FEMA Congressional Hearing

Mr. Strong (00:00):

… disasters. Recent events have overwhelmed our state and localities and challenged their ability to mobilize and help their communities. In 2024 alone, FEMA responded and administered resources for over 100 major declarations. According to NOAA, natural disasters last year caused 568 fatalities and damages totaled approximately $182.7 billion. Hurricane Helene and Milton alone devastated the East Coast causing 251 deaths and $113.9 billion in damages. Beginning in January of this year, fires in Los Angeles County and Southern California caused damage and economic loss that is projected to be somewhere between $250 billion and $275 billion, which would make it the costliest single disaster in our nation's history, surpassing the record set by Hurricane Katrina.

(01:05)
Our states and localities deserve all the help they can get in protecting people's lives and property against deadly disasters. The aid that FEMA delivers before and after disasters is greatly appreciated and greatly needed. But as recent events demonstrate there is room for improvement, we must ask, what efficiencies can be found? What reforms can be implemented to create a better emergency management enterprise? And how can FEMA be improved to better support those on the ground and disaster survivors?

(01:43)
I applaud President Trump's January 24th executive order to convene a FEMA Review Council composed of individuals with expertise in disaster response and recovery, who will be tasked with providing recommendations on reform to FEMA. Even the best government agencies are in continual need of reform and FEMA is no exception. The purpose of this hearing is to solicit feedback from stakeholders within the emergency management community, that can help guide President Trump's FEMA review Council as it explores, what aspects of FEMA deserves the most reform? I thank the witnesses for their perspective and for being here today. As we begin our conversation, there are a few areas of potential reform which I would like to highlight. FEMA's mission set has expanded greatly in recent years to include tasks beyond preparing for and responding to traditional disasters. For example, FEMA assisted the federal government's efforts in providing shelter and supplies to UACs from the southwest border. It also supported the Department of Homeland Security in the resettling of Afghan refugees by way of Operation Allies Welcome. Since 2019, FEMA has been administering funds to local governments and nonprofit groups to offset the cost of humanitarian relief efforts of caring for migrants, at first through the emergency food and shelter program Humanitarian, and since 2023, the shelter and service program.

(03:29)
As the boarder crisis ballooned during the Biden administration, I wonder how much time was wasted administering this program, when the FEMA workforce was already stretched thin? As we contemplate how best to reconfigure or establish efficiencies within FEMA to support its operations, we must ask whether FEMA's expanding mission set has slowly exhausted the agency's resources and workforce, preventing it from completing its core mission to the highest level of sufficiency?

(04:05)
In addition to FEMA's mission creep, there are concerns that FEMA has also enabled a certain degree of waste. A GAO report found that FEMA mishandled the administration of funds for its COVID-19 funeral assistance program with at least $4.8 million being approved for duplicate or ineligible applicants. I look forward to our witnesses thoughts on how to make FEMA as efficient as possible while still allowing it to carry out the fullness of its duties.

(04:39)
It is also of great importance that FEMA avoid any appearances of partisanship. Following Hurricane Milton last year, a FEMA employee improperly and illegally instructed canvassers not to go to houses displaying signs of then presidential candidate Trump, disregarding FEMA's mission of supporting every disaster survivor. As I'm sure we can all agree, FEMA must be impartial in its performance of all duties. The FEMA Review Council will also consider various structural changes to FEMA as indicated in President Trump's executive order. Some have suggested FEMA should be removed from the Department of Homeland Security, once again, making it an independent agency with direct access to the president of the United States. I look forward to hearing our witnesses perspectives on this matter, and whether they think this move would have a positive effect on FEMA's efficiency and ability to operate, as well as potential changes that could be created.

(05:47)
Finally, it is evident that state and local governments have become increasingly reliant on FEMA to meet critical disaster response needs. I invite our witnesses to offer suggestions on a more appropriate structure of burden sharing between federal government and state and local government, to best position them to respond to disasters. Again, I thank each of you for being here today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony on these and other issues to inform the work of the FEMA Review Council as they seek to reform FEMA to better serve the American people. I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for his opening statement.

Mr. Kennedy (06:35):

Thank you, chairman, and congratulations on being named chair of this great subcommittee. I want to also recognize and congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for taking part in this subcommittee. I want to recognize all of the witnesses that are here today. Thank you for being here, and thank you for the important work that you do for our country. The topic of today's hearing, unfortunately is very timely. Disasters are striking harder and more often, from wildfires that we're seeing today yet again, floods, hurricanes, extreme snow and ice storms, tornadoes. We've seen hundreds of lives taken across communities and devastated nationwide, California, Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and everywhere in between. We need to strengthen our preparedness, our response, our recovery efforts like never before. It's ever more critical that we do so.

(07:37)
We have to support them from Congress every step of the way. And I'm deeply concerned about the Trump administration's attack on FEMA and the dedicated public servants in emergency management at every level. President Trump has threatened to dismantle the agency, fired 200 employees, pushed out 800 more under Elon Musk's unfunded resignation scheme. It's a reckless and dangerous move that undermines disaster response when we need it the most. And these brave servants attempting to help communities ravaged by destruction are being fired without cause, a shameful, despicable act and it's wrong. And unfortunately, the majority has chosen not to include any representatives from FEMA to attend this hearing, and has testified today about what's truly happening on the front lines.

(08:24)
Currently, there's no transparency from this administration on how FEMA and the agency with such a critical mission can operate while being dismantled one employee at a time. Even while the Trump administration continues to downplay the critical role of emergency managers, the truth is, that for decades FEMA has come to the aid of the American public time and time again and they've done so while being understaffed and underfunded. In addition to the direct attacks on FEMA, President Trump is chipping away and weakening the agencies that provide support to FEMA, like NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Reportedly, the Trump administration has fired approximately 800 probationary employees at NOAA, while another 500 resigned, severely undermining critical weather forecasting and climate monitoring services. Such mass exoduses from essential agencies not only weaken our disaster response and preparedness capabilities, but also jeopardize public safety and economic stability. Let me be clear, the American people cannot afford to let President Trump and Elon Musk take a chainsaw to FEMA. I've seen firsthand how critical FEMA is on a number of occasions. But in 2022, my community was ravaged by winter Storm Elliot. During the week of Christmas 2022, a category four extra-tropical cyclone created crippling winter weather conditions, including blizzards, high winds, snowfall, and record cold temperatures across the entire country exacerbated in the Northeast. This catastrophic storm claimed 47 lives in my hometown of Buffalo and Western New York. This tragedy overwhelmed our entire community in the days, weeks, and months following, from the mourning of loss of loved ones, friends and community members to putting the pieces of lives and homes back together.

(10:33)
Following this storm, President Biden ensured that FEMA assistance was provided, but the devastating blizzard highlighted outdated FEMA policies that left gaps in support. Currently, FEMA has a snow assistance and severe winter storm policy that provides a criteria for assistance following an extreme snowstorm. However, snow assistance requires a record or near-record snowfall over one to three days, validated by the National Weather Service, and compared to historical data. For example, where other storms are judged by the amount of damage they cause, a snowstorm must be the worst a community has ever experienced to qualify for assistance. That means up to six to seven feet of snow just to get the attention of FEMA. That is not acceptable. And where other storms are judged by this damage, and we have to see more snow than ever before in history, we see this disproportionate impact on how federal assistance can be provided. So federal assistance for snowstorms must be on par with other natural disasters, that's why I introduced the Snow Act to expand disaster assistance for snowstorms, ensuring communities get the help that they need. Specifically, my bill removes outdated snowfall methodology and the statewide total damages requirement. If the affected response zone and/or region is determined by state emergency service agencies, it unlocks individual assistance for snow disasters, providing monetary relief for families who experience substantial damages to their homes. It unlocks all categories of public assistance for snow disasters, such as assistance in removing debris, rebuilding roads and bridges, rebuilding and maintaining public utilities and melting agents for ice on roads. It adds snow removal equipment under FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant program and raises the federal cost shared at 90% federal and 10% state and local, if the affected areas are rural or below the real median household income according to Census Bureau.

