration of
qualifying disaster-damaged public infrastructure, hazard
mitigation initiatives, financial assistance to eligible
disaster survivors, and FMAGs for qualifying large forest or
grassland wildfires.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Reports, (June 30, 2025),
available at https:// https://www.fema.gov/about/reports-and-data/
disaster-relief-fund-monthly-reports.
\17\ FEMA, Fact Sheet: FEMA's Public Assistance Process, (June 7,
2018), available at https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210318/fact-
sheet-femas-public-assistance-process.
\18\ FEMA, Disaster Relief Fund: Monthly Reports, (August 29,
2023), available at https://www.fema.gov/about/reports-and-data/
disaster-relief-fund-monthly-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. FEMA'S RESPONSE TO RECENT DISASTERS
HURRICANES HELENE AND MILTON
In 2024, FEMA provided assistance for 120 Presidentially
declared emergencies and major disasters including: five
hurricanes that made landfall, multiple unnamed severe storms,
western wildfires, and an active tornado season that impacted
many states across the country.\19\ However, the most
significant disaster of 2024 was Hurricane Helene, which made
landfall near Perry, Florida on September 26, 2024, as a
Category 4 hurricane.\20\ As Helene traveled across the
Appalachian Region, it resulted in catastrophic flooding,
landslides, and tornadoes. Six states (Florida, Georgia,
Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina)
received a major disaster declaration associated with
Helene.\21\ Alabama received an emergency declaration.\22\ The
destruction of Hurricane Helene resulted in 219 storm-related
deaths,\23\ including 106 in North Carolina alone.\24\ That
makes it the deadliest storm to hit the mainland United States
since Hurricane Katrina.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ FEMA, Declared Disasters, available at https://www.fema.gov/
disaster/declarations.
\20\ Kate Payne, Hurricane Helene Kills At Least 44 and Cuts A
Swath of Destruction Across the Southeast, AP News (Sept. 27, 2024),
available at https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-helene-florida-
georgia-carolina-e5769b56dea81e40fae2161ad1b4e75d.
\21\ FEMA, Hurricane Helene, available at https://www.fema.gov/
disaster/current/hurricane-helene.
\22\ Id.
\23\ NOAA Nat'l Centers for Environmental Info., U.S. Billion-
Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, available at https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events.
\24\ North Carolina Dep't of Health & Human Serv., Hurricane Helene
Storm Related Fatalities, available at https://www.ncdhhs.gov/
assistance/hurricane-helene-recovery-resources/hurricane-helene-storm-
related-fatalities.
\25\ Ana Faguy & Brandon Drenon, Helene is deadliest mainland US
hurricane since Katrina, BBC (Oct. 3, 2024), available at https://
www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k70rnrp4xo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just two weeks later, Hurricane Milton formed in the Gulf
of Mexico and rapidly intensified to a Category 5
hurricane.\26\ By the time Milton made landfall near Siesta Key
on October 9, 2024, the storm had weakened to a Category 3
hurricane, but it brought a front of deadly tornadoes and storm
surges to Florida.\27\ This was the third hurricane in 13
months to impact Florida's Big Bend region.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Brad Brooks and Leonora LaPeter Anton, Hurricane Milton Leaves
At Least 10 Dead, Millions Without Power in Florida, Reuters (Oct. 10,
2024), available at https://www.reuters.com/world/us/hurricane-milton-
weakens-it-marches-across-central-florida-homes-destroyed-2024-10-10/.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Chelsea Harvey, Third hurricane in 13 months slams Florida's
Big Bend, E&E News by Politico (Sept. 27, 2024), available at https://
www.eenews.net/articles/third-hurricane-in-13-months-slams-floridas-
big-bend/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the most recent Disaster Relief Fund Report
provided to Congress, FEMA has obligated $10.1 billion for
Hurricane Helene and $3 billion for Hurricane Milton.\29\ While
2020 still holds the all-time record for Presidentially
declared emergencies, major disasters, and disaster
declarations related to COVID-19, at 230,\30\ the size and
severity of Stafford Act declarations in 2024 has drawn
Congressional attention to FEMA's resource constraints and
response challenges.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ FEMA, June 2025 Disaster Relief Fund Report (June 24, 2025),
available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_ocfo_june-2025-disaster-relief-fund-report_06302025.pdf.
\30\ Adam B. Smith, 2023: A Historic Year of U.S. Billion-Dollar
Weather and Climate Disasters, NOAA, (Jan. 8, 2024), available at
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2023-historic-
year-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters.
\31\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. &
Infrastructure to Deanne Criswell, Administrator, FEMA (Oct. 11, 2024)
(On file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES WILDFIRES
Starting on January 7, 2025, a series of 12 wildfires,
including the Palisades and Eaton fires, burned more than
40,000 acres across the greater Los Angeles area.\32\ The
wildfires burned for several weeks and were 100 percent
contained on January 31, 2025.\33\ Twenty-nine people died as a
result of the wildfires, and more than 18,000 structures were
destroyed.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ CAL Fire, 2025 Incident Archive, available at https://
www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2025.
\33\ Id.
\34\ Minyvonne Burke & Liz Kreutz, What we know about the victims
killed in the California wildfires, NBC News (Feb. 12, 2025), available
at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-wildfires-what-we-
know-victims-killed-rcna188240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the June Disaster Relief Fund Report to
Congress, FEMA has obligated $2.7 billion for the Los Angeles
wildfires.\35\ The scale of devastation has prompted renewed
scrutiny of California's wildfire preparedness and resource
management. Public concern intensified after reports revealed
that firefighting efforts during the Palisades fire were
hampered by water shortages, raising questions about emergency
coordination and the adequacy of mitigation planning in high-
risk areas.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ FEMA, June 2025 Disaster Relief Fund Report (June 24, 2025),
available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_ocfo_june-2025-disaster-relief-fund-report_06302025.pdf.
\36\ Karla Rendo, More Pacific Palisades residents join lawsuit
against LADWP, city over water supply failure, News4 Los Angeles (Mar.
8, 2025), available at https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-
wildfires/more-pacific-palisades-residents-join-lawsuit-against-ladwp-
city-over-water-supply-failure/3649420/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS AND NORTH CAROLINA FLOODS
On Sunday, July 6, 2025, President Trump issued a major
disaster declaration for the State of Texas.\37\ From July 4 to
July 7, 2025, heavy rain triggered catastrophic flash floods
across Texas Hill Country. At least 130 fatalities have been
confirmed statewide and more than 100 individuals still
missing.\38\ Camp Mystic, a summer camp on the Guadalupe River,
lost 27 campers and counselors.\39\ The flash floods raise
concerns over inadequate early warning systems, as the affected
counties lack community warning sirens in low-lying areas along
the riverbank.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ FEMA, Texas Severe Storms, Straight-Line Winds, and Flooding,
(July 6, 2025), available at https://www. http://fema.gov/disaster/
4879.
\38\ Kevin Shalvey, Texas flooding updates: Death toll reaches 134,
search continues for missing, ABC News (July 15, 2025), available at
https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/texas-flooding-live-updates/
?id=123729682.
\39\ Sergio Flores and Evan Garcia, Hopes fade for missing Texas
flood victims as death toll hovers around 100, Reuters (July 8, 2025),
available at https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/
search-teams-scour-texas-flood-zone-dozens-missing-78-confirmed-dead-
2025-07-07.
\40\ Supra note 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, Tropical Depression Chantal brought
prolonged heavy rainfall to eastern North Carolina,
particularly impacting Craven, Pamlico, and Beaufort counties.
Many areas received over 10 inches of rain in three days,
overwhelming small rivers and drainage systems in communities
previously impacted by Hurricane Helene.\41\ Tens of thousands
of people were left without power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Eduardo Medina and Livia Albeck-Ripka, `Severe Flooding in
North Carolina After Chantal Dumps Heavy Rain', New York Times (July 7,
2025), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/weather/
tropical-storm-chantal-floods-north-carolina.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. REFORM LEGISLATION
FIXING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR AMERICANS (FEMA) ACT OF 2025
On May 8, 2025, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen released a discussion
draft of the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA)
Act of 2025. This bipartisan legislation proposes comprehensive
reforms to FEMA to improve the Nation's preparedness and
response capabilities, accelerate disaster recovery, reduce
overall disaster cost, and provide more effective support to
individuals and communities impacted by disasters.
The FEMA Act of 2025 would realign the Federal emergency
management structure by elevating FEMA to a cabinet-level,
independent agency reporting directly to the President. It
reforms the delivery of disaster assistance to promote faster,
state-led rebuilding of public infrastructure, streamlines
support for disaster survivors by clarifying policies and
communication, cuts unnecessary bureaucracy and outdated
regulations, and enhances the speed and investment of
mitigation investments. This legislation also increases
transparency and accountability in how disaster funds are
allocated and used, ensuring a more efficient, resilient, and
cost-effective Federal response.
V. CONCLUSION
The hearing will focus on evaluating how FEMA can become
more agile and effective in responding to disasters and examine
the Nation's current state of disaster readiness, response, and
recovery under FEMA's leadership and guidance. The Committee
will explore strategies to modernize FEMA's operations and
improve coordination with state, local, tribal, and territorial
partners. A key focus will be improving the speed of Federal
aid, proactive hazard mitigation, and forward-looking, risk-
informed planning. Oversight and accountability measures, as
well as the long-term sustainability of the Disaster Relief
Fund, will be central to discussions about how FEMA can adapt
to meet the demands of a changing emergency management
landscape.
VI. WITNESS
LMr. David Richardson, Senior Official Performing
the Duties of FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, United States Department of Homeland Security
FIXING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: EXAMINING IMPROVEMENTS TO FEMA'S DISASTER
RESPONSE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that the Chair be
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on
the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
With that in mind, the Chair asks unanimous consent to
enter into the record letters from NAMIC and the Western
Governors' Association.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows Mr. Perry's prepared statement.]
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes himself for the
purposes of an opening statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Perry. I begin by thanking our witness, Mr. Richardson,
for being here today to discuss fixing the emergency management
system and improving the Federal Emergency Management Agency's,
or FEMA's, disaster response.
Earlier this month, devastating flash floods hit Texas,
causing a death toll of more than 130 people, including
children from a summer camp. The Coast Guard, FEMA, and other
Federal agencies assisted Texas in the search, rescue, and
response. President Trump issued a major disaster declaration,
opening further Federal assistance for disaster victims and to
assist in the recovery. My condolences and prayers go to the
people who have lost loved ones, and to all affected by this
disaster. It is unimaginable to those of us who have stood by
and watched it.
So far in 2025, there have been 20 disasters resulting in
major disaster declarations across 10 States. This does not
account for emergency declarations and all the open disasters
still on the books going all the way back to Hurricane Katrina
in 2005.
I have said this before: I question the increasing role of
the Federal Government in disasters, but when the Federal
Government responds, it helps no one if assistance is slow,
bureaucratic, and cumbersome.
States should be the lead in preparing for, mitigating
against, and responding to disasters. When the Federal
Government does provide assistance, it should be fast, agile,
and targeted in a way that's most effective.
What I believe we can all agree on is this: 20 years from
now, in 2045, we do not want to see congressional hearings
asking why disasters that happened in 2025 are still open. The
longer it takes for communities to rebuild, no matter who is
paying, the higher the costs and the more vulnerable those
communities are to additional harm from other hazards.
Over the years, Congress has passed reform after reform
trying to fix FEMA and get Federal disaster response to work
effectively. Quite honestly, little seems to work or have been
effective. Congress passes something intended to fix disaster
response, but bureaucrats continue to complicate the law with
added regulations. This makes the implementation and process
more confusing. At times, it seems the process actually gets
worse, not better.
The process becomes even more unclear when you add in the
numerous Federal agencies that are now involved in disasters.
The whole point of FEMA was to carry out the President's
authority in disasters and manage the entire Federal Government
response. However, we seem to have gotten away from that, and
we have many agencies, often with conflicting requirements and
rules involved, slowing the process even more.
Today, I hope we can touch on not just what happened in
Texas and other recent disasters, but how we can work together
effectively to fix our emergency management system. Our
constituents, American people, are depending on it; it is our
duty. How do we make it work better for the communities hit by
the disasters, and how do we also respect the taxpayer?
I appreciate the leadership of the full committee chairman,
Sam Graves, and the ranking member, Mr. Larsen, for their work
in trying to tackle these issues with their legislation, and we
look forward to seeing that very shortly.
With that, I look forward to hearing from our witness.
[Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
I want to thank our witness, Mr. Richardson, for being here today
to discuss fixing emergency management and improving the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) disaster response.
Earlier this month, devastating flash floods hit Texas causing a
death toll of more than 130 people, including children from a summer
camp.
The Coast Guard, FEMA, and other federal agencies assisted Texas in
the search, rescue, and response. President Trump issued a major
disaster declaration, opening further federal assistance for disaster
victims and to assist in the recovery. My condolences and prayers go to
the people who have lost loved ones, and to all affected by this
disaster. It is unimaginable to those of us who have watched it.
So far in 2025, there have been 20 disasters resulting in major
disaster declarations across 10 states. This does not account for
emergency declarations and all the open disasters still on the books,
going all the way back to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
I have said this before: I question the increasing role of the
federal government in disasters, but when the federal government
responds, it helps no one if assistance is slow, bureaucratic, and
cumbersome.
States should be the lead in preparing for, mitigating against, and
responding to disasters. When the federal government does provide
assistance, it should be fast, agile, and targeted in a way that's most
effective.
What I believe we can all agree on is this--20 years from now, in
2045, we do not want to see congressional hearings asking why disasters
that happened in 2025 are still open. The longer it takes for
communities to rebuild, no matter who's paying, the higher the costs
and the more vulnerable those communities are to additional harm from
other hazards.
Over the years, Congress has passed reform after reform trying to
fix FEMA and get federal disaster response to work effectively. Quite
honestly, little seems to work. Congress passes something intended to
fix disaster response, but bureaucrats continue to complicate the law
with added regulations. This makes the implementation and process more
confusing. At times, it seems the process actually gets worse, not
better.
The process becomes even more unclear when you add in the numerous
federal agencies that are now involved in disasters. The whole point of
FEMA was to carry out the President's authority in disasters and manage
the entire federal government response.
However, we seem to have gotten away from that, and we have many
agencies, often with conflicting requirements and rules involved,
slowing the process even more.
Today, I hope we can touch on not just what happened in Texas and
other recent disasters, but how we can work together effectively to fix
our emergency management system. Our constituents and the American
people are depending on it; it is our duty. How do we make it work
better for the communities hit by disasters and the taxpayer?
I appreciate the leadership of the Full Committee Chairman, Sam
Graves, and Ranking Member Larsen for their work in trying to tackle
these issues with their legislation, and we look forward to seeing that
very shortly.
Statement of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry
Introduction
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) is
pleased to provide comments regarding the U.S. House Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Development
hearing on ``Fixing Emergency Management: Examining Improvements to
FEMA's Disaster Response.''
NAMIC consists of more than 1,300 member companies, including six
of the top 10 property/casualty insurers in the United States. The
association supports local and regional mutual insurance companies on
main streets across America as well as many of the country's largest
national insurers.
NAMIC member companies write $383 billion in annual premiums and
represent 61 percent of homeowners, 48 percent of automobile, and 25
percent of the business insurance markets. Through its advocacy
programs NAMIC promotes public policy solutions that benefit member
companies and the policyholders they serve.\1\ NAMIC members take great
pride in being indispensable partners helping rebuild policyholders'
communities and lives when they need it most: when they have suffered a
loss. We stand ready to partner with policymakers at all levels to
reimagine and improve the way America prepares for and invests in
emergency management and response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.namic.org/about-namic/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generational Opportunity to Transform Emergency Management and Instill
Resiliency
While there is general agreement that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency of today is not structured to best serve the American
people, there is little consensus on the agency's optimal scope or
operations. FEMA's past successes and failures should inform rather
than define the future of the agency. As policymakers evaluate bold
ideas for fundamental reform, practical implementation mechanisms for
government officials as well as potential partnerships with the private
and non-profit sectors should be thought of as key components in the
equation. The federal government sits in a unique position to
facilitate coordination between all interested stakeholders, even as
primary responsibility and decision-making is appropriately returned to
state and local governments. A future federal emergency management
agency can also play the most important role of all as a trusted and
truthful communicator and champion of both pre-disaster mitigation and
post-disaster recovery.
As Congress works with stakeholders and the administration and
considers how it may re-think ways that disasters are anticipated and
responded to, NAMIC urges the thoughtful and measured consideration of
several vital components to any future structure:
Stability and Expertise
To stand the test of time and engender positive change for
generations to come, Congress should structure any federal entity
tasked with emergency planning and response in a way that stakeholders
can rely on for expertise and consistency of treatment. The
organization should be structured to maximize steady, reliable, and
knowledgeable behavior, focusing on consistent competence without
political or partisan interpretations or priorities. Leadership and
staff should be expected to bolster capacity and act in a manner that
best serves affected communities by supporting rather than
commandeering or displacing state and local actors.
Transparency and Accountability
Whether agency leadership reports directly to the President or
through another agency, it is imperative that strong and transparent
mechanisms are in place to ensure continued commitment to the core
mission of serving Americans who have suffered through a declared
emergency. Clear communication and education about the chain-of-command
and decision-making processes will serve all Americans best. Disaster
victims and those that work to help them are most effective when they
not only understand processes, but also have understandable ways to
provide and receive additional information as needed. For example,
consider a FEMA assistance claim denial--a thorough explanation and
documented rationale with ample details would be helpful in aiding the
victim's subsequent decision-making.
Congressional and Executive oversight of day-to-day operations will
also be important. Studies and analysis to inform the efficacy of a new
structure and mission for FEMA should be data driven and assess whether
the agency is delivering positive results for taxpayers rather than
comparing the government to private industry efforts.
Uniformity and Streamlining--Internal
Incorporating ways to streamline disaster response with processes
that ensure greater consistency in paperwork for victims and entities
aiding them should reduce frustration and confusion, as well as
expedite recovery. For example, there would be benefits to publishing
upfront what specific information should be provided to administer
individual assistance and to process such applications. Today,
different FEMA regions sometimes seek different information from
individuals and their insurers before processing individual assistance
requests; these current practices do not make for a seamless or
positive experience for individuals post-catastrophe. The last thing a
disaster victim should hear in the wake of their tragedy is that they
need a different form to prove a necessary declination from their
insurer. Through standardization and straightforward uniformity, a
simple upfront established set of expectations (and perhaps a template)
may help with getting necessary aid out the door quickly when disaster
victims are most in need. Post-disaster claims operations move most
swiftly when there can be a level of anticipated consistency.
Speed and Streamlining--Across Agencies
At this time, there are at least seventeen departments and agencies
responsible for some element of federal disaster assistance. As
Congress moves forward, consolidation and clarifying these components
to improve the efficiency and information sharing across efforts would
be a worthwhile enhancement. This process review and reimagining should
also take into account the most efficient way of communicating with
leaders and decision-makers in state and local governments to eliminate
the possibility of confusion or inconsistent messages from the federal
government.
Coordination and Streamlining--Across Types of Government
As Congress contemplates a future with greater empowerment of state
and local governments to manage emergencies occurring in their area, it
becomes more important than ever that chains of command,
responsibilities, and workflow sequences are clear, consistent, and
communicated so they can be executed promptly when needed. Requiring
specific, written, operational plans and facilitating communication
between points of contact across federal, state, and local agencies
would be well advised.
Meaningful Front-End Mitigation--Building Codes to Reduce Risk
A re-imagined federal emergency response system will be a failure
if it does not embrace science-based lessons to incorporate modern
approaches for stronger and safer building that reduces risk going
forward. Such a commitment to prioritize efficiency through front-end
investment to avoid back-end recovery is not only financially prudent
but will also prevent struggles for millions of Americans who would
suffer under our current paradigm. A prime mechanism for this is the
implementation and enforcement of up-to-date statewide building codes,
both at initial construction and during post-disaster rebuilding to
avoid repeat losses. Modernized building codes are a cost-effective way
to protect individuals, families, and communities from risks posed by
natural hazards.
As Congress considers how to interrupt cascading negative impacts
of disasters on a community, it should leverage and integrate the
advantages of upfront investing, with studies showing $1 spent on
mitigation measures can save anywhere from $6 to $13 in future losses.
