Reforming FEMA: Ensuring the Nation's Disaster Readiness Works for Americans

like i

Committee on Transportation Infrastructure will come to order, and I'd ask unanimous consent that the Chairman be authorized That is so ordered. As a reminder, if members insert a document into the record, please also email it to documentsTI@mail.house.gov. And I'll recognize myself for the purposes of the opening statement. Last year, I, alongside uh, Ranking Member Larson, started down the path of examining how we can fix the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. And around the same time, President Trump issued an executive order creating the FEMA Review Council to develop recommendations for the reforming uh of FEMA. What everyone seems to agree on is that FEMA is broken, and it's been that way for a for a long time. As communities impacted by disasters across the nation know, the federal emergency management system needs fundamental change to reduce lives lost speed up recovery and lower costs to the taxpayer. For decades now, we thought we just made certain changes here and if we just made certain changes here and there, the process would get better. And in two thousand and six we passed the post-Katrina reforms, then we passed the Sanity Recovery Improvement Act of two thousand thirteen, and later the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of two thousand eighteen. This doesn't even count the bills we passed targeting specific issues, such bills uh such as bills that I authored to protect disaster victims from FEMA errors, and to speed up smaller rebuilding uh projects. We've passed reform after reform since FEMA was put into DHS, and what was the result? We have thousands of open disaster projects dating back to Hurricane Katrina, ballooning disaster costs, a bureaucracy that feels like you need a PHD to navigate, and little common sense. Any member who has had to help constituents navigate FEMA knows how complicated that the agency can be. FEMA is supposed to lead the federal government's preparedness for mitigation against, response to, and recovery from disasters. Given this mission, it should be the nimblest federal agency that we have, but instead it continues to be swallowed up by the weight of its own red tape regulations and bureaucracy. And don't get me wrong, there are many good people at FEMA who want the system to work, but we need to make sure that they have the tools to be as effective as possible. Last May ranking member uh Larson and I reduced or released a discussion draft of the fixing the emergency management for Americans Act or the FEMA Act. The committee met with and received input from over one hundred and fifty stakeholders representing state and local governments, emergency managers, nonprofits, key industries, disaster victims and other experts and stakeholders. And we have received input from members from both sides of the aisle and on and off this committee, representing communities impacted by disasters. As a result, in July last year we officially introduced the FEMA Act, incorporating the input that we received, and in September ordered the bill as amended, reported favorably to the House. More recently, in May of this year, the President's FEMA Review Council released its work. Not surprisingly, while there are some differences, the goals and many of the approaches in those recommendations mirror our FEMA Act. For example, we all agree reforms must be focused on a system that is state-led, locally executed, and federally supported. I have said from day one, we all agree uh we all agree that FEMA's reimbursement process for rebuilding is inherently flawed. And so moving to upfront grants will not only speed uh speed things up, but they're going to reduce costs. Further, we all agree that investment in mitigation is crucial. So we must ensure that funding uh for projects moves faster. And we are in agreement that the current way of providing assistance to disaster victims has been reformed to make more sense. Now that FEMA's review council recommendations have been released, we hope that we can move forward with passing the FEMA act. And I wanna thank ranking member Larson for the work that he did um with me on this bill and for the leadership of Mr. Webster and subcommittee ranking member Stanton. uh who are the original co- co-sponsors. I look forward to hearing from our panel of experts today and thank you all by the way for um for being here, but I look forward to hearing uh your thoughts on on reforming FEMA and now I recognize Rick for his opening statement.