(12:56)
This will have an impact on every single community across the United States. Make no mistake about it, there's work to be done to improve FEMA but dismantling its experienced workforce is reckless and dangerous. As climate change fuels more frequent and severe disasters, our focus must be on strengthening FEMA's ability to respond, not weakening it. It's more crucial than ever before to have a robust response system. The growing threats we face demand it. While a lot of today's conversation is likely to focus on natural disasters, FEMA does more than disaster response. It provides critical preparedness grants for communities nationwide. Yet, the White House froze these funds forcing courts to intervene even after a judge's order reports indicates that many grants remain blocked, jeopardizing emergency readiness. This is not just bureaucratic red tape, it puts lives at risk.

(13:52)
This funding, frozen by the administration supports first responders and emergency managers in keeping us all safe. In my district, we know firsthand how vital the preparedness grant resources are. In just a few short months, we'll be commemorating the third anniversary of the racist white supremacist terrorist attack that robbed 10 lives, innocent souls from my community on May 14th, 2022. That day, our first responders, our police, our firefighters, our EMS, and so many others bravely rushed into harm's way, putting their lives on the line to protect others. They give so much for the well-being of our community, so the very least we can do is ensure that they have the funding and support that they need. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about all of these issues and more. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Strong (14:46):

Thank you. Thank you Ranking Member Kennedy. Other members of the sub-committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. I'm very pleased to have such an important panel of witnesses before us today. I ask that the witnesses please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before the Committee on Homeland Security of the United States House of Representatives will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thank you, please be seated. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.

(15:34)
I would now like to formally introduce our witnesses. Mr. Jeff Smitherman serves as the Director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency. Previously, Mr. Smitherman served as the Acting Director of Alabama Emergency Management Agency, and has also served as its Executive Operations Officer and State Coordinating Officer. Mr. Smitherman also completed a 28-year military career, retiring in 2015 from the United States Army and Alabama National Guard. Thank you for your service.

(16:07)
Mr. Daniel Kaniewski is the Managing Director of Public Sector at Marsh McLennan, where he develops innovative solutions to public sector challenges and engages 90,000 experts in risk strategy and people. From 2017 to 2020, he served as the Deputy Administrator for resilience of FEMA. Early in his career, Mr. Kaniewski served as Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Senior Director for Response Policy in the George W. Bush administration.

(16:43)
Ms. Carrie Speranza is a President of the U.S. Council of International Association of Emergency Managers. And is the former Chair of the FEMA National Advisory Council. Speranza is also the Director of Emergency Management Solutions at ESRA. Before joining ESRA, Ms. Speranza was Deputy Director of the District of Columbia's Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. Thank you.

(17:09)
Mr. Timothy Manning is a former Deputy Administrator for Protection and National Preparedness at FEMA. More recently, Mr. Manning served as the White House COVID-19 Supply Coordinator. Prior to joining federal service, Mr. Manning served as the Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and Homeland Security Advisor to Governor Bill Richardson. I thank the witnesses again for being here today. I now recognize Mr. Smitherman for five minutes to summarize his opening statement. Mr. Smitherman.

Mr. Smitherman (17:45):

Good morning and thank you Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy and other distinguished members of the committee for the invitation to testify here today. I am Jeff Smith, the director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency, and a cabinet member to Governor Kay Ivey. Today, I want to share with you all what I believe about emergency management and the future of FEMA. At Alabama EMA, we are proud to be one of the premier emergency management programs in the country. Alabama's success is directly tied to the professionalism, training, and experience of our first responders and local emergency management programs. As director and cabinet member, and on behalf of my colleagues in state and local emergency management, we thank you for this opportunity to provide a state perspective on the future of FEMA. Alabama is no stranger to large-scale disasters. While as a state we rank 24th in population, we are seventh in major disaster declarations. During President Trump's first term, we had six major disaster declarations, and during my time or my tenure at the agency from 2015 to present, we've had 17 major disaster declarations. However, states experience many other events that do not rise to a major disaster declaration, but still require significant commitment of state resources. I believe disaster preparedness, response and recovery for all incidents start and end at the local level and that the relationship is critical between federal, state, tribal, and local emergency management.

(19:15)
Each jurisdiction maintains separate authorities and capabilities, but must work together by connecting and supporting one another to effectively and timely save lives and protect property. States are critical to successful preparation, response and recovery within our communities. To fully understand the critical function of the state, I believe a state emergency management director must be included in the review process and on the President's FEMA Review Council. I believe we must use this reset opportunity to not just necessarily look at how to adjust the current system, but to take a whole holistic look and approach to its redesign.

(19:54)
What do we want the emergency management system to look like after the President's Review Council completes their work? This is a generational opportunity for a rebuilt network with a refined focus and efficiency. I believe we can gain some efficiencies through this process. With no additional federal funds, I believe we can build more state and local capacity by adjusting the funding and redefining and streamlining priorities. I believe preparedness and resilience are related functions. The more deliberate focus and effort that goes into preparedness is realized after an event with a more resilient population and infrastructure. As such, I believe we can place increased priority on state and local capacity using existing building resilient infrastructure and communities BRiC funding.

(20:46)
BRiC is a newer grant program that has not realized its initial goals. By redesignating a small portion of this funding to be made available to all states in order to develop their capacity and the capacity at the local jurisdictions, it would be a highly efficient and effective way to serve our citizens, who need timely and helpful assistance on their worst days, not months or years of red tape. The Homeland Security Grants serve to train and certify existing local first responders, the same resources that Alabama deployed to North Carolina for Hurricane Helene. One important system that already exists for the states is the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, the EMAC, I believe EMAC is a viable proven framework and program to execute state-to-state mutual aid. Increased capacity can be used by states within the EMAC system to cover requirements that FEMA formally tried to cover.

(21:42)
I believe emergency management is a team effort. Sometimes you rely on one aspect more than the other, such as state versus FEMA, but everyone still has a role. I think the key during this critical review will be an important opportunity to clearly define the role of local, state, federal, tribal, nonprofit, and private sector partners, and create a new dynamic emergency management that works for everyone. I believe there is a consensus on the lack of speed, consistency, and clarity from FEMA. And I know many in FEMA agree and welcome some level of change. The states already build schools, parks, government buildings, etc. I believe we can rebuild better, quicker, and more efficiently in a system, more like a block grant than the cumbersome system we currently use. As I conclude, I want to thank again the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. I believe emergency management is critical to the nation, and the time is now to implement improvements that will change the way we do business, and ultimately better serve the citizens of the United States. Thank you.

Mr. Strong (22:51):

Thank you, Mr. Smitherman. I now recognize Dr. Kaniewski for five minutes to summarize his opening statement.