The 2024 Allstate-U.S. Chamber report on the community benefits of
investing in resilience includes the estimated value of saving jobs and
mitigating economic harms, including in the context of potential
wildfires.\2\ Further, the National Institute of Building Sciences
offers evidence of a strong estimated return on investment by
mitigation measures, including building codes.\3\ Their extensive
report puts more resilient construction costs into context through
benefit-cost ratios. Because of the value of modifying the buildings to
save money over the long term, NAMIC urges that this be a deliberate
and major initiative that includes a set-aside for grants as well as
for adoption and enforcement of the most up-to-date and strongest
building codes fit for a location. This kind of investment not only
shows accountability to taxpayers but also serves as strong stewards
for both fiscal and preparedness responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.uschamber.com/security/the-preparedness-payoff-the-
economic-benefits-of-investing-in-climate-resilience
\3\ https://nibs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/
NIBS_MMC_MitigationSaves_2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Back-End Emergency Response and Recovery
Major disasters require thousands of employees to find survivors,
set up shelters, process requests for assistance, and distribute
recovery information and funds. Particularly in the event of concurrent
disasters, there is unique value in a federal coordinating facility to
aid in such efforts. Well trained staff, along with efficient processes
that avoid historical problems of waste, fraud, and abuse will greatly
improve many post-disaster challenges. Another helpful area of focus
would be training staff on the notion that the existence of insurance
proceeds alone does not mean additional federal support will constitute
a windfall for a victim. The time someone is repairing or rebuilding
after a severe natural catastrophe could, in some instances, be an
ideal time for a property owner to use federal assistance to
incorporate additional hardening to help better withstand future damage
and scale mitigation faster, avoiding repeat losses.
Insurers' Longstanding Support for Mitigation & Resilience
The property/casualty insurance industry, and specifically NAMIC,
has a long history of working to advance such solutions to reduce the
effects of increasingly severe weather, particularly following
Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The industry helped establish and helps fund
cutting-edge research carried out by the Insurance Institute for
Business & Home Safety (IBHS).\4\ NAMIC, a founding member of the
BuildStrong Coalition,\5\ remains instrumental and steadfast in its
policy and advocacy support for resiliency and hardening the built
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://ibhs.org/
\5\ https://buildstrongamerica.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, President Trump signed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act
(DRRA) into law.\6\ The DRRA was a historically significant disaster
reform law containing a host of policies designed to significantly
boost the nation's pre-disaster funding mechanism, which included the
creation of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
Program (BRIC). While NAMIC recognizes that going forward the
provisions of the DRRA and the structure/administration of the BRIC
program may change, there are certain essential functions that we urge
be included as part of the future as the U.S. plans and executes on a
more resilient tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Sec. 42 USC 5124 et seq. (Division D--Disaster Recovery
Reform--within Public Law 115-254) https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-
congress/house-bill/302/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A
%5B%22HR+302%22%5D%7D&r=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAMIC supports government efforts to consistently make pre-disaster
funds available for projects that protect people and infrastructure
from natural hazards and the effects of extreme weather events that
ultimately reduce risk and help avoid losses of lives and property.
Indeed, in any government review of disaster aid expenditures, NAMIC
encourages agencies and stakeholders to: prioritize preparedness, build
and rebuild more resiliently, put an emphasis on commonsense and cost-
effective practices, such as individual and community-wide pre-disaster
mitigation measures, encourage up-to-date building codes; and bolster
retrofit programs to improve the existing housing stock.
The New Era of Risk is not Coming--It is Already Here
As we recently advised the Senate Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs
and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees, in
recent years, property/casualty insurers have found themselves facing
an unprecedented confluence of circumstances that has created a more
complex and riskier and costlier world for them and their
policyholders.\7\ More frequent and severe disasters and more Americans
choosing to move into flood or fire-prone counties are combining with
other forces and pressures far beyond the control of the insurance
industry, as interconnected risks continue expanding on more fronts
than ever before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.namic.org/resource/the-future-of-insurance-seeking-
solutions-in-a-new-era-of-risk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of more billion-dollar weather disasters is not a
matter of politics or opinion, but a matter of math--while the 1980 to
2024 annual average of such storms is 9.0, over the most recent 5 years
it has skyrocketed to 23 (CPI-adjusted). In 2023 and 2024, the U.S.
experienced 28 and 27 such disasters, respectively, each of which has
far reaching economic effects that extend well beyond the immediate
area where the storm hit. Earlier this year, the Eaton and Palisades
fires devastated communities across southern California, and recent
weeks have seen severe hailstorms and related flooding across the
Midwest and Southeastern United States, including areas still
recovering from last year's Hurricane Helene. In all those instances,
insurers continue to play the critical role of trusted financial first
responders, working closely with FEMA, state emergency managers, state
Departments of Insurance and other relevant officials to help customers
begin rebuilding their homes and lives.
Just as the disasters' presence is a matter of fact, so is the
value and benefit-cost ratio of mitigation across flood, hurricane
surge, wind, earthquake, and wildfire. Put simply, smart investment on
the front-end means avoiding damage and reduces the need for spending
down the road.
* * * * *
Conclusion
Among his many accomplishments, Benjamin Franklin was involved in
founding the first insurance company in the U.S., a mutual. One of his
famous quotes captures the spirit of mitigation that we hope will guide
a re-imagined federal emergency management entity: ``an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' In his time Franklin was
referring to preventing and reducing the impact of house fires in
colonial-era Philadelphia. While he did not have the current
understanding of building science, his words reflect wisdom today.
A fundamental shift in vision and tone is needed to rebuild trust
in the federal government's emergency management capabilities. This
should include a comprehensive message around instilling resiliency,
streamlining responses, speedier recovery, and stronger rebuilding.
NAMIC encourages Congress to take this opportunity to meaningfully bend
our nation's risk curve by prioritizing mitigation at scale in charting
the direction for America's built environment, considering both new and
existing structures and their locations/surroundings. Fewer homes
destroyed by catastrophes means more stability for families,
communities, and markets. We look forward to partnering with all
interested stakeholders in these efforts.
Letter and Attachment of July 22, 2025, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman,
and Hon. Greg Stanton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, from Jack
Waldorf, Executive Director, Western Governors' Association, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry
July 22, 2025.
The Honorable Scott Perry,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Greg Stanton,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Stanton:
In light of the Subcommittee's July 23, 2025, hearing, Fixing
Emergency Management: Examining Improvements to FEMA's Disaster
Response, attached please find Western Governors' Association (WGA)
Policy Resolution 2024-05, Disaster Preparedness and Response. The
resolution communicates Governors' policy recommendations for improving
the efficacy of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster
assistance to save taxpayer money and expedite response and recovery
efforts.
I request that you include this document in the permanent record of
the hearing, as it articulates Western Governors' collective and
bipartisan policy on this important issue.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me
if you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
Jack Waldorf,
Executive Director, Western Governors' Association.
Attachment
__________
Attachment
Western Governors' Association
Policy Resolution 2024-05
Disaster Preparedness and Response
A. BACKGROUND
Major disasters, emergencies and extreme weather events are
devastating to the people, property, economy, and natural environment
of the communities in which they occur. The outcomes of disasters and
emergencies can often be far reaching, and the public costs of
disasters and emergencies have increased significantly in recent years.
Governors hold the sole authority to request federal assistance when a
disaster overwhelms state and local capabilities, and the federal
government plays a critical role in pre-disaster risk mitigation,
disaster response, and long-term disaster recovery. The first
category--proactive risk reduction activities--has a very high return
on investment, especially in the context of modern, climate-influenced
disasters such as wildfire, extreme heat, or atmospheric rivers. The
latter two categories, disaster response and recovery, tend to create a
significant financial burden on individuals and communities, and this
burden may be disproportionately borne by people who are facing pre-
existing financial challenges. Effective disaster response and recovery
is essential not only to mitigate current disasters, but also prevent
additional `cascading disasters' in the aftermath of the initial event.
The COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the need for close coordination
between federal, state, territorial, local and tribal governments in
emergency management. Interagency coordination can serve to streamline
the provision of disaster assistance, which in turn can help to reduce
barriers to access and improve post-disaster outcomes.
B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT
1. Governors need maximum flexibility to respond to disaster and
emergency circumstances that may evolve quickly over the course of a
disaster through the initiation of recovery. Therefore, Congress and
federal agencies should expeditiously remove any barriers limiting a
Governor and their executive branch agencies' ability to save taxpayer
money and expedite response and recovery efforts while safeguarding
lives, property, and the environment. Western Governors recognize that
planning processes and disaster and emergency protocols are important
aspects of emergency management, but Governors also need significant
freedom to adapt those plans to changing circumstances during the
evolution of a disaster or emergency.
2. Federal, state, territorial and tribal efforts to prepare for,
mitigate against, respond to, and recover from emergencies and
disasters must ensure programs and response efforts are inclusive,
equitable, accessible, and representative of the affected communities.
Development of federal disaster programs, policies, and procedures
should be mindful of underserved and underrepresented communities while
also addressing all survivors' post-disaster needs.
3. Western Governors encourage Congress and federal agencies to
reassess the structure and administrative mechanisms of disaster
mitigation grant programs to establish the most effective means of
determining the necessity and delivery of federal disaster assistance.
This should involve eliminating duplicative processes and establishing
consistent standards for federal grant programs, including the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the State Homeland Security Program,
the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program, and the
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG).
4. When managing disaster declarations, state and local
governments coordinate billions of dollars in federal grants through
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To help offset
administrative requirements of these grants, FEMA regulations allow
recipients to utilize a percentage for management costs. These
management costs, however, are limited to each specific disaster and
regulations do not allow grantees to economize by managing workloads
across all open disasters. Western Governors urge Congress to direct
FEMA to allow grantees to utilize management costs across all open
disasters, which will build recovery and mitigation capacity,
incentivize disaster close-out, and reduce the costs of disasters.
5. Federal agencies conducting disaster recovery and assistance,
as well as the programs which they administer, should receive adequate
and consistent funding and allow Western Governors and their designated
executive branch agencies to have critical input on where those funds
are needed most. The lack of speed, certainty, and consistency in
deployment of federal disaster funding is a hindrance to coordinated
recovery efforts and effective utilization of public funds.
6. EMPG funds are the primary funding source for local emergency
managers, and funding for this program has ostensibly decreased due to
inflation. Congress should increase EMPG funding to expand state and
territorial capacity to provide technical assistance and expedite
reimbursement for FEMA public assistance applicants.
7. Stafford Act declarations generally respond to rapid-onset
catastrophes that cause severe damage in a particular area over a
defined incident period. Damage from slow-onset, compound, or cascading
disasters is difficult to quantify, and assistance for these disasters
has historically been limited. Congress should amend the Stafford Act
to support disaster response, recovery, and mitigation associated with
slow-onset, compound, or cascading disasters. Specifically, Congress
should amend the major disaster declaration definition to include slow-
onset or other comparable terms, establish a new type of declaration
and corresponding disaster assistance authorities for slow-onset and
ongoing incidents, and require FEMA to develop a means to assign damage
that is not limited to a discrete incident or incident period.
Additionally, Congress should require FEMA to modify or extend the
incident period under certain conditions.
8. FEMA requires that requests for major disaster declarations be
submitted within 30 days of the incident end date. This requirement
establishes an arbitrary timeline that does not reflect the reality of
cascading disasters. In cases such as wildfire, drought, winter storms,
or atmospheric rivers, damage can continue to accumulate and compound
well after the 30-day window has passed, preventing accurate damage
assessments and timely requests for a disaster declaration. FEMA should
extend the application period for a disaster declaration to 60 days and
permit extensions up to 90 days, if warranted. FEMA should provide a
determination on the declaration request within 60 days from the
request's submission. Doing so would accelerate the deployment of all
federal disaster assistance while minimizing uncertainty for states,
territories, and disaster survivors.
9. FEMA should provide additional resources to support its
regional offices' capacity and coordination with states and
territories. Each regional office must develop an understanding of
local resource concerns and other local factors to help ensure timely,
high quality damage assessments and closeout packages that properly
compensate communities for some of their most significant losses.
10. Many rural western communities have less concentrated
populations than eastern states, making it difficult for western states
and territories to qualify for Individual Assistance, Public
Assistance, and Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations.
Additionally, certain criteria, such as considering Total Taxable
Revenue of the entire state when evaluating whether to provide a major
declaration for a localized event, makes it virtually impossible for
large states to receive a declaration. Federal processes used to
evaluate the need for access to disaster aid programs should be
reconsidered. Federal agencies should reexamine the standards used to
determine the provision of Individual Assistance to homeowners and the
access to federal aid needed for recovery from disasters and
emergencies that affect western states and territories. The
historically underfunded U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service's Emergency Watershed Protection Program
should be revisited and strengthened.
11. Western Governors recognize that as the first responders to a
disaster or emergency, states, territories, local governments, and
tribes have better information about local conditions and needs in the
response and immediate recovery phases of a disaster or emergency. FEMA
and other applicable federal agencies should work directly with
individual states and territories through Governors or their designees
to jointly identify disaster risks and methods by which such risks may
be addressed.
12. Federal agencies should provide state, territorial, local, and
tribal government officials with accessible and clear information on
available federal resources and programs and the most effective
utilization of those resources in disaster recovery. WGA has worked
with federal partners to improve interagency coordination on post-
wildfire restoration work, including a roadmap of assistance available
to communities affected by wildfire and identification of
``navigators'' to help communities prioritize post-wildfire restoration
needs. Western Governors urge the federal government to prioritize the
funding of community navigator efforts for All-Hazards events and other
post-disaster restoration needs.
13. Following a Stafford Act major disaster declaration, FEMA
assigns a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) who is representing the
federal interagency resources available following a disaster. Once the
Joint Field Office closes and the disaster management operations
transition to the regional level, the Regional Administrator is
responsible for all remaining activities. It is crucial that the FCO
and the FEMA Regional Administrator have a strong relationship and
coordinate closely to ensure effective disaster management operations.
Another critical role for FEMA disaster personnel is the Public
Assistance Program Delivery Manager (PDMG), who is the primary FEMA
point of contact for applicants on their disaster projects. PDMGs are
currently deployed from all areas of the state and may have vastly
different knowledge on various types of disaster damage. Requiring
PDMGs to be deployed regionally would improve consistency and subject
matter knowledge, which would benefit applicants and FEMA alike.
14. Some western and midwestern states are at risk of catastrophic
earthquakes, and mitigation assistance beyond that currently
administered by FEMA is needed. Mitigation funds tied to FMAG
declarations assist fire-ravaged communities, and the FMAG and Hazard
Mitigation Post Fire Grant programs should be continued.
15. Western Governors recognize that community resilience is key
to ameliorating the effect of many disasters and emergencies, and that
damages could be avoided or minimized if resources were directed to
pre-disaster mitigation efforts. Hazard mitigation and risk reduction
are the most cost-effective ways to protect lives, property,
infrastructure, and the environment from the effects of natural and
human-caused hazards. Federal legislation should reconsider the
important role of pre-disaster mitigation that reduces the risk and
minimizes the effects of disasters and emergencies. When possible, pre-
disaster mitigation should be incentivized at the state and local
levels. Mobilizing and pre-staging disaster response resources is one
strategy for mitigating the potential damages from an anticipated
disaster, and FEMA should allow these activities to be eligible under
HMGP. If the key to minimizing the effect of disasters and emergencies
is pre-disaster mitigation, then steps need to be taken to reduce or
minimize the cost share that is associated with many, if not all of
these grants. Finally, infrastructure planning should include
consideration of risk reduction measures for known hazards and address
the dynamic hazard profile created by a changing climate.
16. Western Governors encourage the Administration to consider
actions to increase communication and cohesion of federal agencies in
disaster and emergency response. The Administration should consider
placing a federal agency in the lead role to coordinate communication
between and cohesion of federal agencies in disaster and emergency
response. Strengthening federal emergency management processes to
promote single, comprehensive points of contact and universal intake
processes for individuals would streamline state-federal coordination
and help ensure that individuals are not burdened by federal program
administrative processes. Federal agencies are encouraged to enter into
data-sharing agreements. Western Governors support the adoption of a
universal intake application for disaster assistance across federal
programs. Western Governors also support the consideration of a
national emergency management strategy to provide consistent lines of
communication between federal, state, territorial, local, and tribal
governments.
17. Western Governors recognize the need for clear, consistent,
accurate and timely communication about the scope and scale of
disasters and emergencies, both between all levels of governments and
between governments and their constituents. Clearly articulating what
is known and what is not known about a disaster or emergency is
critical to developing and executing an effective response from
governments, promoting public confidence in those response actions, and
empowering citizens to make informed decisions about their safety and
welfare.
18. Extreme weather and wildfires pose significant risks and
challenges to communities, public health and safety, and livelihoods.
Additionally, they create potential liability for electric companies,
regardless of the cause of the wildfire. The threat of significant
liability can destabilize the financial health of electric companies,
threatening their ability to continue operations. However, demands for
additional clean electricity continue to rise. Keeping electric
companies viable is essential to our energy needs and future economic
development within our states. Western Governors recognize, that unlike
other natural disasters, wildfires create pose an exceptional liability
risk for electric companies, placing them in a position that
jeopardizes their ability to provide essential power services amid
hotter and longer fire seasons. Western Governors urge Congress to
collaborate with regulators, policymakers, and stakeholders to explore
collaborative approaches to address the potential for large liabilities
associated with wildfires. These approaches should consider that
utility companies are not structured to meet the required risk
diversification, solvency, or other conditions traditionally associated
with insurance products.
19. Federal agencies should consider reducing or eliminating cost
share requirements in instances where those requirements expose states
to burdensome financial liabilities. For example, Other Needs
Assistance, a subset of Individual Assistance provided by FEMA, has a
25 percent state cost share. Adding or expanding benefits under the
umbrella of Other Needs Assistance increases state costs with no
mechanism to relieve these costs for large-scale disasters.
C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other entities,
where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the objectives
of this resolution and to keep the Governors apprised of its progress
in this regard.
This resolution will expire in June 2027. Western Governors enact new
policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on a semiannual
basis. Please consult http://www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most
current copy of a resolution and a list of all current WGA policy
resolutions.
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr.
Stanton, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my testimony, I
ask for unanimous consent that the committee observe a moment
of silence to honor the 135 lives lost in the Texas floods, and
to pray for the safe return of those still missing.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
[A moment of silence.]
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the sake of time,
I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record news accounts
corroborating the details I am about to provide in my opening
statement.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows Mr. Stanton's prepared statement.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG STANTON OF ARIZONA, RANKING
MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS,
AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing and focusing our mission to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Every Democrat on this panel accepts that
challenge, and I hope we can work together in a bipartisan way
to get this done.
The news out of Texas is heartbreaking. On July 4, flash
floods swept through Kerrville and nearby communities, claiming
135 lives, including 37 children. We have learned the faces and
stories of the victims: young girls whose dreams were stolen;
camp staff who gave their lives leading children to safety; a
father who punched through the window to save his family before
bleeding to death from his injuries; and two little sisters
swept away together, later found holding hands. So many
grieving neighbors and families on the ground who have been
working around the clock in response to this disaster. To those
brave women and men, we see you, we thank you, and we will not
forget your heroism.
Meanwhile, the Acting FEMA Administrator, David Richardson,
before us today, was missing in action. For the first 48 hours,
the most critical window for search and rescue, he never
visited the National Response Coordination Center. For more
than a week, he stayed away from Texas. And for 10 days, he
made no statement about this tragedy, not a word of sympathy or
reassurance to the public. When he appeared finally in Texas on
July 12, it felt like a box-checking exercise to quiet his
critics. He stayed only a few hours. But in his rush, Mr.
Richardson failed to check the most important box: basic human
decency.
This tragedy forces some incredibly hard questions: Did the
FEMA Administrator fulfill his legal duty? Did he fulfill his
moral duty? Did the Administrator sitting before us do
everything that he could to save lives?
The FEMA Administrator is the primary Federal coordinator
for disaster response. That means anticipating needs, acting
proactively, and moving resources swiftly, even without waiting
for a specific State request. FEMA's own National Response
Framework demands proactive search and rescue. These reforms
were put into place after Hurricane Katrina, when Federal
failures cost lives. Yet nearly 20 years later, history has
tragically repeated itself.
Secretary Noem required her personal sign-off on every
contract above $100,000. That bottleneck delayed urban search
and rescue teams for more than 72 hours. By the time many urban
search and rescue teams reached Texas, no one had been found
alive for days. Days.
On July 5, less than 24 hours after the tragedy, FEMA's
call center contract expired because of this $100,000 sign-off
policy. The result? The vast majority of calls from survivors
went unanswered. Families desperate for shelter and aid were
met with silence. Can you imagine losing a family member,
losing your home, and having your call go unanswered when you
are looking for a lifeline?
Yet, on July 11, with over 100 people still missing and
search teams still working to find people, President Trump and
Secretary Noem called it ``the best FEMA response ever,'' all
while this administration was working to dismantle FEMA, the
very agency whose workers were still risking their lives to
save others. According to CNN, FEMA's search and rescue chief
resigned in frustration over the Texas response. DHS
bureaucratic hurdles cost his team critical time and, likely,
lives.