Thank you Chair Graves uh for convening today's hearing on FEMA reform. I can't overstate the importance of this hearing. The effectiveness of FEMA is literally a life or death matter. FEMA has not met the moment for a lot of disastrous survivors. When you look at what happened after the Maui wildfires or Hurricanes Helene and Milton. But that was not because FEMA did not try hard enough. It's because FEMA doesn't have the authority it needs to help people in the best and most efficient way. Then at the start of twenty twenty five, the president said we should eliminate or overhaul FEMA. I'm not aware of anyone on this committee who thinks eliminating FEMA is a good idea. That's just not a serious proposal. But we do agree, like we have for years, that FEMA needs real reform. That's why I was pleased to team up with Chair Graves and Ranking Member Stanton and Chair Webster to write the bipartisan FEMA act. We didn't write this bill behind closed doors. We talked to more than one hundred and fifty stakeholders, put out a public draft as well, so anyone affected could weigh in. And what we ended up with a is a bill that overhauls how survivors and communities get help after disaster. It facilitates investment in damage prev- prevention and makes FEMA an independent agency again. In December twenty twenty five, floods hit my district and it impacted over one hundred thousand Washingtonians. The floods were the most expensive natural disaster the state had seen in in forty years. About a hundred and eighty-two million dollars in damage to public infrastructure, about four thousand homes damaged. Since the flooding began, I've conducted twenty-five site visits and meetings across impacted communities and met directly with mayors of Whatcom and Whatcom and Skagit counties and emergency responders. I visited federally funded home elevation projects and led direct outreach to impacted restaurants, retail stores, farms, and other small businesses in northwest Washington State. And the president did not declare a major disaster declaration until April of twenty twenty six that's when FEMA aid finally started moving. And people are grateful for the help, but it hasn't been easy. I've since heard from folks back home who are lost, trying to figure out what aid they even qualify for. Bouncing between FEMA, the Small Business Administration, US Department of Ag, and Ho- uh, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Small farmers in Snohomish and Skagit County have been hit especially hard, and a lot of them are falling through the cracks. Families are getting checks to fix their homes, but only for damage FEMA decides um uh what makes a home unlivable. That's not the same as actually fixing what is broken. Meanwhile, state and local governments are stuck working through a bureaucracy that can take years. Emergency managers in Skagit County put these delays into perspective when they told me that twenty twenty-one flood victims did not receive mitigation grant funds to buy out and elevate their homes until twenty twenty-four. Some homes flooded again, waiting awaiting mitigation resources. And when a family is finally approved for flood mitigation funding, they have to um pay for that work themselves first and hope FEMA pays them back. So the TNI committee did work and passed the FEMA act on September third of last year. And if it had become law then Washington's recovery would look a lot different today. Survivors would not have to apply to five different agencies. There would be one universal application and the government would do the work of matching people to help they qualify instead of the other way around. Families would be eligible for help repairing all damage to their homes, not just the damage that makes it officially uninhabitable. Families could get up to forty-three thousand dollars to make their homes stronger against the next disaster. And if ho- if home was a total loss, families could work with FEMA to actually rebuild it. On the public infrastructure side, state and local governments would get reimbursed within one hundred and twenty days for emergency work, to protect the lives and property. For permit rebuilding, like roads or bridges, schools or hospitals, state and local governments would get the money up front, and FEMA could only turn them down if there's evidence of fraud in the application. State and local governments could also build mitigation into the reper uh uh into the repair work from day one. That's just common sense and not something that FEMA allows today. If Washington State kept doing its part to prepare for disasters, which it has, it could get up to eighty-five percent of the cost to repair infrastructure covered by the federal government, freeing up state and local dollars for other investments in resilience and community services. The FEMA act would also let homeowners get the money up front to raise or move their homes instead of forcing people already in crisis to pay out of pocket and hope for reimbursement later. Washington State would have a steady, predictable pre-disaster mitigation funding program because the FEMA Act makes BRIC a steady formula program. And the state could combine FEMA mitigation dollars with other federal grants to take on the bigger, smarter projects we need to deal with changing climate. And for the rest of the members on the committee, this wouldn't apply just to my state of Washington. All this would apply to your own states as well. These reforms need to be in place before these reforms needed to be in place before the December twenty, twenty-five floods. They have to be in place before the next disaster hits. Congress has already waited a year too long, and today we will hear from witnesses with real experience in emergency management and related industries on what this reform would mean for them. So I want to thank you all for being here and look forward to your testimony with that yield back.

Again, I want to thank you all for uh uh for being here. Um, I briefly want to take a a moment to explain our lighting system. So green means go, um, yellow means you're running out of time. and read means uh please conclude your remarks. With that I'd ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements be included in the record and without objection. That is so ordered. I'd ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may have been submitted to them in writing without objection. That is so ordered. I'd also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for fifteen days for any additional comments and information submitted by members or witnesses, to be included. in the record of today's hearing and without objection, that is so ordered. As your written testimony has been made a part of the record the committee asks that you limit your oral remarks to uh to five minutes, if you would. And with that, uh, Mister Fugate, um, who's the former FAA Administrator, you're recognized.