Dr. Kaniewski (22:58):

Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy. My name is Dan Kaniewski and I focus on the public sector at Marsh McClennan. It's the world's leading professional services firm in the areas of risk, strategy and people. We're a U.S. company with more than 90,000 colleagues worldwide, advising public and private sector clients in 130 countries. We have a deep understanding of disaster resilience and recovery issues, having been engaged with risk management insurance challenges since our founding more than 150 years ago. We work with clients including governments, individuals, businesses, organizations, and communities to analyze their disaster risk exposures, help them implement solutions before, during, and after an event, address and mitigate the financial impact of natural disasters, through insurance and other risk transfer tools. Before joining Marsh McLennan, I had the pleasure of serving the first Trump administration as the second ranking official at FEMA. I served alongside a dedicated FEMA workforce that managed a barrage of back-to-back disasters

Dr. Kaniewski (24:00):

… [inaudible 00:24:00] from 2017 to 2020. We embraced a locally executed, state managed and federally supported approach. We always operated and supported the governor, and I believe then and continue to believe now that FEMA should not be viewed simply as the federal government's ATM reimbursing states for their costs, but instead positioned as the nation's risk manager.

(24:27)
My proudest achievement at FEMA was launching and leading the agency's Resilience organization. The pre-disaster mission of the Resilience organization is comprised of three equally important parts, preparedness, mitigation, and insurance. Much of my expertise relates to resilience and we at Marsh McLennan believe FEMA's mission of supporting state and local governments before a disaster can be strengthened, making the agent a trusted risk advisor much in the way that we see ourselves at Marsh McLennan.

(24:59)
FEMA is most often associated with disaster response missions. Recent major disasters such as Hurricane Helene and Milton and the LA wildfires demonstrate why. That is when the spotlight is on FEMA. It's when what FEMA does matters most in the moment. But I strongly believe that what FEMA does before a disaster strikes is equally important. Today's hearing presents an opportunity to engage in a long overdue conversation about potential reforms to FEMA and more broadly appropriate levels of burden-sharing between federal, state, and local governments and with the private sector.

(25:36)
I personally have seen FEMA reforms. I was the author of the Bush White House Hurricane Katrina After Action report, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, lesson learned. And at FEMA in the first Trump administration, we proposed to Congress and then implemented provisions of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, including the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities or BRIC grant program. The strategic plan we developed at FEMA in 2017 contained a goal of closing the insurance gap. I now work in the property and casualty insurance industry and continue to focus on that goal.

(26:13)
Just like FEMA, the insurance industry is at a crossroads. Given the recent deluge of recent disasters from flooding to hurricanes to wildfires, there's a pressing need for proactive measures to mitigate risks and safeguard the well-being of our communities. Thus, resilience must be our collective North Star whereby reduce the physical and financial impacts of disasters and transfer these risks off the backs of disaster survivors and the federal balance sheet. But to do so, we must be prepared to match the magnitude of risks we face with the magnitude of effort required to manage them.

(26:51)
FEMA through its various grant programs, both disincentivizes and incentivizes resilience investments by state and local governments. The FEMA Public Assistance program largely disincentivizes resilience because it amounts to a de facto insurance policy for state and local governments. In contrast, FEMA's pre-disaster programs such as BRIC hazard mitigation programs encourage resilience by providing the funding that saves taxpayer dollars and reduces disaster suffering. The private sector can also incentivize resilience, particularly in the areas of finance, insurance, and real estate. These sectors should view themselves as co-beneficiaries of resilience investments, and therefore should find ways to encourage individuals, businesses, and governments to make these investments. Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to share how FEMA, together with its state and local emergency management partners and the private sector, can together make the nation more resilient. I look forward to your questions.

Mr. Strong (27:51):

Thank you, Dr. Kaniewski. I now recognize Ms. Speranza for five minutes to summarize her opening statements.

Ms. Speranza (28:04):

Good morning Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy and members of the subcommittee. My name is Carrie Speranza and I'm appearing before you today as president of the US Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers, an organization representing emergency management practitioners worldwide with over 5,000 US members.

(28:22)
Members of the Subcommittee, your local, state, tribal, and territorial emergency management agencies ensure your communities are prepared to respond to and recover from emergencies and disasters. We create and manage systems that save lives, minimize damage to property and infrastructure, mitigate future risks, and help restore communities after a disaster. We are grateful to be a part of today's conversation because we know that our efforts are only possible with the support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To serve our communities effectively, disaster management must be federally supported, state-administered, and locally executed. Together with the private industry this multi-sector approach is a necessary partnership, particularly when disasters overwhelm local and state resources.

(29:08)
Reform of federal disaster programs is long overdue. But I'd like to highlight a few FEMA programs that must be sustained through this process and also speak to opportunities for change. First, sustainment. FEMA must maintain its role in driving change through its preparedness programs. These programs serve as the underlying foundation from which all local and state emergency management capabilities are derived. Through this investment, FEMA helps to establish national standards for state and local personnel so that assets could be provided through mutual aid. This capability is essential as illustrated by hurricanes Helene and Milton were over 6,300 public safety personnel deployed for 290 mutual aid missions. Preparedness is not a matter of insurance before a disaster. Instead, these FEMA preparedness programs provide assurances that we can aid each other in times of disaster. And preparing through planning, training, exercising and standardization is crucial.

(30:09)
FEMA's hazard mitigation programs must also be sustained as they drive long-term change by helping communities safeguard against future risk. Without FEMA's partnership, communities will become more vulnerable. As the National Institute of Building Sciences outlined in its 2019 Mitigation Saves report, public sector grant investments and mitigation save $6 for every $ 1 spent. Meaning mitigating risks is simply good business.

(30:35)
Opportunities for change. First reform must prioritize building a disaster-resistant America by incentivizing and rewarding smart decision-making and fiscal responsibility at the local and state levels. Examples include establishing and adhering to building codes in all communities and requiring adequate property and rental insurance. Additionally, jurisdictions should prioritize emergency management as a necessary function to invest in. And all states should establish a disaster relief fund as their first line of defense to provide immediate aid to survivors before calling on FEMA to help. FEMA can play a role in incentivizing these actions by increasing preparedness and pre-disaster mitigation assistance or by reducing the non-federal cost share requirements post-disaster.

(31:22)
The second opportunity for reform involves efforts to minimize long-term recovery costs by adjusting the disaster declaration process and establishing a federal long-term recovery exit strategy. FEMA has the expertise that provides communities with best practices for long-term recovery planning and coordination, making them an invaluable part of the recovery process. However, a calculated exit strategy that transitions leadership to the local jurisdiction coupled with recovery funds will help everyone when they need it most. And the decrease in extended federal oversight will expedite the rebuilding process.

(31:55)
Recent ideas about FEMA reform have included shifting response and recovery responsibilities and block grant administration to the states. I want to offer that this approach will only work if the methodology is transparent and financial controls are implemented. To reduce long-term recovery costs, policies must require a mandatory minimum pass-through to the jurisdictions affected by the disaster. This will ensure that resources are not redirected to non-disaster-related activities.

(32:24)
Finally, to implement any of these recommendations, Congress must amend the Stafford Act providing a modernized framework for FEMA to operate more effectively. It is a necessary step in this process and we need your help. Mr. Chairman and ranking member, the International Association of Emergency Managers fully supports a comprehensive review and reform of FEMA. Reform will ultimately help the people of America, and that is what emergency managers do. We help people before, during, and after disasters. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and I look forward to your questions.

Mr. Strong (32:59):

Thank you, Ms. Speranza. Now I recognize Mr. Manning for five minutes to summarize his opening statement,

Hon. Manning (33:08):

Chairman Strong, Ranking Member Kennedy, members of the subcommittee, good morning. I'm Tim Manning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the state of FEMA. FEMA is truly at a tipping point, as is our national emergency management system, and the timing of this hearing couldn't be more critical. Over the past 30 years, I've served at all levels of emergency management from county fire and EMS to the state, to FEMA to the White House, and FEMA's never been more called upon and its workforce more stretched thin. The growing frequency of catastrophic disasters and a once in a century pandemic have had widespread impacts on emergency management writ large.