This committee has a duty to uncover why FEMA failed to
meet its obligations and ensure no community ever faces these
failures again. So, I look forward to questioning Mr.
Richardson about these stunning breakdowns in leadership and
how we fix them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[Mr. Stanton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Stanton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and focusing our
mission to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Every
Democrat on this panel accepts that challenge, and I hope we can work
together in a bipartisan way to get it done.
The news out of Texas is heartbreaking. On July 4, flash floods
swept through Kerrville and nearby communities, claiming 135 lives,
including 37 children.
We have learned the faces and stories of the victims: young girls
whose dreams were stolen, camp staff who gave their lives leading
children to safety, a father who punched through a window to save his
family before bleeding to death from his injuries, and two little
sisters, swept away together, later found holding hands.
So many grieving neighbors and families on the ground have been
working around the clock in response to this disaster. To those brave
women and men, we see you, we thank you, and we will not forget your
heroism.
Meanwhile, the acting FEMA Administrator, David Richardson, was
missing in action. For the first 48 hours . . . the most critical
window for search and rescue . . . he never visited FEMA's National
Response Coordination Center. For more than a week, he stayed away from
Texas. And for ten days, he made no public statement about the tragedy.
Not even a word of sympathy or reassurance to the public.
When he finally appeared in Texas on July 12, it felt like a box-
checking exercise to quiet his critics. He stayed only a few hours. But
in his rush, Mr. Richardson failed to check the most important box:
basic human decency.
This tragedy forces a hard question: did the FEMA Administrator
fulfill his legal duty? Did he fulfill his moral duty? Did the
Administrator sitting before us do everything he could to save lives?
The FEMA Administrator is the primary federal coordinator for
disaster response. That means anticipating needs, acting proactively,
and moving resources swiftly, even without waiting for a state request.
FEMA's own National Response Framework demands proactive search and
rescue. These reforms were put in place after Hurricane Katrina, when
federal failures cost lives. Yet nearly 20 years later, history has
tragically repeated itself.
Secretary Noem required her personal sign-off for every contract
over $100,000. That bottleneck delayed Urban Search and Rescue teams
for more than 72 hours. By the time many reached Texas, no one had been
found alive in days. Days!
On July 5, less than 24 hours after the tragedy, FEMA's call center
contract expired because of this $100,000 sign-off policy. The result?
Seventy percent of calls from survivors went unanswered. Families
desperate for shelter and aid were met with silence. Can you imagine
losing a family member, losing your home, and then not having your call
unanswered when you're looking for a lifeline?
Yet on July 11, with over 100 people still missing and search teams
working behind them, President Trump and Secretary Noem called it ``the
best FEMA response ever.'' All while their administration was working
to dismantle FEMA, the very agency whose workers were still risking
their lives to save others.
And according to CNN, FEMA's search and rescue chief resigned in
frustration over the Texas response. DHS bureaucratic hurdles cost his
team critical time and likely lives.
This committee has a duty to uncover why FEMA failed to meet its
obligations and ensure no community ever faces these failures again. I
look forward to questioning Mr. Richardson about these stunning
breakdowns in leadership and how we fix them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
News Coverage of the July 4, 2025, Texas Hill Country Floods, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Greg Stanton
[Editor's note: The information is retained in committee files and
is available online at the House of Representatives document repository
at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW13/20250723/118485/HHRG-119-
PW13-20250723-SD002.pdf.]
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the ranking member. The Chair
now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Larsen, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, subcommittee Chair
Perry and Ranking Member Stanton, for convening today's hearing
on FEMA.
The importance of this hearing can't be overstated with the
recent tragedy in Texas, as it was a devastating reminder that
disaster preparation response is a life or death matter. To
quote former FEMA Administrator Pete Gaynor, ``Emergency
management is locally executed, State-managed, and federally
supported.'' The system was created so the Federal Government
can step in when local capacity and capability to respond to
disasters has been overwhelmed. This is how emergency
management has worked since President Carter created FEMA by
Executive order in 1979.
And now the current administration has stated its desire to
eliminate FEMA as it exists today and have States lead disaster
response. But States already lead disaster response; that is
how disaster response works. Dismantling FEMA does not empower
States, it just slashes the Federal safety net that serves as a
backstop for critical phases of emergency management. This will
not streamline disaster response, and will unnecessarily
inflate the impact and cost of deadly disasters.
And it appears so far that 434 of 435 Members in the House
of Representatives agree that FEMA should not be eliminated, an
outstanding majority for this body. Every congressional hearing
on FEMA as well this year has concluded that FEMA should
continue, and I expect that this hearing will reach the same
conclusion.
Now, despite clear congressional intent to the contrary,
here are just some of the actions the administration has taken
to disrupt and dismantle FEMA since taking office: allowed DOGE
unlawful access to FEMA's systems, including databases with
disaster survivors' private information; directed FEMA to
eliminate all climate change-related activities and
terminology; fired 200 probationary workers and pressured over
2,000 more to quit or accept early retirement packages; halted
all FEMA work related to resilient building codes and
construction standards; stopped enforcement of the Federal
flood risk management standard, putting taxpayers back on the
hook to rebuild infrastructure that is likely to flood again;
canceled FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program known as BRIC,
despite clear evidence that these investments in mitigation pay
for themselves many times over; ignored statutory deadlines to
facilitate FEMA disaster preparedness grants; mandated a
wasteful and inefficient manual review of all grant
disbursements, freezing over $100 billion in payments; ordered
every grant and contract over $100,000 to be personally
approved by Secretary Noem before disbursement; and ended the
door-to-door canvassing to help survivors register for Federal
aid after disasters.
Now, the culmination of these efforts paints a scary
picture that this country is not ready for disaster season. In
2017, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria stretched the system.
A similar hurricane season this year would break the system.
So, after reading your testimony, Mr. Richardson, I am glad
to hear that we both agree that FEMA should exist. That is why
I have worked with Chairman Graves to draft the Fixing
Emergency Management for Americans Act, or the FEMA Act. Our
bill will: restore FEMA to being an independent, Cabinet-level
agency; create a new Public Assistance Program that gives
incentives to States to prioritize resilience and rebuild
quickly; improve FEMA's Individual Assistance Program for
disaster survivors by creating a universal application for
Federal assistance, making it easier for survivors to access
resources for basic needs and housing; and restructure FEMA's
mitigation programs to make funding accessible with greater
speed and reliability.
It does many other things, and it is based on bipartisan
work of this committee and has bipartisan proposals from folks
on this committee and off of this committee.
We will be introducing the bill this week after months of
painstaking review and incorporation of stakeholder feedback.
We are not waiting for the FEMA Review Council--we don't need
to wait for a FEMA Review Council--we've have been reviewing
FEMA for a long time, and that's why the FEMA Act is getting
introduced.
So, I look forward to moving this legislation through the
committee and to the House floor before--hopefully--having it
passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law.
That is the process of making major changes to Federal
Government agencies.
Today, we are going to have a serious discussion on the
current state of the Nation's disaster readiness posture, and
there will be some tough questions, Mr. Richardson. But please
don't think we are asking them because we want you or FEMA to
fail. We want you and FEMA to succeed. We desperately want and
need you to succeed so Americans are safe from disasters. So,
thank you for being here. I look forward to your testimony, and
I yield back.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Stanton,
for convening today's hearing on FEMA.
The importance of this hearing cannot be overstated; the recent
tragedy in Texas was a devastating reminder that disaster preparation
and response is a life or death matter.
To quote former FEMA Administrator Pete Gaynor, ``emergency
management is locally executed, state-managed, and federally
supported.''
The system was created so the federal government can step in when
local capacity and capability to respond to disasters has been
overwhelmed.
That is how emergency management has worked since President Carter
created FEMA by Executive Order in 1979.
Now the current Administration has stated its desire to eliminate
FEMA as it exists today and have states lead disaster response.
But states already lead disaster response. That is how disaster
response works!
Dismantling FEMA does not empower states. It just slashes the
federal safety net that serves as a backstop for critical phases of
emergency management.
This will not streamline disaster response, and it will
unnecessarily inflate the impact and cost of deadly disasters.
And, it appears so far that 434 of the 435 members in the House of
Representatives agree that FEMA should not be eliminated. An
outstanding majority for this body.
Every congressional hearing on FEMA this year has concluded that
FEMA should continue.
I expect this hearing will reach the same conclusion.
Despite clear Congressional intent to the contrary, here are just
some of the actions the Administration has taken to disrupt and
dismantle FEMA since taking office:
Allowed DOGE unlawful access to FEMA systems including
databases with disaster survivors' private information;
Directed FEMA to eliminate all climate change related
activities and terminology;
Fired 200 probationary workers and pressured over 2,000
more to quit or accept early retirement packages;
Halted all FEMA work related to resilient building codes
and construction standards;
Stopped enforcement of the federal flood risk management
standard, putting taxpayers back on the hook to rebuild infrastructure
that is likely to flood again;
Canceled FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program known as
BRIC despite clear evidence that investments in mitigation pay for
themselves many times over;
Ignored statutory deadlines to facilitate FEMA disaster
preparedness grants;
Mandated a wasteful and inefficient manual review of all
grant disbursements, freezing over $100 billion in payments;
Ordered every grant and contract over $100,000 be
personally approved by Secretary Noem before disbursement; and
Ended door-to-door canvassing to help survivors register
for federal aid after disasters.
The culmination of these efforts paints a scary picture that this
country is not ready for disaster season.
In 2017, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria stretched the system--a
similar hurricane season this year would break the system.
After reading your testimony, Mr. Richardson, I am glad to hear
that we both agree FEMA should exist.
That is why I have worked with Chairman Graves to draft the Fixing
Emergency Management for Americans Act.
Our bill will:
Restore FEMA to an independent cabinet level agency;
Create a new Public Assistance program that gives
incentives to states to prioritize resilience and rebuild quickly;
Improve FEMA's Individual Assistance program for disaster
survivors by creating a universal application for federal assistance--
making it easier for survivors to access resources for basic needs and
housing; and
Restructure FEMA's mitigation programs to make funding
accessible with greater speed and reliability.
It does many other things, and it is based on bipartisan work of
this Committee and has bipartisan proposals from folks on this
Committee and off of this Committee.
We will be introducing the bill this week, after months of
painstaking review and incorporation of stakeholder feedback. We're not
waiting for the FEMA Review Council--we don't need to wait for a FEMA
review council--we've been reviewing FEMA for a long time, and that's
why the FEMA Act is getting introduced.
I look forward to moving this legislation through Committee and to
the House floor before, hopefully, having it passed by both houses of
Congress and signed into law.
That is the process of making major changes to federal government
agencies.
Today, we are going to have a serious discussion on the current
state of the nation's disaster readiness posture.
There will be some tough questions, Mr. Richardson, but please do
not think we are asking them because we want you or FEMA to fail.
We all desperately want and need you to succeed so Americans are
safe from disasters.
Thank you for being here, and I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the ranking member. The Chair
now welcomes our witness, Mr. Richardson.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
Briefly, I would like to take a moment to explain our
lighting system for our witness and for everybody else in the
room, in case you are wondering. There are three lights in
front of you. Green means go, yellow means you are running out
of time, and red means to conclude your remarks.
I would also encourage you just to make yourself familiar
with where the microphone switch is, so--and have the mic up to
your mouth so we can hear you.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that the witness' full
statement be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witness has
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to him
in writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record
remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information
submitted by Members or the witness to be included in the
record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
sir, the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to
5 minutes.
With that, Mr. Richardson, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID RICHARDSON, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE
DUTIES OF FEMA ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Richardson. Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, Mr.
Larsen, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am the senior official
performing the duties of the Administrator of FEMA.
Before I go on, I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the
tragic loss of life in New Mexico and Texas after the recent
flooding. I was on the ground in Kerr County and saw the
devastation firsthand. I am a father, and my heart sank when I
heard so many children perished in Texas. My heart goes out to
all of those who have lost loved ones. That said, I am honored
to be asked by Secretary Noem to assume my current position at
FEMA as we work to implement President Trump's vision of
ensuring the American people get immediate, effective, and
impartial disaster response and recovery.
The President and the Secretary have called on FEMA to
return to its statutory mission, and I am taking steps to do
exactly that. Consistent with their guidance, I have conducted
a thorough mission analysis of FEMA and directed the agency to
focus on three initial operational priorities: safeguarding the
American people; return primacy to the States; and strengthen
State, local, Tribal, and Territorial capability to respond and
recover from disasters.
First, FEMA must refocus on survivor-centric response and
recovery. FEMA needs to remove cumbersome processes for quicker
recovery so Americans return to their homes and communities and
rebuild faster. We must find the most innovative and creative
methods available to deliver assistance to every American who
qualifies for it, while also communicating faster, more
clearly, and through more modern means.
Second, FEMA needs to return to a model where disaster
response and recovery are locally led and State-managed, with
Federal support available when needed. As the President has
said, sometimes FEMA gets in the way, and FEMA should never get
in the way. The original intent of FEMA was to help State,
local, Tribal, and Territorial partners build their disaster
resilience, response, and recovery capabilities, and to provide
resources when they are overwhelmed by the scope of the
disaster. FEMA has lost sight of its original intent, but under
the leadership of the President and the Secretary, we are
returning to this mission focus.
Moving forward, we will continue to encourage increased
State and local investment and ownership of disaster
activities. By doing so, we will be better postured to
eliminate processes that create delays, backlogs, and survivor
frustration, while also increasing coordination with State and
local officials.
And third, we must bolster our partners' operational
readiness to support our homeland for the risks of today as
well as the threats of tomorrow. This means returning authority
and responsibility to the States, and improving our programs,
and leveraging technology to deliver that support that
communities and survivors need when they need it. The more we
build our partners' resilience, the more prepared our Nation
will be.
By emphasizing these operational priorities, we have
narrowed FEMA's focus to what it should have been all along:
making sure that resources are brought to bear to help
communities on their worst day. We are focused on cutting
through redtape and ensuring that when Federal assistance is
warranted, we deliver assistance to survivors rapidly,
regardless of the political affiliation, race, or creed. But
these are just the initial steps.
The President has appointed Secretary Noem and Secretary
Hegseth to lead the FEMA Review Council, which is conducting a
comprehensive review of the agency. The council is dedicated to
reimagining, not just reforming, FEMA. To that end, I will
ensure that FEMA is fully cooperative with the Review Council.
We respect the independence of the council's review, and will
welcome its recommendations. I am confident that the council
will offer the President actionable recommendations for a more
efficient Federal disaster response which is refocused on
serving Americans during their darkest days.
Additionally, the President has issued several Executive
orders to streamline Government, and Secretary Noem and I are
committed to ensuring that those Executive orders are carried
out both in letter and spirit.
Finally, I am a long-time public servant. I served in the
United States Marine Corps as a ground combat officer, leading
Marines in deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa. Before
FEMA, I served as the Assistant Secretary for DHS's Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction Office twice. As long as I am in
this role, I will ensure FEMA remains singularly focused on the
core mission.
This subcommittee has an important voice in this process of
change, and I look forward to working with the committee on the
FEMA of tomorrow. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify today, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Richardson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Richardson, Senior Official Performing the
Duties of FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the
Subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I am the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
I was honored to be asked by Secretary Noem to assume my current
position at FEMA as we work to implement President Trump's vision of
ensuring that the American people get an ``immediate, effective, and
impartial response to and recovery from natural disasters.'' The
President and the Secretary have called on me to return FEMA to its
statutory mission, and I am taking steps to do exactly that.
Consistent with their guidance, I have conducted a thorough mission
analysis of FEMA Headquarters and regional offices, and directed the
Agency to focus on three initial operational priorities:
Safeguard the American people;
Return primacy to the states; and
Strengthen state, local, tribal, and territorial
capability to respond and recover from disasters.
First, FEMA must refocus on survivor-centric response and recovery.
We should never let the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C. delay timely
and effective delivery of lifesaving or life-sustaining assistance.
FEMA needs to cut red tape and remove cumbersome processes for quicker
recovery, so that people can return to their homes, and communities can
rebuild faster. We must find the most innovative and creative methods
available to deliver assistance to every American who qualifies for it,
while also communicating faster, more clearly, and through more modern
means.
Second, FEMA needs to return to a model where disaster response and
recovery are locally led and state-managed, with federal support
available when needed. As the President has said, sometimes FEMA gets
in the way, and we should never get in the way. The original intent of
FEMA was to help state, local, tribal, and territorial partners build
their disaster resilience, response, and recovery capabilities, and to
provide resources when they are overwhelmed by the scope of a disaster.
FEMA lost sight of this original intent, but under the leadership of
the President and the Secretary, we are returning to this mission
focus. Moving forward, we will continue to encourage increased state
and local investment and ownership of disaster activities. By doing so,
we will be better postured to eliminate processes that create delays,
backlogs, and survivor frustration, while also increasing coordination
with state and local officials.
And third, we must bolster our partners' operational readiness to
support our homeland for the risks of today and the threats of
tomorrow. This means returning authority and responsibility to the
states and improving our programs and leveraging technology to deliver
the support that communities and survivors need, when they need it. The
more we build our partners' resilience, the more prepared our nation
will be.
By emphasizing these operational priorities, we have narrowed
FEMA's focus to what it should have been all along: making sure that
resources are brought to bear to help communities on their worst day.
We are focused on cutting through red tape and ensuring that, when
federal assistance is warranted, we deliver assistance to survivors
rapidly, regardless of political affiliation, race, or creed.
But these are just initial steps. The President has appointed
Secretary Noem and Secretary Hegseth to lead the FEMA Review Council,
which is conducting a comprehensive review of the Agency. The Council
is dedicated to reimagining, not just reforming, FEMA. To that end, I
will ensure that FEMA is fully cooperative with the Review Council. We
respect the independence of the Council's review and will welcome its
recommendations. I am confident that the Council will offer the
President actionable recommendations for a more efficient federal
disaster response, which is re-focused on serving Americans during
their darkest days.
Additionally, the President has issued several Executive Orders to
streamline government, and Secretary Noem and I are committed to
ensuring that those executive orders are carried out in both letter and
spirit.
Finally, I believe in public service. I served in the Marines Corps
as a combat officer, leading my Marines during deployments to
Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa. Before FEMA, I served as the Assistant
Secretary for the DHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office,
where I worked to effectively fulfill my mission. I bring that same
mindset of service to my current position. As long as I am in this
role, I will ensure FEMA remains singularly focused on the core
mission.
This Subcommittee also has an important voice in this process of
change, and I look forward to working with the Committee on the FEMA of
tomorrow.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his
testimony. We will now turn to questions. The Chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Richardson, last week, Members received a briefing from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, and
the Army Corps of Engineers on the ongoing response to the
Texas floods. And I know we are still in the response mode,
with over 130 fatalities and 100 people still missing,
tragically.
However, we do not know when the next disaster is going to
happen. And so, I know that we are looking for after action
reports, but I think I need to turn to some of the questioning,
or at least the testimony today, because it countervails what
we heard last week directly from FEMA from Mr. Turi, when I
asked him particularly about response times to the call center.
Now, we understand from Mr. Turi that when there is a
disaster occurring, that disaster is the one that receives
precedence. So, you might be getting calls into the call center
from across the country, but the ones outside the disaster
response area are put kind of behind the ones that are a
priority, which is the disaster that is occurring now. And in
that case, wait times were significantly reduced, based on what
we are hearing from the ranking member here.
And look, we just want to have the correct information. We
don't want to say that anybody is distorting the truth, but we
have got to make decisions on the correct information. So, the
information we got from Mr. Turi countervails what we are
hearing right here in the committee today. And so, I am hoping
you can elucidate as to what you know about the call center
response time.
We also know that people from around the country that call
and don't receive an immediate pickup from the call center hang
up. But those are still counted as calls into the response
center, and they are aggregated into the response time.
As well, we also heard that FEMA did not receive a request
from the State until Monday. So, there was no request prior to
Monday for FEMA to get involved in the disaster response
recovery effort.
And so, I would like you to elucidate, if you could, any of
that information that we received from Mr. Turi last week.
Mr. Richardson. So, thank you for your question, Chairman
Perry.
First, to the call center. So, any time that there is a
disaster, we surge support to the call center to address those
calls, and that is what we did. And so, the disaster happened
on Friday, and then there was Saturday and Sunday. And for most
people, they don't call into the call center over the weekend.
They would call in on Monday. And indeed, we had the surge
support available all weekend. And when they came in on Monday,
of course, there was a surge.
Now, as Mr. Turi very likely told you, all calls were
answered within 3 minutes, and no calls beyond 10 minutes. So,
it was from 3 to 10 minutes. And the vast majority of phone
calls were answered and the questions were addressed.