Uh, Mister Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larson, members of the committee, thanks for having me here. It's always fun to testify when you're not a government official. Uh, nobody screened my testimony. Nobody gave me talking points, and I generally ignored that. Um, I wanna be clear about this. This bill addresses concerns and issues I faced at FEMA. What's interesting is, Mister Chairman, most of what you're proposing to do, with a couple exceptions, FEMA could always do. Cuz I always ask my attorneys, if it ain't illegal, why can't we do it? Well, we have policy against it. You know, there's nothing in the Stafford Act that says you can't pick up debris on That's policy. We should not be duplicating what local and state governments would not normally do, so private roads and other things. But faced with the tornadoes in Joplin and Tuscaloosa where I had debris fills that nobody could figure out whose house was on whose lot, and that by making everybody move it to the curb, we were gonna not address the key issue, which was not picking up debris, but about getting housing back. I had to go to the president and have him overrule O and B. Cuz everybody blames FEMA. Trust me, there are many spoons in this pot. And OMB said you should not be picking up debris on private property. You should make them resolve their in- insurance claims to determine what the insurance would pay so we don't duplicate the benefit. Could you imagine doing that lot by lot if you ever saw the images of Joplin after an F five tornado went and tore the heart out of that urban area? So, we picked up debris on private property because the Stafford Act says, it's not illegal. That was a policy decision. Being able to do estimates, you gave us that authority in Superstorm Sandy. We used it. Here's the situation. Vermont had a state cor- uh, state building that flooded, but it didn't reach the magic threshold of fifty percent. So FEMA's policy was, we'll fix it where it stands. The state says, " That doesn't make sense. It flooded. We need to move it." FEMA says, " Well, if you move it, you're gonna get less money, cuz we only pay actual cost." When you gave us the ability to do an estimate, we were able to go in, and Senator Leahy was very pleased with this. We negotiated with the state, we determined what the federal share, and again, this is the federal taxpayers' money, it's never been FEMA's money. The federal taxpayer would pay for the damages that were eligible in the full amount up front. And now the state could take the remaining part of moving it and do it. And they were successful. We were able to resolve the water and sewage board in New Orleans, which we were doing by each mile estimating what was pre-existing, caused by Katrina, and caused by deferred maintenance. We would have never been done. We used the estimate, we came up with a solution of using an engineering firm to come up with a methodology, both the state and FEMA agreed to. The IG reviewed it, core engineers reviewed it, and we were able to make a settlement and resolve that my last year at FEMA. An earthquake takes seconds. The paperwork shouldn't take decades. That's our situation. But the one thing in this bill I really wanna point out, because it gets to some questions people have about insurance and other things. This committee doesn't have jurisdiction over insurance, and FEMA can't fix the insurance crisis we're facing. More and more people who are underinsured are not able to get insurance. But giving FEMA the authority to repair homes, to get them back in the state where people can move back in, is key. Because up until this point, we only had authority to shelter people. And trust me, we had bent ourselves into pretzels figuring out how to get people back in their homes under shelter authority because it's much cheaper to put somebody back in their home even if it's eighty thousand dollars in repair than to pay three to four hundred bucks a night for a hotel room in New York in Superstorm Sandy. It saved the public money, but we never had clear authority to do permanent repairs. HUD's got it, but that program took too long to get there. Our ability, instead of just putting a blue tarp on a roof or patching a house, of getting it back to where it's habitable and people can move back into it, addresses another key concern this bill touches on. And that is, everybody talks about affordable housing. I'm not talking low income. I'm talking workforce housing. For communities where the workers are constantly being displaced because when homes are destroyed and rebuilt new usually it's priced out of the market. The rental properties go up, people don't have access to it. So this ability to give FEMA permanent authority to make repairs is key. In my state, I have a lot of seniors that are now going bare. They're not having insurance because they can't afford it. If their homes get destroyed, they have nothing. And FEMA's programs wouldn't make them whole. This bill gives them an opportunity to get those homes repaired and get back in them. So again, focus on the survivor, focus on the outcomes. Fraud, waste, and abuse has created more process.

Thank you. Next up we have uh Miss Lee Sheng, who's the president of Jefferson Parish in Louisiana, and she's here with the National Association of the Counties. Thanks for being here.