(33:49)
This changing hazard landscape and the operations tempo is now coupled with indiscriminate firings, regressive changes in policy and freezes in funding, all resulting in significant impacts on the nation's preparedness for emergencies, disasters, and terrorist attacks. And these impacts are far wider than just the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA is but the federal player in a broader collective team. A disaster in a disaster when the crisis exceeds the capabilities of a local government, that local government requests assistance from the state and when it exceeds the ability of that state, they request the help of the federal government from the president. And FEMA on behalf of the president is the executor of that assistance.

(34:33)
FEMA coordinates the federal government's response but does not assume command of the overall response. States have always and continue to bear the primary responsibility and those and who along with their local governments respond to a great deal more emergencies and disasters than FEMA ever gets involved in. It was in the 1970s, for example, that after decades of fragmented and uneven support from the federal government that the southern governors requested of the president that FEMA be created. Eliminating or drastically reducing the size and role of FEMA at this time would be intentionally rolling back hard learned lessons, erasing 70 years of reforms rooted in trying to avoid the mistakes of the past.

(35:17)
Continuing to learn however is important. Rebuilding roads, bridges, hospitals can take time and government contracting and oversight rules to prevent fraud, waste and abuse can be burdensome. But when the public complains about disaster response saying, "Where's FEMA?" It's usually individual assistance that they need and the rules create their challenges that many Americans struggle to overcome. And misinformation exacerbates these challenges. Public assistance reforms such as block grants could benefit state and local government administrative operations and individual assistance reforms would benefit disaster survivors more directly and more visibly. And reform should also include a review of FEMA's operational response capabilities such as the 28 urban search and rescue teams, the MERS disaster emergency communications units. The resources provided to these critical assets have not kept up with the significant increase in the number of disaster deployments.

(36:18)
But FEMA's strongest asset is its workforce. For its mission, FEMA is relatively small. It has no helicopters, no airplanes, no ships. Its strength is in its people. The recent firing of the agency's CFO and grants management staff for managing a congressionally authorized and appropriated program has had a dramatic chilling effect. And the indiscriminate firing of a wide range of people and expectations of more has hurt morale and operational capacity. Its whole workforce is critical. As is true across the emergency management profession, every FEMA employee has a disaster response role. Whether someone's day job is managing a terrorism grant or flood insurance, everyone in FEMA also has a second responsibility in which they support a disaster response. They work in an EOC or deploy downrange to support survivors. Everyone is critical.

(37:08)
Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee, almost 20 years ago I was here testifying on almost this exact same issue. Were FEMA and DHS structured correctly and were the dramatic unilateral changes put in at that time responsible for poor response. Congress passed reforms and the administration at that time listened. In the ensuing decades, the nation has made dramatic improvements. Congress's investments and capabilities through grants and legislative reform have resulted in more prepared communities, have mitigated disasters, provided a more effective response. It's saved lives.

(37:45)
Recovery is still challenging and slow to implement and the individual assistance provided to people and families is complicated and often less than anticipated by the public. Reforms to those programs would be greatly beneficial, but there should be no question of the need for a single federal coordinating agency working with governors in support of the American people. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity this morning. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Mr. Strong (38:11):

Thank you, Mr. Manning. Members will be recognized by order of seniority for their five minutes of questioning. An additional round of questioning may be called after all members have been recognized. I now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning.

(38:26)
Mr. Smitherman, it's good to see you here representing the great state of Alabama. Since 1980, Alabama has faced 116 weather-related disasters, averaging one to two incidents per year. As a result, emergency management leaders throughout the state have forged strong partnerships with the federal government, particularly FEMA, to support community recovery and aid individuals in their greatest time of need. As you all know, the president recently announced FEMA's review council aimed at identifying areas of improvement within the agency and suggest changes to help state agency emergency management agencies respond to the aftermath of crisis. Mr. Smitherman, based on your experience, what do you think is the appropriate level of FEMA involvement that enables states to maintain the lead in disaster response?

Mr. Smitherman (39:24):

Thank you, Chairman Strong. Well, to start with, from my experience, we have a lot of disasters and we've had FEMA come in and we established a joint field office. We've done that many times and often that's really not necessary. For Alabama, we were one of the pilot states that piloted the state-managed disasters. We did that for Hurricane Nate in Alabama. So we've already managed a disaster at the state level, and I think with proper resourcing and considerations, we could do that for many of the disasters we experience and save the limited FEMA resources for the most catastrophic of events. Like what you've seen in Katrina, Helene. When we've had our tornado outbreak 2011, we kind of rank up there with that in terms of when we would ask FEMA to come in. We are not a state that relies on FEMA during the response phase.

(40:23)
We bring them in. They're there. We have the regional incident management assistance teams in there with us. They're integrated into our EOC and we keep the FEMA headquarters informed of what we're doing through that process. But as far as the need, the biggest value to us FEMA is during the recovery phase and when they come in, we just have got to figure out a way to make that more responsive, less complex, less bureaucratic, and actually get the funds down to the locals who are trying so desperately to get their communities put back in order from after that disaster incident.

Mr. Strong (40:56):

You got it. I saw it firsthand as the chairman of the second-largest county and the state of Alabama. 350 homes totally destroyed, that tornado, EF5, 4, was on the ground for 126 miles. Thousands of homes totally destroyed and we had were without power for 10 to 12 days in some areas, but it was definitely something that we'll never forget. How can coordination be improved between federal, state components and disaster response and recovery?

Mr. Smitherman (41:28):

I would say right now, the communication flow works fairly well. It's just that there's so much that goes on day to day that has limited impact. I think as one of my panel colleagues here has stated, one of the critical components of that is that being in the preparation and the preparedness phase, really so what they can do to help identify and get consistency throughout the states. One area that I would say is in the EMAC system, the more we can empower and encourage the use of the EMAC system where the states can provide the mutual aid back and forth as a particular state is able to use pre-event resources funding from FEMA to establish capability and capacity at that local level and at the state level, it gives us a venue to be able to share that so that not everybody has to have everything. We can empower what we already have and train and certify and equip it.

Mr. Strong (42:30):

Thank you. As I mentioned in my opening statement, FEMA has been tasked with managing an increasingly diverse mission set. Mr. Kaniewski, in your opinion, how has FEMA, the expanded missions affected its ability to fully respond to any singular disaster?

Dr. Kaniewski (42:51):

Well, I think certainly at various times we've seen FEMA stretched thin. That's most often takes place when there's a major disaster, especially when there are multiple major disasters or like what we saw in 2017 when I was at FEMA with hurricanes back-to-back. Back-to-back hurricanes. And when you have that, you simply can't recover. And so that applies both to FEMA, which manages a variety of these disasters, as well as the state and local governments, that they themselves have been directly impacted.

Mr. Strong (43:29):

Thank you. My time has expired. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Kennedy for his five minutes of questioning.

Mr. Kennedy (43:34):

Thank you, Chairman. Last month, president Trump and Elon Musk fired at least 200 FEMA employees. Now, under the Trump administration's deferred resignation program, over 800 FEMA employees, including highly skilled emergency professionals are leaving. Mr. Manning, how will these reckless staff firings impact FEMA's disaster response and what will happen to the communities that rely on FEMA support?

Hon. Manning (44:00):

Ranking member, thank you for the question. It's really devastating to the FEMA workforce to lose the broad swath of team members that they have. The firings, the original indiscriminate firings were challenging enough and that they were targeting probationary employees, but not just beginning of career employees. People throughout the organization, including senior leaders and people who have been there for a long time and recently promoted. The additional departure of a wide number of very senior, very influential and important career leaders within the organization is going to slow its decision-making, inhibit its effectiveness, and will have real implications in preparedness and disaster response.