Now, regarding the--I think the next part of the question
is the support on the ground in Texas on--was it--you said
Monday, correct?
Mr. Perry. Well, that is what we understand from----
Mr. Richardson [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Mr. Turi is when FEMA received the
request from the State of Texas. FEMA doesn't----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. That is correct.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Just doesn't go unrequested. As the
Federal Government----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. That is correct.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. The requirement is to wait for the
State to request, and then be prepared to respond.
Mr. Richardson. So, Texas--first of all, on the deck in
Texas on the 4th of July, there was a national urban search and
rescue team. We have 28 of those teams all over the country.
One of them is in Texas. So in College Station, Texas, that
FEMA-funded, FEMA-trained, and FEMA-equipped asset was already
on the deck on 4 July. And there was also a Federal
coordinating officer at the EOC, Emergency Operations Center,
in Austin.
And regarding the request on Monday, that is correct. So,
the disaster declaration didn't come in until Sunday, and then
Monday, they requested and the support was there within 24
hours.
Mr. Perry. Within 24 hours. Is there a standard by which is
set for FEMA on--the response time is 24 hours? It seems--from
my standpoint, that seems like a long time to wait, so just
tell me if there is a standard.
When we had a medevac call in Iraq, as the commander of the
task force, if the aircraft wasn't airborne within 8 minutes of
the call, it was a call directly to the Secretary of Defense.
What is the response time, if you know, required for FEMA on
such a response?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. Once again,
they get there as quickly as possible. Those two teams came
from, I believe it was, Tennessee. No, it was Missouri and
Colorado. And they get there as soon as possible, because they
have got to move----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. I understand, but--so my time has
expired, but is there a minimum response time? I am just asking
for purposes of trying to make things better. So does FEMA have
a minimum response time once the request is made to respond,
like within an hour or within 24 hours? What is the----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. Well, they respond
immediately, and as soon as they get the word, they move. So,
they respond immediately----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. But there is no requirement that
you know of? There is no requirement?
Mr. Richardson. They get there as fast as possible. I don't
know if there is an hour number----
Mr. Perry [interposing]. Okay.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. But they get there as fast as
possible.
Mr. Perry. If you could get back to the committee with that
information, that would be helpful.
With that, my time is expired----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. I will.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. And the Chair now recognizes the
ranking member, Representative Stanton from Arizona.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, was
at the briefing that you were at, and it sounds like you and I
share our disappointment in FEMA staff for pointing the finger
at Governor Abbott, and blaming Governor Abbott and his team
for a late request for urban search and rescue help in this
horrible disaster.
But as Mr. Richardson, I am sure, knows, under Federal law,
under the National Response Framework, FEMA does not wait for a
request from the local government. Under the National Response
Framework, Federal law requires FEMA to anticipate the needs of
States in disasters to coordinate proactively, and not to wait
on the State's request for positioning resources.
Mr. Richardson, were you aware that this is Federal law for
you to act proactively, and not to wait for a request from
Governor Abbott to pre-position resources?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question, Mr. Stanton.
The capability, indeed, was pre-positioned. And that is why
I mentioned Texas Task Force 1. It was pre-positioned in Texas
and ready to go. Once again, that is a federally trained,
federally equipped--and they were----
Mr. Stanton [interrupting]. Mr. Richardson, I have got to
cut you off, because I have a short bit of time.
You need to talk to your staff, because your staff was
pointing the finger at Governor Abbott and saying the lack of
urban search and rescue proactivity was based upon a late
request from the Governor's office. My belief--and it sounds
like your belief--is that the requirement for you, as the FEMA
Administrator, is in light of the weather reports and how bad
it was going to be, was to pre-position those urban search and
rescue folks in advance. And I believe that FEMA has failed in
that mission because there could have been a lot more urban
search and rescue there--they weren't there until 72 hours
after the tragic incident.
How many times have you met with President Trump since you
have assumed this role?
Mr. Richardson. I have not met with President Trump.
Mr. Stanton. How many times have you spoken with President
Trump, one on one, in your current capacity?
Mr. Richardson. I correspond with the President on a
regular basis.
Mr. Stanton. Where were you on July 4 and July 5 of this
year?
Mr. Richardson. On July 4, I was on vacation.
Mr. Stanton. When did you return from your vacation?
Mr. Richardson. I returned the next day.
Mr. Stanton. So, on July 5, you returned to Washington, DC.
Mr. Richardson. I spent the entire vacation in my vehicle,
speaking on my phone to either the State of Texas or DHS
coordinating for the events in Texas.
Mr. Stanton. Were you on the first plane back to
Washington, then, from your vacation?
Mr. Richardson. I was in my truck, with my two boys and
myself. I was in my truck. I remained in my truck the whole
time.
Mr. Stanton. When did you first learn of Secretary Noem's
$100,000 sign-off policy?
And did you warn her or anyone at DHS about the potential
for delays in FEMA's ability to respond as a result of that
policy?
Mr. Richardson. The Secretary signs anything that comes
across her desk nearly immediately, without undue delay. And I
never had a concern about the $100,000 memo. It never concerned
me. I have never seen it cause any undue delay.
Mr. Stanton. The $100,000 sign-off policy did not delay
your ability to proactively put forward resources, urban search
and rescue resources in place as soon as you knew how bad the
flood was?
Mr. Richardson. Under President Trump's leadership and
Secretary Noem's leadership, their exceptional leadership, the
support that was so critical to the people and the State of
Texas on their worst day was on target, on time. And that is
what they told me. That is what the President said. That is
what the Secretary said. Texas got what they needed when they
needed it.
Mr. Stanton. So, your lack of visibility in the hours and
days and even week after this horrific flood that cost so many
lives is shocking. Secretary Noem was very present. You were
not.
Did President Trump, Secretary Noem, or any official at the
White House direct you to stand down during this crisis?
Mr. Richardson. I was in constant communication with the
State of Texas, DHS, and the White House, handling the disaster
immediately when I found out. And I remained so for the entire
time. Constant communication with the emergency manager in the
State of Texas, Nim Kidd, as well as region 6, as well as
communication with the White House and Secretary Noem. I was on
full duty, full-time.
Mr. Stanton. Mr. Richardson, you were nowhere near Texas at
the critical moments in the search and rescue, and you did not
even show your face for more than a week after the flood. You
are the Administrator of this critical agency. You are the
leader, but you did not lead as you are required to by Federal
law. But worse, you seem uninterested to learn what went wrong
and how to respond better.
Do the victims and survivors in Texas deserve an apology?
Mr. Richardson. What happened in Texas was an absolute
tragedy. It is hard to fathom. I went to Texas, I flew over. It
was an absolute tragedy. My heart goes out to the people in
Texas.
Mr. Stanton. That was----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. I know that there was----
Mr. Stanton [continuing]. That was intended as a yes-or-no
question, and I will appropriately take that as a no.
Mr. Chairman, this wasn't just incompetence. It wasn't just
indifference. It was both. And that deadly combination likely
cost lives.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Ezell from Mississippi.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Richardson, for being here, and thank you for meeting with me
earlier last week. We discussed numerous FEMA issues the other
day.
For years, the agency has struggled to respond effectively
to disasters both before and after they occur. A couple of
months ago, one of the county managers from North Carolina
testified before this subcommittee and reflected on the fact
that FEMA did not even pick up the phone when tragedy struck.
Within my own district, as we have discussed, projects
still linger after Katrina. We are coming up on the 20th
anniversary next month, 20 years after the deadly hurricane,
and my office is still battling with FEMA over issues from that
hurricane.
Mr. Richardson, what measures is FEMA taking to finally
close out the Katrina projects?
Mr. Richardson. There is a great emphasis on closing out
the FEMA projects. It is one of my discoveries during the full
mission analysis at FEMA that we have a long way to go on
closing out all the open disasters. In fact, just this morning,
I was briefed on the open disasters. And that's one of the
challenges we find with FEMA, that there are too many
bureaucratic processes in place for closing out the disasters.
Mr. Ezell. Are you are going to work on cutting out some of
those bureaucratic issues?
Mr. Richardson. Indeed I am, sir, and I would be glad to
collaborate with you, come see you, and talk you through how we
are doing that.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Kind of switching gears here just a
minute, last Congress, I asked Administrator Criswell to
consider the flood map provided by locals in my State. I am
encouraged by the positive feedback from that. And I want to
continue on with the conversations about that between FEMA and
the stakeholders in Mississippi.
A more informed consumer base armed with clear signals
about their flood risk would lead to better insurance
participation, stronger risk pools, and encourage flood
mitigation investments that reduce flood insurance premiums and
help the taxpayer. How is FEMA modernizing NFIP to meet the
need for property level risk flood management?
Mr. Richardson. So, the national flood insurance is a
challenge. Floods are the most damaging disaster that we have,
and that is what costs billions of dollars a year.
So, what I can say is that we are looking at ways to
modernize, and I don't want to get ahead of the FEMA Review
Council because I know that the FEMA Review Council is also
looking at ways to modernize the flood insurance program so
that we can all benefit from it. Right now, as I mentioned, it
is very expensive, but we always pay out the premiums at FEMA.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Mr. Richardson, many States depend on
preparedness grants for approaching disasters. Currently, we
are in hurricane season, as you well know, and these grants are
vital for preparation and mitigation.
Mr. Chairman, I request to submit for the record a letter
from Representative Davidson and Representative Landsman to
Secretary Noem and Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter of July 16, 2025, to Hon. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, and Hon. David Richardson, Senior
Official Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency. from Hon. Greg Landsman and Hon. Warren Davidson,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Mike Ezell
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC,
July 16, 2025.
The Honorable Kristi Noem,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 300 7th St SW, Washington, DC
20024.
The Honorable David Richardson,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C St SW, Washington, DC 20024.
RE: Frozen Public Safety Grants
Secretary Noem and Mr. Richardson:
We write to request further information regarding the ongoing delay
on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Notices of Funding
Opportunities (NOFOs) for critical public safety programs, including
the Emergency Management Performance Grant program (EMPG), the Urban
Area Security Initiative (UASI) and State Homeland Security Program
(SHSP). These are significant public safety grants for cities and
states across the country. Urban, suburban, and rural jurisdictions are
greatly assisted every year by this grant funding.
The Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) Continuing Resolution (P.L. 119-4)
includes a 60-day deadline for the release of NOFOs for the authorized
and funded grant programs. To date, no FEMA programs have been noticed.
Furthermore, we have heard from constituent public safety and emergency
management agencies that they anticipate no NOFOs being released for
FY25.
Programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grant program,
Urban Area Security Initiative grant, and State Homeland Security
Program grant address public safety and disaster preparedness
initiatives in communities across the State of Ohio and every other
state in the country. EMPG supports state and local level emergency
management programs, UASI supports community emergency response and
cybersecurity programs, while SHSP augments law enforcement and first
responder capabilities during emergencies. For example, Ohio's fusion
centers--particularly those that serve Cincinnati and surrounding, less
populated counties--enhance cooperation and intelligence sharing among
various law enforcement agencies and receive critical support from
these FEMA programs that keep all Southwest Ohioans, and all Americans,
safe.
These delays in the FY25 grant process will significantly delay the
disbursement of these critical funds. Therefore, we request information
and/or a response on the following:
1) Why have NOFOs for FY25 grants not been released despite the
60-day deadline?
2) Is there a specific executive order or OMB directive precluding
disbursement of these funds? If so, what is being done to remedy the
issue and when can applicants expect to receive funding again?
We appreciate all relevant context and information that the
department can provide on this issue. Without these funds, urban,
suburban, and rural communities in all 50 states may be significantly
less prepared for natural disasters, preventing violent attacks, and
responding to emergency situations in a timely manner. As such, we
respectfully urge you to release FY25 NOFOs.
Sincerely,
Greg Landsman,
Member of Congress.
Warren Davidson,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Ezell. Mr. Richardson, can we expect the Notices of
Funding Opportunities for fiscal year 2025 grants to be
released? They are currently 68 days behind their past due
date.
Mr. Richardson. I have good news. As we speak, notice of
fundings are going out the door.
Mr. Ezell. Great. Boy, that is really good news.
Lastly, Mr. Richardson, have you been able to read through
the bipartisan work product the committee has introduced on
FEMA reform? And what is your opinion of the reform draft?
Mr. Richardson. Indeed, I have. Can you repeat the last
part of the question, Mr. Ezell?
Mr. Ezell. Have you been able to read through the reform we
have asked? And can you give us your opinion about the draft?
Mr. Richardson. So, I read through the draft. And because I
have done my own thorough mission analysis at FEMA, I am pretty
familiar with the language in your draft. And there were a
couple of things I saw. Although it didn't address mission
creep necessarily, what I did see was that it was restricted to
the statutory missions of FEMA, which is good, because what I
discovered during the mission analysis, there is a lot of
mission creep.
A couple of other things I saw in there. There was a large
emphasis on coordination. I think part of the mission creep at
FEMA is that there are boots on the ground where we should be
doing more coordination.
I do believe I saw something in there on continuity, which
is outstanding, and then I think there could be better survivor
interface, and that is also something that was in the draft
language.
Mr. Ezell. Okay. Thank you, sir, and I appreciate you being
here today.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee,
Representative Larsen from Washington.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Richardson, your testimony says that you have been
asked to ``return FEMA to its statutory mission,'' and you
mentioned that a couple of times. So, I have a list here
compiled by the Congressional Research Service of the 518
actions that the law mandates FEMA needs to do. And currently,
FEMA doesn't follow all these laws. It's 518 statutory
missions.
And this is kind of a crazy question, but can you commit
today that you will fulfill the promise in your testimony to
return FEMA to its statutory mission and implement all the
mandates in this list?
Mr. Richardson. So, the answer is I did--we did a whole
mission analysis at FEMA, which comes up with just--not far
from the statutory tasks that you have there. And what we did--
and I can commit to--is that we developed eight mission-
essential tasks that we have to do by statute. We have only
done the initial analysis, but what I can commit to is we,
until otherwise directed, will continue to carry out the
mission-essential tasks for the Federal Emergency Management--
--
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Well, I think it
is fair to say that there are probably eight categories of
missions, and I don't think FEMA only does eight things. And I
think what these 518 actions that are in law that says FEMA has
to do that are your mandates are worth going over.
So, I want to be sure we enter this in the record, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Chair?
[No response.]
Mr. Larsen of Washington. I will take care of it.
The next thing I want to ask is you noted that the
original----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
FEMA Statutory Authorities, Structural Protections, and Selected
Delegations as Compiled by the Congressional Research Service,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
[Editor's note: The information is retained in committee files and
is available online at the House of Representatives document repository
at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW13/20250723/118485/HHRG-119-
PW13-20250723-SD003.pdf.]
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you.
Your testimony says the original intent of FEMA was to help
State, local, Tribal, Territorial partners build their disaster
resilience, and that FEMA ``must bolster our partners'
operational readiness to support our homeland for the risks of
today and the threats of tomorrow.'' Here's the thing. There
are three, really kind of basic, three missions of FEMA: pre-
disaster mitigation, immediate response, and recovery. It
sounds to me like the administration really wants to do
response and recovery, and leave sort of the preparation to
lower the damage from disasters, leave that to State and local
governments--that is the pre-disaster mitigation bit--which is
why the administration canceled billions of dollars in BRIC
money--Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities--money
and pulled that back.
But it does seem that you aren't helping communities
prepare for their worst day if we are not helping them--if we
are not including in the recovery bit the ability to build for
that worst day so the impact of the worst day is less than it
could have been. And that is pre-disaster mitigation
assistance.
I am thinking specifically of a lot of things in my State,
one in particular, the $85 million grant that was 4 years in
the making for the county at Grays Harbor. I can get you the
details on it. But this is not a county that is going to find
$85 million in the couch cushions to be able to do that work.
And there are places all over the country that need Federal
assistance for pre-disaster mitigation in order to prepare for
the likelihood that something is coming in the future. It could
be floods in my area, it could be earthquakes in my area, it
could be wildfires and so on.
But the administration is sort of saying, no, States and
locals need to do that, when they don't have the money to do
that. We are the backstop. We need to be helping States and
locals prepare for this, and paying for this with appropriate
review so that the disaster we respond to is less than it could
have been.
And so, I mean, do you think that FEMA has no
responsibility to help local governments and State governments
prepare for that worst day? Because that is what it sounds
like.
Mr. Richardson. What I think is that--I think--I believe
you are referring to mitigation, correct?
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, yes.
Mr. Richardson. Okay.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes.
Mr. Richardson. Okay. What I believe and what FEMA believes
is mitigation is very important. And I think you know what the
return on investment for----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Absolutely.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Mitigation----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Seven to one, or--
--
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Mitigation, it is like, yes,
seven to one, or six to one, I don't really remember.
However, under Secretary Noem's outstanding leadership, as
well as the President's outstanding leadership, FEMA is
responsible to ensure there is proper oversight of the grant
funding for mitigation.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Well, here is the point on that,
and I appreciate that. I don't think their leadership has been
outstanding on that, and that is my job to be critical and to
be complimentary when things are--when both circumstances avail
themselves to that.
But on pre-disaster mitigation, on helping communities
prepare, I don't think they have done outstanding leadership.
They have actually cut the money to zero to help our State and
local governments prepare for that worst day so the worst day
is less than it would have been.
And we may not have been specific in the FEMA Act to
include that. We are looking at changes to make as part of the
FEMA Act. It doesn't mean we are against disaster mitigation
assistance, because we already have that. What you are all
choosing to do is to not do what you can do.
Now, the law doesn't say you have to fund the BRIC program;
it authorizes you to fund the BRIC program and DRF. But not
funding the BRIC program is actually making the worst day the
actual--really the worst day, as opposed to investing in
ensuring the worst day is less than it could have been.
I have just really got to hit home on that, and we are
really going to push hard on you all, the administration, so
that their leadership can be outstanding. I want it to be
outstanding. I don't think it is right now.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Kennedy.
Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson, for being here. I wanted to
start off with a disaster that is unfolding in the State of
Utah right now, a fire that currently is--the Deer Creek Fire
has burned more than 17,000 acres, and we have over 580
firefighters and personnel on the line right now in the State
of Utah. There are helicopters, dozers, and engines that are
backing up these individuals trying to help with that. But I
want to recognize their courage and thank FEMA for stepping in
to help early with a Fire Management Assistance Grant. That is
really important to us, and that Federal support actually can
make all the difference as we deal with the wildfires not only
in the State of Utah, but throughout the West.
That said, serious challenges remain. In 2024, Utah
expected to spend $12 million on wildfire suppression, and
instead, we spent $28 million by late August. And FMAG
reimbursements from previous fire seasons are still delayed for
us, leaving the State to front the costs.
Thanks to your leadership and the Utah State Legislature,
we are now operating with the unified Wildfire Suppression Fund
that supports prevention and post-fire recovery. It is a
forward-looking, State-led model that gives Utah the
flexibility to act quickly and invest wisely. Utah needs
Federal partners who help us move faster, not slow us down in
these circumstances. I have a few questions regarding that.
So the first question is, working with the Utah
Legislature, we have got this Wildfire Suppression Fund that is
designed to manage all phases before, during, and after the
fire. How is FEMA supporting that kind of State-led model,
especially for major incidents like the Deer Creek Fire and
smaller fires like Emilia and Rye Draw?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for your question.
So, the way we manage that is not only through FEMA, but
also through the regional administrator, and they work very
closely with the States on those issues.
I am very aware--and my heart goes out to the people of the
fires. I get briefed on that nearly every day, so, I see them.
And so, that is kind of how we handle that at the--normally at
the regional level. And the regional managers, they will
contact me. We are in close communication and we work through
any issues that happen. But that generally happens at the
regional level, which is the--it is how it should be, because
that is the closest to----
Dr. Kennedy of Utah [interposing]. Great.
Mr. Richardson [continuing].The State.
Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Good. Thank you very much for that.
As to these reimbursements, the assistance grants
reimbursements, Utah is still waiting for FMAG payments from
past fire seasons. What is FEMA doing to speed that up to help
these States that have spent a lot of money to suppress these
wildfires, often that are on Federal lands?
Mr. Richardson. Sir, you are asking me how we are speeding
up the FMAG process?
Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Yes, how do we speed up the FMAG
process?
Mr. Richardson. So, I am not real familiar with exactly how
we do the FMAG. What I would like to do is go back to my office
and see----
Dr. Kennedy of Utah [interrupting]. Please do.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Exactly how it is done, and
then we will bring to you some recommendations, if I----
Dr. Kennedy of Utah [interrupting]. Yes, and anything we
can do to help with that, with recommendations on your part or
our part. The reality is this is in the State, but the Federal
lands are often implicated, which leads me to my final
question.