Thank you. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larson, and distinguished members of Thank you for having me here today. My name is Cynthia Lee-Shang and I serve as Parish President of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. I'm here representing the National Association of Counties, where I serve as the co-chair of the Intergovernmental Disaster Reform Task Force. And among the many responsibilities entrusted to counties, we are on the front lines of disaster mitigation, response and recovery. Roughly nine hundred counties experience at least one presidentially declared disaster each year. And in twenty twenty five, our nation faced twenty three separate billion dollar disasters that caused more than one hundred and fifteen billion dollars in damages. Following a disaster, local elected officials and emergency managers were first on the scene, and we play a key role in recovery and rebuilding efforts, so our residents can return to their lives as quickly as possible. As major owners and operators of public infrastructure, counties are uniquely positioned to mitigate the impacts of disasters. America's three thousand sixty-nine counties, parishes and boroughs own forty-four percent of public roads, thirty-eight percent of the national bridge inventory, nine hundred and sixty hospitals, and directly support one third of our nation's airports. I'm here today to underscore the county role in strengthening our nation against disasters, and to discuss how we can best work together to meet the challenges of today and the demands of the future. First, the FEMA Act provides a strong bipartisan framework to modernize the nation's disaster response and recovery system, and Congress should advance its core provisions without delay. Disaster response, recovery, and mitigation start local and they end local. However, these efforts would not be possible without continued support from federal programs through FEMA. One such program is in desperate need of reform is FEMA's public assistance program. Public assistance is crucial for helping communities rebuild after disasters, but the lengthy reimbursement process can delay recovery and hinder our ability to restore critical services. In twenty twenty four, NACO conducted a survey of members that found that one in five counties' longest open public assistance claim has been in process, between four and six years, and nearly a third have been open for more than six years. NACO strongly supports the FEMA Act's transition of the public assistance program from a reimbursement to a grants-based model, which would provide funding up front and reduce counties' reliance on very costly borrowing. Second, streamlining disaster assistance and environmental review processes will cut red tape and speed recovery for survivors and local governments alike. Requiring the completion of complex and very burdensome paperwork by communities who are unfamiliar with the processes during the most stressful times of their lives can significantly impede progress when it is most needed. Populations that feel the biggest impact are often our underserved and disadvantaged communities who lack the resources and capacity to complete applications and meet critical deadlines. The FEMA Act addresses this directly by establishing a universal disaster assistance and streamlining environmental and historic preservation reviews, reducing unnecessary delays while still maintaining strong protections. The act's procurement waiver, which treats counties the same as states for federal contracting purposes, would also remove a significant obstacle to rapid disaster response. Finally, county officials are effective stewards of federal investments, and a strong intergovernmental partnership is needed to meet the entirety of our public sector responsibilities. Counties are not merely stakeholders in this conversation. Rather, we are part of the federal, state, and local partnership of governments that together share the responsibility of protecting our nation and its residents from disasters. And while disasters are inherently local, forty-five states limit counties' ability to raise revenue, making the intergovernmental partnership vital to meeting our public sector responsibilities. We rely on our state and federal partners for critical recovery tools like funding, human capital, and technical assistance. In conclusion, counties stand ready to work side-by-side with you to improve our nation's disaster response, recovery, and mitigation capabilities to ensure the health, well-being, and safety of our citizens. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larson, thank you again for the invitation to discuss this critical issue on behalf of America's counties. This concludes my testimony. I'm happy to accept questions later.

Thank you. Next up we have Mister Jim Matheson, who is the CEO of the uh National Rural Electric uh Cooperative Association.

All right,

Thank you.