Mr. Kennedy (44:48):

Thank you. Earlier this year, the administration chose to illegally freeze funding previously appropriated by Congress, including FEMA funding, despite court orders to release disaster relief funds, at least 140 FEMA grants remain frozen, impacting wildfire protection, flood mitigation, disaster preparedness efforts. A coalition of attorneys' general has now filed a motion urging the court to enforce its ruling, arguing that FEMA's manual review process is simply a freeze by another name. Mr. Smitherman, our FEMA's preparedness grants in disaster relief funding important to your operation?

Mr. Smitherman (45:29):

Yes, Congressman, they are. To date, Alabama has only experienced small delays with receipt of those funding, with exception of I think a couple of grants that the notice of opportunity for funding has been withdrawn. I think they're rewriting some of them to put it back out. But to date, we've not been impacted by that freeze. The money that we're able to draw down where we're obligated, we've been able to draw down. This process has become a little bit slower due to the review, but we have not missed any payments at the state level based on that.

Mr. Kennedy (46:05):

Would funding cuts to FEMA grants help or hurt your operation in your community?

Mr. Smitherman (46:13):

I think the answer is obvious, anytime you cut funding to an item … but I think you really have to take a look holistically at the entire emergency management system. The answer isn't always the federal system. What are we doing at the state? What are we doing at the local? How are we managing the funds that we're given? Are we efficient at that? Are we effective at that? I think that'd be the true measure and reward those who demonstrated financial solvency in the way that they handle the money. I think I would venture that Alabama … Alabama has a committee. In 2019, our legislature established something not too dissimilar from the DOGE. It's called the Alabama Commission on Efficiency and Services. And I get audited every year. We've passed our audits, we track our money, we know where it's at, we keep up with it, and we spend it, I think effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Kennedy (47:10):

But cutting funding would not be helpful?

Mr. Smitherman (47:12):

Excuse me, sir?

Mr. Kennedy (47:13):

Cutting funding would not be helpful?

Mr. Smitherman (47:15):

I think there's readiness that can be gained across the nation as long as funding's available to attain that readiness. Now we would discuss at what level we place that.

Mr. Kennedy (47:24):

Thank you. DHS grant funding has been essential for first responders providing local agencies with the resources needed to handle disasters and emergencies. And we know that first responders nationwide have stressed how critical these needs are. Yet during his first term, President Trump pushed major cuts and forced a 10% reduction in fiscal year 2024. Mr. Manning, with climate change driving more frequent and severe disasters, how crucial is it to sustain or increase funding to ensure first responders can protect vulnerable communities?

Hon. Manning (47:57):

I believe the Homeland Security Grant Program,

Hon. Manning (48:00):

All of FEMA's grant preparedness programs from the Emergency Management Performance Grant through the resilience grants that Dr. Kaniewski was mentioning earlier have been absolutely critical in building capacity for the nation. Any reduction in the resources available from the federal government to build the nation's response capacity to build preparedness will have a detrimental impact on our ability to prepare and respond to disasters and acts of terrorism.

Mr. Kennedy (48:26):

And if you cut that funding from the federal level to FEMA that would otherwise go to the states, the states have to make up for that funding in the moment?

Hon. Manning (48:33):

Correct.

Mr. Kennedy (48:35):

I yield back. Thank you.

Speaker 1 (48:36):

Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Brecheen.

Speaker 2 (48:41):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have expressed to the chairman privately, I want to say publicly how grateful I am for this hearing. I think this is something that is to many of your comments, long overdue. I don't think most people realize that prior to 1979 there was no FEMA and it was established by an executive order by Jimmy Carter. And so I think it would well serve us if we go back 40 years. I'd love to find the people that were in emergency management 40 and 50 years ago to get their experience about the ease of not having to adhere to the regulatory burden.

(49:18)
Last year, 50% of our supplemental funding… And I say our. I need to rephrase that. The taxpayer-financed spending taken from the taxpayer, whether it's a direct tax or an indirect tax of inflation because of our deficit spending. Last year, 50% of our supplemental spending all borrowed money was FEMA-directed.

(49:41)
In 1980, it was 1% of the total supplemental funding that Congress allocated went to FEMA. And so for some of you that are experts, if you look at the chart of the growth of FEMA, it is unbelievable. It ways surpasses inflation. We now have a FEMA that has become the Uber service for illegal immigrants in the last two and three years. It is way outside of its bounds. FEMA is involved with 30 different federal agencies now.

(50:08)
And so we have major mission creep that has to be reined in. It has to be bidded, bridled, and somebody has to holler, "Whoa." And so I'm grateful that this conversation is happening. I'm going to give you a personal example because I want to tie it into my questions. I have a ag and dirt moving background. When I was serving on the state level, a friend of mine, Mark Allen, state senator, at the same time I was a state senator after a 2012 tornado hit an area I represented.

(50:38)
He was kind enough to say, "Hey, I'll bring my dozer down. You get on the dozer, I'll get on the skid steer and we'll do some cleanup to help people that don't have the ability to finance it." So we did that. And so I'm moving this dozer. I'm in a very rural setting, Tushka, Oklahoma, and I'm moving material. I'm separating the vegetative from the non-vegetative to make sure we abide by the FEMA regulations.

(50:58)
Many brush piles over and I watched because of federal regulations, because I was in the dirt-works business. I was in the dozer, excavator, trucking business. What could have been something that in a country setting could have been solved like that, that is done every day today where people in the country pull timber together, they light it on fire, we were not allowed to do that.

(51:24)
We had to multiply the cost four times over. You had to bring in a half round, which is a bathtub on the back of a semi, and you had to take an excavator track hoe, and you had to load that material that I had pushed up into a brush pile, dismantle it, load it in a half round, haul it off miles and miles whether to be incinerated major cost or to be buried by another bulldozer.

(51:46)
I can tell you, because I've turned in estimates to many customers that I served when I was out of the government into the free market. You multiplied that cost at least by four. It didn't make any sense. We've had stories come before this committee of not allowing snow to be moved, snow that melts because of FEMA environmental regulations in tandem. So I'm setting you up because I'd love to hear Mr. Smitherman from your experience, the waste that you've seen because of federal.

(52:14)
Let me ask you a simple question. I love what you said. We piloted a state response. How freeing was that for you all to be able to make your own decisions and make a decision that you knew would save taxpayer money and immediately respond in Alabama?

Mr. Smitherman (52:33):

Of course, I'm a fan of our performance during that. I think if you take a look at FEMA's evaluation of our performance, you'll see an alignment with that. So we have had one small disaster where the cost of FEMA coming in and establishing the joint field office almost exceeded the cost of the disaster itself. So I think that would be my one example. No, that's not to say that… Or an attack on FEMA being wasteful. It's the process they use. And I think if you look at a state-managed disaster for those that we can handle, just help us handle it and let us go.

(53:12)
So I think that's one example of efficiency. And sir, if I may, let me refine my answer on funding that the ranking member asked. Of course, if there's funding cuts, but really what I want to talk about is where you cut and where you put the resources. Because if you're talking about the first responders that are responding during the disaster, by no means am I talking cutting them. I'm talking reallocating funding that you save elsewhere to put at the capacity level so that you have those capabilities that are so needed across the states and the region, and the United States. That's really what I meant with where to allocate the funding.

Speaker 2 (53:48):

Mr. Chairman, if I may-

Mr. Smitherman (53:49):

I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (53:49):

… since he answered another member's question, if I could have a little leniency on my time?

Speaker 1 (53:53):

Yes, sir.