If I have any time remaining, I will yield that to my
chair.
But the Deer Creek Fire currently is crossing county and
State lines as well as Tribal lands. And what systems is FEMA
using to support real-time coordination as we deal with various
jurisdictions associated with these fires which don't respect
boundaries?
Mr. Richardson. So, are you asking me what technology we
are using?
Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Technology or methods that we will use
as these fires cross various jurisdictions, including State
lines, county lines, and Tribal lands.
Mr. Richardson. Once again, I am going to have to get back
with my staff, and I will circle back with you.
Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Please do, thank you very much.
Mr. Richardson. Because I don't know the exact answer to
that.
Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Mr. Chair, I will yield time to you
if--I have got about a minute left, so please----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Mr. Richardson, in previous questioning, it was implied
that FEMA is, I think, uncaring. And many of us on either side
of the aisle here have certainly plenty of, I think, justified
criticism of FEMA. But in regard to the Texas flood and the
search-and-rescue effort, it was my understanding in the
briefing last week that the Governor requested the Coast
Guard--indeed, close by, one unit located in Houston--neither
unit could get to the site of the flooding and actually do a
search and rescue or recovery operations due to weather. And as
a matter of fact, one of the members of the Coast Guard has
been highly decorated for his actions on the ground there.
Can you--look, like I said, we just want to make sure that
we level-set here and we understand what happened, what FEMA's
role was, what FEMA was prepared for but what was actually used
by the Governor. If FEMA was stationed onsite but the Governor
didn't want FEMA there because he wanted to use the Coast Guard
because of a pre-existing relationship or because of capability
or location, that is important to know now. Can you provide or
shed any light on that issue?
Mr. Richardson. Definitely. Thank you for the question. So,
let's back up.
So, from the second that I found out about the horrible
disaster in Texas, what I was doing was coordinating, okay?
From where I was, I was coordinating to ensure that these
assets were being applied to the disaster.
Now, Texas Task Force 1, which is a FEMA paid-for and
equipped asset, was working also with the State emergency
manager, but they also have a direct relationship with the
Coast Guard, CBP, public health, and the Texas National Guard.
So, there were other forces on the ground that were either
Federal forces like Texas Task Force 1, which is a national,
and then there were also other DHS assets. And through
Secretary Noem's extraordinary leadership, my coordination, we
made sure they were available to the Emergency Operations
Center.
Mr. Perry. I appreciate the answer. The time of the
gentleman is long expired, and I want to respect everybody on
the committee. The Chair now recognizes the Delegate from
Washington, DC, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Richardson, the Potomac River is the only source of
drinking water for the Nation's Capital, which I represent. The
Army Corps of Engineers produces the drinking water for the
Nation's Capital. And the Army Corps only has 1 day of backup
water supply. This poses a significant risk to the residents of
the Nation's Capital, the operations of the Federal Government,
national security, and regional economy.
What steps, if any, has the Federal Emergency Management
Agency taken to prepare for the possibility that the Potomac
River could become unusable for drinking water at any moment,
whether through man-made or natural events?
Mr. Richardson. Ms. Norton, thank you for your question,
and the first time this came to my attention was yesterday
afternoon. And before I left the office, I asked my staff, I
said, ``We need to get together information so that I can go
sit down with Ms. Norton and walk through this, and we need to
know all the issues.''
So, if you would allow me to come and talk you through this
and figure out how we are going to address this, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Norton. Very much, I would appreciate your coming.
Do you believe that human activity, particularly the
burning of fossil fuels, is the primary cause of climate
change?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question, Ms. Norton.
What I believe is, I am sitting in the chair of the FEMA
Administrator. I believe that we will address disasters,
regardless of their origin.
Ms. Norton. Well, do you believe that the frequency and
severity of natural disasters in the United States are
increasing?
Mr. Richardson. What I believe is, regardless of whether
they are increasing or not, that FEMA is there to assist the
American public, the Nation, in disaster response and recovery,
regardless of the origin or regardless of the frequency.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Representative Babin.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And also thank you, Administrator Richardson, not only for
being here, but also for your service as a marine. Thank you so
much.
The tragic events that took place during the flood in the
heart of the Texas Hill Country has shaken us all very, very
deeply. But for me and many families in my district, this hit
pretty close to home. The Hill Country is home to Camp Mystic,
Camp Stewart, Camp Waldemar, Heart O' the Hills, and many other
cherished summer camps. The children at these camps were
heavily impacted by the flooding.
My family's connection to these camps spans generations. As
a matter of fact, my father-in-law and my brother-in-law were
there in the 1930s and 1960s. I was a teenage counselor myself
in the 1960s. My own granddaughter had just returned from Camp
Mystic's first term earlier this summer, and another one of my
granddaughters was planning on attending Camp Mystic, as well,
in the second term, but unfortunately--or should I say
fortunately--she had a torn meniscus, and we had to cancel. I
have had four grandsons attend Camp Stewart just a few miles
down the road, and there are so many more people not related
necessarily by blood but who feel like camp family to me. It
was a cultural thing that went for many, many generations.
The entire State mourns the loss of long-time camp director
Jane Ragsdale, a woman who poured her heart into shaping
generations of young lives, including my own daughters and
granddaughters. No words can really, truly capture the grief
and heartbreak that so many of us feel, but we owe it to these
families and future generations to ensure that this never
happens again.
We must learn everything we can from this tragedy. We must
act. And that is why the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, which I chair, will be conducting a thorough review
of the circumstances surrounding this event, and it is also why
reauthorization of the Weather Act must prioritize improving
weather communication, strengthening coordination with local
officials, and accelerating technological innovation.
Communities must have every single advantage when severe
weather hits. NOAA and the National Weather Service must be
equipped to fulfill their core mission: protecting life and
property. The National Weather Service has been found to have
done their job. They were not understaffed. The truth of the
matter is they did what they needed to do.
Administrator Richardson, as you know, heavy rains and
flash floods are not uncommon in Texas, especially in my own
district over on the east side of the State, where we have had
seven disaster declarations in 10 years. But the scale and
suddenness of this particular event in Kerr County, Texas,
demand urgent attention.
And here on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, where we work closely with FEMA on long-term
planning and disaster mitigation, I look forward to working
with you and your team to identify gaps, streamline interagency
communications, and support smart, data-driven solutions.
Whether it's investing in flood mapping, modernizing warning
systems, or expanding public education, we have got to work
together to prevent another tragedy. This flood has changed
lives forever. We owe it to every single family, camper,
counselor, first responder to make sure that their pain leads
to progress.
I don't have--well, I have got a little time left, so, I
want to ask you--I have a question. What steps will FEMA take
to ensure that something like this will never happen again?
And how can we in Congress support your efforts to
strengthen preparedness and response capabilities?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for your question.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Richardson. And once again, the events in Texas, the
tragic--I mean, we have all heard descriptions of it, seen
descriptions of it. It was absolutely horrible, and our hearts
go out to the great State of Texas and all the people. I have
got two boys, and I just--when I flew over the Guadalupe River
and saw Camp Mystic, my heart, which had already sank, sunk
further.
But this is how we kind of work this. This is locally led,
State-managed, and federally supported. So, what we do is, we
work as closely as we can with the emergency managers in Texas
and the local communities. And through mitigation grants and
resilience and those type of efforts, we work with them to
build the best emergency management system we can have.
And as you saw in Texas, under the Secretary's leadership
and the President's leadership, it worked very, very well.
Under Nim Kidd's guidance, it is--that is a model of how it
works. And I can tell you that Texas is in good hands, and we
want to use Texas as a model for how it is done.
I spoke to--immediately when I found out about the
disaster, I was on the phone the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday
almost constantly speaking to Nim Kidd, the region, and that
crew there, and that is why that was--the partnership between
FEMA and the State and the local was the reason why that was
handled so well and why, although it is a tragedy, it was a
model for how to respond to a disaster.
Dr. Babin. Okay.
Mr. Perry. The gentleman's----
Dr. Babin [interrupting]. Thank you.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Time has expired.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Friedman from California.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Richardson, for being here
today. I represent parts of Los Angeles, which, of course, was
devastated by huge megafires recently. I am very appreciative
of FEMA's efforts on the ground.
What we have discovered is that currently, FEMA bars
providing assistance to disaster victims who have received
individual charitable donations like through their church or
through a GoFundMe page. They are finding that FEMA is
deducting that amount. So, I introduced a bill, Don't Penalize
Victims Act, to ensure that charitable donations are not
considered a duplication of benefits by FEMA. People aren't
raising money to give it to FEMA. They are raising money to
give it to victims to help them rebuild their lives.
I would like you to say that you are willing to work with
us on this, and that you will support these efforts as they
move forward.
Mr. Richardson. I would be glad to work with you, and what
I would like to say is there should be no politics in emergency
management. I would be glad to work with you, and glad to look
into it.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, and now I would like to continue
on some of the questions that have been asked about FEMA's
response to the horrific flooding in Texas. And as a mom whose
daughter has gone to a Girl Scout camp and been up in wild
areas, that whole incident really broke my heart. So, my heart
goes out to everybody in Texas that was affected.
The New York Times reported last week that on July 7, 3
days into the emergency response effort, FEMA call centers
responded to less than 20 percent of the calls coming in from
disaster victims for help. That means more than four out of
five calls went unanswered, and I can just imagine the
frustration of people looking for loved ones, dealing with
damage, dealing with incredible tragedy to find out that their
Government just wasn't answering the phone.
Secretary Noem, however, claimed on ``Meet the Press'' that
the New York Times piece was ``fake news,'' so, I would like to
clear this up for the record. Isn't it accurate that 80
percent--at least--of the calls that went to FEMA call centers
on July 7 went unanswered?
Mr. Richardson. When the tragedy struck, we knew there
would be a----
Ms. Friedman [interrupting]. It is a pretty simple yes-or-
no question. They either answered the calls or they didn't
answer the calls on July 7.
Mr. Richardson. When there was a spike in calls, FEMA was
there to answer the calls. The majority of the calls were
answered at the call centers.
Ms. Friedman. Well, that is not what the report says. The
report says that on July 5, as the floodwaters were starting to
recede, FEMA received 3,027 calls from disaster survivors and
answered 3,018 of them, which is over 99 percent. Contractors
report call center companies answered the vast majority of the
calls. That evening, however, Ms. Noem did not renew the
contracts with those four companies and hundreds of contractors
were fired, according to the documents and the person briefed
on the matter. The next day, July 6, FEMA received 2,363 calls
and answered 846, or roughly 35.8 percent, according to those
documents. And on Monday, July 7, the agency fielded 16,419
calls and answered 2,613 of them, which is only 15.9 percent.
That is shown by official documents. And FEMA officials were
incredibly frustrated by the lapse in those contracts, and it
was taking days for Ms. Noem to act.
A little while ago you said that part of your job, you
felt, was to remove--you called them bureaucratic--closing out
bureaucratic procedures. To me, having someone, one person
only, having to sign off on every contract of $100,000 or more
is the definition of bureaucracy. And in this case, it led to
thousands of victims not having their calls answered by their
Government. Their Government wasn't there when they reached out
for help in their darkest hour.
So, are those numbers fake? Are you telling me that those
are fake numbers, or are they verifiable and did Ms. Noem
misspeak when she said that it was fake news?
Mr. Richardson. What I can tell you is the vast majority of
phone calls were answered. There was never a lapse in the
contract.
Secretary Noem, under her leadership, she is concerned
about due diligence and making sure the American people get
what they deserve----
Ms. Friedman [interrupting]. So, in your mind----
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. With their tax dollars.
Ms. Friedman [continuing]. 15.9 percent of calls being
answered is the vast majority? That is the vast--that is your--
so is that the benchmark now we are looking for, for FEMA to
answer their calls, 15 percent or, in one case, 35 percent in a
day in the middle of this disaster, this huge disaster?
Mr. Richardson. I would have to agree with Secretary Noem.
That is fake news. The majority of the calls were answered.
There was never a lapse in contract.
Ms. Friedman. Well, that is absolutely not what the reports
from these companies of the disaster say. They give specific
numbers of calls that went unanswered, and I don't see how you
can deny these reports.
But I will yield my time back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Onder from the State of Missouri.
Dr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, thank you, Mr.
Richardson, for being here with us today.
Missouri experienced severe storms and flash flooding
earlier this year on May 23, and we didn't receive a disaster
declaration until last night. My constituents were frustrated
by how long it takes to get temporary housing and debris
removal assistance support from FEMA. Why does it take so long
to make these determinations, and what is being done to cut the
time to get help in these situations?
Mr. Richardson. So when the determinations come in, we
review them. We work with the regions, primarily.
As far as specifics of each one of the declarations, I
would like to get back to you. I will go back home, look into
it, I will figure it out and I will come back to you and give
you any specific details, because I think you are looking for
specific information in a certain declaration, correct?
Dr. Onder. Yes, or what is the process of issuing these
declarations.
Mr. Richardson. The declarations come in, there is a set of
criteria, and then we make a recommendation on that criteria.
Once again, it is eligibility-based, so there is criteria
and we have to take a look at the criteria and make sure--for
example, from the first second I found out about the horrific
events in Texas, I got on the phone, and I was speaking to the
emergency manager there. And we were talking about how the
declaration was going to come in, how it was going to be
crafted. So there is some pre-work that is done--right in the
middle of the disaster, normally--and then there is some
administrative work that needs to be done at the regional
level. And then it comes to FEMA.
But it is normally worked out very early, if they meet the
criteria or not, because we all kind of have a pretty good idea
of what it is, and then we've got to get it down on paper. And
that is what I spent a lot of time on the 4th of July--or
really, the 4th and the 5th with Nim Kidd, because theirs came
in, I believe it was just after midnight on Sunday, so it came
in very quickly from Texas. And then the criteria, we took it
and we turned that around within just a couple hours.
Dr. Onder. Very good. And you emphasized the need to cut
redtape and remove cumbersome processes to speed up disaster
recovery. Can you walk us through specific internal FEMA
policies or procedures that you have streamlined to speed up
delivery of assistance?
Mr. Richardson. Yes, so one of the things that I recognized
immediately--and part of it was due from being the Assistant
Secretary at CWMD prior, part of it was doing mission analysis.
What I discovered is there were three or four contract shops
around FEMA. So we consolidated that, okay, because that makes
it a lot faster. If you consolidate, you have got the same
people, you are keeping track.
And then the other thing we do is we make sure that we have
got a team that tees those contracts up for me to sign, and we
have certain ones that have to come to me. So what we have done
is we have reduced the number of hands, so to speak, that touch
those. We also consolidate it so we know where they all are
exactly. So it is actually working pretty good now, and that is
what we have done.
Dr. Onder. And you have said that FEMA needs to return
primacy to the States. For States like Missouri, what would
that look like? What kind of shift in operational authority and
flexibility to State and local managers might we see?
Mr. Richardson. Well, it wouldn't necessarily be--it
probably has to do more with training and coordination. So, the
coordination is the key piece, how the coordination is done.
One of the challenges that FEMA has is when the region
comes into the State, even though we run TTXs all the time--I
think I was involved in at least seven or eight TTXs, all the
way from Guam to the Virgin Islands--and one of the things I
talked to the folks in the after action about was what gaps in
capability they had.
So, if the States can become adept at identifying their
gaps, and if they can communicate that to the region, that is
part of it. So, they know what their shortfalls are, they have
pre-identified them so that we can pre-position assets. That is
the key. And the State--once again, States like Texas are kind
of a model, and they did that very well, as demonstrated in the
events of the flood.
Dr. Onder. Very good. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Figures.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Richardson, for being here with us today.
I represent the Second Congressional District of Alabama,
which begins in Mobile. It is where I am from, where I was
born, where I was raised. And with the exception of probably
Congressman Ezell from Mississippi, I don't know that there is
another member on this committee that has actually been through
more FEMA-responded disasters from hurricanes throughout the
entirety of my life. So, it is important to me that FEMA is
ready, is prepared, because it is not a matter of if we get hit
by a hurricane, it is a matter of when we get hit, and how
severe the damage will be, and what FEMA's role will have to be
in responding to that.
We are approaching the 20-year anniversary of Katrina, and
a lot of focus on Katrina is on New Orleans, but there was an
entire realm of the east side of that storm that decimated
parts of Mississippi and Alabama, as well. And so, this is a
time where people are focused on some negative history as it
relates to FEMA and FEMA's response.
And as I sit here, the question that I just have to ask--
because if we get hit by a hurricane or when we get hit by a
hurricane--and fortunately, there is not a bad response, but if
there is a bad response from FEMA, I don't want to sit here and
the answer is, ``I am sorry.'' I don't want you to be sorry. I
want you to be careful. I want you to be prepared. I want you
to be ready.
So, in light of what just happened in Texas, where a family
of five from Mobile--a grandfather, a grandmother, their son,
his wife, and their 5-year-old daughter--were camping there in
the Hill Country, and all of them, with the exception of their
son, died--and so, this is something that is resonating in my
district right now. What is--and I am in no way insinuating
that that was FEMA's fault, but what lessons have you learned
in the response to Texas that you will apply going forward,
particularly through this hurricane season?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for your question.
So, a lesson learned from Texas is essentially how Texas
had forces pre-positioned. For example, there are 28 national
urban SAR units. One of them was in Texas. And it is not that
it is a lesson learned, but what we did is we confirmed how
effective that is. And under Secretary Noem's leadership, we
also confirmed how effective it was for the Emergency
Operations Center in Texas to be able to communicate with CBP,
as well as Coast Guard. So all those DHS assets were already
there. So pre-positioning is something that we have confirmed
is a solid practice.
And I think one of my lessons learned--and I think this is
an important one--obviously, communication. Nim Kidd and I were
in communication, I was in communication with Secretary Noem.
Coordination, pre-positioning, planning. But the lesson that I
particularly learned was personal relationships. I had come to
know the emergency manager in Texas, Nim Kidd, and it helped a
lot. From the second I heard about the disaster, Nim and I----
Mr. Figures [interrupting]. Well, I don't want to cut you
off, but I want to preserve my time. But is there anything you
think FEMA did wrong in its response to the Texas floods that
we can rectify and do differently next time?
Mr. Richardson. I can't see anything that we did wrong, and
I think the President and the Secretary now acknowledge that,
and so does Governor Abbott by saying how well we did.
So, what we would like to do is we would like to take the
strengths that we did in Texas, and we are going to share them
with other States, and we will work on them in tabletop
exercises to make sure that they----
Mr. Figures [interrupting]. So is----
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Do it as well as Texas.
Mr. Figures [continuing]. Is it your testimony here today
that FEMA's response to the Texas flood was--it was a perfect
game, it was perfect?
Mr. Richardson. Well, nothing is perfect. However, I will
say that it was a model, particularly at FEMA, the region, and
the State level, that continuity, it was a model of how
disasters should be handled. And that is thanks to the
President's guidance, the Secretary's guidance, Governor
Abbott, the State Emergency Operations Center in Texas, the
emergency manager, as well as the region 6 manager.
Mr. Figures. Well, one thing I would encourage is it is
important to see leadership there on the ground when it
happens. So, if this happens in Mobile, we certainly want to
see you on the ground, certainly within a reasonable time of
when it happens.
The last thing I will say is I know notice of fundings for
FEMA grants just went out, or are in the process of going out,
the Notice of Funding Opportunities, but they are 68 days late.
And so, my concern is making sure that you guys have the
resources and the commitment to actually review the incoming
applications in a manner where we will not end up in an
excessively delayed state when it comes time to actually
awarding the funding opportunities.
And with that, I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Fong from California.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Administrator, for being here and for your leadership. A few
questions.
I represent a lot of rural communities in the Central
Valley of California. We have been dealing with floods and
fires for a very long time. The Borel Fire recently was the
largest fire that ever hit Kern County, and I was wondering.
Rural communities have a challenge of capacity. And of course,
coming from a large State, a lot of times the per capita
indicator doesn't help rural communities. I was wondering, from
your perspective, have there been conversations about creating
a county-level or a ZIP Code-level threshold so that resources
can go help these communities rebuild?
Mr. Richardson. Could you repeat the last part of the
question again?
Mr. Fong. Is there a way to help communities, rural
communities, rebuild when the tragedies and the fires and the
floods, they don't hit the major disaster declaration?
Are you guys looking at ways to adjust the per capita
indicator to allow for more rural community rebuilding after a
disaster?
Mr. Richardson. So, I got your question, thank you for the
question.
So the question is about rural areas and meeting the
threshold. What I will say to that is that--and I don't want to
get ahead of the FEMA Review Council, but the President wants
for the country better emergency management. And it is
reasonable to believe that that piece that you are just
speaking to would be a part of that, because as--I don't
personally come from a rural community, but my parents come
from a rural community, and I spent a lot of time in rural
communities. My best friend is a hog farmer in eastern North
Carolina. I know what rural communities are. So, it is
reasonable that that would be considered in something in the
future, yes.
