Washington, D.C.—The following are opening remarks from Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Rick Larsen (D-WA) and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Greg Stanton (D-AZ) during today’s hearing titled, “Reforming FEMA: Bringing Common Sense Back to Federal Emergency Management.”
Video of Larsen’s and Stanton’s opening statements are here and here.
More information on the hearing can be found here.
Ranking Member Larsen:
Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Perry and Subcommittee Ranking Member Stanton, for convening today’s hearing.
Emergency management in the United States stands at a critical crossroads.
As the nation grapples with the devastation caused by Hurricanes Helene and Milton, the wildfires in Los Angeles and other disasters across the country, FEMA’s role has come under intense scrutiny.
The combined damage and economic losses from Hurricane Helene and the Los Angeles wildfires exceed $200 billion.
Successfully managing recovery efforts for such catastrophic events will require robust congressional oversight, supplemental funding and presidential leadership.
Instead of uniting the nation to rebuild what has been lost, the Administration has unfortunately exploited and politicized these disasters.
The President has spread misinformation in the wake of these tragedies, threatened to condition disaster aid and doubled down on his suggestion to eliminate FEMA altogether.
Just yesterday, Secretary Noem said, “we are going to eliminate FEMA” during a cabinet meeting. No, we are not.
These actions are harmful to disaster survivors and the women and men who work at FEMA and have dedicated their lives to helping their fellow Americans respond to and recover from disasters.
FEMA’s mission is clear: to assist people before, during and after disasters.
States turn to FEMA when they have exceeded their capacity to respond to a disaster.
As Pete Gaynor, FEMA Administrator during President Trump’s first term, aptly stated, “Emergency management is locally executed, state-managed and federally supported.”
FEMA provides a critical backstop when all other options and resources have been exhausted.
Eliminating FEMA would not make communities safer, would not reduce insurance premiums, would not improve outcomes for disaster survivors.
Instead, it would shift the burden of disaster response and accountability from the federal government to state and local governments.
Democrats have long championed improvements to the delivery of disaster assistance.
It isn’t new to us that FEMA needs to be reformed.
Last year, among many FEMA-related bills, we attempted to pass:
- Rep. Titus’ Disaster Survivor Fairness Act to reform FEMA’s Individual Assistance Program;
- Rep. Stanton’s Wildfire Response Improvement Act to make FEMA’s programs better equipped to address the impacts of wildfires; and
- Rep. Neguse’s Disaster Management Costs Modernization Act to build state and local emergency management capacity.
Democrats remain committed to pursuing bipartisan FEMA reforms. Getting reform right, however, requires careful consideration and input from emergency management professionals.
For example, President Trump has suggested that disaster assistance could be fixed by simply providing block grants for recovery to impacted states.
FEMA already offers a block grant option through the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures program authorized by Section 428 of the Stafford Act.
However, states rarely use this authority due to the perceived risks involved.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s long-term disaster recovery block grant program has faced challenges in delivering outcomes and has similarly been the subject of bipartisan scrutiny.
If we want reforms to federal emergency management to succeed, they must be informed by the challenges faced by existing programs and built upon recent progress.
For instance, in 2019 Congress authorized the creation of a pre-disaster mitigation grant program, known as BRIC, to enhance community resilience against disasters while reducing recovery costs for individuals as well as state and local governments.
This passed as part of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, and I want to thank the Trump 1.0 Administration for advocating for this and for the President signing that bill.
Any reforms to FEMA should focus on expanding the Agency’s capability to support resilience projects—not diminishing it.
I look forward to discussing possible solutions to improve FEMA and outcomes for disaster survivors with the panel of qualified experts before the Subcommittee today.
Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to your testimony.
Ranking Member Stanton:
Thank you, all, for attending today’s hearing entitled, “Reforming FEMA: Bringing Common Sense Back to Emergency Management.” As the new Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I take federal disaster assistance delivery very seriously, and I look forward to conducting oversight of FEMA’s important work.
FEMA is where Americans look for help after what may have been the worst day of their life. So it is critical that the Agency be postured to respond at all times. For most of its life, FEMA has been an apolitical entity—red state or blue state, it didn’t matter. FEMA stayed focused on the mission to help all Americans and kept out of the political fray. Sadly, that is no longer the case today.
Following the catastrophic disasters in South Carolina and California, President Trump has focused more on spreading misinformation than helping Americans in need.
Specifically, after wildfires devastated Los Angeles, he threatened to condition disaster relief on policy matters that have nothing to do with emergency management. This is simply wrong and shakes the trust that Americans have in their government to come to their aid after catastrophe.
Yesterday, Secretary Noem added to the uncertainty facing disaster survivors when she said that, “we’re going to eliminate FEMA” in a cabinet meeting. President Trump responded by saying, “great job.”
I will never support eliminating FEMA or conditions for emergency disaster assistance. Whether a state votes red or blue; they are American and are entitled to assistance. I condemn calls to condition emergency disaster assistance in the strongest possible terms and urge elected leaders to never make such comments again.
Unfortunately, threats to condition lifesaving assistance are not the only partisan game happening at FEMA. In February, Billionaire Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” entered FEMA and has been wreaking havoc ever since. They have accessed secure government systems that include disaster survivors’ personal information and slowed the delivery of FEMA assistance.
I am deeply troubled to have learned that all FEMA grants are now subject to an additional review to ensure they are complementary to Trump’s political agenda. And federal employees are living in fear that they will be fired if they approve the wrong grant payment. Federal employees should not be concerned about approving grant disbursements approved by Congress!
In fact, it is the law that FEMA disburse payments that are mandated by Congress. Plain and simple. I will not stand by quietly if we see illegal action related to the disbursement of FEMA grants. The Agency cannot violate the Impoundment Control Act.
I am deeply concerned that the influence of DOGE at FEMA, which contains no emergency management experts, are going to steer the Agency in the direction of another Katrina.
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, FEMA was overhauled and tucked into the Department of Homeland Security without proper consultation from professional emergency managers. FEMA was weakened by being subsumed into the Department of Homeland Security without proper consultation with emergency management professionals. The result was the most catastrophic loss of life in modern disaster history. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.
That said, reforming FEMA thoughtfully does not mean we should avoid change altogether. In Arizona, we know that FEMA can do better.
Last summer, extreme heat caused temperatures in my district were nearly unlivable. We experienced unending 100 degree temperatures for over a month. In the past, a break from the heat could be enjoyed during the night, but that is a luxury we no longer have. The heat in our state literally caused roads to crack, cars to melt—and hundreds of lives were lost.
However, FEMA was nowhere to be found because the Agency has not yet adapted to emerging disasters like extreme heat. Heat is a silent killer. It advances quietly and lingers. The longer it lingers; the more devastating the impact.
We must reform FEMA to address extreme heat. I look forward to working with the Agency to ensure they have the resources and authority they need to respond to disasters all across the country—not just hurricanes on the east coast.
That is why I am grateful that this Committee has invited a panel of emergency management experts to testify here today about their suggested reforms for emergency management. You are all the kind of folks we should be consulting before making any change to FEMA function. Thank you for taking the time to be here today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.