Chairman Grays and Reckie Mae Lawson and members of the committee, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association or NRECA, which represents nearly nine hundred not-for-profit, community-owned electric cooperatives. Electric cooperatives operate in forty-eight states. We power forty-two million people across fifty-six percent of the nation's landscape including much of America's agricultural economy. Co-ops are owned and governed by the people they serve, and they operate at cost, helping keep effect- electric rates affordable. And that affordability is especially important because electric cooperatives serve ninety-two percent of the persistent poverty counties in the country. So I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the vital relationship between FEMA and America's electric cooperatives, and explain why NRECA strongly supports passage of the bipartisan Fixing Emergency Management for Americans, or FEMA Act. FEMA's public assistance program is a lifeline for electric cooperatives after natural disasters. Every year, co-ops lose poles, transformers, power lines, substations, and other critical infrastructure to ice storms, tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and other events. Nearly half of electric cooperatives have received FEMA public assistance since twenty twenty. And because co-ops operate at cost, major recovery expenses cannot be absorbed through excess margins, without federal support, those costs flow directly to rural families, farmers, and businesses through higher electric bills. And on average, electric co-opters serve only eight customers per mile, compared to thirty-two for other utilities. So FEMA's assistance helps ensure that sparsely populated rural communities are not left to shoulder enormous recovery costs alone. But this is not just a rural issue. Four hundred and thirty-three of the four hundred and thirty-five congressional districts have had a major disaster declaration in the past fifteen years. While the FEMA co-op partnership is essential, um, it can work better. Funding approvals involving FEMA and state coordination often take years. Paperwork requirements are overly complex, and rules and interpretations vary by region. These delay slow recovery, strain rural systems, prolong outages, and increase costs for consumer members already facing tight budgets. NRUCA strongly supports the FEMA because it offers specific, practical solutions to these problems. The bill includes reforms that are aligned with NREC's five FEMA reform priorities that would make FEMA faster, more transparent, and more effective for cooperatives and the communities that depend on reliable and affordable electricity. First, the FEMA Act would better account for localized but costly rural damage. Many co-ops serve remote sparsely populated areas where catastrophic storms may not meet state or county thresholds, for disaster declarations, leaving consumer members to bear the full cost of rebuilding. Second, the bill would reduce the time required to receive public assistance. For emergency work, it would establish a hundred and twenty day reimbursement timeline, so co-ops can restore power and remove debris without facing years of uncertainty. And for permanent work, it would create a streamlined upfront approval process for long-term repairs to critical electric infrastructure. Third, the bill also directs FEMA to reimburse loan when co-ops must borrow to rebuild while awaiting reimbursement, including for past storms, helping prevent financing costs from being passed on to our consumer members. Fourth, the FEMA Act would help co-ops rebuild stronger and more resilient systems. Hazard mitigation funds allow utilities to strategically harden or move infrastructure sent rather than simply replace what was damaged. And finally, the bill adds protections against costly FEMA de-obligations. Electric co-ops have a strong record of stewardship of taxpayer dollars, but arbitrary clawbacks years after a storm create uncertainty, and they threaten affordability. NRCA greatly appreciates the committee's bipartisan work to include these five reforms in the FEMA Act. Rural America deserves a FEMA that's fast, transparent, and effective, and Congress should pass the FEMA Act quickly, so rural families, farmers, and businesses are not left behind when the next disaster hits. Thank you and I welcome your questions.

Thank you. Uh, next up we have Mister Brian Waller, who is the Vice President of uh, Shelter uh, Mutual Insurance Company, headquartered in Missouri, I might add. And uh, he's here on behalf of the uh, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. Thanks for being here.

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larson, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. As you heard, my name is Brian Waller. I'm Vice President of External Relations at Shelter Insurance, based out of Columbia. I appear today on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, or NAMIT. In May of last year, an EF-three tornado struck north St. Louis, destroying entire neighborhoods and causing more than one point six billion dollars in damage. FEMA officials have called the residential damage the largest scale the agency has seen since the Joplin, Missouri tornado in twenty eleven, which remains the costliest single tornado in US history. For affected communities and victims in this and hundreds of other open declared disasters, FEMA is not just an idea, it is a lifeline. For shelter and our fellow insurers, FEMA at its best is a trusted partner helping policyholders both before and after the storm. Unfortunately, more than a year after this storm, there is still much debris to be removed in north St. Louis, and we know that FEMA of recent years can do a better job serving the American people. Backlogs delays and duplicative processes have led to confusion and severe reputational harm at an agency that Americans need to know they can count on when disaster strikes. Secretary Mullen has taken important steps to correct the agency's course and the President's FEMA Review Council has put forth thoughtful recommendations. However, legislatio- legislative action is needed for lasting transformation, so we ask Congress to prioritize a more accountable and effective FEMA. I'm proud to be here today on behalf of the insurance industry to advocate for a reimagined FEMA that is committed to investing in mitigation before the storm, a simpler survivor experience, and accountability for results. The FEMA Act of twenty twenty-five that this committee overwhelmingly passed would accomplish these goals. Namik was pleased to endorse this legislation when it passed the committee in September and believe it a significant step in the right direction. Emergency management is most effective when all stakeholders are on helping affected communities by bending the risk curve before and after storms. The insurance industry has a long history of working to advance solutions that reduce risk to our nation's housing and infrastructure by promoting investment to harden homes and communities against increasingly severe weather. A re-imagined FEMA should likewise prioritize preparedness, building and rebuilding more resiliently, emphasizing common sense and cost-effective practices, encouraging up-to-date building codes and bolstering retrofit programs to improve our existing housing stock and infrastructure. When disaster strikes, a re-imagined FEMA should be focused on the experience of victims. No American should be left in limbo for weeks, months, or even years over inconsistent paperwork, requirements, especially after losing everything to a natural disaster. The FEMA Act contains practical and common sense solutions to many of the most pressing challenges. Six particular notable are restructuring and improving pre-disaster mitigation programs and establishing a formal process for peer-to-peer review, establishing a task force to address the backlog of open disasters, reducing impediments to prompt and effective debris removal, expediting permanent repair to public infrastructure, streamlining permitting and application processes, most importantly creating a universal disaster and numerous GAO reports to ensure continued accountability. We all know that when it comes to natural disasters, it's a case of when, not if. But as noted at the outset, your actions regarding the future of this agency will have effects that provide meaningful help to Americans in need for years to come. We commend your leadership on these reforms. It has been said that emergency management works best when it is state-led, locally executed, and fairly supported. We believe the FEMA Act will strengthen those partnerships between federal, state, and local governments, as well as other stakeholders, all in the interests of better serving taxpayers. The final report from the President's FEMA Review Council appropriately identified the need for legislation to implement many of its recommendations, and the FEMA Act tackles most of its most of the issues outlined in that report. As this committee works with the House leadership, the Senate, the administration, and other stakeholders toward a final legislative product, We encourage swift action and urge the House leadership to bring the FEMA Act to the floor for passage in this Congress. I thank you for your time and I look forward to answering your questions.

Next up we have uh, Mr. Chuck uh, Chadovitz. And he is the Vice President or one of the Vice Presidents, United States Chamber of Commerce. Thanks for being here.

Chairman Graves, uh, Ranking Member Larson, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Chuck Chadovitz, Vice President for Environmental Affairs and Sustainability at the US Chamber of Commerce. I appreciate the committee's bipartisan work on the FEMA Act, and am pleased to be here alongside chamber members and coalition partners, who share a common goal, building smart, modern, resilient infrastructure so America is better prepared before the next crisis hits. The chamber's message today is straightforward. Preparedness is pro-growth. And House action to pass the FEMA Act in short order is important in furthering progress. At the Chamber, our Growth in Opportunity imperative calls on policymakers to embrace a national goal of at least three percent annual real economic growth. Sustained three percent growth means higher wages, more jobs, more c- stronger communities, greater competitiveness, and more opportunity for American families and businesses. It should also be a test for public policy. Policies that support growth should be advanced and policies that do not should be rethought. Preparedness passes that test. A strong economy cannot be built on fragile foundations. Businesses cannot invest, hire, or serve the communities where when roads are washed out, power is down, and local governments are forced to shift scarce resources from growth to recovery. Chamber research with Allstate and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation found that for every dollar invested, in d- disaster preparedness, there are thirteen dollars in reduced losses and economic savings. A follow-on report showed the cost of inaction. Every dollar not invested in resilience today can cost communities up to thirty-three dollars in future economic activity. The lesson is simple. We can pay less before disasters happen, or we can pay far more after they do. The FEMA Act moves our common our moves our nation in a right direction by reinforcing preparedness and pre-disaster mitigation as central elements of national resilience. It recognizes that communities need predictable resources and stronger partnerships to reduce risk of forward disaster strikes. We need all the tools in the resilience tool box to succeed. The chamber supports a system that is locally driven state-managed and federally supported. State and local leaders like President Lee Shang know their communities best, but empowering local leadership cannot mean weakening the federal role. A strong federal partner is essential to provide consistent funding, coordination across jurisdictions, and support for reducing risks that exceed local capacity. Pre-disaster mitigation must remain at the center of our shared prioritized prioritized to uh to modernize FEMA. The FEMA Act's formula-based approach offers a promising path forward to reliable funding for preparedness. The Chamber also supports the improvements made in the bill that make existing programs more practical and easier to use. Hazard mitigation programs should be strengthened. Too many communities face complex applications, burdensome requirements, and limited staff capacity. The FEMA Act makes important progress by allowing funding sources to be combined, supporting project consolidation, and improving permitting and environmental review. Speed and certainty matter in disasters. Finally, resilience is directly tied to housing affordability and family wealth. For many Americans, a home is often their largest asset. As Mister Fugate said, when disaster destroys housing, families lose savings, workers are displaced, and employers face hiring challenges. Building and preserving more resilient and affordable housing protects families and strengthens local economies. Mister Chairman, Ranking Mem- Member Larson, and members of the committee, Congress has a choice, continuing paying more after disasters or invest smarter before they happen. The Chamber urges the House to pass the FEMA Act as soon as possible and preserve its focus on pre-disaster mitigation and public-private coordination. It will save lives and property. Resilience is not just good public policy, it's an economic imperative. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm happy to answer questions.

Thanks everyone for your testimony. Uh, we're now gonna turn to questions, and I'm gonna start off with uh Rick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there's kind of three buckets to um to disaster. There's the pre-disaster mitigation bit, there's the immediate response bit, and then there's recovery and longer-term recovery bit, those three parts. The administration seems to wanna focus strictly on, we'll help you with immediate response, but we're not gonna only help from long-term recovery and for pete's sake we don't wanna help at all to help you build resiliently so that the impact of a disaster is less than what it could have been. What we tried to do with the FEMA act is say, no, all three parts need to exist, but we need to change um uh we need to change how we get that how we get that done. And that's been kind of the focus and the push here uh for the FEMA act. Uh, still we have problems, and so I wanted to ask Um, this Fugate, this is the first question. FEMA's allowed to award up to forty-three thousand six hundred dollars for to survivors for home repair after disaster. The average award's about four thousand dollars. Um, why, why is the um, average award such a small portion of what could be the maximum award in your experience?

It's based upon need. And that's a policy decision. Um, I think this is one of the things that it's clear in the stafford act when it was written it was never intended to make families whole and it was never intended to supplant the need for insurance it was a safety net program but as we've seen the crisis in insurance where more and more people are uninsured not able to afford insurance renters don't legitimately have insurance um the program is based upon what we can determine when we go out there and assess them against the cfr which is the regulations that were written to support this And so many people hear the top number and assume that's what they're gonna get, and don't understand it's based upon actual losses in need. I would argue that that's semantics. The reality is, even if they got the full amount, it ain't gonna make them whole. And I think that's one of the things to re-examine when we're talking about the survivors, is what exactly is the money supposed to do? Is it to make them whole? Is it to get them back in a home? Is it to provide Housing assistance. I mean, think about it. We do temporary housing assistance. We'll spend three hundred thousand dollars putting a trailer in there for eighteen months. We could have rebuilt many homes for that. Maybe not with the granite counter tops, but we could have done a good job. But I think this is one of the things you always run into is the friction. And this is within Congress. They don't want to reward people. They wanna keep the cost minimal. They think they should be insured. And then the bureaucrats are stuck between one side that wants to make them whole and the other side wants to say it was their decision, their responsibility, they should have had insurance. And the bureaucrats have to figure that out. So, yeah, sometimes we don't do a good job of it. But we're also dealing with, in many cases, the extremes. We shouldn't be paying and creating a hazard where people don't have insurance. But when, when Tom Ridge wrote the Stafford Act, most homes were insured. Most governments insured their fire stations. Today, very few governments are insured or self-insured, so the taxpayer pays for that loss. And increasingly people cannot afford or get insurance. I'm from Florida. I know what it's costing. And I live in the interior of the state and I know what it's costing.

Hmm.

So I think a model that was based upon insurance, this bill, I mean if nothing else, just being able to do the repairs. And again,

Thanks.

it's only gonna help those people that own their homes. It won't help the renters.

Right. Thanks. Um, Ms. Chang, I'm a former county council member, so I understand how tight budgets can be uh at the local level, so I get where you're coming from. But um how would the FEMA act, have you looked at how the FEMA act would help your parish invest more of its money for mitigation instead of cleanup?

I think one of the most critical elements for counties and local governments on the FEMA act is getting the upfront funds. You know, right now, and especially if you're a small county, sometimes i speak to my colleagues they're afraid to even sign a debris contract because they know that is beyond their budget when they get a terrible hurricane happening so the upfront funds is critical right now we're on a reimbursement model which takes as we said years to happen um but if we can move to a formula based upfront give us those resources upfront um we can take that additional money and put it towards other needs so when a community is broken it's broken from the top to the bottom that we have to start with clearing debris out of roads, uh, families aren't in homes, schools are damaged, it is overwhelming amount of loss that we're facing at the local level. And then another disaster on top of that is the financial disaster and the budgetary disaster that we face, that you don't see, it's not on the television cameras, but it is very real to local governments, it's not having the resources there. So the upfront payment, um, for the assistance is very, very critical. in this act for local governments.

Alright, thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Mister Rizzo.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh thank you for all our witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate it. As a native of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, I've seen firsthand uh in my former life as a law enforcement officer and local official how uh hurricanes, floods, and severe storms can be. Um our communities are resilient, but they shouldn't have to spend years fighting uh federal bureaucracy to survive a disaster. Unfortunately, that's what's exactly what I've seen more than two decades after Hurricane Katrina. Communities in my district are still waiting on FEMA to complete projects and deliver on recovery commitments. Uh and I know that they're not the not the only ones in this country. Uh this is just something we we've got to get passed. That's it's unacceptable. Disaster survivors and local governments should not have to wait decades for the federal government to act. Time and again, we hear of the same complaints from local officials, emergency managers, and families trying to rebuild. FEMA takes too long to make decisions, too long to process applications, and too long to get communities the assistance Congress wants to give them. Delays drive up costs, slow recovery, and leave communities stuck in limbo. The problem isn't just that FEMA lacks the authority, it's that The system has become weighed down by unnecessary regulations, guidance, and paperwork. When disasters strike, we need an agency that can move at the speed of emergency, not at the speed of Washington. I'm encouraged by the efforts of the streamline and it's with all of you here today in the famous process to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and empower states and local communities to lead recovery with strong federal support. Those closest to the disaster know what their communities need, and FEMA should be a partner, not an obstacle. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about practical reforms that will hasten recovery and prove accountability and ensure uh disaster assistance reaches our communities faster. Mister Fugate, in South Mississippi we still have communities waiting on FEMA related projects from Hurricane Katrina uh which hit us back in two thousand five. From your perspective, sir, what are the biggest bureaucratic obstacles that keep projects open for so long? And what reform should make the biggest difference in getting these projects completed?

Well, it may sound flippant, but the biggest issue is preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. You know, all these regulations you hate? They came about cuz the IG found something and cited it and said, " We gotta take the money back." So, you gotta accept more risk for fraud and waste because what we're doing to prevent fraud and waste is costing us a fortune, and it's not saving money. That's why I really appreciate the idea in this bill that we quit doing actual costs and just do estimates. Because I can go in there and if you got a fire station and it got destroyed, and you don't have insurance, if you had insurance, you'd have gone got an insurance adjuster, you'd have gotten your money and you'd have been paid. Thirty to sixty days, you're done. That's what this bill does.

Good.

It gets away from doing actual cost. Project worksheets, versioning, I didn't know you could version a worksheet. All in the name of only paying the actual cost for the federal taxpayer. Well, all that's costing the taxpayer a fortune to administer it. Just get, and this is the other thing. Half the stuff that people say FEMA can't do, I did. Mitch Landry was all upset after one of the hurricanes cuz he was gonna have to borrow money to make payroll. I said, " Well, we'll give you the money. You can't do that." I said, " Yeah, we can do an estimate." You know that FEMA can estimate debris? an emergency r- cost and get the money there. We did it in thirty days.

Thank you.

So, what this bill does is it gives that authority in writing and it eliminates actual cost and makes it all. Debris? We should be doing debris as an estimate, not by the cubic yard or the lot.

See it.

Give you the money, let you pick it up, make the decision.

Thank you. Ms. Chang, as a local official, uh, in Louisiana, Uh, next to me, uh, you've worked hard uh directly with FEMA and after disasters. What parts of the FEMA's process create the most delays for your local government?

I think similar to what Mister Fugate is discussing, the initial process in trying to estimate things takes a lot of staff capacity. Um, that, you know, we can manage okay in Jefferson Parish. We have to be, we happen to be the largest parish in the state, but for some smaller counties they just don't have the staff. they don't have the expertise to navigate through some of these application processes. And I think when we - when we just make it much more simpler, um, and have the rules, um, on a formula-based, um, I think that will greatly help, uh, local capacity to be able to navigate these issues.