Mr. Fong. Sure. I would certainly love to partner with you
on that and your council. It is in an area where rural
communities just don't have the capacity when a fire hits,
significant impact to that community. And they may need
resources, but they just may not hit the threshold of a major
disaster declaration, and so we want to ensure that we
rightsize the response.
Mr. Richardson. You have my commitment that I will engage
with you, and we can kind of look at it and get your ideas.
Mr. Fong. Thank you very much. I want to follow up from the
questions that my colleague from Utah asked.
We also dealt with floods. My community in Tulare County
had to endure and to kind of front a lot of the resources to
help rebuild. FEMA has a somewhat--before you--more of a
complicated, complex assistance work through the complexity of
the assistance programs. Is there a way to simplify the
reimbursement process and maybe expand the advanced payments
process to help rebuild roads, rebuild bridges that may have
been washed away from, like, a flood?
Mr. Richardson. So, once again, thanks for your question.
And when my team did the mission analysis when we first came
aboard, it was kind of phase 1 of the mission analysis. And now
we are breaking down each one of the mission-essential tasks.
Now we are getting to those things you are talking about right
now. And once again, I will share that with you when the time
comes.
Mr. Fong. Sure, and your team has been very helpful since
the new administration has come in, I think, kind of working
through the complexity. So I think you are going to hear a lot
from a lot of the rural areas. Small communities, they don't
have the technical assistance capacity to work through
everything. And the back and forth constantly adds as a layer
of bureaucracy that maybe we can cut through.
Mr. Richardson. Yes, it is a very important issue.
Mr. Fong. And then, in terms of incentivizing investments
to mitigate before disaster strikes, has FEMA and your team
looked at how to better incentivize investments in areas of
limited resources?
Mr. Richardson. We are working on that now. This will be
part of the discussion, the wider discussion that we can have,
if you give me some time on that.
Mr. Fong. Perfect. And I just want to extend an invitation
for you to come to my community. We would roll out the red
carpet for you if you ever come to California.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Richardson. I would love to come.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This committee has for a long time been concerned about
FEMA, the way it runs and operates. There have been major
efforts by the committee as a whole and by the subcommittee. I
am thinking back on much of the work done by Mr. Graves before
he left Congress.
Going forward, the question of whether FEMA is going to
survive or not remains open. In the first week in office, Mr.
Trump, President Trump, talked openly about getting rid of
FEMA. In March, Secretary Noem said, we are going to eliminate
FEMA. In June, Trump said FEMA could be eliminated as soon as
December, saying he wanted to wean off FEMA and bring it back
to the State level. It is not just those words--which are not
fake news, by the way--it is also what has actually happened.
One-third of the staff at FEMA has been eliminated in the DOGE
process.
So, there are serious concerns, at least by me and I
suspect by other members of the committee, about the future of
FEMA. Is it even going to exist? Can you commit to us today
that FEMA will exist in the future, will be able to carry out
its functions under the law and under the needs of this Nation,
or do you not know?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. What I could
commit to is that the President wants a better emergency
management for the American people, and that is a noble goal.
The President is a noble man, and that is what he wants. He
wants a better emergency management capability.
Mr. Garamendi. Does that mean FEMA is gone and there will
be something new and different?
Mr. Richardson. So, in his wisdom, and with Secretary Noem
and Secretary Hegseth as guide, the President has appointed a
FEMA Review Council, okay, that is going to give him
recommendations.
Mr. Garamendi. So, the answer is blowing in the wind. We do
not know and you cannot confirm that it is the policy of the
administration to maintain FEMA. I understand that. Let me move
along here.
One-third of your staff is gone, 2,000 employees have
departed for multiple reasons. Some of them fired, others of
them taking early retirement.
It took 9 days for you to arrive in Texas following the
disaster there. Is that the normal going forward? It took 3
days for your team to arrive, 9 days for you to arrive. Is that
the new normal?
Mr. Richardson. So, as I promised the people of Texas, they
would get what they needed, on time and on target. And I talked
to the emergency manager in Texas, and I asked him, ``What is
the best thing I can do for you?''
And he said, ``Remain on the ground and make sure that we
get what we need on time.'' So, I remained in Washington, DC--
--
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. So--okay.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Kicking down the doors of
bureaucracy.
Mr. Garamendi. I got it.
Mr. Richardson. That is where I remained.
Mr. Garamendi. So, the top leadership of FEMA is not
expected to respond to emergencies across the Nation. Instead,
you are going to remain in your offices here in Washington, DC.
I got it.
Mr. Richardson. I did go to Texas, and I went to Texas to
confirm with the people of Texas that I had delivered on my
promise.
Mr. Garamendi. We will see if that delivery is real or not.
The next series of questions has to do with disaster
mitigation--that is, getting ahead of the disaster. You just
heard from Mr. Fong about his request for funding to reduce the
fire risks in his area. Certainly, that exists in my area, in
the bay area. However, that program was terminated. Even though
it was started in 2018 by President Trump in his first term, it
is now eliminated.
So, is it the policy of FEMA to rebuild that program to get
ahead of the disasters and to fund disaster mitigation before
it happens? What is the policy of the Department?
Mr. Richardson. You are speaking of the building
resilience, correct?
Mr. Garamendi. That is correct.
Mr. Richardson. So, it was started in 2018, but under the
Trump administration, that program began to be used for things
like bike paths and shade at bus stops.
Mr. Garamendi. So, instead of eliminating----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. That is----
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. So, instead of dealing with
those specific, rather small funding programs, you decided to
eliminate this entire program. Is that correct?
Mr. Richardson. Well, that program, BRIC, is under
litigation. I can tell you about the past, but I can't tell you
anything about the future for that program. But it was being
used for bike paths----
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. That is not the question.
What is the future? Is the BRIC program--it is terminated. Is
it the intention of FEMA to restart it, or are we simply not
going to pay attention to an effort to reduce the potential for
a disaster? What is----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. So, resilience is a top
priority of FEMA. But that program, once again, there is
litigation surrounding that program, and I am not at liberty to
speak of it.
Mr. Perry. The gentleman's----
Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. We don't----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Time has expired. The Chair thanks
the gentleman.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes Representative Rouzer
from North Carolina.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Richardson, thank you for your service. It is not
an easy job that you have, by any means, but a very, very
important job. Just to finish that line of questioning--or your
answer, rather, you mentioned BRIC, the BRIC program was
funding bicycle paths, and then what else? You got cut off. I
was just curious what else you were going to say.
Mr. Richardson. So, there were bicycle paths, it was trees
surrounding bus stops. These grants have been used for a lot of
rather--what I would call--odd things. For example, we put
people up in the Roosevelt Hotel, or illegal immigrants up in
the Roosevelt Hotel with some of the grants. That wasn't
necessarily a wise thing to do. We also have funded projects
that made DEI ambassadors for the New York City Police
Department.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes, so, not exactly mitigation efforts.
Mr. Richardson. Right. During the Biden administration, it
seems like there--a lot of the grants sound good, and then you
dig into them, and they are not so good. I have got a note here
on a handful of them, but--so yes, if you are housing folks in
the--or illegal aliens in the Roosevelt Hotel, that is probably
not the best use----
Mr. Rouzer [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Of the American taxpayers'
money.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes, okay.
Mr. Richardson. It looks good on the surface, but when you
get into it, it's not.
Mr. Rouzer. I got the answer there. Let me move on to my
questions before I run out of time.
So, the Review Council, when does FEMA anticipate the
Review Council will finalize and share its recommendations for
Congress, do you have an idea of a timeline on that?
Mr. Richardson. The FEMA Review Council is working now. And
there is--in the late fall, I believe that is when they plan to
give their recommendation to the President.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you for that.
Hurricanes Matthew and Florence, they affected my district
pretty significantly. Matthew was in 2016, Hurricane Florence
was in 2018. In 2018, Brock Long was the Administrator. And I
have to say in both of those storms, the FEMA response was
very, very good. But we still have--those cases are still open,
they have not yet closed. In other words, there is still need
there. There is still reimbursement that is waiting to be
signed--or I am not sure where it is in the bureaucratic
process. And of course, those storms were 7 and 9 years ago,
respectively.
Can--or let me just put it this way--can you get me a
report on exactly what is left to be finished up on as it
relates to those two storms? Not right now, but soon after this
hearing, when you can?
Mr. Richardson. Yes, thank you for the question. Each day,
I get a snapshot of the open disaster claims, and it is
shocking to see how many of them are still open. And no doubt,
we need to reduce the number of open declarations. And yes, I
can get back with you, and I would be happy to get back with
you on that.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes. Is that an issue of resources, or
administrative time, or what is the holdup there? Or regulatory
burden of some sort?
Mr. Richardson. My gut feeling is it is just how it has
developed over time. Probably at one point, a handful of people
touched it, and by this point, there are many more people than
necessary to touch that.
Mr. Rouzer. Okay, one last thing, Hurricane Helene. It
didn't hit my district, but it did hit my friend and colleague,
Chuck Edwards and Virginia Foxx, really, really hard, their
districts in western North Carolina. Obviously, you have--and
every storm is different, every locale is different. In western
North Carolina you have a lot of private roads. FEMA
traditionally doesn't help out with private roads, but if those
private roads don't get rebuilt, you can't get debris and other
items that are necessary for recovery. And I think that has
been one of the big issues for western North Carolina.
Chuck Edwards had tried to get some clarifying language
included as part of the CR. That didn't work out. But
flexibility in terms of addressing need--because, again, not
every place is the same--I think is crucially important. Is
that a line of thought that you all are pursuing at all?
Mr. Richardson. The question involves private roads, and
thank you for the question again. Right, private roads are an
issue, particularly, for some reason, in North Carolina. And we
are working for a way where we can resolve that, and try to
provide a resolution to that. And I will keep in contact with
you and make sure you kind of stay abreast of that.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, until that aspect is handled, it is just
hard for that area to make any kind of substantial recovery.
That is the bottom line. And it is somewhat unique to western
North Carolina, which speaks to the need for flexibility when
you are dealing with these disasters and response.
Mr. Richardson. My heart goes out to the people of North
Carolina and that whole region, Tennessee, western Virginia,
that had to suffer that tragedy.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Gillen.
Ms. Gillen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Richardson, for being here today.
So, as Acting Administrator of FEMA, you oversee the
agency's preparedness grants, including the Nonprofit Security
Grant Program. And as I am sure you are aware, synagogues,
churches, yeshivas, and many other houses of worship across our
country, and certainly in my district on the South Shore of
Long Island, rely on these grants to keep their congregants,
their worshipers, and our residents safe.
And right now, we are facing a huge spike in antisemitism
and other threats, and these critical grants are more important
than ever for my constituents and, I am sure, for many other
folks across the country. And I am grateful that FEMA recently
awarded some of the emergency supplemental funding that was
allocated for fiscal year 2024. However, the agency still has
not opened applications for fiscal year 2025 funding which
Congress had approved back in March.
So, Mr. Richardson, fiscal year 2025 is coming to a close
soon, and synagogues and houses of worship, churches in my
district are wondering when you might open the application for
the fiscal year 2025 Nonprofit Security Grant Program so we can
make this $275 million available for this really important need
in my district and across the country.
Mr. Richardson. Yes, and thank you for the question, and I
believe those grants are very, very important. And we have
spent a lot of time in the last couple of months moving forward
and doing due diligence on those.
But I do have good news there. There are NOFOs going--I
can't speak to that grant specifically, but there are NOFOs
going out as we speak.
Ms. Gillen. Okay, great. And can my office follow up with
you about these specific grants? Because they are so important
in my district.
Mr. Richardson. Please do. And one of the things we want to
do is we want to make sure we get those notice of fundings out
so the districts have a chance to apply and get back with us.
So yes, please do.
Ms. Gillen. Okay, great. And also with respect to these
grants, I have heard from a lot of pastors and rabbis that the
funding is okay to be used for infrastructure, but not actually
for personnel. And so, a lot of our synagogues and houses of
worship are looking to expand the scope of appropriate uses for
this funding to include perhaps security personnel to stand
guard at the synagogues, particularly during the High Holy Days
or during worship services. And is that something that we could
work with your office on to try to maybe expand the scope of
funding?
Mr. Richardson. Yes, I understand the question. Thank you
for the question. Yes, please do. I need to look into the
details of the grant, but I am sure there is some way we can
work around that.
Ms. Gillen. Okay, great. Thank you. And finally, in May,
FEMA opened applications for fiscal year 2024 SAFER grants to
help hire, recruit, and retain firefighters. And I wrote to
fire departments across my district, encouraging them to apply
for these grants, and I am really pleased that the Oceanside
Fire Department in my district, which operates with volunteer
service members, put together a really strong application for
funding to help them recruit and train new volunteer
firefighters to keep their community safe. And I wrote you a
letter in support of their application, and I would appreciate
the opportunity to get in touch with your office again.
Can you commit to working to follow up on this issue also
with me after this hearing?
Mr. Richardson. Sure, and thanks once again. I think I
replied to the letter, but yes, I would be happy to speak with
you.
Ms. Gillen. Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Richardson.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Kiley.
Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks for being here today, Mr. Richardson. I would like
to talk with you briefly about a very simple action that the
President and FEMA could take that would come at a relatively
modest cost, would make an enormous difference for many people
in my district, and would reverse an enormous wrong committed
by President Joe Biden. It relates to the Caldor Fire, which
you might be familiar with.
The Caldor Fire was one of the biggest fires in California
history. It was in 2021, and you might remember the images that
were really surreal of the ski slopes that were on fire and
were ablaze. The blaze came very close to actually destroying
the entire town of South Tahoe, which I represent. Fortunately,
there was legislation that had created a categorical exclusion
for fire mitigation that had allowed for a firebreak to be
created, and we were able to stop it from going into South
Tahoe. But folks in the community of Grizzly Flats were not so
fortunate. Hundreds of homes there were destroyed in 2021.
The fire was so massive that Joe Biden actually came and
visited shortly after, and did a tour in a helicopter, and then
he made a promise to the victims in Grizzly Flats that he was
going to help, that the Federal Government would support them.
He said it was a Federal responsibility.
He then broke that promise. Joe Biden's FEMA denied
Individual Assistance to the victims of the Caldor Fire in
Grizzly Flats on multiple occasions. I spoke with the President
about it personally, and he said he wanted to correct the
wrong. He never did. And so, these folks now, several years
later, many continue to suffer with the rebuilding process.
Many are still just camped out in RVs or trailers on their
property, and they still have not received the Individual
Assistance that they are entitled to.
So, FEMA under President Biden, as I mentioned, denied this
multiple times. But the President has the authority to grant
the assistance himself. And, in fact, President Trump did this
during his first term for multiple wildfires in California. So,
my question is, is this something that you might be able to
look into and talk with the President about to finally get the
victims of the fire, of the Caldor Fire, the victims in Grizzly
Flats the Individual Assistance they deserve?
Mr. Richardson. Yes, I can go both ways on that. I can talk
to--and thank you for the question--I can talk to region 10,
Bob Fenton, and I can also reach out to the White House, find
out where the delta is, and then get back to you with the
potential way forward.
Mr. Kiley of California. I really appreciate that, and I
think that there is also room to look at the process by which
these determinations are made within FEMA, because one of the
things, for example, that they used in their analysis, even
though there are bigger wildfires where folks have gotten the
Individual Assistance, they, for example, looked at the income
level in El Dorado County as a whole, which is where Grizzly
Flats is, even though Grizzly Flats itself is not by any
stretch of the imagination a wealthy area. But they counted the
overall median income of the county against the people who lost
their homes within this particular jurisdiction. There is a lot
of arbitrary things like that that just don't make sense.
But at the end of the day, this is a promise that the
President of the United States, Joe Biden, made to the people
in our community and then he broke that promise. And I am
really hopeful that the President, if he has the ability to do
so, can right that wrong.
Mr. Richardson. I will reach out to region 9, I will reach
out to region 10, and then I will be able to get back with you.
Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you very much, I appreciate
it.
I yield back--I yield to the chair, in fact.
Mr. Perry. I thank the gentleman.
Regarding the issue of call time, I just want to reference
the New York Times article which apparently was the source for
the dispute over how many people actually received an answer on
the call. And according to the article--it says according to a
person briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of
anonymity. Now, like I have said before, we all have, I think,
reasonable criticisms of and valid criticism of FEMA. But on
this occasion, I just want to make sure we are not making
judgments based on people that spoke on condition of anonymity.
And further, in the article, it says the agency did publish
similar data on October 29, 2024, which I will remind everybody
was during the last administration, during President Biden's
administration, days after Hurricane Helene barreled across the
South and nearly 3 weeks after Hurricane Milton hit Florida.
That information showed the agency did not answer nearly half
of the 507,766 incoming calls over the course of a week, E&E
News reported.
With that having been said, Mr. Administrator, can you--
like I said, I think we all want to level-set here. People on
both sides of the aisle would like to know the efficacy of the
call center and the response to people calling in for
disasters. Can FEMA provide that information and the source of
that information moving forward? Can we get a report on that so
that we can know how well FEMA is performing in that paradigm?
Mr. Richardson. So, this is how I will answer that, Mr.
Chairman. I think we can legally share that with you. I think
we can, okay? I don't know for sure. But if we can, we will.
I do know that we surged support----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Yes, I understand.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. To the call center.
Mr. Perry. I just--I think that both sides of the aisle
would like, again, to level-set and know what that information
is, and the source of that information. And if there is some
reason that you can't do it legally, we would like to know
that, as well, so that we can take whatever action is
appropriate here in Congress.
Mr. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Perry. All right, I thank----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. I will fully cooperate.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. I thank the gentleman. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady, Representative Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to go back to the conversation
about NOFOs. You mentioned it several times, said that
information is out the door. That is good news, because some of
these are months behind.
I am particularly interested in the UASI grants. That is
the Urban Area Security Initiative grants, if you are familiar
with that. Those are especially important in my district of
southern Nevada, Las Vegas. We have a lot of events, large-
scale events that might be subject to a terrorist attack or
some other disaster. And we have seen how these grants have
been very helpful. In fact, there was a report that showed
where they made such a difference after the Harvest Festival
shooting, which is still the largest shooting in American
history. We've got the Super Bowl, the F1. I want to be sure
those are going out the door. And if you will commit to
checking on that and let me know so I can tell the first
responders and all back home that that is coming.
Mr. Richardson. What I can commit to is that we have been
doing due diligence on all of the grants, and we are getting
the NOFOs out the door as we speak. So, we want to make sure we
got the NOFOs out the door so that we have a chance to respond
to them. I can't tell you--I can't necessarily tell you exactly
which ones, but I can tell you that they are going out the door
as we speak.
Ms. Titus. Okay, well, I am glad to hear that. I had led a
letter to you about this with the Nevada delegation, trying to
encourage this to happen. So, if your office will let me know
if we are one of the ones that is going out the door, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Richardson. Yes, and I believe I responded to your
letter, Representative Titus.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you. We will look forward to getting
that.
I also want to talk about another thing that is particular
to my district and to the Southwest. I wonder if you are aware
of which weather condition causes the most death in the United
States.
Mr. Richardson. I don't know exactly which one causes the
most. I have a hunch which direction you are going on this. I
am not exactly sure.
Ms. Titus. Well, it's surprising. A lot of people wouldn't
guess this. They would say tornadoes or floods or hurricanes,
but it's not. It's extreme heat. Extreme heat causes more
deaths, and it's less visible than some of these other
disasters. It's harder to show on TV, it lasts longer. It
impacts different people in different ways, but it is the
largest cause of death.
And last year in southern Nevada alone, there were 520
heat-related deaths, and we already have nearly 30 just in
Clark County in my district already this year. So, I have been
working on getting FEMA to recognize extreme heat, and be
prepared to help communities deal with it, mitigate, recover,
whatever. I am pleased that I am introducing a bill that is the
Extreme Weather and Heat Response Modernization Act with our
ranking member, so, Mr. Stanton. We introduced that in May, and
it will empower FEMA to have more authority to help with this.
So, I wondered if you are aware of it, or if you would be
willing to work with us to help us get this through so extreme
heat can be recognized and addressed, because it's only going
to get worse, it's not going to get better.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you, Representative.
I do know, and I will be glad to work with you, and then I
do know that the Stafford Act does recognize heat. So, I am
aware of the Stafford Act, recognize it, and I am willing to
work with you.
Ms. Titus. I appreciate that. And it does recognize, but it
is not--it's hard to get it declared and recognized formally
because, like I said, it's not as easy to recognize as a flood
that happens in 2 days, like in Texas. It's an extended
problem. And it--like I said, it hurts different people in
different ways, affects lives, and it affects livelihoods.