Speaker 2 (53:53):

Glad you were able to respond to him. Years ago, US senator in Oklahoma, Tom Coburn asked for our state director of transportation to build a mile of road under federal regulations and use an apple-to-apple comparison and build a mile… or what turned into be a mile and a half under state regulations. Apples-to-apples comparison. This was about 10, 15 years ago. He could build a mile of road at the same cost. He could build a mile and a half under state authority. And this was quality work. The dollars will go farther. You'll have more decision-making and control and in a rate of inflation that deals with everything that FEMA is involved with, especially when you're talking about the large equipment that comes in and under disaster recovery. This is a solution that we have to make happen given where we're at financially as a country. I yield.

Speaker 1 (54:46):

Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson is recognized.

Speaker 3 (54:52):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In February of 2021, Texas was hit with our biggest winter storm to date killing over 240 Texans. Texans were left without power, busted pipes, drinkable water, and freezing to death. Not to mention the millions of property damage all across our state. Throughout this disaster, support from FEMA was critical in saving the lives across North Texas communities.

(55:19)
Simply put, without FEMA, this disaster would've been 10 times worse. And look, not all of us could flee to Cancun, but abandoning FEMA now would mean abandoning Texas and would serve to set up our state for even worse disasters in the future. FEMA's rapid response provided Texans with 70,000 gallons of gasoline, 5 million liters of water, 60 generators, and helped over 650 households retain power.

(55:50)
These resources proved to be invaluable and likely saved thousands of Texans from the worst case scenario. We all remember back in 2017 when Texas was destroyed by Hurricane Harvey. 3,500 FEMA employees along with 31,000 members of the National Guard were deployed to provide assistance to our Gulf Coast. Almost 800,000 homes had at least 18 inches of water inside and 24 hospitals were evacuated. Within 30 days of Hurricane Harvey, over 270,000 households were provided with $1.5 billion from FEMA that covered temporary housing, advancement pay for flood insurance and repairs to keep their homes safe.

(56:34)
All of this was approved by President Trump. We know that climate change is an escalating threat to our homeland security, and we would be lying to ourselves if we said a catastrophe like this is not on the rise and will not ever happen again. Last May, tornadoes tore through North Texas killing seven people including three children and injuring over 100 of my neighboring residents. FEMA stepped in and provided displacement and home repair assistance at a very critical time.

(57:07)
President Trump's decision to fire over 200 FEMA employees last month was not only irresponsible but will overwhelm current employees who are already burnt out and most importantly, it will endanger the lives of Texans and many people throughout this entire country. I'm all for cutting waste, fraud and abuse, but we can't lose sight of the humanity. The time of crisis needs that FEMA provides.

(57:33)
Elon Musk may not think that saving lives is an efficient use of federal dollars, but I know that it is and I know that my neighbors would agree with me .at this very moment, the people of North Carolina who are just now starting to get on their feet from the catastrophic floods last year are currently on fire. Parts of California were just burned to the ground and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the audacity to support the president's unconstitutional behavior and allow him to dismantle this important federal agency.

(58:06)
And just last night, the Dallas area was hit by yet another round of tornadoes and the damage is now still being calculated. FEMA is not the end-all and be-all, but with an unreliable grid in Texas and natural disasters becoming more frequent, Americans cannot afford to lose the life-saving services that FEMA provides. Mr. Manning, how can federal, state, local governments effectively prepare for and respond to the growing climate threats without federal support? And what consequences will these cuts have on underserved communities?

Hon. Manning (58:46):

I thank you for that question. The inability, or at least the change in policy to disincentivize or even prohibit the consideration of climate change will have a incredibly detrimental effect on preparedness across the country. It is changing the complexion of hazards in America. There are more severe storms, more severe impacts than we have seen historically. If we only plan forward based on what we've experienced historically, we will be drastically under-preparing going forward and people will be in danger and may lose lives.

(59:22)
Texas has a very strong emergency management system, but even Texas needs the assistance of FEMA over and over again. A strong collaborative partnership between FEMA and the states is how we move America forward and how we assure that our most vulnerable communities have the protection that they need.

Speaker 3 (59:41):

Thank you so much for your answer. I believe I'm out of time and I yield back.

Speaker 1 (59:45):

The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans for five minutes of questioning.

Speaker 4 (59:52):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ranking member and thank you of course to the witnesses for taking the time to come today. So I spent two decades in between military and law enforcement on the military side as a Black Hawk helicopter pilot in the National Guard in Colorado. So I've commanded all national guard aviation assets in the state of Colorado responding to wildfires as a police officer for a decade. I was pretty integrally involved in a lot of these disaster response and emergency management things.

(01:00:19)
And so I have a couple of questions here Mister… and I apologize if I butcher it, Kaniewski Did I get it? Mr. Kaniewski, just looking through your bio here, it looks like you have some experience in the insurance space. And so one of the things that I hear specifically with regard to wildfire from a lot of my electric utility providers is the exploding insurance rates that they have to pay to be able to provide electrical services through some of these high wildfire risk areas.

(01:00:51)
And so looking through your comments here, you're talking about effectively how an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Can you expound a little bit on how being able to do some of these preemptive mitigation strategies might potentially be able to help alleviate some of the insurance burden that my electric utilities are facing as they try to provide electricity through some of these high wildfire risk areas?

Dr. Kaniewski (01:01:17):

Yeah, wildfire is a risk that requires a partnership. It requires partnerships, not just those traditional partners that we think of, maybe those of us in emergency management or those of us that were first responders. But it requires partnerships from critical infrastructure as you highlighted. And as critical infrastructure owners and operators, you've mentioned the power industry. They need to understand what their risks are and what they can do about it. And unfortunately, all of that has now come to the fore because when someone loses power, questions are raised, fingers are pointed, blame is placed.

(01:01:57)
And the reality is, it's no one stakeholder. It's not just that critical infrastructure owner and operator. There's only so much they can do themselves. By working with the local community as well as working with the state and local governments and looking at regulations that may inhibit or enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure, we can hopefully make that infrastructure one more resilient, and two, reduce the risks that everyone faces so that wildfire risk that might threaten a power line also threatens homes.

(01:02:32)
And so taking a community-based approach and understanding that by reducing that wildfire risk, it actually benefits everyone whether it be their home, which is the most obvious, I think, all of us think about when we think of wildfire risk. But we also think about the loss of power. Now, I would say our company works very closely and our clients include major energy companies, and this certainly is top of mind with them, and making sure that there are insurance products available to protect them. But I would say it requires a partnership on the regulatory side with those state regulators to make that feasible.

Speaker 4 (01:03:10):

So what are some of those specific partnerships that currently exist, and then are there any regulatory barriers that we can look to reduce to be able to build that federal state to local partnership ultimately with the goal of being able to reduce some of the insurance burden that a lot of my rural electric co-ops are facing by being able to lower the risk specifically in my area for wildfires? What are some of those partnerships? What are the barriers that we need to work on to make those more accessible?

Dr. Kaniewski (01:03:39):

So first a general statement, insurance is just a reflection of the risk. So when we talk about insurance premiums going up, it's because the risk has gone up. And so anything we can do to reduce that risk. Again, it can be as simple as removing combustible materials around whether it be power lines or homes. That's a wildfire risk. But the interesting thing about wildfire risk, it's not just what you do, it's what your neighbors do or what that community does. And so building codes play a preeminent role here. So making sure that the building code, it's a wild land urban interface.

(01:04:16)
A building code would be very important to protect that community, whether it be again, power lines or homes. And at the state level, because insurance is regulated at the state level, there's really no one answer I can give you. It depends on the state. So it's really a partnership, whether it be emergency managers working with insurance commissioners or with energy regulators in that state, I think would be a very advisable way to go to build those partnerships. And so that we all see, the term I used in my opening statement, that we're all co-beneficiaries of that investment. We all benefit from that investment in resilience.