So, Mr. Stanton and I, I am sure, will appreciate your
getting involved and helping us with that. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. The Chair now
recognizes the Representative from Pennsylvania, Representative
Bresnahan.
Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Richardson, for being here. I represent
northeastern Pennsylvania, which has been privy to flooding
over the years dating back to 1972, slightly before my time.
But still, as I drive around with my family, my grandmother,
she will occasionally point to different areas about how high
the water actually was.
And then back to 2011, northeastern Pennsylvania saw some
flooding in an area outside of a levee system which totally
decimated a community, ultimately redrawing the flood maps and
making it extremely challenging for various different
homeowners to be able to get flood insurance, and created some
additional strains on the school districts.
So, actually back to 2021, we also saw a flood that
actually claimed the lives of at least one person in Lackawanna
County. And this past May, the city of Scranton was finally
able to complete 40 projects totaling $5.5 million to improve 8
waterways and infrastructure damaged by severe flooding in
August of 2018.
In April, I sent a letter to then-Acting Administrator
Hamilton asking for the BRIC program to be reinstated. And Mr.
Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter that letter into
the record.
Mr. Perry. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter of April 9, 2025, to Cameron Hamilton, Senior Official
Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, from Hon. Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515-3808,
April 9, 2025.
Mr. Cameron Hamilton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of FEMA Administrator,
500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Dear Acting Administrator Hamilton:
As the Congressman for Pennsylvania's Eighth Congressional
District, I am writing to express my opposition to FEMA's recent
announcement it would cancel the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) program and cancel all applications from fiscal
years 2020-2023. This decision is detrimental to my constituents, and I
strongly urge you to reverse this decision.
The city of Scranton, PA was awaiting $2.5 million for buyouts of
21 flood-prone properties (18 homes and 3 lots) that were destroyed by
flash floods on September 9, 2023. The city had lined up its 25% match
of $849,000 to work with FEMA to purchase and remove these properties.
City officials worked diligently with the Pennsylvania Emergency
Management Agency, and in July 2024, the city's BRIC application passed
its initial Federal review. Now, the city is left holding the bag to
come up with this $2.5 million to buy out these properties to create
floodplain restoration and infrastructure. City officials have said the
buyout of these properties is important to city public safety and
future cost savings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Scranton Times-Tribune, ``Scranton: FEMA funding cut erases
$2.5M for 21 flood buyouts in city,'' April 8, 2024, https://
www.thetimes-tribune.com/2025/04/08/scranton-fema-funding-cut-erases-2-
5m-for-21-flood-buyouts-in-city/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BRIC program was established in 2018 during President Donald J.
Trump's first administration. It was designed to support states, local,
and territorial governments, and Tribal Nations as they work to reduce
their hazard risk. FEMA's own website states that, ``The BRIC program
aims to categorically shift the federal focus away from reactive
disaster spending and toward proactive investment in community
resilience.\2\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FEMA, ``Summary of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA)
Programs,'' May 29, 2024, https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/summary-fema-
hazard-mitigation-assistance-hma-programs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This program is a hand-up, not a hand-out, to at-risk communities
who have suffered catastrophic weather events. This includes my
district and Northeastern Pennsylvania. The September 9, 2023 floods
caused nearly $25 million in damage and destroyed 459 residences.
Unfortunately, FEMA denied Governor Josh Shapiro's request for an
emergency disaster declaration \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fox 56 WOLF, ``FEMA denies Pennsylvania's disaster appeal for
September floods,'' March 21, 2024, https://fox56.com/news/local/fema-
denies-pennsylvanias-disaster-appeal-for-september-floods
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The median household income of my district is $61,000. Sadly, the
tax base for a number of municipalities in my district is not always
sufficient to complete buyout programs without Federal assistance. I
strongly believe that disaster efforts are locally executed, state led,
and federally coordinated. In cases where communities cannot bear the
full cost of property purchases, programs like BRIC are not wasteful,
but well within the purview of federal coordination of disaster relief
efforts.
President Trump and his Administration have promised not to leave
the forgotten men and women of America behind. My district and
Northeastern Pennsylvania have been left behind for the last half
century. The BRIC program has, and can continue to, support communities
like those in my district. I urge you in the strongest possible manner
to revive this program. I also reiterate the February 24, 2025
invitation I extended to you to visit my district and Northeastern
Pennsylvania to see firsthand the importance of the BRIC program.
Sincerely,
Rob Bresnahan, Jr.,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you.
My question would be, I have heard some evolution relating
to the BRIC program, and there were a few different programs--
actually, levee projects--that were slated to take place inside
of my district. And unfortunately, because of the cancellation
of the BRIC program, about $10 million of levee construction
was, unfortunately, canceled, as well as another $2.5 million
in the city of Scranton for buyouts for properties that were
ravaged by that earlier flooding that I mentioned.
My question would be, have you given any thought or has
there been any dialogue relating or circulating around the BRIC
program, or the possible reinstatement of the BRIC program, or
something to the likes or similarity of it?
Mr. Richardson. So, thank you for the question, and a bit
on BRIC first.
As I think you might have alluded to, BRIC originally was
during 2018 during the Trump 45. And then it went into the
Biden administration, and, kind of, BRIC went off the rails,
and it went off the rails because we were funding things like
bus stops and bike paths. So, right now, it is under
litigation. And so, I can't really speak about it.
But what I can tell you is that resilience is a priority
for me, and it is a priority for FEMA. So, even though the BRIC
program is under litigation, resilience is important and a top
priority for me. And I would like to stay engaged with you on
that regarding BRIC--I mean regarding resilience.
Mr. Bresnahan. I really appreciate that, and I will use
this as an opportunity to invite you to northeastern
Pennsylvania and see some of the communities that have,
unfortunately, suffered dire consequences because of flooding
where levees were never even projected. Some of these areas
never even had received water in 1972 that ended up being
decimated in 2011 just because of different dynamics and
landscapes with--inside of the river.
But I definitely want to continue to stay in touch, work
together on some different systems and solutions for my
community, so, I appreciate you being here.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Hoyle.
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Mr. Richardson, for joining us today.
I represent the central and south coast of Oregon, a very
beautiful place, and my constituents have been pummeled by
increasingly severe weather due to climate change. So, whether
it is fire or floods or heat domes or ice storm, these extreme
weather events that we have not experienced before make it so
that my communities and constituents have suffered greatly, and
they aren't prepared.
So, I will echo my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, and my
colleague from Pennsylvania in stressing the importance of the
BRIC grant program, because I want to--I agree with you. We
have to make sure our tax dollars are used efficiently, and
well, and not in a wasteful manner. But, like, Port Orford,
this is a coastal rural community in Curry County, Oregon, that
just had millions of dollars for water infrastructure upgrades
eliminated, even though they had already been allocated. So,
they have to stop this project. That is not a bus stop, that is
not DEI. This is absolutely critical.
So, I would encourage--I would love to work with you to see
how we can move forward, because now they are in limbo, and
there is just no other way for them to go forward without
Federal assistance.
And I also would like to express my gratitude because last
night, FEMA approved Public Assistance of $9 million to address
public infrastructure for damage that happens because of
floods.
But there are hundreds of families who are still waiting
for Federal support to put their lives back together. These
people were advised not to get flood insurance, because the
areas had never flooded before. So, the personal assistance--
and even though it is like $800 to $2,000, these communities
are almost $20,000 less than the median income. That $800 to
$2,000 will make all the difference in the world for them to
get their lives back on track.
So, we still have--I don't want to play a blame game. There
is no administration that has handled FEMA well. None. It is
inefficient. You have people that are traumatized that have to
go through bureaucratic processes. I still have 200 people
upriver from me that are out of their homes from the 2020 Labor
Day fires. We are waiting for reimbursement from FEMA from
2020, 2021, and every year since then. And the process is
bureaucratic. We are so worried about someone not stealing a
penny that we make these traumatized people go through too
much.
So, again, I would love to work with you on how we can have
this be more efficient and get aid directly to people and those
tax dollars working. So, I have two questions.
It has been over 2 months since Oregon requested a disaster
declaration for these floods. When can families expect a
decision on Individual Assistance?
And secondly, is FEMA still considering changes to the
Public Assistance thresholds that would cut off support for
disasters like our floods in Oregon? Because that doesn't look
like reform, it looks like an action that's going to, like,
punch people while they are down.
So, those are my two questions.
Mr. Richardson. So, thank you for the questions. And
flooding, by the way, is, as you know, the most costly disaster
that we have.
Regarding the first question, which is--could you just real
quick----
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon [interposing]. Sure.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Summarize the two questions? I
am going to jot them down real quick.
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. So, like, first question, how do we
track and when can we expect a decision on----
Mr. Richardson [interposing]. Got it.
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon [continuing]. Individual Assistance? We
got the Public Assistance, but--this Individual Assistance
might, in the scope of a Federal budget, looks small, but it is
massive----
Mr. Richardson [interposing]. Right.
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon [continuing]. Massive to my
communities.
Mr. Richardson. So, all the declarations have been cleared.
I was briefed on that this morning. So, they are all cleared at
this point.
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. So, even for the Individual
Assistance?
Mr. Richardson. Yes, I believe so.
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Okay, we will----
Mr. Richardson [interrupting]. But--I was briefed on this
this morning----
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon [continuing]. We will follow up with
you.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. So, I do believe that they
were cleared yesterday.
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. And then, is FEMA still considering
changes to the Public Assistance threshold that would cut off
support for disasters like our floods--our floods, our fires,
the ice storms? I mean, these are not things we have suffered
from before, and they are kind of smaller areas. So, we
oftentimes just get overlooked.
Mr. Richardson. So, as--and I understand the question--as
we currently stand, they remain the same. However, the future
of FEMA is going to be determined by the council. So, that
would be forthcoming, depending on what the council decides to
recommend to the President.
Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Okay. And then finally, I will just
say again, please do not throw the baby out with the bath
water. Do not eliminate and completely take out the BRIC
programs, because it is really, really important work that is
done, and we need those dollars.
I get that we can disagree, or you can say you don't think
this is the way money should be spent. But water infrastructure
and resilience are critical, and that is something in a
bipartisan way we should agree that our Federal dollars should
be pointed towards. So, thank you so much.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson, for being here.
I want to start by reminding all of us why these Federal
dollars exist in the first place: to support the American
people when they need it the most. These funds are meant to
help communities prepare for the worst and respond quickly when
disasters strike.
Mr. Richardson, you say you have stayed in Washington
during the recent disaster to kick down the doors of
bureaucracy. But for the central coast and for many communities
across the country, FEMA delays in reimbursements have had real
consequences. Contractors, cities, counties are forced to front
the cost of emergency response and recovery, straining local
budgets and slowing down rebuilding efforts. Yet, when it is
time for the Federal Government to pay back local communities,
it is holding funds rather than repaying its share. Why?
Because Secretary Noem is now personally reviewing every FEMA
grant contract over $100,000. This bureaucratic bottleneck is
suffocating our communities.
I have heard from my constituents from the county of San
Luis Obispo, the city of San Luis Obispo, the county of Santa
Barbara, the county of Ventura, and various water districts
throughout my district. They are not receiving the
reimbursements that they are owed. Today, I want to focus my
questions on these issues.
Mr. Richardson, what specific action is FEMA taking to
clear these overdue reimbursements?
And how much longer will my constituents on the central
coast have to wait?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for your question.
So, the reimbursements and the bureaucratic nature of that
is indeed something I am concerned about, because I will kick
down doors of bureaucracy. And we are digging into that now,
because it takes far, far too long for the reimbursements and
also to close out the disasters. So, it is something that we
are looking into.
I don't necessarily have a timeline, but I can work with
you to let you know.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. For months, Donald Trump has
claimed that he is cutting redtape, and his administration is
doing that in Washington. For communities on the central coast,
it sure doesn't feel that way. What process improvements has
FEMA implemented or will implement to accelerate these
reimbursements?
Mr. Richardson. So, one of the things that I have done--and
once again, thank you for the question--is I have
consolidated--the office was somewhat disparate when addressing
these. What I have done is I have consolidated those functions
in FEMA so we can get a better handle on it and better
reporting measures for it. And I can share those with you.
Mr. Carbajal. I would love to have that information.
What accountability measures or metrics does FEMA use to
track reimbursement timelines internally?
And would you commit to provide this committee and me a
report on average processing times for reimbursement claims,
especially for the central coast disasters, over the past 2
years?
Mr. Richardson. What I can do is I can commit to looking
into it and then getting ahold of you and talking through it.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair is
going to recognize the ranking member for a moment for a close.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I do have one
final question for Mr. Richardson.
Like you, the loss of life from the Texas flood haunts me,
the pictures in my mind of people clinging to trees, some who
were saved by Coast Guard or other heroes in this incident. But
it haunts me that we could have had more urban search and
rescue pre-position in place. We could have saved more of those
people who were clinging onto those trees but weren't able to
hang on for long enough.
You testified here today that you relied on the judgment of
the Texas emergency management officials, including Texas pre-
based urban search and rescue. But FEMA did not act to bring in
and pre-position additional urban search and rescue. That was a
choice. The choice was made not to pre-position those
additional search and rescue.
In light of the fact of the lack of the greater number of
urgent search and rescues that could have saved more lives, do
you still agree with President Trump's assessment that the
response to the horrific Texas floods was ``the best FEMA
response ever''?
Mr. Richardson. The response in Texas, which was community-
led, State-managed, and federally supported, brought the
maximum amount of capability to bear in Texas at the right time
and the right place. Through the Secretary's leadership,
through the President's leadership, through my own leadership,
through Nim Kidd's leadership, through region 6, we made that
happen. And that is a model of how response should be done.
The maximum capability--remember, emergency management is
not a pile-on sport. It is well coordinated, relies on personal
relationships. It has got to be exercised beforehand. And all
those things came together on Texas' worst day. And we all
grieve for the State of Texas. All those things came together
to show what President Trump and Secretary Noem called the best
response ever. And I agree that it was an outstanding response,
and the people of Texas deserved that outstanding response, and
Texas emergency managers, region 6 all did an outstanding job.
Mr. Stanton. Well, I will strongly disagree that all of the
resources were brought to bear that could have been. I think it
was a choice by FEMA to not fulfill their statutory
responsibility to pre-position under the circumstances. I
believe that that likely cost lives in these circumstances, and
I believe it is a shame that you say that this was the ``best
FEMA response ever.''
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman and, just again,
wants to level-set. Let's make sure we understand
definitionally what pre-positioning means and why it occurs.
And in this instance, flood warnings happen all across the
country on a regular basis, and FEMA doesn't pre-position to
every flood warning it gets, because they would pre-position
literally 365 days a year, or just about something close to
that. That having been said, with fast-moving disasters like
the one that occurred in Texas, it is not like a hurricane,
which you can track, you can anticipate landfall or the
location of the disaster to pre-position assets.
And so, definitionally, we need to just make sure, again,
level-setting what the expectation is here. Again, there are
plenty of reasons to be critical of FEMA, and those criticisms
are justified in many cases. But definitionally, we must
understand and recognize what the limit of the expectations
are, and in this case, what pre-positioning is for and what it
is all about.
That having been said, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman
does yield back. Are there further questions from any members
of the subcommittee who have not been recognized?
Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would
like to thank the witness for his testimony.
This subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Questions to David Richardson, Senior Official Performing the Duties of
FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. Scott Perry
Question 1. During the response to the recent flooding in Texas
(DR-4879-TX), there were public reports alleging that on July 6, 2025,
``nearly two-thirds of calls'' from impacted survivors to FEMA's
disaster assistance line went unanswered on July 6, 2025.\1\ In a
bipartisan, members-only briefing on July 17, 2025, Associate
Administrator (Acting) Keith Turi indicated that calls originating from
Texas were prioritized in the queue, that the average wait time ranged
from three to ten minutes, and that calls that went ``unanswered'' were
often instances where the caller disconnected before reaching an
operator--after which FEMA initiated a callback.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maxine Joselow, FEMA Didn't Answer Thousands of Calls From
Flood Survivors, Documents Show, NY Times, (July 11, 2025), available
at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/climate/fema-missed-calls-texas-
floods.html.
\2\ FEMA Briefing to Members of Congress on Texas Floods (July 17,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1.a. Can you confirm whether this information is accurate
and elaborate on FEMA's standard protocol for handling high call
volumes during a surge event?
Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) current
telecommunications platform does not differentiate incoming calls from
survivors based on specific disasters. Registration intake calls
(survivors newly registering for assistance) are prioritized over other
types of calls (i.e., helpline, survivors already registered and
needing assistance with their case or checking the status) and are
handled as they are received. Because the Texas Major Disaster
Declaration was the only declaration approved over that week, the
majority of the registration intake calls on July 6, 2025--those newly
registering for assistance--would have been from Texas survivors. From
July 6-9, 2025, more than 80 percent of all calls for registration
intake were answered with an average speed of less than 5 minutes.
Given the nature of disasters, FEMA rapidly surges resources to
support caller services (registration intake and helpline). When call
volumes surge, FEMA regularly augments the workforce by leveraging
internal FEMA resources, local hires, and other federal agencies. FEMA
also has external contact center contracts that receive a percentage of
the call volume that is allocated from FEMA to allow internal FEMA
agents to focus on more complex casework.
Disaster survivors have multiple ways to register for FEMA
assistance: by visiting DisasterAssistance.gov, by using the FEMA app
through a smartphone, by calling a contact center, or by speaking with
agency staff in person.
Question 1.b. Can you provide data on average call wait times and
call abandonment rates on each of the first three days following the
Texas flooding event, both nationally and specifically to the impacted
region?
Answer. FEMA's current telecommunications platform does not
differentiate incoming calls from survivors based on specific
disasters, however the majority of the registration intake callers
would have been Texas survivors, as that was the only Major Disaster
Declaration approved over that week. The table below provides FEMA's
answer rate (the percentage of calls answered by a representative) and
average speed of answer (the average amount of time it took for FEMA to
answer the call) from July 6-9, 2025, for registration intake. The
abandonment rate, which is not a number FEMA collects, represents the
proportion of calls that are not answered, and could be calculated by
subtracting the answer rate from 100 percent.
Registration Intake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Date Answer Speed of
Rate Answer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, July 6, 2025.............................. 69.8% 0:08:12
Monday, July 7, 2025.............................. 82.1% 0:03:59
Tuesday, July 8, 2025............................. 86% 0:03:02
Wednesday, July 9, 2025........................... 82.9% 0:03:52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1.c. How does call center response to the Texas floods
compare to prior disasters with similar call volumes?
Answer. FEMA's current telecommunications platform does not
differentiate incoming calls from survivors based on specific
disasters. FEMA has an internal capacity to handle a baseline amount of
activity. However, due to the historic number of disaster declarations
in 2024 (56 disaster declarations that included Individual Assistance)
and approved during 2025 (17 additional declarations that included
Individual Assistance, as of July 23, 2025), FEMA continues to receive
a significant number of calls from survivors.
This, in addition, to the call volume received from the Texas
declaration, led to increased wait times longer than typically expected
during this time of year. Therefore, FEMA has continued to retain some
augmentation resources to support caller services (registration intake
and helpline).
Question 1.d. Can you provide an update on the status of FEMA's
call center contracts? Did the Agency lay off contractors on July 5th?
Did any contracts expire during the Texas flood response? If so, were
they reinstated?
Answer. FEMA's call center contracts are in place. Major disasters
create sudden spikes in demand. As discussed previously, FEMA has a
number of ways to quickly shift staff to ensure every survivor can
register for assistance, while still moving critical cases forward. The
approach used after the Texas flooding followed this model.
Question 1.e. Are there plans underway to expand surge capacity,
modernize systems, or improve performance metrics ahead of future
events where call volume might exceed normal levels?
Answer. Over the past several months, FEMA has released a series of
improvements to the survivor experience including informational videos
for survivors before and after they apply for assistance, embedded help
text in the application, an online status tracker that shows survivors
where they are in FEMA's process and what, if any, actions they need to
take to complete their file.
FEMA is working to optimize its technology solutions--including a
Customer Relationship Management platform that enables efficient,
personalized interaction and empowers survivor action, while
strengthening fraud controls and ensuring privacy of survivor data.
This will include enhanced customer experience technology, which
combines artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data analytics
to create personalized interactions. FEMA will leverage digital tools
like chatbots and intelligent voice assistants to enhance efficiency,
reduce hold times, and create scalable solutions.
These efforts are expected to decrease FEMA's reliance on just-in-
time surge staffing solutions as it will enable the survivor to self-
serve through additional digital channels. FEMA is committed to working
with this Subcommittee to improve disaster survivors' experiences using
technology.
Question 2. Mr. Richardson, you testified that you did not travel
to Texas to survey the flood damage until July 12, 2025, several days
after the severe flooding over the Fourth of July holiday.\3\ You also
stated that you were coordinating the federal response from Washington,
D.C. and remained in close contact with Texas officials, senior Cabinet
officials, and the White House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Thomas Frank, FEMA Chief Slips Into Texas for Rare Public
Appearance, Politico, (July 15, 2025), available at https://
www.politico.com/news/2025/07/15/fema-chief-texas-public-appearance-
00452293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2.a. What considerations informed your decision to remain
in Washington, D.C. during the immediate aftermath of the flooding
event rather than deploying to the disaster area sooner?
Answer. I remained in constant communication with my operational
staff, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, White House
officials, and our federal, state, and local partners in Texas,
including the state of Texas Emergency Management Director Nim Kidd. I
remained in Washington D.C. to coordinate FEMA's support to the state
of Texas.
Question 2.b. During previous major flooding events under prior
administrations--for example, during Hurricane Helene in North
Carolina--was it standard practice for the FEMA Administrator to deploy
to the field while flooding was still active, or to remain in
Washington for coordination purposes?
Answer. FEMA does not have a Standard Operating Procedure for when
a FEMA Administrator will deploy to the field. This is due to the fact
that every disaster is different and requires different support from
leadership.
Question 2.c. Given the need for interagency coordination, do you
believe the Administrator's physical presence in the field during major
disasters should be considered an operational necessity or a
situational judgment call based on the nature and scope of the event?
Answer. No one can predict exactly what the operational need will
be, but we can prepare for it. I will always be where I am of best use
to the President, Secretary Noem, and the American people.
Question 3. FEMA deployed Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams in
response to the July 4th flooding event in Texas.
Question 3.a. Please provide a timeline detailing when FEMA first
received a request for USAR assistance from the State of Texas, when
the deployment was approved, and when personnel arrived on the ground.
Answer:
Monday, July 7, 2025:
0800: FEMA received a verbal request from the State of
Texas and began processing the request for two Type 3 Task Force Water
Packages
1800: Colorado Task Force 1 and Missouri Task Force 1
were activated
Tuesday, July 8, 2025:
1440: FEMA received request for three additional Type 3
teams, twenty human remains detection canines, and three Search Team
Managers
1700: Arizona Task Force 1 activated
1800: Nevada Task Force 1 activated
1900: Indiana Task Force 1 activated
Wednesday, July 9, 2025:
0900: Colorado Task Force 1 and Missouri Task Force 1
arrived on-site
2230: Nevada Task Force 1 arrived on-site
Thursday, July 10, 2025
0044: Indiana Task Force 1 arrived on-site
0210: Arizona Task Force 1 arrived on-site
FEMA manages and funds the National Urban Search and Rescue System,
comprised of over 6,000 state and local first responders across 28 task
forces throughout the country, including one task force in Texas.
During disasters within their respective state, FEMA-funded Urban
Search and Rescue task forces may deploy under state authorities using
their federal equipment to support local Search and Rescue operations.
After the July 4 floods in Kerr County, TX, the State deployed TX-TF1
under state authorities to support local Search and Rescue operations.
Question 3.b. How many USAR teams were deployed to Texas under FEMA
authority, and from which locations were they mobilized? How does this
compare to other disasters, such as Hurricane Helene?
Answer. Five Task Forces were deployed as Type 3 Task Forces, of
which three were upgraded to Type 1 Task Forces (increase in number of
staff) from Arizona, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, and Missouri. Twenty
individual canine resources (human remains detection) and three Search
Team Managers came from across the country. Urban Search and Rescue
capabilities range in response and are based on the requirements
outlined by the State and by the situation (e.g., hurricane, flood,
earthquake). Every flooding incident impacts communities differently,
which makes comparison of the search and rescue mission challenging.
The magnitude of the Urban Search and Rescue response to the Texas
flooding is consistent with some previous flooding incidents where
federal search and rescue support was requested, including the 2022
Kentucky floods. However, the exact needs and support for search and
rescue vary based on the impacts and existing state and local search
and rescue resources.
Question 3.c. Were any Urban Search and Rescue resources
coordinated or supplemented through the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact (EMAC)? If so, please describe how those requests were
initiated and fulfilled.
Answer. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact is a state-to-
state request system and is not coordinated through FEMA. Requests are
submitted by state authorities through the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact Coordinators in State Emergency Operations Centers.
The State of Texas requested through the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact several federally certified Task Forces which
participate in the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue System. This included a
request to FEMA for the task forces to use their federal equipment
cache. FEMA granted this request, enabling Task Forces to use their
federal equipment to support as an Emergency Management Assistance
Compact resource.
Question 3.d. What are the key challenges FEMA faces in staging
USAR assets for fast-moving events such as flash flooding?
Answer. FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue teams were built and
intended to be a rapidly deployable federal resource during federally
declared disasters and intended to support and supplement state and
local search and rescue capabilities when they are overwhelmed.
Flooding impacts are not always clearly defined, and flash flood
impacts even less so. Due to the dynamic nature of flooding incidents,
it is extremely difficult to predict ultimate impacts to state and
local communities and whether the impacts will overwhelm existing state
and local search and rescue resources. This makes it challenging to
determine whether or not federal search and rescue teams should be pre-
positioned, as federal teams can only be employed once a Stafford Act
declaration is approved. There are limited times when a flood threat
can be better predicted because of antecedent conditions. For example,
FEMA deployed Utah Task Force 1 to New Mexico when the State requested
resources in anticipation of flood impacts in a burn scar area from the
previous year. It is known that burn scars can produce landslides
during extreme rain events. Frequently during flash flooding incidents,
the states will request federal search and rescue resources as the
incident is unfolding. In this case, FEMA will deploy federal search
and rescue teams directly to the state's requested location to begin
supporting state and local search and rescue operations, rather than
staging them. FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue teams are built to deploy
rapidly within hours of receiving a state request.
Question 3.e. Are there any updates or lessons learned from the
Texas response that FEMA is incorporating into future pre-deployment
protocols or coordination with EMAC partners?
Answer. FEMA maintains a robust continuous improvement process to
analyze best practices, lessons learned, and areas for improvement from
each incident. Following the Texas response, FEMA identified the need
to increase visibility on resource requests through the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact. This increased visibility allows FEMA to
understand the full scope of resources a state is requesting,
identifying where the state may be experiencing gaps and shortfalls,
and begin to pre-position federal resources ahead of requests for
support. FEMA maintains close coordination with the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact and will continue to expand that
partnership in the future.
Questions to David Richardson, Senior Official Performing the Duties of
FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. Mike Ezell
Question 1. Mr. Richardson, given FEMA's integral role in national
security and incident coordination, how does its current location in
Washington, D.C., support rapid interagency collaboration and decision-
making during crises, particularly with the White House, DHS, and other
federal partners nearby?
Question 1.a. Can you further elaborate to how the existing FEMA
headquarters facility supports the agency's continuity of operations,
secure communications, and mission-critical functions and what risks
might arise if those operations were relocated outside of the National
Capital Region?
Answer to 1. and 1.a. Having a FEMA facility in Washington, DC
plays a critical role in supporting the agency's continuity of
operations, secure communications, and mission-critical functions.
FEMA's mission to guide and lead the development of national continuity
policy and coordination of national continuity programs for the
executive branch requires operational proximity to the White House and
Executive Branch departments and agencies. This proximity ensures FEMA
can maintain close coordination with federal leadership and conduct
routine onsite assessments essential for sustaining national resilience
and the continuation of the United States Government.
The location in the National Capital Region provides FEMA with
strategic advantages, including real-time access to senior decision-
makers, streamlined cross-agency collaboration, and timely responses
during national security crises or emergencies. FEMA's ability to
execute its responsibilities depends on in-person relationships and
seamless integration across unclassified and classified environments.
For example, FEMA leadership engaged in over 100 senior-level national
security and continuity discussions in the National Capital Region in
the past year alone, underscoring the importance of proximity to
strategic partners such as the National Security Council, the Office of
Management and Budget, and the White House Military Office.
FEMA Regional Offices and the Devolution Program are essential
elements of FEMA's operational framework, providing resilience and
operational flexibility across the nation by leveraging the 10 FEMA
Regional Offices. Regional Offices and the Devolution Program enhance
FEMA's ability to respond effectively to emergencies. However, they are
designed to complement--not substitute--the active presence required in
Washington, DC to ensure seamless collaboration and leadership at the
federal level.
Relocating all FEMA's facilities outside the National Capital
Region would introduce significant risks. These include delays in
decision-making during emergencies, reduced efficiency in coordinating
with federal leadership, and challenges in maintaining secure
communications and classified operations. Additionally, relocation
could disrupt established relationships with key national security
partners and hinder FEMA's ability to conduct routine onsite
assessments and provide timely technical assistance. Logistical
challenges, such as relocating critical personnel and infrastructure,
could further compromise FEMA's ability to respond effectively to
national security crises, ultimately jeopardizing the agency's mission.
Question 1.b. As the current lease nears expiration, what is FEMA's
plan for ensuring seamless operational continuity and avoiding costly
or disruptive relocation efforts? Has FEMA assessed the long-term value
of staying in place versus the risks and costs of moving?
Answer. DHS is working with General Services Administration on
facility/real estate options for FEMA headquarters as they near the
lease expiration.
Question to David Richardson, Senior Official Performing the Duties of
FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. Mike Bost
Question 1. Last year, in its Annual Report to FEMA, the Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC), which has now been disbanded at the
Department of Homeland Security, issued recommendations that included
splitting the current Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) that is based on
the 1% annual flood using existing conditions at the 50% confidence
limit into two new flood hazard areas each determined using 95%
confidence limit, one based on existing conditions and a second based
on future conditions (including land use and climate change).
In leveed areas changing from the 50% to 95% confidence limit will
result in many levees not being able to maintain accreditation on FEMA
flood maps, which leads to higher insurance premiums, decreased land
values, and much levee protected area made subject to federal
regulations (mandatory purchase of flood insurance and floodplain
management (i.e., land use).
We have since been informed that the recommendation(s) to increase
from the 50% to the 95% confidence level will not be advanced. Could
you please confirm whether this is the case and also advise whether
FEMA intends to move forward with using future conditions, rather than
existing conditions, for determining the regulated floodplain
boundaries?
Answer. FEMA has not implemented the recommendations from the 2023
Technical Mapping Advisory Council Annual report. This report
recommends two flood hazard areas: a Special Flood Hazard Area based on
the existing 1-percent-annual-chance flood including estimates of
uncertainty at the 95 percent confidence limit and a new flood prone
area to be used for floodplain management requirements based on future
conditions. Recommendations are made to the FEMA Administrator for
consideration and no decisions to accept these recommendations have
been made.
Furthermore, FEMA has not proposed any changes to the levee
accreditation requirements established in the Code of Federal
Regulations at Title 44--Emergency Management and Assistance, Section
65.10 (44 CFR 65.10), nor to the levee analysis and mapping procedures
for non-accredited levees, which are documented in FEMA's guidelines
and standards for the analysis and identification of the 1 percent-
annual-chance flood hazard on a Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Questions to David Richardson, Senior Official Performing the Duties of
FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. Greg Stanton
Question 1. Two major fires are burning in Arizona on federal land
in Coconino County. The Drago Bravo Fire in the North Rim of the Grand
Canyon has destroyed the historic Grand Canyon Lodge and more than 70
structures, and the White Sage Fire has burned more than 58,000 acres.
Coconino County Emergency Operations Center is on the frontline of
these fires coordinating the response. It is the only emergency
operations center in the county, a county that is the second largest in
the country by land area. Yet, the federal funding the county relies on
through the Emergency Management Performance Grant program for 98
percent of its operations has still not been allocated by FEMA. Further
delays in releasing these funds will put significant strain on the
county and its ability to respond to these fires and other disasters.
When can we expect FEMA to issue the Notice of Funding Opportunity
for these Emergency Management Performance Grants and fulfill its
obligation to Coconino County and other emergency management offices
across the country battling fires, flooding, and other natural
disasters?
Answer. FEMA is committed to releasing the Notices of Funding
Opportunities, including the Emergency Management Performance Grants
Notice of Funding Opportunity in the near future, and will keep the
Subcommittee updated.
Question 2. In March 2020, Coconino County, Arizona submitted its
initial application to FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to remove
hazardous vegetation on private properties in a high-fire danger area.
This review requires examination of properties previously disturbed and
developed for residential construction. Phase 1 was awarded in June
2023, and the County submitted its Phase 1 closeout documents and
Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) review request in July
2024. Despite these steps, the EHP review for this project remains
pending. (FM-5284-03-03R)
Can FEMA provide a clear timeline or estimated date for when the
EHP review will be finalized and Phase 2 funding released for this
project, so this essential wildfire mitigation work can proceed?
Answer. The subapplication, received on March 31, 2020, required
coordination between FEMA and the applicant through May 2023 to address
missing information. Due to insufficient details in the original
application, FEMA awarded the project as a phased initiative. Phase 1
deliverables included identifying the project location, securing
private property owner interest and access approvals, and obtaining
Board of Supervisors approval. On August 19, 2024, the Arizona
Department of Emergency Management submitted Phase 2 deliverables to
FEMA. At that time FEMA initiated review, which included tribal
coordination, consultation with Resource Agencies, and engagement with
the State Historic Preservation Officer. FEMA has just completed
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona State
Historic Preservation Officer. FEMA is currently working with the
subapplicant to receive a signed Endangered Species Act Compliance
Package. Following completion of an Environmental and Historic
Preservation compliance review, FEMA, along with the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), will complete the remaining required reviews
of this project. Once all reviews are completed, FEMA may award the
subapplication and may obligate the funding.
Question 3. Coconino County sought approval from FEMA to place a
temporary magnetic antenna on the roof of a 25-year-old county-owned
building. Despite the minimal impact, FEMA required a full EHP review,
which took four months to complete and ultimately confirmed the mount
posed no environmental or historical harm.
What strategies or reforms are under consideration to streamline
the EHP process for zero-risk or minimal risk projects or exempt EHP
review on applicant owned structures/lands?
Answer. FEMA's Office of Environmental Planning and Historic
Preservation has been actively working on strategies to streamline the
process to meet statutorily required federal responsibilities for
environmental compliance for federal funding actions, with the intent
of maximizing the use of existing legal exemptions and adopting
additional exclusions, where possible. FEMA has developed additional
programmatic environmental assessments and, as of June 16, 2025,
adopted 46 additional National Environmental Policy Act Categorical
Exclusions from eight other federal agencies. This streamlines the
National Environmental Policy Act review for a wider variety of project
scopes that include minimal-risk projects, such as temporary
installations on applicant-owned structures or lands.
FEMA is committed to reducing complexities of the Environmental and
Historic Preservation review process and will work with this
Subcommittee on potential legislative changes to ease complexities and
challenges.
Question 4. Congress approved two Community Project Funding awards
(EMF-2023-EO-00002 & EMF-2024-EO-05006) for an Emergency Operations
Center in Coconino County, which is now in the 2 design phase. The
County attempted to initiate an early EHP review to avoid unnecessary
construction delays but was told by FEMA that full budget documentation
was required before EHP could proceed even though these details have no
relevance to environmental or historical considerations. Currently,
there is only one staff member in Region IX handling EHP reviews and,
as a result, the County anticipates delays of 12-16 months or longer
before approval is received. Coconino County offered to fund a third-
party review to expedite the EHP process, but FEMA denied the request.
Question 4.a. What measures is FEMA implementing to address known
staffing shortages and persistent processing bottlenecks within the
Region IX EHP review team, particularly for critical infrastructure
projects?
Answer. The Office of Environmental Planning and Historic
Preservation at FEMA Headquarters is collaborating closely with Region
9 leadership to implement both immediate and long-term solutions. To
date, FEMA has surged national and Headquarters staffing assets,
reallocating personnel as needed to address project backlogs and
improve processing efficiencies. Additionally, the Office of
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation leadership is working
directly with the FEMA Region 9 leadership to develop sustainable
capacity solutions through filling critical vacancies. FEMA Region 9
has also been in contact with the State regarding ongoing
consultations.
Question 4.b. Why does FEMA not allow the use of or accredit
qualified third-party environmental reviewers to help expedite EHP
reviews as is done at other federal agencies?
Answer. FEMA can accept certain components of environmental review
process, such as hydrologic and hydraulic studies or surveys of
historic, cultural, or protected species impacts, that are conducted by
third parties under specific circumstances. However, regardless of who
prepares associated studies or documentation, FEMA is responsible for
making all associated compliance determinations as required by statutes
and authorities delegated by DHS for FEMA's federally funded actions.
Question 4.c. Is FEMA considering any reforms to enable such
collaboration for urgent public safety projects?
Answer. FEMA continually looks for opportunities to streamline or
improve the environmental and historic preservation review process
while complying with statutory Environmental and Historic Preservation
requirements to best serve community response, recovery, and resilience
goals. FEMA's focus has been on streamlining tools to increase the
agency's efficiency in performing required environmental and historic
preservation reviews. FEMA is committed to keeping this Subcommittee
updated on any changes to the Environmental and Historic Preservation
review process and working with the Subcommittee on potential
legislative changes to ease complexities and challenges.
Question 5. Pima County, Arizona received a letter from FEMA on
March 12, 2025, in reference to three Shelter and Services Program
(SSP) competitive grant awards indicating that payment was being
withheld and that FEMA was ``instituting specific conditions on the
award.'' Pima County is owed more than $13 million in SSP funds for
shelter and other services it provided to those seeking asylum.
Throughout the last six years, this temporary sheltering program, which
began during President Trump's first term, was conducted at the request
of and with the full knowledge, support, and participation of agencies
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) brought asylum seekers that they had processed and
were releasing to the shelters in Pima County, and it was CBP that
determined that these individuals were in the United States legally,
Pima County had and played no role in these determinations. Pima County
provided these services properly and in good faith to ensure public
health and safety, yet the federal government has failed to meet its
obligations to reimburse the county for these services, which were
approved by the DHS through its normal grant process. Further, Pima
County followed all the terms and conditions of the SSP grants and
responded to FEMA's letter on April 9, 2025, with the additional
information requested, which had already been provided with the
requests for payment. To date, the county has been met with silence
from FEMA.
When will the expenses legally incurred by Pima County and its
subcontractors, for what was entirely a federal reasonability, be fully
reimbursed by FEMA?
Answer. Pima County's Shelter and Services Program award is subject
to ongoing litigation. FEMA does not comment on pending litigation.
Questions to David Richardson, Senior Official Performing the Duties of
FEMA Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, from Hon. John Garamendi
Question 1. Mr. Richardson, in your testimony you cite examples of
BRIC-funded projects, such as bicycle lanes, as diverging from the
program's original intent, and use this as a rationale for canceling
the program.
Question 1.a. Could you please provide a full list of all BRIC-
funded projects from 2020 to the present, identifying which specific
grants you believe deviate from the program's core purpose?
Question 1.b. Additionally, please indicate what percentage of
total grants and funding, respectively, you believe fall into this
category.
Question 1.c. In your view, how many such projects are sufficient
to justify withholding critical disaster preparedness funding
nationwide?
Answer to 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c. We have not terminated any grants or
ended the program. We are currently evaluating its efficacy to ensure
selections align with its original purpose, and the next steps. Once
that review has been completed and decisions have been finalized, we
will be able to provide a more complete response.
A full list of BRIC funded projects from 2020 to present can be
found on OpenFEMA.
To identify BRIC subapplications from FY 2020 to the
present that have been awarded and obligated using OpenFEMA data, refer
to OpenFEMA HMA Subapplications v2 [https://www.fema.gov/openfema-data-
page/hma-subapplications-v2]. Data can then be filtered on the field
``program'' to only include Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities. The field ``totalObligatedAmount'' will provide the total
federal obligated amount for subapplications that have been awarded and
obligated.
To simplify this, we have included a link to this
prefiltered file using the OpenFEMA API [https://www.fema.gov/api/open/
v2/HmaSubapplications?
$format=csv&$filter=(program%20eq%20%27Building%20Resilient
%20Infrastructure%20and%20Communities%27%20and%20totalObligated
Amount%20gt%200)&$allrecords=true&$metadata=off].
Question 2.a. In a court filing, FEMA said that they have `not
ended' the BRIC disaster grant program. However, in April, FEMA
announced that they were ending the BRIC program and canceling all
applications from FY 2020-2023. Could you please explain the apparent
contradiction here?
Question 2.b. Is BRIC ended or not?
Answer to 2.a. and 2.b. We have not terminated any grants or ended
the program. We are currently evaluating its efficacy to ensure
selections align with its original purpose, and the next steps.
[all]