Speaker 4 (01:04:54):

Thank you. I yield back.

Speaker 1 (01:04:55):

The gentleman from Colorado's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Hernandez for five minutes of questioning.

Speaker 5 (01:05:02):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I bet if I ask my constituents to name one federal agency, they will all say FEMA. FEMA has had a huge role in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria. And I'll be the first to acknowledge FEMA has serious problems with efficiency and bureaucracy. Out of tens of billions of dollars that were assigned to Puerto Rico by FEMA, we've only seen a fraction.

(01:05:26)
Our electric grid is probably worse off today than it was the day before Hurricane Maria struck. So there's a lot of work to be done with regards to FEMA. And so my first question, Mr. Manning, what concrete legislative changes could we enact to make sure that federal funds that are obligated under FEMA are dispersed more efficiently?

Hon. Manning (01:05:48):

Thank you, Congressman. If we talk about the pre-disaster side of the mitigation and preparedness grants and the post-disaster side, there are slightly different answers, but it comes down to FEMA administers a broad swath of legal requirements both out the Stafford Act, but also a myriad of grants laws and fiscal law. And so there are going to be reforms that need to be looked at in public assistance to streamline the provision of resources and the approval of projects which is where a lot of delays I believe in Puerto Rico are experiencing.

(01:06:25)
It's the negotiation between the Commonwealth Puerto Rico and FEMA in the context of all of these fiscal and Stafford Act laws. And the mitigation side and some of the pre-disaster and post-disaster mitigation, a lot of those are coming through… There are some delays now in the current administration's review process that could be fast-tracked as well if they were to rescind some of those. I think that collaboration and that view through the Stafford Act reforms that we're discussing today are the most important.

Speaker 5 (01:06:56):

Great. Thank you. My second question is, and this is for Mr. Smitherman, let's assume that Congress moves towards dismantling or decentralizing FEMA to promote more interstate cooperation. Should it consider some sort of special treatment for non-continental US jurisdictions? Because I'm concerned, Alabama can get help from Florida, from Tennessee, from Georgia, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, the USVI, the Mariana Islands, American Samoa. I hope I left nobody out, can have a harder time. We got a lot of help from the states. I don't want to undermine that, but obviously it takes a lot longer to send a few trucks to an island in the Caribbean or the Pacific than it does from one state to a neighboring state. So how could we reconcile that with these views of decentralizing FEMA and giving more support to the states to help each other?

Mr. Smitherman (01:07:58):

Thank you for that question. So unabashedly, yes, states that are in the continental US obviously have an advantage in that regard. I think you have to look at it just totally from a different approach with regards to an island support. Yes, you have to find those different federal agencies, whether it be a DOD or maybe incorporate some additional way to pre-stage some of the state-to-state assistance.

(01:08:29)
I particularly had a situation this past week, or I think two weeks ago I was out at the United States Northern Command working on a course, and we had a member from Guam there. They talked about the challenges they're having with both taking care of the planning for disaster support and any nation-state threats. I think they've seen some specific nation state threats here recently. And it's a challenge for them. And they talk specifically to that, how do we get this assistance?

(01:08:55)
And they are looking at more of a DOD approach. So maybe I think when we talk about looking holistically at a redesign, FEMA is just one part of a larger emergency management system. And anytime you make an adjustment on one area of a system, you've got to account for other areas in that system to make up that shortfall or that change. So if you move away something from FEMA, somebody somewhere has got to take that up.

(01:09:24)
So I think regardless of what the broad outcomes of the FEMA review council that the president is putting together, whatever their recommendations are, I think you have to follow on with that and say is what functions have moved before you establish what form that's going to look like. So where are you moving that requirement? Who's going to pick up the response for island response? And someone has got to pick that up, and who is that going to be? And if we'll move that function, let's resource that function.

Speaker 5 (01:09:53):

And I'm sorry to interrupt because I have very few seconds left. I'm not fully convinced of DOD taking over FEMA, but I look forward to working to find bipartisan solutions should that be the approach that the majority in what I think would be unfortunate, but should that be the approach to find some bipartisan solution to address the needs of the non-continental US jurisdictions. Thank you. I yield back.

Speaker 1 (01:10:16):

Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. Does the Ranking Member seek recognition?

Mr. Kennedy (01:10:21):

Yes, Chairman, thank you very much. I'd just like to ask for unanimous consent to offer these three documents into the record. Bloomberg article on disaster relief funds, asking the attorney general asking that the wildfire aid be released. Senior leaders leaving an already depleted disaster agency, the New York Times article regarding FEMA, and the rank-and-file workers that have already left before the cuts, and a GAO report on FEMA staffing challenges from 2023.

Speaker 1 (01:11:01):

Without objection. The gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan is recognized for five minutes of questioning.

Speaker 6 (01:11:07):

Thank you, Chairman Strong and Ranking Member Kennedy for allowing me to wave and speak on the importance of FEMA to my district. As Guam continues to recover from typhoons and prepares for other disasters, FEMA's assistance is still needed. Demonstrate the need of FEMA and its deficiencies in the territories, I will use FEMA's four phases of emergency management. First two are mitigation and preparedness. No one can predict how future disasters will affect us, but FEMA has provided the tools to reduce the damage for the next emergency. Utilizing bottom-up approaches, FEMA has ensured that readiness begins at the local level. FEMA provides assessments, early warning and awareness methods that are vital to disaster preparedness. Now, while Guam and many other US locations face difficulties

Speaker 6 (01:12:00):

… difficulties in hardening infrastructure and telecommunications. Guam's partnership with FEMA has been extremely fruitful. The other two phrases in FEMA's preparedness management here is response and recovery. And for all the success we can achieve before disasters come, FEMA's true value is seen during emergencies and the recovery efforts after. Stretched thin, FEMA is often limited to how they can respond to disasters. It has been two years since Typhoon Mawar destroyed our island, and we are still recovering. Funding opportunities like Emergency Operation Center grants and recovery funds ensure that Guam can respond efficiently in disasters.

(01:12:47)
Now, despite these successes, we have a long way to go for streamlined emergency responses and recovery. Guam's disaster-prone location is burdened with outdated grant criteria, limited funds, and other administrative challenges. FEMA's Region 9 is also associated with multiple pressing emergencies, typhoons, wildfires, and flash floods. While successes in the most recent disaster relief fund represent a meaningful step towards full recovery, we can't rely on legislative wins for the next emergency. The battle against disasters is a never ending effort. Let's not forget that the work we do today, whether in government, law enforcement, or in communities, will protect our country from the unpredictable nature of emergencies.

(01:13:43)
So, together, we can ensure that the future of FEMA remains an organization committed to mitigating, preparing, and responding and recovering from disasters. Mr. Manning, as I already mentioned, FEMA's bottom-up approach is crucial to an integrated and effective disaster response, yet the spirit of integration has only traveled so far in the previous administration. While my colleague from Puerto Rico could elaborate more on the controversies associated with this, could you speak more about how FEMA has looked at the Jones Act waivers when preparing for future disasters?

Hon. Manning (01:14:28):

Thank you for that question. That is a perennially challenging issue. I can't, of course, speak to the previous administration of FEMA's operations in either Puerto Rico or Guam, not having been at FEMA at the time. But I know that that is a provision of assistance to the logistics delivery of assistance, to our island territories and Hawaii are always challenging. And I know the logistics organization within FEMA pays special attention to that. And particularly, the Pacific area office, FEMA's Pacific area office in Hawaii. And I know that there's plans in between Guam, American Samoa, and Hawaii as well. Going forward, as we discuss the revisions to the public assistance process, that would absolutely, I believe… considerations of Jones Act challenges should absolutely be considered in any of those planning going forward.

Speaker 6 (01:15:29):

Very good. Thank you. Ms. Speranza, your organization has regional councils in every major region across the world. For Guam specifically, we often suffer from the same disasters that affect Pacific island countries or Asia. In terms of coordinated emergency management, how can the US promote disaster response interoperability across every region?

Ms. Speranza (01:15:58):

That's a really great question. And so, I think one of the ways that we can better coordinate across all regions is through the standardization that I talked about in my testimony. And that's through the preparedness programs. And that's making sure that every emergency manager at the state, local, tribal, territorial, and even private sector levels, have the training available to them to make sure that they can respond through mutual aid should the need arise. And that's why those programs are really important, is because it ensures that every emergency manager or public safety official is trained to the same criteria.

(01:16:34)
So, if something happens in your region and perhaps all of your resources have exceeded capacity, you can reach back to another region for help. And in theory, the people that come to your region are also qualified in that. So, I think that that is the primary priority for reform is to ensure that our preparedness programs can make sure that mutual aid is provided from region-to-region, including in the islands.

Speaker 6 (01:16:59):

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Strong (01:17:03):

The gentleman from Guam's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz, for five minutes of questioning.

Speaker 7 (01:17:10):

Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thank you for allowing me to wave on today. In a previous life, I was the State Emergency Management Director of Florida for Governor Ron DeSantis, as the state coordinating officer where an emergency is declared in Florida. Almost all of the governor's powers are also invested in the emergency management director and all secretaries of all departments report to the state coordinating officer. So, yes, it was a little awkward to have all these other Republican appointees having to listen to a Democrat. But I got that job because I was qualified. And I got to work with both Brock Long, who was the director, the administrator of FEMA during Trump administration and Pete Gaynor when I was there. I was there for the category five Hurricane Michael recovery. I ran the Hurricane Irma public assistance reimbursement process, the Citrus Block Grant program, the Timber Block Grant program, and Florida's COVID response.

(01:18:03)
And let me first say this, any day that we're talking about emergency management is a good day, because we are often overlooked and we are often under-invested in. No one cares about us during blue skies. But when gray skies hit, that's when we get all of the attention. During Hurricane Michael and the Panhandle, I was deeply concerned about fiscally constrained areas. This is a Republican area, and some of these towns had only $5 million city budgets. Their city budgets were $5 million a year, but they had $35 million of cost. Those cities would've failed. Those residents would've had to leave. Those towns would've not have been rebuilt. Actually, who helped save them? It was President Trump.

(01:18:47)
President Trump helped save them, because what he did was is he expedited the reimbursement to those towns and he increased the reimbursement rate to 90%. And without that, these towns of the Panhandle would've absolutely never recovered. Another piece of disaster management that a lot of people don't know is a lot of it's done by the private sector. It's not done by government. The private sector does all sorts of functions. Technical assistance, monitoring, logistics, debris removal, all done by the private sector. Mr. Smitherman, and thank you for your service, because I know what that job is like. You rely heavily on the private sector through vendors to go and complete a mission. It's not done by government.

(01:19:26)
Mr. Kanuski, You talked about resiliency and mitigation. You're 100% right. It would be great if we could be more proactive with the disasters, but the problem is, is that a lot of people don't want to change the building code. A lot of people don't want to do these things. Why? Because it makes the cost of houses more expensive. After Hurricane Andrew, when we redid the building code in Florida, which by the way has saved us a lot of money in disasters, many people didn't want to do that because they said the cost of homes in Florida would go up. So, sure, can we make homes more resilient to fire in California? We can. It's going to slow the rebuilding process. It's going to slow recovery.

(01:20:03)
Can we elevate homes in Florida? We can. It's going to slow down the rebuilding process. So, there is a give and take with all of that stuff. I want to talk about FEMA reimbursement. It's super critical. Mr. Smitherman, you would know this. Alabama could not have afforded the Tuscaloosa tornado on their own if there was no federal reimbursement. It's a two and a half billion dollars disaster. Oklahoma gets 68 tornadoes a year. They cannot… Oklahoma and Alabama have what, a 12, $15 billion budget? These aren't budgets like Texas or California, or Florida and New York. A lot of these red states cannot afford a major disaster if there was no federal reimbursement.

(01:20:44)
And so, the idea of FEMA going away would dramatically hurt red states. Could you survive a category four storm coming in from the Gulf of America without federal reimbursement? I know the answer. Your state would have to raise taxes. It would have to raid the education fund. It would have to raid DOT. And if it didn't do that, it would have to raid taxes. And people would say to me, "Well, Jared, how do the power companies do it? How can the power companies come in? How can they amass all these huge forces?" It's very simple. They passed that cost off to the consumer. So, when my power companies come in and spend 300 or $400 million getting the power up, and thank God they do, because getting power up is the most important thing after life, health and safety in a disaster.

(01:21:26)
How do they do it so quickly? Cost doesn't matter because they push that cost off to the consumer in a surcharge. So, listen, what do we do? How do we fix FEMA? First of all, I support the president's EO. I think the president coming out and forming a commission is the right idea. And let's put experts on there that know what they're doing. I have been proposing for years now to take FEMA out of Homeland. That is my bill, and I'm doing that with Byron Donalds, Florida in the House, and we got Thom Tillis coming out in the Senate. We'll be announcing that bill again. But I've been doing it for two years. Why? Homeland is a great agency. It is, but it's become too big. And FEMA cannot function there.

(01:22:03)
For an agency that needs to be fast, it can't function in an agency of 22 others. And talking about them getting involved in immigration, they shouldn't be involved in immigration. But why are they? Because Homeland is using FEMA to run every grant of every agency, all within Homeland. Half of FEMA's personnel now is running grants. They're not doing response. And so, we got to get them out of that. The second thing we can do is we can block grant money down. We absolutely can do that. I did Citrus Block Grant. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me just a couple…

Mr. Strong (01:22:32):

Yield 45 seconds, because balanced the clock. Thank you.

Speaker 7 (01:22:35):

Thank you, sir. I did Citrus block grants. I did Timber block grants. We can block grant down the public assistance money. We can get FEMA out of the housing business. They're terrible at housing. We can block grant that down to local governments and to states to do that stuff. That would shrink the size of FEMA. It would. It would also allow FEMA to refocus on response. When we say response, FEMA doesn't have much. They coordinate other federal resources. In fact, that's what Mr. Smitherman does. He coordinates the other state resources that he has. And so, EMAC is great, but we got to make sure they get the reimbursement. Police fire, the National Guard, they're all great resources. They will not come and help from other states on EMAC if they don't get their reimbursement. And so, I implore my colleagues, let's not politicize disaster aid that will not help blue states or red states. You're going to be punishing your constituents, Americans, patriots, soldiers, first responders, police departments, fire departments. But we can fix FEMA. We can reform it, we can save it. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Speaker 8 (01:23:41):

Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent to enter Republican applause for some of his comments to my Democrat colleague-

Speaker 7 (01:23:48):

You got it.

Speaker 8 (01:23:48):

… into the record?

Mr. Strong (01:23:49):

The gentleman from Florida's time has expired.

Speaker 8 (01:23:51):

Some of his comments.

Mr. Strong (01:23:52):

I thank the witnesses for the valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses. And we could ask the witnesses to respond to these in writing. Pursuant to the committee rule 7D, the hearing record will be held open for 10 days. Without objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned.