Full text of the official published hearing record. Extracted from the source document — verify against the official record for citation.
[House Hearing, 119 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] REFORMING FEMA: ENSURING THE NATION'S DISASTER READINESS WORKS FOR AMERICANS ======================================================================= (119-46) HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 15, 2026 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house- transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/ transportation __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 64-473 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026 ======================================================================= COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, District of Columbia Arkansas, Jerrold Nadler, New York Vice Chairman John Garamendi, California Daniel Webster, Florida Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaomas Massie, Kentucky Andre Carson, Indiana Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Dina Titus, Nevada Brian Babin, Texas Jared Huffman, California David Rouzer, North Carolina Julia Brownley, California Mike Bost, Illinois Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida Salud O. Carbajal, California Pete Stauber, Minnesota Greg Stanton, Arizona Tim Burchett, Tennessee Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah Patrick Ryan, New York Eric Burlison, Missouri Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Mike Collins, Georgia Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio, Mike Ezell, Mississippi Vice Ranking Member Kevin Kiley, California Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Vince Fong, California Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Tony Wied, Wisconsin Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan Robert Garcia, California Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska Nellie Pou, New Jersey Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr., Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan Pennsylvania Laura Friedman, California Jeff Hurd, Colorado Laura Gillen, New York Addison P. McDowell, North Shomari Figures, Alabama Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida David J. Taylor, Ohio Brad Knott, North Carolina Kimberlyn King-Hinds, Northern Mariana Islands Mike Kennedy, Utah Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri Jimmy Patronis, Florida Clay Fuller, Georgia James Gallagher, California CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 1 Prepared statement........................................... 2 Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 3 Prepared statement........................................... 5 WITNESSES Hon. Craig Fugate, Former Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, oral statement.............................. 7 Prepared statement........................................... 9 Hon. Cynthia Lee Sheng, President, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, on behalf of the National Association of Counties, oral statement...................................................... 13 Prepared statement........................................... 14 Hon. Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, oral statement............... 18 Prepared statement........................................... 19 Brian Waller, Vice President, External Relations, Shelter Insurance Companies, on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, oral statement..................... 22 Prepared statement........................................... 23 Chuck Chaitovitz, Vice President, Environmental Affairs and Sustainability, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, oral statement....... 28 Prepared statement........................................... 29 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Letter of July 8, 2026, to Hon. Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, from 58 Members of Congress, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Laura Gillen......................................................... 60 Submissions for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves: Statement of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association................................................ 97 Statement of BuildStrong America............................. 101 APPENDIX Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Craig Fugate, Former Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, from Hon. Mike Ezell................................................ 105 Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Cynthia Lee Sheng, President, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, on behalf of the National Association of Counties, from Hon. Mike Ezell......... 106 Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, from Hon. Mike Ezell.............................. 107 Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Brian Waller, Vice President, External Relations, Shelter Insurance Companies, on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, from Hon. Mike Ezell................................ 108 Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Chuck Chaitovitz, Vice President, Environmental Affairs and Sustainability, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, from Hon. Mike Ezell...................... 109 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] July 9, 2026 SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER TO: LMembers, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure FROM: LStaff, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure RE: LFull Committee Hearing on ``Reforming FEMA: Ensuring the Nation's Disaster Readiness Works for Americans'' _______________________________________________________________________ I. PURPOSE The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday July 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Reforming FEMA: Ensuring the Nation's Disaster Readiness Works for Americans.'' This hearing will examine improving Federal disaster assistance and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), how the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act (FEMA Act) supports needed reforms, and review recommendations developed by the FEMA Review Council. At the hearing, Members will receive testimony from Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; the Honorable Cynthia Lee Sheng, President, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, National Association of Counties; Brian Waller, Vice President, External Relations, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; Chuck Chaitovitz, Vice President, Environmental Affairs and Sustainability, United States Chamber of Commerce; and the Honorable Craig Fugate, Former FEMA Administrator (2009-2017). II. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND OF FEMA AND THE NEED FOR REFORM FEMA is the Federal Government's lead agency in preparing for, mitigating against, responding to, and recovering from disasters and emergencies related to all hazards--whether natural or man-made.\1\ FEMA's primary authority in carrying out these functions stems from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; P.L. 100- 707, as amended).\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 6 U.S.C. Sec. 313. \2\ Stafford Act, Pub. L. No. 100-707. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1950, Congress enacted the first comprehensive Federal disaster laws, the Disaster Relief Act of 1950 and the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950.\3\ The Disaster Relief Act authorized the President to provide disaster assistance and coordinate related agency activities.\4\ The Federal Civil Defense Act established the Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA) as an independent agency.\5\ Subsequent to 1950, there were other disaster reform bills enacted, including the Disaster Relief Act of 1970 and the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Pub. L. No. 81-875; Pub. L. No. 81-920. \4\ Henry Hogue and Keith Bea, Cong. Rsch Serv. (RL33369), Federal Emergency Management and Homeland Security Organization: Historical Developments and Legislative Options, (Apr. 19, 2006), available at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA450530.pdf. \5\ Pub. L. No. 81-920. \6\ Pub .L. No. 91-606; Pub. L. No. 93-288. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1978, following ongoing concerns that emergency preparedness and response functions continued to be fragmented at both the state and Federal levels, FEMA was created by executive order.\7\ The executive order and associated reorganizations consolidated under FEMA all civil defense and civil emergency planning, management, mitigation and assistance functions.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See, National Governors' Ass'n, Comprehensive Emergency Management: A Governor's Guide (Washington: GPO, 1979); Executive Order 12127 and Executive Order 12148. \8\ Exec. Order No. 12127 (Apr. 3, 1979) available at https:// www.federalregister.gov/executive-order/12127; Exec. Order No. 12148 (July 24, 1979) available at https://www.federalregister.gov/executive- order/12148. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1988, Congress enacted the Stafford Act, which amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, and FEMA continued to be the agency designated by the President to carry out the President's authority under the law.\9\ It was not until the Homeland Security Act of 2002 where, for the first time, FEMA was housed in a specific department. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Pub. L. No. 100-707. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).\10\ The Homeland Security Act of 2002 moved FEMA into the new Department and provided the Secretary with broad authority to reorganize and disperse FEMA's functions throughout DHS.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296. \11\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near the Louisiana-Mississippi border. Hurricane Katrina would become the most expensive and one of the deadliest natural disasters in the history of the United States at that time.\12\ Large swaths of devastation resulted across Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.\13\ New Orleans was largely submerged in water as the levees overtopped and breached. Over 1,000 Louisianans died.\14\ In Mississippi the storm surge reached 34 feet in parts of the state, ultimately impacting 60 percent of the State and killing more than 230 people.\15\ While avoiding a direct hit, communities in Alabama lost more than 20 people and about 1,000 homes.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ H. Select Bipartisan Committee To Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina: A Failure of Initiative, Final Report, 109th Cong. (2006) (Rept. 109-377) \13\ Id. \14\ Id. \15\ Id. \16\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following the poor response after Hurricane Katrina, the House of Representatives established the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina (Select Committee) to conduct ``a full and complete investigation and study and to report its findings to the House.'' \17\ The Select Committee found failures at all levels of government including a breakdown of command, control, and coordination at the Federal level.\18\ As a result of these findings, Congress enacted the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA), which established FEMA as a distinct entity within DHS, designated the FEMA Administrator as the President's direct advisor on Federal emergency management, required that the Administrator have relevant emergency management experience, and authorized FEMA for the first time in statute.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ H. Res. 437, 109th Cong. (2005). \18\ H. Select Bipartisan Committee To Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina: A Failure of Initiative, Final Report, 109th Cong. (2006) (Rept. 109-377). \19\ Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 109- 295. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ultimately, PKEMRA attempted to improve Federal response, coordination, and command and control as originally envisioned when FEMA was created by Executive Order to carry out the President's authorities under the Stafford Act (P.L. 100-707, as amended).\20\ Indeed, the authorities in the Stafford Act, which governs Federal disaster assistance are vested in the President and PKEMRA's goal was to ensure FEMA, the agency designated to carry out the President's authority, could effectively function, advise the President, and coordinate assets across the Federal Government. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ Stafford Act, Pub. L. No. 100-707. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, 20 years later, after subsequent attempts to ``fix'' FEMA, the agency has consistently become more bureaucratic, slower, and less agile. Since PKEMRA, Congress has enacted other major reforms in attempts to improve FEMA, including: LIn 2013, Congress passed the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA, P.L. 113-2) which included reforms to speed up and streamline recovery efforts, reduce costs, and improve the effectiveness of several disaster assistance programs authorized by the Stafford Act, namely the Public Assistance Program (PA), the Individual Assistance Program (IA), and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 113-2. LIn 2018, Congress passed the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) following Hurricanes Maria and Irma which hit Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands.\22\ DRRA made additional reforms to speed up and improve disaster response and recovery as well as established funding for FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program, currently called Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC).\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-254. \23\ Id. LIn 2018, Congress also enacted the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 that included additional reforms intended to improve disaster recovery, generally, as well as specifically in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-123. In addition to these major reforms, Congress has enacted targeted reforms intended to improve FEMA assistance and coordination across the Federal Government in responding to disasters; despite these reforms, issues continue. For example, there are currently over 1,000 open major disaster, emergency, and fire management declarations dating back to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.\25\ There remain over 5,000 open projects from 2005 and 2017 (prior to Hurricanes Maria and Irma).\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ E-mail from FEMA Congressional Affairs to Elizabeth Granger, Professional Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure (Mar. 3, 2025, 4:48 PM EST) (on file with Comm.). \26\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- More recent disasters have demonstrated that the need to fix FEMA continues, including Hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024, the Los Angeles wildfires in early 2025, and the catastrophic flash floods in Texas. Despite enacted reforms, the Committee has continued to receive testimony highlighting the increasing difficulty in navigating FEMA's bureaucracy, FEMA's over reliance on promulgating regulations where the law is clear and regulations are not needed, thousands of pages of policies and guidance that states, local officials and even disaster victims are expected to navigate, the length of the rebuilding process, and a lack of coordination across Federal agencies involved in recovery.\27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ See generally, for example, FEMA: The Current State of Disaster Readiness, Response, and Recovery: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Sept. 19, 2023); Disaster Readiness: Examining the Propriety of the Expanded Use of FEMA Resources: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 12, 2024); Reforming FEMA: Bringing Common Sense Back to Federal Emergency Management: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 119th Cong. (Mar. 25, 2025); Fixing Emergency Management: Examining Improvements to FEMA's Disaster Response: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 119th Cong. (July 23, 2025). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In February 2025, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) added Improving the Delivery of Federal Disaster Assistance to its High-Risk list.\28\ The GAO specifically highlights the fragmented Federal approach to disaster recovery across over 30 Federal entities has resulted in differing requirements, timeframes, and limited data sharing making it harder for disaster victims and communities to navigate Federal programs.\29\ The GAO added that there needs to be a focus on improving processes for assistance, investment in mitigation, and strengthening the disaster workforce.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ GAO, High-Risk Series: Heightened Attention Could Save Billions More and Improve Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO- 25-107743 (Feb. 2025). \29\ Id. \30\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIXING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR AMERICANS (FEMA) ACT OF 2025 On May 8, 2025, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen released a discussion draft of the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025. This bipartisan legislation proposes comprehensive reforms to FEMA to improve the Nation's preparedness and response capabilities, accelerate disaster recovery, reduce overall disaster cost, and provide more effective support to individuals and communities impacted by disasters. A key guiding principle of the reforms is ensuring that disaster assistance is state led, locally executed and Federally supported.\31\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ Press Release, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure (May 8, 2025), available at https://transportation.house.gov/news/ documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408626. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee met with over 150 experts, stakeholders, and Members of Congress to receive input and recommendations on how to reform and fix FEMA and, on July 23, 2025, H.R. 4669, the FEMA Act of 2025, was introduced with changes informed by the input provided.\32\ Additional recommendations to further refine the bill were incorporated during Committee consideration of the bill on September 3, 2025, and H.R. 4669, as amended, was ordered favorably reported.\33\ Ultimately, various experts and stakeholders submitted letters of support for the legislation.\34\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act of 2025, H.R. 4669 (119th Cong.). \33\ Full Committee Markup, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infra., 119th Cong. (Sept. 3, 2025). \34\ See, for example, Letter from Dan Ginolfi, Executive Director, American Coastal Coalition to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (July 24, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Desmarie M. Waterhouse, Senior Vice President of Advocacy and Communications & General Counsel, American Public Power Association to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 6, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Sam Whitfield, Senior Vice President, Federal Government Relations, American Property Casualty Insurance Association to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 28, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from the Appalachian Flood Policy Coalition (various groups) to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 29, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Caroline Sevier, Managing Director, Government Relations and Infrastructure Initiatives, American Society of Civil Engineers to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 12, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Big City Emergency Managers, BuildStrong America, International Association of Emergency Managers, and National Emergency Management Association to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 15, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Tom Falcone, President, Large Public Power Council to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (July 25, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Matthew D. Chase, CEO and Executive Director, National Association of Counties to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 7, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Jimi Grande, Senior Vice President, Federal & Political Affairs, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 28, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Clarence E. Anthony, CEO and Executive Director, National League of Cities to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 29, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Renee Willis, President and CEO, National Low Income Housing Coalition to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 29, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Jim Matheson, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (Sept. 2, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from The Partnership for Inclusive Disaster Strategies to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure, (August 26, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from the National Governors Association to the Honorable Sam Graves. Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. On Transportation & Infrastructure, (Nov. 21, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action to Members of Congress, (Nov. 20, 2025) (on file with Comm.); Letter from National Association of Realtors to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. of Transp. & Infrastructure (Feb. 4, 2026); Letter from American Institute of Architects to the Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, and the Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, H. Comm. of Transp. & Infrastructure (Apr. 23, 2026). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The FEMA Act would realign the Federal emergency management structure by elevating FEMA to a cabinet-level, independent agency reporting directly to the President. It reforms the delivery of disaster assistance to promote faster, state-led rebuilding of public infrastructure, streamlines support for disaster survivors by clarifying policies and communication, cuts unnecessary bureaucracy and outdated regulations, and enhances the speed and investment of mitigation investments. This legislation also increases transparency and accountability in how disaster funds are allocated and used, ensuring a more efficient, resilient, and cost-effective Federal response. FEMA REVIEW COUNCIL On January 24, 2025, President Trump established the Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council by Executive Order led by the Secretary of DHS and composed of state and local elected officials and emergency managers.\35\ The goal of the Council was to advise the President on the existing capability of FEMA to address disasters and advise the President on all recommended changes related to FEMA to best serve the national interest.\36\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ Exec. Order No. 14180, (Jan. 24, 2025), available at https:// www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/council-to-assess-the- federal-emergency-management-agency/. \36\ U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council (last updated May 8, 2026), available at https:// www.dhs.gov/federal-emergency-management-agency-review-council. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On May 7, 2026, the Council issued its final report.\37\ The Council noted, ``[a]fter the Council fully evaluated the country's history of disaster response, reviewed feedback from more than 13,000 individuals impacted by disasters, and met with stakeholders involved in emergency management, the Council agreed on this key doctrine to guide the Council's recommendations: Disaster response should be locally executed, state or tribally managed, and federally supported'' consistent with the goals of the FEMA Act.\38\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ The President's Council To Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Final Report (May 7, 2026), available at https:// www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/ 26_0507_fema%20review%20council_final%20report.pdf. \38\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Council offered 10 recommendations including equipping states, local governments, Tribes, and Territories to lead disaster response with Federal support; enhancing critical Federal programs and resources; realigning criteria for Federal assistance; restructuring Federal hazard mitigation funding; streamlining individual assistance; reforming public assistance for rebuilding public infrastructure; reforming flood insurance; reducing administrative costs; revitalizing a unified national network for partnerships; and transforming FEMA.\39\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. CONCLUSION The hearing will focus on the urgent need to reform FEMA, receive testimony from stakeholders and experts on the reforms included in the FEMA Act, as well as the Council recommendations and the most effective solutions to ensuring FEMA is reformed in a way that ensures the Nation is best prepared to respond to, mitigate against, and recover from disasters. IV. WITNESSES LThe Honorable Craig Fugate, Former Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator (2009-2017) LThe Honorable Cynthia Lee Sheng, President, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, on behalf of National Association of Counties LThe Honorable Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association LBrian Waller, Vice President, External Relations, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, on behalf of National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies LChuck Chaitovitz, Vice President, Environmental Affairs and Sustainability, United States Chamber of Commerce REFORMING FEMA: ENSURING THE NATION'S DISASTER READINESS WORKS FOR AMERICANS ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2026 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves (Chairman of the committee) presiding. Mr. Graves. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order. And I would ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without objection, that is so ordered. As a reminder, if Members insert a document into the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov. I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GRAVES OF MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Mr. Graves. Last year, I, alongside Ranking Member Larsen, 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 that created a FEMA Review Council to develop recommendations for the reforming of FEMA. What everyone seems to agree on is that FEMA is broken, and it has been that way 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 if we just made certain changes here and there, the process would get better. In 2006, we passed the post-Katrina reforms. Then we passed the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, and later the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. And this doesn't even count the bills we've passed targeting specific issues, such as bills that I authored to protect disaster victims from FEMA errors and to speed up smaller rebuilding 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 Ph.D. to navigate, and little common sense. Any Member who has had to help constituents navigate FEMA knows how complicated 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 redtape, 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 Larsen and I released the discussion draft of the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act, or the FEMA Act. The committee met with and received input from over 150 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 of last year, we officially introduced the FEMA Act that incorporated 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 that FEMA's reimbursement process for rebuilding is inherently flawed, and so moving to upfront grants will not only speed things up, but they are going to reduce costs. Further, we all agree that investment in mitigation is crucial, so we must ensure that funding for projects moves faster. And we are in agreement that the current way of providing assistance to disaster victims has to be reformed to make more sense. Now that the FEMA Review Council's recommendations have been released, we hope that we can move forward with passing the FEMA Act. And I want to thank Ranking Member Larsen for the work that he did with me on this bill, and for the leadership of Mr. Webster and subcommittee Ranking Member Stanton, who are the original cosponsors. I look forward to hearing from our panel of experts today. And thank you all, by the way, for being here. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on reforming FEMA. [Mr. Graves' prepared statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Last year, I, alongside Ranking Member Larsen, started down the path of examining how we can fix the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Around the same time, President Trump issued an Executive Order creating the FEMA Review Council to develop recommendations on reforming FEMA. What everyone seems to agree on is that FEMA is broken and has been for a long time. As communities impacted by disasters across this nation know, the federal emergency management system needs fundamental change to reduce lives lost, speed up recovery, and lower costs for the taxpayer. For decades now, we thought if we just made certain changes here and there, the process would get better. In 2006, we passed the post-Katrina reforms. Then we passed the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act in 2013, and later the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. This doesn't even count the bills we've passed targeting specific issues, such as bills I authored to protect disaster victims from FEMA errors and to speed up smaller rebuilding projects. We have 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 Ph.D. to navigate, and little common sense. Any Member who has had to help constituents navigate FEMA knows how complicated 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. But instead, it continues to be swallowed by the weight of its own red tape, regulations, and bureaucracy. Don't get me wrong--there are good people at FEMA who want the system to work, but we need to make sure they have the tools to be as effective as possible. Last May, Ranking Member Larsen and I released a discussion draft of the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act, or FEMA Act. The Committee met with and received input from over 150 stakeholders, representing state and local governments, emergency managers, nonprofits, key industries, disaster victims, and other experts and stakeholders. 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 of last year, we officially introduced the FEMA Act, incorporating the input 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 completed its work. Not surprisingly, while there are some differences, the goals and many of the approaches in those recommendations mirror the 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 that from day one. We all agree FEMA's reimbursement process for rebuilding is inherently flawed, and so moving to upfront grants will not only speed things up but reduce costs. Further, we all agree that investment in mitigation is critical, so we must ensure funding and projects move faster. And we are in agreement that the current way of providing assistance to disaster victims has to be reformed to make more sense. Now that the FEMA Review Council's recommendations have been released, we hope we can move forward with passing the FEMA Act. Mr. Graves. And now I recognize Rick for his opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Graves, 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 disaster survivors. 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 is because FEMA does not have the authority it needs to help people in the best and most efficient way. At the start of 2025, the President said we should eliminate or overhaul FEMA. I am not aware of anyone on this committee who thinks eliminating FEMA is a good idea. That is just not a serious proposal. But we do agree, like we have for years, that FEMA needs real reform. That is 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 150 stakeholders, put out a public draft, as well, so anyone affected could weigh in. And what we ended up with is a bill that overhauls how survivors and communities get help after a disaster. It facilitates investment in damage prevention, and it makes FEMA an independent agency again. In December 2025, floods hit my district, and it impacted over 100,000 Washingtonians. The floods are the most expensive natural disaster the State had seen in 40 years, at $182 million in damage to public infrastructure, and about 4,000 homes damaged. Since the flooding began, I have conducted 25 site visits and meetings across impacted communities and met directly with mayors of 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. The President did not declare a major disaster declaration until April of 2026. That's when FEMA aid finally started moving. And people are grateful for the help, but it hasn't been easy. I have 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, U.S. Department of Ag, and the 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 makes a home unlivable. That is 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 2021 flood victims did not receive mitigation grant funds to buy out and elevate their homes until 2024. Some homes flooded again awaiting mitigation resources. And when a family is finally approved for flood mitigation funding, they have to pay for that work themselves first and hope FEMA pays them back. So the T&I Committee did work and passed the FEMA Act on September 3rd 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 the help they qualify for, 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 would get up to $43,000 to make their homes stronger against the next disaster. And if a 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 120 days for emergency work to protect lives and property. For permanent rebuilding-- like roads or bridges, schools or hospitals--State and local governments would get the money upfront, and FEMA could only turn them down if there is evidence of fraud in the application. State and local governments could also build mitigation 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 85 percent of the costs 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 upfront 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, predisaster 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 the 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 needed to be in place before the December 2025 floods. They have to be in place before the next disaster hits. Congress has already waited a year too long. 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 I look forward to your testimony. And with that, I yield back. [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Thank you, Chairman Graves, for convening today's hearing on FEMA reform. I can't overstate the importance of this hearing. The effectiveness of FEMA is a life or death matter. FEMA did not meet the moment for a lot of disaster survivors after the Maui wildfires and Hurricanes Helene and Milton. That was not because FEMA did not try hard enough. It was because FEMA did not have the authority it needed to help people in the best, most efficient way. Then at the start of 2025, President Trump said we should eliminate or overhaul FEMA. I am not aware of anyone on this committee who thinks eliminating FEMA is a good idea. That is just not a serious proposal. But we do agree, like we have for years, that FEMA needs real reform. That is why I was glad to team up with Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Stanton, and Rep. Webster to write the bipartisan FEMA Act. We did not write this bill behind closed doors. We talked to more than 150 stakeholders and put out a public draft so anyone affected could weigh in. What we ended up with is a bill that overhauls how survivors and communities get help after a disaster, facilitates investment in damage prevention, and makes FEMA an independent agency again. In December 2025, floods hit my district and impacted over 100,000 Washingtonians. The floods were the most expensive natural disaster the state has seen in 40 years--$182 million in damage to public infrastructure and about 4,000 homes damaged. Since the flooding began, I have conducted 25 site visits and meetings across impacted communities, and met directly with the mayors of Whatcom and Skagit Counties and emergency responders. I have visited federally funded home-elevation projects and led direct outreach to impacted restaurants, retail stores, farms and other small businesses in Northwest Washington state. The President did not declare a major disaster declaration until April 2026. That's when FEMA aid finally started moving. People are grateful for the help, but it hasn't been easy. I have 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, USDA, and HUD. Small farmers in Snohomish and Skagit Counties 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 the damage FEMA decides makes a home unlivable. That is 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 2021 flood victims did not receive mitigation grant funds to buy out and elevate their homes until 2024. Some homes flooded again awaiting mitigation resources. And when a family is finally approved for flood mitigation funding, they have to pay for that work themselves first and hope FEMA pays them back. The T&I Committee did our work and passed the FEMA Act on September 3rd of last year. 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 the help they qualify for, instead of the other way around. Families would be eligible for help repairing all the damage to their home, not just the damage that makes it officially ``uninhabitable.'' Families could get up to $43,000 to make their home stronger against the next disaster. And if a 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 120 days for emergency work to protect lives and property. For permanent rebuilding--like roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals--state and local governments would get the money up front, and FEMA could only turn them down if there is evidence of fraud in their application. States and local governments could also build mitigation into the repair work from day one. That is just common sense, and it is not something FEMA allows today. If Washington state kept doing its part to prepare for disasters, which it has, it could get up to 85 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 would have steady, predictable pre-disaster mitigation funding 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 a changing climate. 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 needed to be in place before the December 2025 floods. They must be in place before the next disaster hits. Congress has already waited a year too long. Today we will hear from witnesses with real experience in emergency management and related industries on what this reform would mean for them. Thank you all for being here. I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Graves. Again, I want to thank you all for being here. I briefly want to take a moment to explain our lighting system. So green means go, yellow means you are running out of time, and red means please conclude your remarks. With that, I would ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements be included in the record. And without objection, that is so ordered. I would 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 would also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 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 5 minutes if you would. And with that, Mr. Fugate, who is the former FEMA Administrator, you are recognized. TESTIMONY OF HON. CRAIG FUGATE, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; HON. CYNTHIA LEE SHENG, PRESIDENT, JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; HON. JIM MATHESON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; BRIAN WALLER, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL RELATIONS, SHELTER INSURANCE COMPANIES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES; AND CHUCK CHAITOVITZ, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND SUSTAINABILITY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TESTIMONY OF HON. CRAIG FUGATE, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Mr. Fugate. Mr. Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen, members of the committee, thank you for having me here. It's always fun to testify when you are not a Government official. Nobody screened my testimony, nobody gave me talking points, and I generally ignore that. I want to be clear about this. This bill addresses concerns and issues I faced at FEMA. What's interesting is, Mr. Chairman, most of what you are proposing to do, with a couple of exceptions, FEMA could always do. Because I always asked 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 private property? 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 fields that nobody could figure out whose house was on whose lot, and that by making everybody move it to the curb, we were going to not address the key issue, which was not about picking up debris, it was about getting housing back. I had to go to the President and have him overrule OMB, because 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 insurance claims to determine what the insurance would pay so we do not duplicate the benefit. Could you imagine doing that lot by lot, if you ever saw the images of Joplin after an F5 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 is the situation. Vermont had a a State building that flooded. But it did not reach the magic threshold of 50 percent. So FEMA's policy was, we will 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 are going to get less money, because 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 has never been FEMA's money. The Federal taxpayer would pay for the damages that were eligible in the full amount, upfront, 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 Sewerage and Water Board in New Orleans, which we were doing by each mile, estimating what was preexisting, caused by Katrina, and caused by deferred maintenance. We would never have been done. We used the estimate, we came up with a solution of using an engineering firm to come up with a methodology that both the State and FEMA agreed to, the IG reviewed it, Corps of 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 want to 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 are underinsured or not able to get insurance. But giving FEMA the authority to repair homes, to get them back into 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 is much cheaper to put somebody back in their home, even if it's $80,000 in repair, than to pay 300 to 400 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 has it. But that program took too long to get there. Our ability--instead of just putting a blue tarp on the roof or patching a house--of getting it back to where it is 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 am not talking low income. I am 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 are not having insurance because they cannot afford it. If their homes get destroyed, they have nothing. And FEMA's programs would not 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 and more bureaucracy, not creating what we hoped, which was reducing fraud, waste, and abuse, but creating a monster of a policy bureaucratic recovery process. The earthquake takes minutes; the paperwork takes decades. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Mr. Fugate's prepared statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Craig Fugate, Former Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you. I served the State of Florida as Director of Emergency Management under Governor Jeb Bush, and I served as Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Obama. Before either of those jobs, I spent years as a volunteer firefighter and paramedic, and later as a county emergency manager, in Alachua County, Florida. I have spent close to forty years in this profession, and I want to use my time today entirely on the bill in front of this Committee, because it attempts something federal disaster law has never done before. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- H.R. 4669 is the first significant effort in the Stafford Act to price disaster risk honestly, rather than simply paying for it faster. Speed of delivery and honesty of pricing are two different problems. Solving the first does nothing to solve the second. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For decades, the federal cost share for disaster assistance has moved almost entirely in response to how bad a disaster was, not in response to what a state did to prevent it. This bill is the first to move the cost share itself in response to a state's own decisions. This bill does a great deal else that I support and will not take the Committee's time cataloging today. I want to spend my time on the pricing question specifically, because it is the provision most likely to be overlooked amid everything else in this bill, and because it is the one that will matter most twenty years from now. What This Bill Does Start with the provision that matters most to the argument I am making today. The bill adds a new section 409 to the Stafford Act that keeps the existing seventy five percent floor as the default, but does something no previous version of Public Assistance has done: it moves the floor itself in response to a state's own behavior. A state or tribal government that has failed to fund its own mitigation programs, maintain required insurance, or put non-federal money behind its own mitigation plan can see its federal share reduced to as low as sixty five percent. A state that has instead invested in resilience, through a dedicated disaster account, state funded risk pools, modern building codes, or stronger floodplain management, can see it rise on a parallel sliding scale to as high as eighty five percent. The bill backs this with a real deadline: a state that has not submitted a preapproved mitigation plan within three years of enactment loses eligibility for the higher share entirely. For the first time, the cost share itself, not just an incentive layered on top of it, moves in response to whether a state is managing the risk it controls, rather than the size of the disaster it happened to have. For decades we have increased the federal share because a disaster was bigger. This bill begins increasing the federal share because a government made better decisions before the disaster occurred. That is a fundamental change in federal disaster policy. Worth noting for the record: the bill's own text preserves the President's separate authority to increase the federal share above eighty five percent outside of this sliding scale entirely. That discretion may be necessary for a truly catastrophic event. It is also worth this Committee's attention during implementation and oversight, because it is precisely the kind of authority that, used loosely, could let the old habit back in through a side door: raising the cost share because a disaster was bad, rather than because a state earned it. Second, the bill takes on the enforcement gap I mentioned earlier, though indirectly. It extends the Stafford Act's existing insurance requirement, which already requires recipients of certain disaster assistance to maintain insurance going forward, to also apply to the new repair and rebuilding assistance this bill creates. It also directs GAO to study how well FEMA's own insurance purchase requirement is actually being enforced today, including rates of noncompliance and lapsed coverage among facilities that have already received public assistance. I welcome that study. The requirement to carry insurance after receiving federal disaster assistance has been law for years. It is also, in my experience, one of the least enforced provisions in federal disaster law. States and local governments often push back on this requirement, and it is worth understanding why. They will argue that commercial insurance for a facility like a rebuilt school either is not available at the coverage level the requirement contemplates or is not affordable, and that maintaining a state risk pool or a self- insurance reserve should count as meeting the requirement instead of a private policy. Sometimes that argument is legitimate. Often it is simply how noncompliance gets explained away, year after year, without anyone having to check. Extending the requirement to new assistance is the right instinct, and this Committee will be well positioned to judge, once the GAO study comes back, whether enforcement finally follows the statute, or whether the availability and affordability of coverage need to be addressed before enforcement can mean anything at all. Third, on cost estimates: FEMA has had authority to grant Public Assistance funding on the basis of fixed, capped cost estimates since the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, but that authority has remained optional for over a decade, something a state has to elect into rather than the way business is normally done. This bill makes it the formal default: a licensed professional develops the estimate, the estimate is presumed accurate absent evidence of fraud, and FEMA must complete its review within ninety days or the estimate is automatically deemed approved. This will speed recovery, because applicants stop waiting on a line item audit of every invoice. But the larger benefit is on the federal side of the ledger. Reconciling actual costs against estimates and litigating disputes over the difference is expensive for FEMA to administer. Making fixed estimates the default does not just move money faster. It reduces what it costs the federal government to manage its own recovery programs. Fourth, the bill addresses permanent repair authority in two ways: it broadens existing repair assistance so a home no longer has to be rendered fully uninhabitable before FEMA can help repair it, and it creates a new minor repair authority so a family can shelter safely in place while more permanent repairs continue. FEMA has spent years working around this gap through policy and pilot programs. A displaced family does not need a clearer explanation of FEMA policy. They need their house fixed. Fifth, on FEMA's structure: my own view of whether FEMA belongs inside the Department of Homeland Security or as an independent agency has moved over time. I opposed separating FEMA out when the Department was created in 2002. At my Senate confirmation hearing in 2009, with Hurricane Katrina recovery still active and much of the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act not yet fully implemented, I testified that FEMA should stay inside DHS, and it did, through the remainder of the Obama Administration, the first Trump Administration, and the Biden Administration. I think the case for independence is stronger today. But I do not want to dwell on that history, because there is a more practical point inside this bill worth the Committee's attention. Current law, under the Homeland Security Act as amended by the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, already makes the Administrator the principal advisor to the President on emergency management. What this bill changes is the reporting line itself. Today the Administrator reports to the Secretary of Homeland Security. This bill requires the Administrator to report directly to the President instead. That is the right structure on paper. It is only as strong as what happens to the Administrator's recommendations once they leave the Administrator's office. A direct reporting line means little if the Administrator's advice has to be negotiated into a consensus position with the Office of Management and Budget or other White House offices before it ever reaches the President. If the Administrator reports directly to the President, the Administrator's recommendations should reach the President as the Administrator's own recommendations, not as whatever survives a sign-off process first. That is what would make the independence and the direct reporting authority in this bill mean something in practice, and not just on the page. The bill also extends the Stafford Act's civil rights protections to cover political affiliation for the first time, a small but real signal of how seriously this moment calls for that independence to be genuine rather than nominal. If FEMA were instead to remain within the Department of Homeland Security rather than become independent as this bill proposes, Congress should further strengthen the Administrator's statutory independence. Much of the Secretary's authority to direct FEMA's day to day operations should be limited, preserving only those responsibilities necessary for Department-wide administration and coordination. The FEMA Administrator already serves at Executive Schedule Level II, the same level as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretaries of the military departments. That rank reflects the national importance of the position. Whether FEMA remains within DHS or becomes an independent agency, the Administrator should have clear operational authority over the nation's emergency management system, free from unnecessary departmental interference. It is also worth noting, separately from anything in this bill, that current law already allows the President to designate the FEMA Administrator to serve as a member of the Cabinet in the event of a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man made disaster. That authority has existed since the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. A President could just as easily choose to make that designation a standing one rather than limit it to a single event, the way President Clinton did for FEMA Director James Lee Witt. Either way, that authority already exists independent of this legislation, and does not require Congress to act for a President to use it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- A sliding cost share, an enforced insurance requirement, faster estimates, and independence are all real progress. This bill reflects a fundamentally different approach to federal disaster policy than anything Congress has enacted before. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That is real progress, on five fronts, and I want to say so plainly. This Committee has moved the cost share itself, not just the process around it, for the first time in the history of the Stafford Act. Whatever comes next in federal disaster policy will be built on that foundation. Closing I want to close with the principle that ties all of this together. The Stafford Act should hold individual survivors and their families harmless from the decisions of their state and local governments. When a state runs its own individual assistance program, the Act should address the risk of duplicating benefits without punishing the survivor for it. Assistance to individuals should always be focused on what survivors actually need, not on what their government did or failed to do before the disaster struck. Assistance to state and local governments is a different matter entirely. That assistance should reward the officials who take real steps to reduce risk before a disaster happens, and it should raise the cost of the decisions of the officials who do not. That cost should fall on the state and local government that made the decision, and on the voters who elected the officials who made it, not on the federal taxpayer who had no say in it at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This bill is a genuine attempt to price disaster risk honestly instead of simply paying for it faster. That is the direction federal disaster policy should have taken two decades ago. Help people recover. Reward governments that reduce risk. Stop subsidizing the decisions that make disasters more expensive every year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have spent my whole career on the other end of these programs, first as the person radioing for help and later as the person deciding how the help got delivered. I have never once seen a community regret investing in resilience before a disaster. I have seen hundreds regret not doing so after one. This Committee has the jurisdiction, and now with the FEMA Act of 2025 the credibility, to show the rest of the federal government what disaster policy looks like when it finally prices risk honestly. I am glad to answer any questions you have, and I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Mr. Graves. Thank you. Next up, we have Ms. Lee Sheng, who is the president of Jefferson Parish in Louisiana, and she's here with the National Association of Counties. Thanks for being here. TESTIMONY OF HON. CYNTHIA LEE SHENG, PRESIDENT, JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES Ms. Sheng. Thank you. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for having me here today. My name is Cynthia Lee Sheng, and I serve as parish president of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. I am here representing the National Association of Counties, where I serve as the cochair 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 900 counties experience at least 1 Presidentially declared disaster each year. And in 2025, our Nation faced 23 separate billion-dollar disasters that caused more than $115 billion 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 3,069 counties, parishes, and boroughs own 44 percent of public roads, 38 percent of the national bridge inventory, 960 hospitals, and directly support one-third of our Nation's airports. I am 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 that 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 2024, NACo conducted a survey of members that found that one in five counties' longest open Public Assistance claim has been in process between 4 and 6 years, and nearly one-third have been open for more than 6 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 upfront and reduce counties' reliance on very costly borrowing. Second, streamlining disaster assistance and environmental review processes will cut redtape 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 application 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, 45 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 Larsen, thank you again for the invitation to discuss this critical issue on behalf of America's counties. This concludes my testimony. I am happy to accept questions later. [Ms. Sheng's prepared statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Cynthia Lee Sheng, President, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, on behalf of the National Association of Counties Introduction Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen and distinguished members of the Committee, on behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo), thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the important role counties play in disaster response, recovery and mitigation. My name is Cynthia Lee Sheng, and I serve as Parish President of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. I also serve as Co-Chair of NACo's Intergovernmental Disaster Reform Task Force. NACo is the only national organization that represents county governments in the United States, including Alaska's boroughs and Louisiana's parishes. Founded in 1935, NACo assists America's 3,069 counties in pursuing excellence in public service to produce healthy, vibrant, safe and resilient communities. NACo works to strengthen county resiliency by advocating for federal policies and programs that help county leaders identify and manage risk and allow counties to become more flexible and responsive to disasters. Through sustainable practices and infrastructure, counties become better prepared to address these issues in a manner that can minimize the impact on our residents and businesses. With a population of more than 430,000 residents and a total area of 665 square miles, Jefferson Parish is Louisiana's second largest parish. Situated in one of the most southern parts of a Gulf Coast state, we are geographically vulnerable--more than 50% of our parish is comprised of wetlands, bayous and open water. Because of this, and the nationwide attention on Hurricanes Katrina and Ida, many assume that all of our emergencies in Jefferson Parish are hurricane related. While hurricanes continue to remain one of our most significant challenges, our recent emergency management experience extends well beyond tropical weather. Just last month in Jefferson Parish, we responded to two tornadoes in one day from a tropical storm. But in recent years we've also endured 43 consecutive days of record-breaking heat, which contributed to a saltwater intrusion event that threatened our entire drinking water supply. This extended drought also created soil conditions which caused a major waterline break forcing us to shut off water to nearly 100,000 residents. And in 2025, our region experienced approximately 9 inches of snow--an unprecedented occurrence that created challenging emergency conditions we had to manage in entirely different ways. These widespread experiences underscore the evolving hazards we must be prepared to manage as our threats become more diverse, more unpredictable and more complex. Paramount among other critical county responsibilities is the role of counties in community preparedness. Counties are on the front lines of defense before, during and after disasters strike. While state statutes and organizational structures vary, local emergency management responsibilities are most commonly vested in county governments. Following a disaster, local elected officials and emergency managers are often the first on the scene and play a key role in the coordination of local emergency management efforts. Other key county staff involved in pre- and post-disaster efforts include local police, sheriffs, firefighters, 911 call center staff, public health officials and public records and code inspectors. In the aftermath of disasters, we coordinate clean-up, recovery and rebuilding efforts so our residents can return to their lives as quickly as possible. Furthermore, because counties are major owners of public infrastructure, we are also uniquely positioned to mitigate the impacts of disasters before they occur. Collectively, we own 44 percent of public road miles, 38 percent of the National Bridge Inventory, 960 hospitals, more than 2,500 jails, over 650 nursing homes and directly support a third of the nation's airports and public transit systems. We also own and maintain a wide variety of public safety infrastructure, including roadside ditches, flood control channels, stormwater culverts and pipes and other infrastructure used to funnel water away from low- lying roads, properties and businesses. Counties provide extensive outreach and education to residents on water quality and stormwater impacts prior to and following disasters, and we work to reduce water pollution, adopt setbacks for land use plans and are responsible for water recharge areas, green infrastructure and water conservation programs. Over the past 20 years, natural and man-made disasters have increased in frequency, severity and cost. Roughly 900 counties-- representing almost one third of all counties--experience at least one presidentially declared disaster each year, with many receiving multiple designations. In 2025, the nation experienced 23 separate billion-dollar disasters, which resulted in over $115 billion damages. As a result of this uptick in frequency and cost, NACo launched the Intergovernmental Disaster Reform Task Force [https://www.naco.org/ program/intergovernmental-disaster-reform-task-force#about] to strengthen our nation's disaster mitigation, response and recovery capabilities. The Task Force brings together county officials from across the country to advocate for practical, common-sense reforms that improve disaster response, recovery and mitigation. Given that counties are on the frontlines of disaster management, our direct involvement in federal policy reforms is essential to ensure that policies are practical, effective and address the unique challenges faced by local communities. By having a seat at the table, counties can advocate for streamlined processes and resources tailored to our specific needs, leading to more resilient and prepared communities nationwide. Counties are not merely stakeholders in this conversation. Rather, we are a part of the federal-state-local partnership of governments that together share the responsibility of protecting our nation and its residents from both natural and man-made disasters. Like the federal government, counties are entrusted by taxpayers to provide a variety of important services to our residents, and we stand ready to work with our intergovernmental counterparts to improve community resiliency and mitigate the impacts of future disasters. To this end, counties offer the following considerations: 1. The FEMA Act (H.R. 4669) provides a strong, bipartisan framework to modernize the nation's disaster response and recovery system, and Congress should advance its core provisions without delay. 2. Streamlining disaster assistance and environmental review processes will cut red tape and speed recovery for survivors and local governments alike. 3. County officials are effective stewards of federal investments, and a strong intergovernmental partnership is needed to meet the entirety of our public sector responsibilities. The FEMA Act (H.R. 4669) 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 starts local and ends local. Counties across the country are currently managing large scale recovery efforts, while simultaneously continuing to meet our daily responsibilities around ensuring our communities remain safe and resilient to the next disaster. While we are doing our part at the local level, effective response and recovery efforts would not be possible without the continued support from agencies like FEMA, who administer programs that provide vital resources before, during and after disasters. Without FEMA, state and local governments would face significant challenges in recovering from disaster due to limited resources and coordination capabilities. However, FEMA's effectiveness is often hindered by inflexible decision-making processes and excessive bureaucratic red tape, highlighting the need for reform. The agency's layered approval procedures and complex administrative requirements can delay the delivery of critical resources to communities in need. We have heard countless examples from counties about the challenges of navigating FEMA's stringent application processes and slow response times. Streamlining decision-making, increasing transparency, and reducing unnecessary administrative barriers would allow FEMA to respond more swiftly and effectively, ensuring communities receive timely support in the aftermath of a disaster. One such program that is in desperate need of reform is FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) Program. PA is crucial for helping communities rebuild after disasters, but the lengthy process to receive reimbursement can delay recovery efforts and hinder our ability to restore critical services post disaster. In 2024, NACo conducted a survey of members that concluded that one in five counties (20 percent) longest open PA claim had been in processing between four and six years; almost a third of respondents (28 percent) reported processing times exceeding six years. For counties with all outstanding claims paid, the majority (71 percent) report typical turnaround times between one and three years. Because PA operates as a reimbursement, the cost of response efforts is paid upfront using county funds placing significant financial strain on counties, who are often forced to take out large loans to cover upfront disaster costs. NACo strongly supports the FEMA Act's transition of the Public Assistance program from a reimbursement to a grant-based model, which would provide funding upfront, reduce counties' reliance on short-term borrowing and allow recovery efforts to begin immediately. This reform is critical to stabilizing local finances and accelerating rebuilding timelines. The FEMA Act also incorporates the NACo-supported FEMA Loan Interest Payment Relief Act, allowing FEMA to reimburse interest on disaster-related loans so that local governments are not financially penalized for acting quickly in an emergency. Together, these reforms would ensure that recovery efforts are not delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles or financial barriers, ultimately allowing communities to rebuild faster and more effectively. Having passed the Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 57-3, the FEMA Act is ready for action by the full House, and we urge its swift consideration. Streamlining disaster assistance and environmental review processes will cut red tape and speed recovery for survivors and local governments alike. Unfortunately, bureaucratic red tape follows a disaster. For example, requiring the completion of complex and overly burdensome paperwork by communities who may be entirely unfamiliar with system protocols and who are attempting to undertake these processes during the most stressful times of their lives can significantly impede progress when it is needed most. Populations that feel the biggest impact are often our underserved and disadvantaged communities where resources and capacity to complete applications and meet critical deadlines can be severely exacerbated. Ensuring no communities are left behind requires reexamining current procedures when applying for federal funding. Implementing plain language into applications, providing clear timelines and identifying resources available to assist applicants during the process are paramount to improving the resiliency of our communities. Excessive paperwork and lack of clarity can be particularly difficult for jurisdictions who may be under resourced or dealing with co-occurring disasters, as we saw with many parts of the country throughout the last few years. The FEMA Act addresses this problem directly by establishing a universal disaster assistance application. Today, disaster survivors must navigate multiple agencies and duplicative applications to access relief. A universal application would streamline access to federal assistance, reduce administrative burdens and ensure survivors can more quickly receive the help they need through a single, coordinated process. The FEMA Act would also streamline Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) reviews, which frequently delay critical recovery projects through lengthy and duplicative processes. Streamlining these reviews would reduce unnecessary delays and accelerate project delivery, while still maintaining appropriate environmental protections. Equally important to counties is the FEMA Act's procurement waiver, which clarifies that for purposes of federal procurement regulations, local governments are treated the same as states and Tribal governments. Under current practice, counties are frequently required to follow federal procurement standards that are far more restrictive than the standards states use, even though counties are just as capable of managing contracts responsibly and often have our own well- established procurement rules already in place. This mismatch slows down the deployment of contractors for debris removal, emergency repairs and other urgent recovery work in the critical days and weeks following a disaster. Allowing counties to rely on our own procurement procedures, consistent with the flexibility already extended to states, would remove a significant and unnecessary obstacle to rapid disaster response and is one of the most important reforms counties have called for throughout this process. Counties have long supported this same goal through legislation like the Disaster Survivors Fairness Act (H.R. 1245) and the Disaster Assistance Simplification Act (S. 861), and we are glad to see their spirit reflected in the FEMA Act's reforms. 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 across the country are working daily to address the needs of our residents and make decisions that drive the success of our jurisdictions. While we are doing our part at the local level, 45 states limit the ability of counties to raise revenue [https:// ce.naco.org/?dset=State%20Limits%20and%20Mandates&ind=State %20Limits%20and%20Mandates%20Profiles] in various ways, making the intergovernmental partnership vital to meeting our public sector responsibilities. Only 29 states authorize counties to collect sales taxes, but almost always under various restrictions. 26 states impose a sales tax limit and 19 require voter approval. For western counties, who are at great risk of flooding and wildfires, state restrictions on local revenues can be even more impactful, as much of the land within western county boundaries is considered federal land, thus removing the ability of a county to levy property taxes. While disasters are inherently local, counties rely on our state and federal partners for critical disaster recovery tools, like funding assistance, human capital and technical assistance. Without proper federal and state support, county recovery and mitigation efforts may lack the full capabilities necessary to rebuild our communities and make them more resilient against future disasters. In an environment where counties have limited financial flexibility, a strong intergovernmental partnership is crucial to community recovery and key to the success of future mitigation efforts. With that in mind, Congress should prioritize legislation that seeks to strengthen intergovernmental partnerships in disaster recovery by enhancing coordination, streamlining communication and supporting resource-sharing between all levels of government. By promoting pre- disaster planning, simplifying aid processes and supporting local recovery efforts, lawmakers can ensure a more effective and coordinated response to disasters. Conclusion Counties are on the front lines of the pre- and post-disaster efforts, and without proper federal assistance, recovery and mitigation efforts may lack the full support necessary to rebuild our communities and return the lives of our residents to normal. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you again for inviting me to testify here today. Counties stand ready to work side-by-side with our federal and state partners to make our communities more resilient and ensure the health, well-being and safety of our citizens. Mr. Graves. Thank you. Next up, we have Mr. Jim Matheson, who is the CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. TESTIMONY OF HON. JIM MATHESON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION Mr. Matheson. All right. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, 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 900 not-for-profit, community-owned electric cooperatives. Electric cooperatives operate in 48 States. We empower 42 million people across 56 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 electric rates affordable. And that affordability is especially important, because electric cooperatives serve 92 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 2020. 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 cooperatives serve only eight customers per mile, compared to 32 for other utilities. So FEMA assistance helps ensure that sparsely populated rural communities are not left to shoulder enormous recovery costs alone. This is not just a rural issue. Four hundred thirty- three of the four hundred thirty-five congressional districts have had a major disaster declaration in the past 15 years. While the FEMA co-op partnership is essential, it could 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 delays slow recovery, strain rural systems, prolong outages, and increase costs for consumer members already facing tight budgets. NRECA strongly supports the FEMA Act because it offers specific, practical solutions to these problems. The bill includes reforms that are aligned with NRECA'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 120-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 interest 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 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. NRECA greatly appreciates the committee's bipartisan work to include these five reforms in the FEMA Act. Rural America deserves a FEMA that is 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. [Mr. Matheson's prepared statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Jim Matheson. I am Chief Executive Officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), which represents nearly 900 of America's not-for-profit, community-owned and operated electric cooperatives. Electric cooperatives operate in 48 states, powering 42 million people across 56 percent of the land in this country, including much of America's agricultural economy. Co-ops are owned and governed by the people they serve and operate at cost, which helps keep our rates affordable. That's important, because electric co-ops serve 92 percent of the nation's persistent poverty counties. I'm honored to appear this morning to share our perspectives and give some background on the vital relationship between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and electric cooperatives, explain why we support the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act, and ask the House to pass the bill as soon as possible. Many of you already know the benefits electric cooperatives bring to your district as the economic engines of rural America, and we greatly appreciate the relationships you have built with the community leaders who help keep the lights on back home. What you may be less familiar with is the vital role FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) program plays in helping electric cooperatives rebuild after a natural disaster, or how widespread natural disasters are in every corner of our country--and how debilitating that localized destruction is, long after the cameras move on. Every year, co-ops lose poles, transformers, power lines, and other critical infrastructure to ice storms, tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and more. We estimate that almost half of electric co-ops have received FEMA Public Assistance since 2020. When major damage occurs, the cost of rebuilding essential infrastructure can place enormous pressure on local co-ops and their consumer-members. Without federal support, the cost of storm recovery would translate directly into higher electric bills for rural families, farmers, and small businesses since electric cooperatives operate at cost, and there is no excess margin to absorb unexpected expenses. That's why FEMA's Public Assistance Program is a lifeline to electric cooperatives, who are eligible for funding under the Stafford Act as private non-profit utilities providing the critical services of electric power generation, transmission, and distribution. Simply put, disaster relief funding through FEMA helps ensure that sparsely populated rural communities aren't left bearing enormous recovery costs on their own. There is a long history of this important partnership between FEMA and electric cooperatives. However, the relationship can be better. Too often, FEMA's assistance comes with significant delays. Funding approvals, which also involve state oversight and coordination, take many months and oftentimes, years. Paperwork requirements are excessively complex. Rules and interpretations vary across regions. All of this slows recovery and strains rural communities during their darkest hour. Without timely FEMA support, recovery times skyrocket, outages last longer, and electric bills increase for local families and businesses already facing tight budgets and rising costs. Congress has an opportunity and an obligation to make FEMA work better for people in need. And this assistance isn't just limited to rural America. According to one recent Rebuild by Design study, 433 out of 435 Congressional districts have had a major natural disaster declared since 2011. Thankfully, the bipartisan FEMA Act, which has already passed this Committee with widespread support, offers a set of smart and long- overdue reforms to help make FEMA work better for everyone. NRECA's FEMA Reform Priorities & Provisions in the FEMA Act Passing the FEMA Act is a top priority for NRECA, and we are grateful that it contains substantive and thoughtful policy solutions aligned with NRECA's five FEMA reform priorities. Lower disaster thresholds in rural America: The FEMA Act would better account for localized and costly damage in rural areas that struggle to meet state and county thresholds to qualify for disasters. A small distribution co-op in Arizona, for example, saw nearly its entire system without power after a massive windstorm blew through, resulting in the most significant damage to the co-op in its history. Due to the remote, sparsely populated service territory of the co-op, however, the extensive damage didn't result in a disaster declaration--shifting all the costs of recovery to co-op consumer- members. Expedite Public Assistance reimbursements: After helping co-ops clear the initial hurdles of the disaster declaration process, the FEMA Act would also significantly reduce the timeline for receiving Public Assistance funds. + For emergency work, the FEMA Act would expedite reimbursement on a new 120-day timeline so electric co-ops can restore power and remove debris quickly without facing uncertainty in the months and years that follow. + For permanent work, it would establish a new, streamlined and up-front approval process for long-term repairs to critical infrastructure, cutting unnecessary red tape. Loan interest recovery: Even with these new expedited timelines in place, many co-ops would still have to draw down on emergency lines of credit or take out new loans to cover the costs of rebuilding as they await reimbursement. Fortunately, the FEMA Act contains language long sought by electric cooperatives to provide clear direction to FEMA on loan interest reimbursement on outstanding loan interest recovery for past and future storms. We greatly appreciate Congressman Neal Dunn for leading this effort following the significant damage Hurricane Michael brought to Florida in 2018. Greater access to resiliency funds: The FEMA Act would help co-ops rebuild stronger, more resilient systems with hazard mitigation funds after a storm instead of simply rebuilding the same system that failed during a disaster. In the northeast, one frequently hit co-op that has been able to access Hazard Mitigation funding opportunities has seen an 80% reduction in outages and a 66% reduction in the duration of those outages. The FEMA Act also envisions a new process to provide more predictable, formula-based pre-hazard mitigation funding to rural areas, which will help our members get ahead of storm damage. Limit clawbacks: The FEMA Act adds new protections for co-ops and other eligible private non-profit organizations who are at risk of costly FEMA deobligations. Electric co-ops have a strong track record of stewardship of public funds and compliance with FEMA Public Assistance regulations. Having funds arbitrarily ``clawed back'' by FEMA years after a storm makes it difficult for electric cooperatives to keep rates as low as possible because they must contend with the possibility that funds will be sent back to the Treasury. NRECA greatly appreciates the bipartisan work of the Committee to include these priorities in the FEMA Act, which we know are shared by many other stakeholders. NRECA's Views & Concerns with the FEMA Review Council Final Report Since the President's FEMA Review Council recently issued its Final Report, it makes sense to briefly discuss its findings and recommendations at this hearing. NRECA engaged with the Review Council from the start and recently filed comments in June that highlight several of our concerns with the Council's recommendations' impacts on electric affordability in rural America. The following recommendations from the report would place additional financial pressure on rural electric cooperatives and their consumer-members: Increasing the state per-capita threshold: Significantly increasing the state per-capita threshold would make it much harder for electric cooperatives to receive any FEMA reimbursement to help offset the costs of damage to their infrastructure. Electric cooperatives serve 56% of the land in this country, much of it in sparsely populated areas where an increase in the per-capita threshold will have extremely negative financial impacts on rural consumers. Reducing the Federal Cost Share from 75% to 50%: Adopting this recommendation would directly result in higher rates for electric co-op consumer members who would have to cover the added costs for restoration and rebuilding. Remember, electric cooperatives are non- profit utilities that operate at cost. There are no excess margins to cover unexpected expenses. Adopting a Parametric Model for Federal Disaster Assistance: An inflexible and arbitrary parametric model could significantly underestimate the true costs of damage to electric cooperative infrastructure, resulting in substantially less financial assistance for electric cooperatives. Shifting Significant New Responsibility to States: Implementing the parametric funding model for Public Assistance funding introduces substantial risk of inconsistent application across State, Local, Tribal and Territorial (SLTT) organizations, particularly in combination with a reduced federal cost share. This variability in state implementation could lead to inequitable and inconsistent outcomes for electric cooperatives. Beyond these concerns with the FEMA Review Council's recommendations, we believe there is significant alignment between the FEMA Act and the President's desire to improve how the federal government prepares for, responds to, and recovers from disaster for the American people. Let us keep making progress towards those shared goals and pass the FEMA Act as soon as possible. Thank you again for allowing me to testify on such an important issue for rural America and NRECA's member electric cooperatives. Rural America deserves a FEMA that is fast, transparent, and effective. The bipartisan FEMA Act charts a stronger path forward. Congress should move quickly to pass this critical legislation and ensure that rural families, farmers, and businesses aren't left behind when the next disaster hits. Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Mr. Graves. Thank you. Next up, we have Mr. Brian Waller, who is the vice president of Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, headquartered in Missouri, I might add, and he is here on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. Thanks for being here. TESTIMONY OF BRIAN WALLER, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL RELATIONS, SHELTER INSURANCE COMPANIES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES Mr. Waller. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. As you heard, my name is Brian Waller. I am vice president of external relations at Shelter Insurance based out of Columbia, Missouri. I appear today on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, or NAMIC. In May of last year, an EF3 tornado struck North St. Louis, destroying entire neighborhoods and causing more than $1.6 billion in damage. FEMA officials have called the residential damage the largest scale the agency has seen since the Joplin, Missouri, tornado in 2011, which remains the costliest single tornado in U.S. 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 in 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 Mullin has taken important steps to correct the agency's course, and the President's FEMA Review Council has put forth thoughtful recommendations. However, legislative action is needed for lasting transformation, so we ask Congress to prioritize a more accountable and effective FEMA. I am 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 2025 that this committee overwhelmingly passed would accomplish these goals. NAMIC was pleased to endorse this legislation when it passed the committee in September and believe it is a significant step in the right direction. Emergency management is most effective when all stakeholders are laser-focused 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 reimagined FEMA should likewise prioritize preparedness, building and rebuilding more resiliently, emphasizing commonsense 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 reimagined 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 commonsense solutions to many of the most pressing challenges facing the agency and American taxpayers. Six particular of note are restructuring and improving predisaster 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 application for survivors; 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 interest 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 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. [Mr. Waller's prepared statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Brian Waller, Vice President, External Relations, Shelter Insurance Companies, on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Introduction Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Brian Waller. I serve as Vice President of External Relations for Shelter Insurance Companies, and I am here today testifying on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC). Shelter is a property and casualty insurance company based in Columbia, Missouri, where we opened our doors as MFA Mutual Insurance more than 80 years ago, selling auto insurance exclusively in Missouri. Today, the Shelter Insurance proudly offers twenty insurance products to customers and operates in 20 states. Shelter Insurance has weathered many catastrophic storms through the years, including the Joplin tornado in 2011; the Moore, Oklahoma tornado in 2013; Hurricanes Rita, Katrina, and Laura. In every instance, thanks to the dedication of our employees, agents, and claims team, we have helped our policyholders overcome challenges to get back on their feet. At the core of the Shelter identity is our commitment to do the right thing. We have held steady and strong in times of crisis, helping customers and communities rebuild and thrive for the future. Missourians do not need to be reminded of what is at stake. In May of last year, an EF-3 tornado struck North St. Louis, causing over $1.6 billion in damage and destroying entire neighborhoods; FEMA officials called the residential damage the largest-scale the agency has surveyed in Missouri since the Joplin tornado in 2011. More than a year later, there is still much debris to be removed. Experiences like these inform everything NAMIC brings to the Committee today. NAMIC consists of more than 1,300 member companies, including seven of the top 10 property and casualty insurers in the United States. The association supports local and regional mutual insurance companies on main streets across America as well as many of the country's largest national insurers. NAMIC member companies write $492 billion in annual premiums and represent 62 percent of homeowners and 56 percent of auto insurance markets. Through its advocacy programs, NAMIC promotes public policy solutions that benefit member companies and the policyholders they serve.\1\ NAMIC members take great pride in being indispensable partners helping rebuild policyholders' communities and lives when they need it most: when they have suffered a loss. Insurers are financial first responders, best able to play our role and serve our policyholders when working closely with well-run emergency management operations. We stand ready to partner with policymakers at all levels to re-imagine and improve the way America prepares for and invests in emergency management and response. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ https://www.namic.org/about-namic/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The FEMA Act of 2025 (H.R. 4669) The overwhelming bipartisan 57-3 vote of this committee to advance the FEMA Act of 2025 last September is evidence of a thoughtful, practical legislative product. We commend the Committee's leadership and process; your respective staffs met with hundreds of stakeholders, including NAMIC, throughout the development of the legislation. We were pleased to endorse the legislation when it passed the committee. Our message today is straightforward: NAMIC strongly supports the FEMA Act of 2025 (H.R. 4669), and we urge the full House to pass it this Congress. Everything we recommend in this testimony flows from three commitments: investing in mitigation before disasters strike, making the survivor experience simple and consistent, and holding the agency accountable for results. Emergency Management's Continued Need for Evolution Since the first congressional approval of federal disaster relief funds in 1803 following a major fire in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, the story of emergency management in our country has been one of constant change and evolution. From addressing individual incidents ad hoc, to the development of a more formal federal response mechanism, and the eventual establishment of FEMA, the federal government has played different roles at different times in helping Americans affected by disasters. Today, as it ever has, the federal government sits in a unique position to facilitate coordination between all interested stakeholders, even in a modernized construct where primary responsibility and decision-making authority is appropriately vested with state and local governments. In modern times, we continue to witness the ever-increasing and costly toll severe weather inflicts on individuals and communities. 2025 marked the sixth consecutive year that global insured losses from natural catastrophes exceeded $100 billion, with the U.S. accounting for nearly $90 billion of those losses. This destruction came without a major hurricane making landfall and was mostly due to catastrophic wildfires and the sustained frequency of severe convective storms. Insurers, along with FEMA, their state and local counterparts, and the American Red Cross, are among the first entities on the ground helping Americans when disaster strikes. Emergency management is at its best when--regardless of the agency letters on a windbreaker or address on a business card--government efforts are laser-focused on helping affected communities and individuals by bending the risk curve before and after storms. This means a front-end commitment to mitigation and resilience, followed by a user-friendly back-end response interested in results that help victims rather than create paperwork and delays. These priorities and more are meaningfully addressed in Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen's reform package, the aptly named Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025. Insurers' Longstanding Support for Mitigation & Resilience Because of the proven potential to save lives, homes, and taxpayer dollars, the property and casualty insurance industry, and specifically NAMIC, has a long history of working to advance solutions to reduce risk to our nation's housing stock and infrastructure. Insurers' ability to provide financial security for that infrastructure is directly related to risk--reducing risk at scale will alleviate upward pressure on rates and premiums. Specifically, the industry helped establish and helps fund cutting-edge research carried out by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS).\2\ NAMIC, a founding member of the BuildStrong Coalition,\3\ remains instrumental and steadfast in its policy and advocacy support for resiliency and hardening the built environment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ https://ibhs.org/ \3\ https://buildstrongamerica.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2018, President Trump signed the bipartisan Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) into law.\4\ The DRRA was a historically significant disaster reform law containing a host of policies designed to significantly boost the nation's pre-disaster funding mechanism, which included the creation of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program (BRIC), the largest U.S. competitively awarded pre- disaster mitigation funding source. We were especially pleased to see the announcement in March that FEMA would reinstate this program with the promise to ``deliver results and make America safer.'' \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Sec. 42 USC 5124 et seq. (Division D--Disaster Recovery Reform--within Public Law 115-254) \5\ https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20260325/fema-announces-1- billion-federal-funding-help-states-mitigate-impact --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAMIC supports government efforts to consistently make pre-disaster funds available for projects that protect people and infrastructure from natural hazards and the effects of extreme weather events, which ultimately reduce risk and help avoid losses of lives and property. Indeed, in any government review of disaster aid expenditures, NAMIC encourages agencies and stakeholders to: prioritize preparedness, build and rebuild more resiliently, put an emphasis on commonsense and cost- effective practices, such as individual and community-wide pre-disaster mitigation measures, encourage up-to-date building codes; and bolster retrofit programs to improve the existing aging housing stock. The Imperative to Transform Emergency Management and Instill Resiliency The FEMA of recent years is not structured to best serve the American people. As we sit here today, an understaffed FEMA is currently managing more than 300,000 projects across more than 600 open disaster declarations dating back to 2020--meanwhile more than 45 states are facing a backlog of nearly $10 billion in disaster related reimbursement requests and grant programs while thousands of individual assistance requests remain stuck in bureaucratic limbo. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also placed federal disaster assistance on its ``High Risk List'' of programs vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.\6\ Secretary Mullin has already taken bold steps to correct the course of the agency, but legislative action is needed for lasting transformation. Congress should prioritize, incentivize, and professionalize a more accountable and effective FEMA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107743 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The final report from the President's FEMA Review Council \7\ appropriately identified the need for legislation to implement most of its recommendations--the FEMA Act tackles most of the issues outlined in the report. As this Committee works with House leadership, the Senate, the Administration, and other stakeholders toward a final legislative product, we encourage a continued focus on several vital components key to a successful and effective future FEMA that is as proactive in reducing risk as it is reactive when emergencies befall Americans: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20260507/fema-review- council-releases-final-report --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stability and Expertise To stand the test of time and engender positive change for generations to come, a modernized FEMA must be an agency that all Americans can rely on for expertise and consistency of treatment. It should be restructured to maximize steady, reliable, and knowledgeable behavior, focusing on consistent competence without political or partisan interpretations or priorities. Leadership and staff should be expected to bolster capacity and act in a manner that best serves affected communities by supporting rather than commandeering or displacing state and local actors. The FEMA Act seeks to accomplish these goals. Emphasis on Front-End Mitigation and Reduction of Risk Our national commitment to resiliency needs to be systemic and sustained, not sporadic or erratic. Even the best-intentioned emergency management reforms will be a failure if they do not embrace science- based lessons to incorporate modern approaches for stronger and safer building that reduce risk moving forward. A commitment to prioritize front-end investment to avoid back-end recovery is not only financially prudent but will also avoid struggles for millions of communities and individuals who are poorly served by our current system. A prime mechanism for front-end mitigation is the implementation and enforcement of up-to-date and modern building codes, both at initial construction and during post-disaster rebuilding to avoid the folly of repetitive losses. Congress is not a state or local building regulator and should not endeavor to dictate or force mandates on them, but should do everything in its power to incentivize the adoption of modernized building codes, which are a cost-effective way to protect individuals, families, taxpayers and communities from risk. The FEMA Act updates the definition of ``applicable building code'' to require that mitigation projects comply with either of the two most recent model code editions. It also preserves local flexibility so states can tailor standards to their specific hazards. As Congress considers additional ways to limit the impacts of future disasters on communities, it should leverage and integrate the advantages of upfront investing. The National Institute of Building Sciences offers extensive research and evidence of a strong estimated return on investment from mitigation measures, including building codes.\8\ Their extensive report puts more resilient construction costs into context through benefit-cost ratios. Because of the value of modifying the buildings to save money over the long term, NAMIC urges that this be a deliberate and major initiative that includes a set- aside for grants as well as for adoption and enforcement of the most up-to-date and strongest building codes fit for a location. This kind of investment not only shows accountability to taxpayers but also indicates strong fiscal stewardship while carrying out both preparedness and response missions. The FEMA Act makes strides in this area and importantly overhauls the NAMIC-priority BRIC program to function more equitably and seamlessly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ https://nibs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ms_v4_overview.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Transparency and Accountability Emergency management agencies suffer extreme reputational harm when lines of accountability and responsibility are muddled. Clear communication and education about the chain-of-command and decision- making processes at FEMA will serve all Americans best. Disaster victims and those that work to help them, including insurers, are best able to be effective when they not only understand processes, but also have understandable ways to provide and receive additional information as needed. For example, consider a FEMA assistance claim denial--a thorough explanation and documented rationale with ample details would be helpful in aiding the victim's subsequent decision-making. Congressional and executive oversight of day-to-day operations at FEMA will remain essential. Studies and analysis by the Government Accountability Office to assess whether or not FEMA is delivering results for taxpayers should be frequent, data driven, and hold the agency to the highest standards. The FEMA Act would set forth multiple studies and reports to meet these needs. Uniformity and Streamlining within the Agency Incorporating ways to streamline disaster response with processes that ensure greater consistency in paperwork for victims and entities aiding them should reduce frustration and confusion, as well as expediting recovery. Today different federal agencies and even FEMA regions sometimes seek different information from individuals and their insurers before processing individual assistance requests; these current practices do not make for a seamless or positive post- catastrophe experience for Americans already struggling to piece their lives back together. The last thing a disaster victim should hear in the wake of their tragedy is that there is a problem with their paperwork and they need a different form to prove a necessary declination from their insurer. Through standardization and straightforward uniformity, a simple upfront established set of expectations (and perhaps a template) may help with getting necessary aid out the door quickly. Post-disaster claims operations move most swiftly when there can be a level of anticipated consistency. This is also where FEMA and insurers most directly intersect: clear rules for the sequence of delivery and duplication-of-benefits determinations, paired with standardized information sharing between FEMA and insurers, would speed aid to survivors and spare them from re- submitting the same information in their hardest moments. Speed and Streamlining Work Across Agencies and Governments At this time, there are at least seventeen departments and agencies responsible for some element of federal disaster assistance. As Congress moves forward, consolidation and clarifying these components to improve efficiency and information sharing across efforts would be a worthwhile enhancement. This process review and reimagining should also take into account the most efficient way of communicating with leaders and decision-makers in state and local governments to eliminate the possibility of confusion or inconsistent messages from the federal government. As Congress contemplates a future with greater empowerment of state and local governments to manage emergencies occurring in their area, it becomes more important than ever that chains of command, responsibilities, and workflow sequences are clear, consistent, and communicated so they can be executed promptly when needed. Requiring specific, written, operational plans and facilitating communication between points of contact across federal, state, and local agencies would be well advised. The FEMA Act takes a holistic, modern approach with information sharing among agencies and implements a universal application for individual Americans to request aid in a streamlined manner when they need it most. Conclusion While some structural and operational details need to be finalized, particularly in light of the FEMA Council's subsequent recommendations, NAMIC believes the FEMA Act of 2025 is a significant step in the right direction. Among the key reforms that we support in the bill to enhance accountability, transparency, and efficiency are: Establishing a formal process for peer-review of state mitigation project plans; Restructuring the pre-disaster mitigation BRIC program to be a formula-based grant program--this will improve predictability and planning for state and local governments; Establishing a task force to address the backlog of open declared disasters; Reducing impediments to prompt and effective debris removal; Expediting permanent repair to public infrastructure, including mitigation measures; Streamlining of multiple federal permitting and application processes, most importantly creating a universal disaster application for survivors; Improving consumer-facing notices; Enabling funds for hazard mitigation and pre-disaster mitigation to be combined for large and innovative projects; Eliminating the requirement that homeowners bear up-front costs of home retrofits funded through mitigation programs; and Numerous GAO reports to ensure continued accountability for agency efforts. We believe passage of the FEMA Act would strengthen the partnerships between the federal, state, and local governments as well as improve relationships and coordination with other stakeholders, all in the interest of better serving taxpayers. We urge House leadership and other committees of jurisdiction to work in concert with the committee to complete any remaining technical adjustments and bring the FEMA Act to the House floor for passage this Congress. As our neighbors in North St. Louis can attest, FEMA's presence, capability, and credibility have real effects on real people every day, both before and after storms like these. In order to help everyday Americans and Missourians and in the times of greatest need, FEMA must be structured and empowered to do its job well. We believe that FEMA's past successes and failures should inform rather than define the future of the agency, as has been the case with previous reform efforts. We commend this committee's thoughtful, taxpayer service-oriented, and practical proposals in the FEMA Act of 2025, and we look forward to working with Congress and all stakeholders to better protect policyholders not if, but when, future disasters strike. Mr. Graves. Next up, we have Mr. Chuck Chaitovitz, and he is the vice president or one of the vice presidents of the United States Chamber of Commerce. Thanks for being here. TESTIMONY OF CHUCK CHAITOVITZ, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND SUSTAINABILITY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Chaitovitz. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Chuck Chaitovitz, vice president for environmental affairs and sustainability at the U.S. 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 and opportunity imperative calls on policymakers to embrace a national goal of at least 3 percent annual real economic growth. Sustained 3 percent growth means higher wages, more jobs, 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. Business cannot invest, hire, or serve the communities 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 disaster preparedness, there are $13 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 $33 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 Nation in the right direction by reinforcing preparedness and predisaster mitigation as central elements of national resilience, and recognizes that communities need predictable resources and stronger partnerships to reduce risk before disaster strikes. We need all the tools in the resilience toolbox to succeed. The chamber supports the system that is locally driven, State managed, and federally supported. State and local leaders like President Lee Sheng 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. Predisaster mitigation must remain at the center of our shared priorities 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 Mr. Fugate said, when a 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. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the committee, Congress has a choice: continue 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 predisaster mitigation; and public- private coordination 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 am happy to answer questions. [Mr. Chaitovitz's prepared statement follows:] Prepared Statement of Chuck Chaitovitz, Vice President, Environmental Affairs and Sustainability, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and distinguished members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the importance of strengthening America's emergency management system and advancing the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans Act. It is also a privilege to be here with my fellow witnesses who are Chamber members and coalition partners in supporting our shared priorities to build smart, modern, resilient infrastructure to help prepare ahead of the next crisis. The FEMA Act can help enhance America's economic security. At the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, our Growth and Opportunity Imperative focuses on the need for sustained 3%+ annual economic growth. This focus reflects a simple truth: growth is not abstract. Growth means more jobs, higher wages, stronger communities, greater competitiveness, and more opportunities for families and businesses in every region of the country to succeed. Bottom line: policies that result in growth should be supported and those that do not should be rethought. Preparedness is central to that growth agenda. A strong economy cannot be built on fragile foundations. Businesses cannot invest, hire, expand, or serve their communities when roads are washed out, power is disrupted, supply chains are broken, homes are destroyed, and local governments are forced to shift scarce resources from growth to recovery. When disasters strike, the economic consequences are felt far beyond the immediate damage. They interrupt commerce, displace workers, raise costs, undermine housing affordability, strain public budgets, and slow the recovery of entire regions. That is why disaster preparedness, predisaster mitigation, and hazard mitigation are not merely emergency management issues. They are economic growth issues. They are infrastructure issues. They are workforce issues. They are housing affordability issues. And they are competitiveness issues. The FEMA Act provides Congress with an important opportunity to modernize our approach, strengthen resilience, and ensure that communities and companies are better prepared before disaster strikes. The Chamber commends the Committee for its bipartisan work and urges you to advance this legislation because it would help provide the resources, structure, and federal partnership necessary to improve disaster preparedness and resilience nationwide. Preparedness Is a Pro-Growth Strategy The economic case for preparedness is clear. The Chamber's research with Allstate and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation shows that investments in resilience and disaster preparedness produce significant returns. The Preparedness Payoff found that every $1 invested in disaster preparation saves $13 in reduced losses, damages, and economic savings. A follow-on report, Beyond the Payoff, built on that work and showed the cost of inaction: every $1 not invested in disaster resilience today can cost communities up to $33 in lost future economic activity. This does not mean that losses will be eliminated but instead that the impact on GDP, jobs, and income will be less, and the affected people, communities, and economies will recover more quickly. Those findings should inform how Congress thinks about emergency management. Preparedness is not a sunk cost. It is an investment in economic continuity and growth. When communities and companies invest in stronger infrastructure, modernized building practices, better planning, improved data, and stronger public-private coordination, it reduces the likelihood that a disaster becomes an economic crisis. These investments help preserve jobs, protect incomes, keep businesses open, reduce displacement, and allow communities to recover faster. In practical terms, they help keep the local economy moving. The Chamber's work has also shown that the benefits of resilience are not limited to large metropolitan areas or one type of hazard. Whether the threat is flooding, wildfire, hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, or other natural or manmade hazards, the basic economic principle is the same: communities that reduce risk before disaster strikes are better positioned to protect lives, property, jobs, and long-term growth. This matters deeply to the Committee's work. Transportation and infrastructure systems are the backbone of American commerce. Roads, bridges, ports, airports, transit systems, rail lines, water systems, and energy infrastructure connect workers to jobs, businesses to customers, and communities to opportunity. When those systems fail, the disruption spreads quickly through local, regional, and national supply chains. If we want a 3%+ growth economy, we need infrastructure that can withstand disruption and recover quickly when disasters occur. The FEMA Act can help move the country in that direction by reinforcing preparedness and mitigation as core elements of national resilience. The FEMA Act Should Preserve a Strong Federal Role The Chamber supports a framework that is locally driven, state- managed, and federally supported. State and local leaders know their communities, understand their risks, and are often best positioned to identify priority projects. Businesses, infrastructure operators, emergency managers, and local governments all have essential roles to play. But empowering state and local leadership should not mean weakening the federal role. Disasters increasingly affect interconnected regions, infrastructure systems, housing markets, and supply chains. The impacts do not stop at jurisdictional lines. A major flood, wildfire, hurricane, cyber disruption, or infrastructure failure can affect multiple States, disrupt national commerce, and strain the resources of communities that were already facing significant capacity constraints. A strong federal role remains essential to setting national priorities, providing consistent funding, coordinating across jurisdictions, sectors, and agencies, supporting technical assistance, and helping address risks that exceed local or state capacity. Federal leadership can also help align resources across agencies, reduce duplication, improve accountability, and ensure that investments are directed toward risk reduction before disaster strikes. The FEMA Act is important because it can provide greater structure, durability, and predictability in this effort. The formula-based approach contained in the bill offers a promising pathway to consistent funding for preparedness and predisaster mitigation. That kind of certainty matters. Communities cannot build resilience through stop- and-start funding, overly complex grant processes, or programs that only become available after damage has already occurred. Congress should ensure that the FEMA Act maintains a robust federal partnership while empowering State and local decision-making. That balance is critical to building a system that is practical, accountable, and effective. Predisaster Mitigation Must Be Central to Reform The Chamber strongly supports meaningful funding for preparedness and predisaster mitigation. These investments include retrofitting infrastructure, updating building codes, hardening critical systems, strengthening floodplain management, restoring natural resources, improving land-use planning, and deploying data and technology to better understand risk. Predisaster mitigation is where the economic return is strongest. It is also where public policy can do the most good. Too often, the federal system has emphasized recovery after a disaster rather than reducing losses before they occur. Recovery funding is critical, and communities will always need support after major events. But recovery alone is not a strategy for resilience. It is more expensive, slower, and more disruptive than investing in risk reduction upfront. Preparedness allows communities to avoid the worst outcomes. It reduces damage, keeps businesses open, protects public infrastructure, limits displacement, and helps families return to normal life more quickly. It also saves taxpayer dollars by reducing the scale of future recovery needs. That is why the FEMA Act should keep predisaster mitigation at the center of emergency management reform. The formula-based approach is a step in the right direction. Congress should preserve and strengthen provisions that provide reliable funding, reduce administrative barriers, improve technical assistance, and accelerate project delivery. Communities should not have to navigate overly complex processes to access funds for projects that protect lives and support economic stability. The Chamber also supports incentives that encourage households and businesses to invest in resilience. Tax credits for resilience measures, disaster savings accounts, and parity in tax treatment for predisaster grant funding, as highlighted in the bill, can help mobilize private capital and empower property owners to reduce risk. Federal funding should complement, not replace, private investment. The goal should be to align incentives so families, businesses, communities, and governments are all working toward the same outcome: fewer losses, faster recovery, and stronger economic performance. Hazard Mitigation Programs Must Be Strengthened, Not Weakened The Chamber also believes hazard mitigation should remain a core component of the nation's emergency management system. Programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant program play important roles in helping communities plan, prepare, and invest in risk reduction. We recognize that existing programs can be overly complex, slow, and difficult to access. Reforms are needed. Grant management requirements can be burdensome. Postdisaster mitigation funding can arrive too late. Smaller and rural communities often lack the staff capacity needed to identify opportunities, apply for grants, and execute projects. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is especially important because it helps communities, businesses, and families at a moment of acute need after disaster strikes. It can complement predisaster mitigation by helping communities rebuild smarter and reduce future risk. Congress should evaluate how all hazard mitigation programs can be made more effective, faster, and more focused on preparedness, but reforms should preserve the federal commitment to proven risk reduction. The FEMA Act should reinforce that principle. Hazard mitigation and predisaster mitigation are not optional add-ons. They are essential tools for protecting the economy. The FEMA Act includes important improvements such as project consolidation and combining funding sources. Consolidating Funding Will Improve Project Delivery The Chamber also supports provisions that allow grant funding to be combined with other federal resources and private sector funding, and that permit eligible applicants to consolidate projects where appropriate. Disaster recovery and mitigation projects often require multiple funding streams, each with its own rules, timelines, and administrative requirements. That complexity can delay construction, increase costs, and discourage communities from pursuing larger, more durable projects. Allowing funding sources to be combined and facilities to be consolidated gives communities greater flexibility to build smarter rather than simply rebuild piecemeal. This matters to business because resilient infrastructure supports commerce, reduces repeated losses, improves taxpayer value, and helps communities make investments that strengthen long-term economic competitiveness. The STORM Act Can Catalyze State-Led Resilience The STORM Act presents an important catalytic opportunity to help states move from one-time grants toward more durable, state-led resilience financing. The Chamber was among the organizations that called for passage of the STORM Act and supports the FEMA Act's increase in the administrative cap on management expenses, which will give states, local governments, and eligible applicants the practical capacity needed to manage complex recovery and mitigation projects and deliver results more efficiently for communities and businesses. The bill also broadens the eligible focus to expressly include hazard mitigation and resilience. Permitting Reform Will Help Communities Rebuild Faster The FEMA Act's permitting and project review reforms are essential to turning disaster recovery dollars into completed projects more quickly. After a disaster, delays in environmental, historic preservation, and interagency reviews can keep critical infrastructure offline, slow the return of businesses and workers, and prolong economic disruption. By creating clearer, more coordinated review processes and allowing appropriate state-managed reviews, the bill would help communities repair, restore, and replace damaged facilities without unnecessary delay while maintaining important safeguards. For the business community, speed and certainty matter. When roads, utilities, public buildings, ports, and other community lifelines are restored faster, employers can reopen sooner, supply chains can stabilize, workers can return, and local economies can recover with less long-term damage. Resilience Supports Housing Affordability and Family Wealth The connection between resilience and housing affordability deserves special attention. Housing affordability is one of the most urgent economic challenges facing the country. The Chamber has made clear that expanding housing supply is essential to improving affordability, supporting workforce mobility, and strengthening local economies. But supply is only part of the challenge. The housing we build and preserve must also be resilient. For many American families, the home is their most significant asset and the primary way they build wealth. When a disaster damages or destroys a home, it can wipe out years of savings and undermine financial security. It can also reduce the supply of available housing in communities that are already struggling with affordability. In regions that face repeated storms, flooding, wildfire, or other hazards, disasters can periodically eliminate significant portions of local housing stock. That pushes families into tighter markets, raises costs, disrupts workers' ability to stay near their jobs, and slows local recovery. Building more resiliently and investing in mitigation can help protect existing housing, reduce losses, and preserve the financial investment families have made in their homes. This is not just about individual property. It is about the broader economy. When workers cannot find affordable and safe housing near their jobs, employers face hiring and retention challenges. When families are displaced after disasters, schools, small businesses, local governments, and health care providers all feel the strain. When housing stock is repeatedly damaged, communities become less affordable and less competitive. Resilience helps protect housing affordability by reducing the risk that disasters will destroy homes, displace families, and shrink supply. It also supports the preservation of family wealth by helping homeowners harden their properties and avoid catastrophic losses. Policies such as disaster savings accounts, resilience tax incentives, and technical assistance for mitigation can help families take practical steps to protect their homes and communities. The FEMA Act should be viewed as part of a broader pro-growth housing and infrastructure agenda. By strengthening preparedness and mitigation, Congress can help protect housing supply, support workforce mobility, and safeguard one of the most important sources of wealth creation for American families. Roof Retrofits and Modernized Building Codes Reduce Future Losses The Chamber also supports the bill's emphasis on cost-effective hazard mitigation and the adoption of modern, consensus-based building codes that incorporate the latest hazard-resistant designs. Roof retrofits, stronger construction practices, and updated codes are practical resilience tools that can reduce damage before the next disaster strikes. These measures help protect homes, businesses, schools, health care facilities, and critical community assets, while reducing displacement and limiting the interruption of local commerce. For employers, resilient buildings mean fewer closures, lower recovery costs, more stable insurance and financing conditions, and a faster return to normal operations. Modernizing codes and encouraging targeted retrofits are not simply a safety measure; it is an economic strategy to protect property, preserve housing supply, safeguard family wealth, and keep communities open for business after disaster strikes. Technical Assistance and Public-Private Coordination Are Essential Funding alone is not enough. Communities also need capacity. Many smaller, rural, underserved, and at-risk communities face significant barriers in accessing federal resilience programs. They may lack grant writers, engineers, planners, or technical expertise. They may not have the data needed to identify the highest-return projects. They may face difficulty coordinating across agencies, utilities, infrastructure owners, businesses, and nonprofit partners. The Chamber supports enhanced technical assistance and better coordination to improve access to mitigation funding and accelerate project implementation. Public-private partnerships should be a central part of that effort. The private sector owns and operates major portions of critical infrastructure, supplies goods and services after disasters, employs local residents, and often has data, technology, logistics, and operational expertise that can strengthen preparedness. A whole-of-society approach is not a slogan. It is a necessity. Effective resilience requires coordination among federal, state, and local governments; businesses; infrastructure providers; insurers; engineers; builders; emergency managers; and community organizations. The FEMA Act should help institutionalize those partnerships and make coordination more routine, transparent, and effective. Better data-sharing and risk assessment tools are also essential. Communities need practical, accessible information to identify risks, prioritize projects, and measure return on resilience. Businesses need clarity to plan investments, manage supply chains, and protect workers and customers. Governments need data to direct funding where it will do the most good. Congress Should Act The Chamber urges the House to advance the FEMA Act and ensure that the final legislation strengthens the nation's ability to prepare, mitigate, respond, and recover. In doing so, Congress should prioritize several principles. First, preserve a strong federal role in preparedness, disaster response, recovery, and mitigation. National-scale risks require national leadership and consistent partnership. Second, provide meaningful and predictable funding for predisaster mitigation and hazard mitigation. The formula-based approach in the FEMA Act offers a solid pathway to more consistent support. Third, streamline access to resilience programs and reduce administrative barriers that delay projects and discourage participation, especially for smaller and at-risk communities. This starts with the universal application approach. Fourth, expand incentives that encourage households, businesses, and communities to invest before disaster strikes, including tax incentives, disaster savings accounts, and fair tax treatment for mitigation grants. Fifth, strengthen technical assistance and public-private coordination so that communities can move from planning to implementation more quickly. Finally, recognize resilience as a core element of America's growth strategy. Preparedness protects lives, reduces taxpayer costs, strengthens infrastructure, supports housing affordability, preserves family wealth, and keeps local economies moving. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the Committee, the economic case is compelling. Every dollar invested in preparedness can produce significant savings, and every dollar not invested can result in far greater future losses and forgone economic opportunities. The choice before Congress is whether to continue paying more after disasters or invest smarter before they happen. The FEMA Act is an important step toward a more proactive, efficient, and economically sound emergency management system. It reflects the reality that resilience is not only good public policy. It is an economic imperative. The Chamber stands ready to work with this Committee, Congress, the Administration, state and local partners, and the private sector to advance durable reforms that help build a safer, stronger, and more resilient America. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Mr. Graves. Thanks, everyone, for your testimony. We are now going to turn to questions, and I am going to start off with Rick. Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, there are, kind of, three buckets to disaster. There is the predisaster mitigation bit, there is the immediate response bit, and then there is the recovery and longer term recovery bit, those three parts. The administration seems to want to focus strictly on, we will help you with the immediate response, but we are not going to really help with the long- term recovery, and for Pete's sake, we don't want to 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 try to do with the FEMA Act is say, no, all three parts need to exist, but we need to change how we get that done. And that has been kind of the focus and the push here for the FEMA Act. Still, we have problems. And so, I wanted to ask Mr. Fugate, this is the first question. FEMA is allowed to award up to $43,600 to survivors for home repair after a disaster. The average award is about $4,000. Why is the average award such a small portion of what could be the maximum award, in your experience? Mr. Fugate. It's based upon need. And that's a policy decision. I think this is one of the things that is 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 have seen the crisis in insurance, where more and more people are uninsured, not able to afford insurance, renters don't generally have insurance, the program is based upon what we can determine when we got there and assessed them against the CFR, which are the regulations that were written to support this. And so, many people hear the top number and assume that's what they are going to get and don't understand it's based upon actual losses and need. I would argue that that is semantics. The reality is, even if they got the full amount, it's not going to make them whole. And I think that is one of the things to reexamine when we are 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 $300,000 putting a trailer in there for 18 months. We could have rebuilt many homes for that. Maybe not with the granite countertops, 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 want to keep the costs 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 that wants to say, it was their decision, their responsibility, should have had insurance. And the bureaucrats have to figure that out. So, yes, sometimes we don't do a good job of it. But we are 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 Tom Ridge wrote the Stafford Act, most homes were insured. Most governments insured their fire stations. Today, very few governments are insured; they are 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. 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, it's only going to help those people that own their homes. It won't help the renters. Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks. Ms. Sheng, I am a former county council member, so I understand how tight budgets can be at the local level, so I get where you are coming from. But 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? Ms. Sheng. I think one of the most critical elements for counties and local governments on the FEMA Act is getting the upfront funds. Right now, and especially if you are a small county, sometimes I speak to my colleagues, they are 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 are on a reimbursement model, which takes, as we said, years to happen. But if we can move to a formula-based, upfront, give us those resources upfront, we could 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. We have to start with clearing debris out of roads. Families aren't in homes, schools are damaged. It is overwhelming amount of loss that we are 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, is not having the resources there. So the upfront payment for the assistance is very, very critical in this act for local governments. Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Graves. Mr. Ezell. Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all the witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate it. As a native of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, I have seen firsthand, in my former life as a law enforcement officer and local official, how hurricanes, floods, and severe storms can be. Our communities are resilient, but they shouldn't have to spend years fighting a Federal bureaucracy to survive a disaster. Unfortunately, that's exactly what I have 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. And I know that they are not the only ones in this country. This is just something we have got to get passed. It is 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 am encouraged by the efforts to streamline, and with all of you here today, FEMA's 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, improve accountability, and ensure disaster assistance reaches our communities faster. Mr. Fugate, in south Mississippi, we still have communities waiting on FEMA-related projects from Hurricane Katrina, which hit us back in 2005. From your perspective, sir, what are the biggest bureaucratic obstacles that keep projects open for so long? And what reforms should make the biggest difference in getting these projects completed? Mr. Fugate. Well, it may sound flippant, but the biggest issue is preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. All these regulations you hate, they came about because the IG found something and cited it and said we've got to take the money back. So you've got to accept more risk for fraud and waste, because what we're doing to prevent fraud and waste is costing us a fortunate, and it's not saving money. That is 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 have a fire station and it got destroyed and you don't have insurance, if you had insurance, you would have gone and gotten an insurance adjuster, you would have gotten your money, and you would have been paid, 30 to 60 days, you're done. That is what this bill does. It gets away from doing actual costs, 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 fortunate to administer it. Just get--and this is the other thing. Half the stuff that people say FEMA can't do, I did. Mitch Landrieu was all upset after one of the hurricanes because he was going to have to borrow money to make payroll. I said, well, we will give you the money. You can't do that. I said, yes, we can do an estimate. Did you know that FEMA can estimate debris and emergency costs and get the money there? We did it in 30 days. Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Mr. Fugate. So what this bill does is it gives that authority in writing, and it eliminates actual costs and makes it--debris, we should be doing debris as an estimate, not by the cubic yard or the lot. Give you the money, let you pick it up, make the decision. Mr. Ezell. Thank you. Ms. Sheng, as a local official in Louisiana, next to me, you have worked hard directly with FEMA and after disasters. What parts of FEMA's process create the most delays for your local government? Ms. Sheng. I think similar to what Mr. Fugate is discussing, the initial process in trying to estimate things takes a lot of staff capacity that we can manage okay in Jefferson Parish. 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 just make it much more simpler and have the rules on a formula based, I think that will greatly help local capacity to be able to navigate these issues. Mr. Ezell. And, you know, most all local officials and people, they just want to get back to life. Anything that we can do to help, that's exactly what we want to do. And I want to be a part of the solution and not the problem. So thank you all for those good answers. Thank you. Mr. Graves. Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And for the witnesses, I am really upset by all of you, because you keep coming back to something that I swear that I never pay any attention to, and that's insurance. I spent 8 years of my life as the insurance commissioner in California, and the connection between the FEMA programs that you have been discussing and the insurance problems are so severe that we have to deal with both of them. And if we don't, we are not going to deal with either of them very, very well. There are many, many ways. In 1990, we were looking at developing a national natural disaster insurance program. And we figured out how we could pay for that, how it could be done by the Federal Government. It hasn't happened yet. But until we connect these two--the insurance problem, which is discussed here and which is a very, very real problem in California, and really across the Nation--we will not be able to solve the FEMA problem. Unless we consider FEMA to be the ultimate insurer, which is pretty much where we are headed. And in that regard, it's not a very good way to deal with it, because it doesn't assess the risk at the outset. An insurance program, properly structured, can assess the risk and force the homeowner, in this case, to not only know the risk, but to pay for the risk at that particular home. Very complex. But I am going to put that on the table for my first, I don't know, minute and a half here. We have got to do both of these things. And I notice a couple smiles from the insurers down there. Now, putting that aside, I am going to go back to where--I am really not upset with all of you, you really did exactly what you were supposed to do. I want to go back to where FEMA is really out of balance, and that is the current FEMA program is being used to support the immigration enforcement by the Federal Government. This is wrong. It is contrary to law. And it is creating a very profound problem. FEMA should not be assisting ICE. The FEMA staff, reduced by 5,000 in the DOGE cuts, what's left is now being used to run the detention facilities, now being used to set up the programs for the ICE agents to do a raid now in Maine and wherever else around the Nation. This is wrong. It's contrary to law. And this committee has the responsibility of holding the Trump administration accountable for the misuse of FEMA and use of FEMA to carry out the various programs that the President wants on immigration enforcement. It's not that the immigration enforcement effort is short of money. Good Lord, they have, what, $120 billion to spend in the next couple of years. Bring FEMA back. This committee ought to demand that FEMA no longer be engaged with ICE in the immigration enforcement program. Let ICE take care of itself. And there are plenty of problems there, and I certainly share those concerns, and would rally around. The second thing is the politicization of FEMA. It has been reported, most recently in Politico on the 7th of this month, that the Trump administration has singled out States that are Republican run, Republican senators, Republican Governors, and provided them with immediate assistance. And those States that are Democratic senators, Democratic Governors, have been denied assistance. The politicization of FEMA by the President and his minions is absolutely wrong. And this committee ought to hold the administration to account on that, as well as to these other issues. It has got to stop. Now, I would be happy to discuss with anybody here the insurance issues and how we might be able to deal with that, but that's offline. Come to my office and I will give you ideas that date back 30 years on how to deal with it. But the politicization and the misuse of FEMA by this administration is wrong, it is illegal, and this committee has to hold the President and his programs to account. With that, Mr. Chairman, I beg you to do that, to force the administration to come here and to testify under oath how they are abusing FEMA in carrying out their immigration programs. I yield back. Mr. Rouzer [presiding]. Mr. Webster. Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Matheson, what is prestaging or pre-positioning, and why is it critical for those activities to happen when performing or getting ready to perform utilities during storm activities, and why hasn't FEMA been willing to reimburse that? Mr. Matheson. Pre-positioning is where we know a hurricane or a storm is coming and our job is to get the lights on as fast as we can. And often what you want to do is you want to move crews into areas so they are ready to go right when the storm passes so we can start restoration work as soon as possible. It is part of a process where utilities, the electric cooperatives, have what is called mutual assistance, where we bring lineworkers in from all over the country to go to these places where these natural disasters are happening. And if we can pre-position them in advance, we can get the lights on that much sooner. And for all the other impacts of a natural disaster, having the lights back on is very helpful for dealing with all the other damage assessment and all the other recovery work that has to take place. So pre-positioning gives us a leg up in terms of getting the lights on faster, and it should be a part of the reimbursement program of FEMA. This legislation, we believe, puts it in a position to make that happen. I think it is a legitimate part of how we do disaster recovery. I am really glad you raised the issue, because pre- positioning is a critical part of how we get the lights on as timely as we can. Mr. Webster of Florida. So parametric modeling, what is it? How does it work? Mr. Matheson. I may not be the expert on parametric modeling, but that was one of the recommendations of the President's review council. We have concerns with that. We have concerns about an arbitrary model that may not be reflecting what is actual damage on the ground. That is the way we ought to be looking at damage. And we have situations where windspeed may not be where it triggers the model to say, okay, that qualifies reimbursement, but you may have a combination of wind and flooding that creates huge damage to the electric infrastructure, and we are going to have some model that says, no, doesn't qualify, you're out. That doesn't make sense to us and that is not in the FEMA Act, but it is in the review commission's report, and we have concerns with that because we think it is going to create arbitrary situations where damage that should be subject to FEMA reimbursement is denied because of that model. Mr. Webster of Florida. There are some States that use it at the local level when they are considering reimbursements for natural disasters. But why is it controversial? Mr. Matheson. Because when you take a model that says, based on X amount of miles per hour for windspeed, and that is going to trigger whether or not a disaster is eligible for recovery or not, that doesn't necessarily reflect what happens to a power line, where a power line magically falls when it's 51 miles an hour and doesn't at 49 miles an hour. That's the problem with this model. Actual damage is how we should be making these decisions, not based on some model with some standard of what the windspeed was, to say, okay, that's why you should pay for the disaster. Mr. Webster of Florida. So how would it affect rural electrics, or even electric co-ops and municipal utilities? Mr. Matheson. Well, first of all, you are adding another element of uncertainty. You may very well put electric cooperatives in a position where there is significant damage, but the model says, no, doesn't qualify. And we are left, as I said in my opening statement, shouldering the burden where we are at-cost utilities representing 92 percent of the persistent poverty counties in America. We do not have shareholders to fall back on. And we have very sparsely populated areas, so you have several miles of electric line but not many people to spread that cost across, because we are in these sparsely populated areas. That is why we are eligible for FEMA participation in the first place. That is what Congress decided decades ago. And if we go to this model that has some arbitrary function that says, well, even though you have all this damage, the model doesn't say it qualifies, I don't think that's what we are looking for here. I think we are looking for reasonable people to assess the situation, look at the damage, and say, yes, that qualifies. And so that is our resistance with the parametric--with the model that you are talking about. Mr. Webster of Florida. Well, what other additional FEMA reforms could be included beyond just expediting reimbursements? Mr. Matheson. Well, I think that the FEMA Act has five critical reforms that we think are important, including the 120 days for the initial assistance, it has the opportunity for hazard mitigation funds in a more targeted way that makes sense for building resilient systems, it allows for interest reimbursement if electric cooperatives are stuck for years waiting for payment from FEMA and they accrue significant burden there. There are provisions in this bill that we highly endorse. We think it is the right step to take. And we think the chairman and ranking member and the full committee have done a great job of looking at all these issues, taking information from, as the chairman said in his opening statement, dozens and dozens of different stakeholders. It's a great way to make legislation, in my opinion. And that's why we are so supportive of the bill as it is written today. Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Stanton. Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Chairman, for holding this important hearing on the urgent need to pass the FEMA Act. This is a proud bipartisan committee, and both Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen have longstanding commitment and have provided leadership in the effort to strengthen FEMA. Both of them know how important it is to help Americans in their darkest hours. And that is why this effort is very important. Recently, as ranking member of the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Subcommittee, I released an investigative report that details how the Trump administration and DHS leadership are misusing FEMA resources for ICE operations, jeopardizing FEMA's readiness and ability to respond to disasters. This important investigation found that FEMA personnel have been utilized to plan deportation raids and arrests, recruit new ICE and CBP officers, and manage day-to-day operations at detention facilities. Of course, FEMA was built on a promise to the American people: when disaster strikes, the Federal Government will be there. Unfortunately, that promise too often has been broken. Since the start of the current administration, the agency has lost more than 20 percent of its workforce, more than 5,000 key employees. Its training pipelines, key to ensuring readiness before disaster strikes, has been severed. Its disaster declaration process has too often been politicized, denying communities needed support. And its hazard mitigation programs have been dismantled. This is on top of the fact that personnel have been detailed for extended periods for immigration enforcement operations. Whether or not you agree with the current administration's mass deportation policy, this report makes one thing clear. We need an agency that is capable and ready to serve our constituents when they need it most. And that is less likely to happen if FEMA continues to remain inside of the Department of Homeland Security. Former Administrator Fugate, have you had an opportunity to review the investigative report I referenced? Mr. Fugate. I have had a summary of it, sir. Mr. Stanton. Do you think FEMA should help ICE coordinate arrest raids and deportations? Mr. Fugate. Well, the question is, you gave that authority to the Secretary under the Homeland Security Act. You have to change that. Mr. Stanton. How would an independent agency, which is what the FEMA Act proposes, protect employees from being pulled into non-Stafford Act missions? Mr. Fugate. Well, if you are not part of Homeland Security, then the Secretary's authority to transfer staff would not apply. But it went both ways. In Superstorm Sandy, we transferred about 2,000 DHS employees to help us in that response. But these were always meant to be temporary. In the Obama administration, we were tasked with supporting undocumented children. We had a crisis that was backed up. Kids were in detention facilities never designed to hold children; they were designed to hold adults. In those, we worked the mission. We had the authority and the authorization of the other components, including Health and Human Services. And that was a big problem with those, because it was divided between two Departments. But the question is, would FEMA be better off being independent? I never thought FEMA should be in DHS. But when I testified at my hearing, I said yes, because here is the other thing. You made the FEMA Administrator an E2. Does anybody know what that means outside of the people that read the Plum Book? The FEMA Administrator is the same rank as the service Secretaries, the EPA Administrator, the SBA Administrator. Yet they are treated as a subcomponent in DHS. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary were surprised to find out I was an E2 because they were trying to get all their components promoted to E3s. And somebody said, well, I do not think the Administrator wants a demotion. Even the Department of Defense would have me summoned to go meet with Assistant Secretaries, which were an E5 and I was an E2. And I am like, I am not going over there, they can come see me. It wasn't arrogance, but the thing I have learned is, if you give us authority and we don't execute it, we lose it. And I think part of what we have done is we have diluted the Post- Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act that recognized that the FEMA Administrator is the same rank as the Navy Secretary. It's not treated that way in DHS. Mr. Stanton. I think in a bipartisan way, we agree with that, that this needs to be an independent agency with direct line to the President of the United States. It will save time on declaration, emergency management proclamations, it will save time in emergency response, and make the whole process much quicker, which is exactly what the American people expect. Do you think, Mr. Fugate, if FEMA were to become an independent agency, would that help restore public trust in FEMA to operate effectively in response to disasters? Mr. Fugate. No. I think FEMA executing the mission is what restores that trust. When I got to FEMA, we were dealing with post-Katrina. And everybody says, are you going to fail? Tell us you're not. And I cannot tell you that. I have to execute. You'll determine if we failed or we didn't. Again, I caution people. Just moving things around, reorganizing is not the answer. The answer is empowering FEMA to make sure they have the right leadership and the tools to execute. But their ability to regain the public trust, it doesn't matter where they sit. It matters where they execute and how it's perceived by the public of doing the mission. Independently, I think as you point out, it relieves a lot of the hurdles. But quite honestly, I worked under that system. I just cheerfully ignored most of it, because the law said I work for the President and I report to the President. And the Secretary was responsible for making sure I showed up to work, and I took my vacation time--well, I didn't get vacation time; I was a political appointee. But the reality is, I made it work because I have always been in that situation. But it is personality based. And so when you have a Secretary in there that does not see the FEMA Administrator as the principal advisor, as the law says, to the President, the National Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary, in that order, and that--I got there, we were routing declarations through the Secretary's office. I said, why? Well, that's the way they want it. I am like, I don't care. The law says I am the principal advisor, and I am advising the President. I make a recommendation to declare or not declare. To me, the law says that goes to the President. We changed it. Trust me, there are a lot of people at DHS, and not so much the Secretary, but all of the offices around there, that really wanted to get into our business. And I fought it. I just said no. I was arrogant and I was pragmatic. But I went to the law, and I knew that if we did not execute what the law said, we were going to lose that authority. So I was a pain to a lot of people. But that shouldn't be the way it has to be. Mr. Stanton. I am over time and that is a really well-made point, that moving things around could help reduce your bureaucracy, but it is the people and the support from the President that makes all the difference. That is a good point. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our panelists. I just want to kind of level set here, remind everybody that's listening to the hearing today that under the--regardless of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the utilization of FEMA personnel, under the previous administration, FEMA personnel were used to bring people illegally across the border. And I remember in this committee room asking about the regional director for the Pennsylvania region being moved to the border for specifically that. So let's just level set here and make sure that we have all the facts. This is not a one-way street. And there are infractions that irritate both sides to be considered here. I am just going to turn to you, Director Fugate. In your written testimony, you say that ``H.R. 4669 is the first significant effort in the Stafford Act to price disaster risk honestly, rather than simply paying for it faster,'' and I think that is a quote. This is largely as a result of the sliding scale for the Federal cost share for disaster assistance based on State action or inaction in risk mitigation that is included in the FEMA Act and was suggested by the President's FEMA Review Council. My understanding is that you proposed this idea during your time as FEMA administrator. I think it's good to see folks coalescing around this idea to get States to have some more skin in the game and to ensure that we do everything we can on the front end to mitigate the risk, rather than throwing money at the problem after the fact. Can you take a moment to elaborate on the advantages of this proposal and what other ideas you might have to get the States to play a bigger role in disaster mitigation, especially upfront? Mr. Fugate. Well, I'm going to take advantage, since we have the International Code Council here, is States that have strong building codes and build for the environment have less losses. States that do not have strong building codes, and everybody says, well, that is redtape. But we know that the stronger it is--and this comes from the State of Alabama--the more you invest, and they use a program that the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety does, FORTIFIED, where they build above the code. The homes have done better. They have documented it. And it saves them money. But I always want to remember, this isn't FEMA's money; this is the taxpayers' money. Why should the taxpayer continue to pay for the State and local governments who are making decisions to grow risk, and there is no containment? Mr. Perry. Well, I agree with you. As a matter of fact, why should any government pay? What incentive do people have to buy insurance if the Federal Government is going to rush in and pay for everything that happens under the sun, whether it gets too hot, it gets too cold, the water rises, the wind blows. I mean, that's the attitude these days. Mr. Fugate. And that's the challenge. That is why, again, when Tom Ridge wrote this, it was based upon insurance was the primary model. Local governments insured their buildings. Most of the public had insurance. We have an insurance crisis. We are going to have to navigate that. But by using a sliding scale that says--right now, it's like I win the lottery. If I get to that magical threshold, I get 75 percent of all my costs back to the first dollar. Do you know any insurance policy that doesn't have a deductible? Mr. Perry. Right. That's exactly what we are incentivizing---- Mr. Fugate [interrupting]. If you get to that magic threshold, you get it all there. Mr. Perry [continuing]. Bad behavior. Mr. Fugate. And there is no containment, there is no incentive for States to make investments. There is no incentive to, maybe we shouldn't be building there the way we are building and hoping somebody else will pick up the check. Because that's the taxpayer, that's the Federal taxpayer. So I think this bill, by saying, look, we are going to do this gradually. This is--I find that when we try to do the sudden shocks, it never works. But we are going to start out gradually. If you are not doing anything to manage your risk, you are just building wherever you want to and you are not doing anything to protect the Federal taxpayer from exposure, you are at 65 percent. If you are now doing those things, you are enforcing building codes, you are insuring your public buildings, you are doing those things to reduce the cost to the Federal taxpayer, you may get to 85 percent. That is the first time we have incentivized reducing the cost to the Federal taxpayer by before the disaster, not waiting for somebody else to pay for it, but taking the actions to build and manage their risk without necessarily depending upon the Federal Government as the first payee. Mr. Perry. I appreciate it. And with the little time I have, we talked--and I think I know your position on separating FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security. But can you speak to the importance of having an independent inspector general to keep FEMA honest about its efficiency and effectiveness, sir? Mr. Fugate. Well, I think an independent IG, it depends on what you want to look at. Separating FEMA, having the IG, it is a symbiotic relationship. If it is an accounting error, I agree with the IG. But one of the things you have to remember the IG does is, they look at policies. And most of the time when they say FEMA takes the money back, it is not FEMA; it is the IG finding FEMA did not follow policy and they should take the money back, those clawbacks that are devastating. So I think if you are going to have an independent IG, you need to make sure they are not the IG for a standard agency. They are going to have to assume that there is more risk being made to get money out the door, and that we are not running an accounting business. We are in the business of helping communities recover. So if you are going to do an independent IG, they are going to have to have different rules of engagement. Mr. Perry. That's fine, but, I mean, yes, get the money out the door. But that doesn't mean that just because we are getting the money out the door because there was a disaster, that we just throw money away and accept that as the cost of doing business. Mr. Fugate. No, sir. But I think this is the common issue. If you want to go fast, you are going to take risk. And if those risks were honest and there was no fraud, I think we have to accept there is going to be additional cost. But I am pretty sure it is cheaper than what it is costing us to try to make sure we have no fraud and abuse, and we are sitting there counting by cubic yards. I mean, do you know how we do debris? We have a contractor picking up debris. Then we have to hire a separate contractor to monitor the contractor that is picking up the debris to determine how many cubic yards are actually in the truck. Then we have to have the State monitoring the contractor monitoring the debris company. Then we have to have FEMA monitoring the State. And then the IG comes in there and they say, we are here to help. It would be a lot cheaper just to do an estimate and be off 5 percent either way and get it done, and we would save money because we would not be doing all the overhead. Mr. Perry. I yield. Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Strickland. Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Stanton, for holding this hearing. And thank you to Administrator Fugate for your unapologetic candor about what needs to be done to improve FEMA. I want to shift gears a bit and talk about FEMA's nondisaster grant programs. Part of FEMA's mission is to prevent and respond to imminent threatened or actual acts of terrorism. To carry out that mission, FEMA administers critical public safety and preparedness grant programs, including the Homeland Security Grant Program, or HSGP. On June 24, 2026, FEMA and DHS published the fiscal year 2026 notice of funding opportunity, and it holds back 20 percent of funds if States do not submit to President Trump's voter election interference tactics. DHS and FEMA are now politicizing $200 million of Federal funds to fight terrorism by forcing States to implement partisan election policies that in some cases violate court orders, the Constitution, and existing State laws. And when we passed the FEMA Act of 2025 into law, it did include not politicizing FEMA and how funds are distributed. So Administrator Fugate, you served as FEMA Administrator for almost a decade. Can you please explain what counterterrorism or preparedness objectives are served by conditioning these grants on compliance with potentially unlawful election requirements? Mr. Fugate. It's furthering the administration's policies. It's as simple as that. FEMA is just a tool here. I mean, if you asked FEMA, they wouldn't do it. They are being directed to do it. And right now, until the courts rule, they are giving the President a lot of executive authority. So the only way you are going to contain that is putting specific language in the law that says you can't do that. And then the judges can look at that and go, yes, that is not executive authority; Congress has clearly said no. But the Supreme Court and many Justices have ruled the President has executive authority. FEMA is not doing this because they think it's a good idea; they are being directed to do it. And this is the administration asserting their authority, as they have it, for policy. And until the courts determine which is right, it's going to happen. I think that, again, I find it--a lot of times, FEMA gets thrust in there. FEMA is just a tool being used to advance an administrative policy. Ms. Strickland. Yes. Mr. Fugate. Don't yell at FEMA. It's just convenient, but don't yell at FEMA. This is what they are doing. And so far, there has not been tremendous pushback from the courts, especially the Supreme Court, that they don't have that executive authority. Ms. Strickland. Yes, following up, during your time as FEMA Administrator, did you consider how a State runs its elections as criterion for awarding these funds? Mr. Fugate. Not for those funds, for recovery funds. I dealt with it--I seemed to be the person that always had disasters in the middle of Presidential elections, which we found out you cannot postpone. So we actually supported the State of New Jersey in funding temporary polling sites, bringing in generators, tents, and other things to conduct the election. That is an appropriate use of FEMA. We supported. We did not have anything to do with staffing it. We supported the State to carry out the election. that was eligible under protected measures. We did that in Florida during the election in 2004, where we built polling stations because in Charlotte County, there was nothing left to do polling in. So we had to build that. That is an appropriate role for FEMA. Ms. Strickland. Yes, so basically your job was to respond to a disaster to allow elections to be carried out as they are supposed to be by law? Mr. Fugate. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Strickland. Thank you. And I just want to end this by saying this is not just about FEMA and DHS exploiting a counterterrorism grant for a purpose unrelated to stopping terrorism. This is about an administration weaponizing FEMA for voter suppression. And as I often say, the United States does not have a voter fraud problem, we have a voter participation problem. In 2024, 90 million people did not participate in our elections. They chose not to vote. This is a bad solution. It does nothing to help promote democracy. It's unconstitutional. And the safety of the American people are not enhanced because of these actions. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Fong. Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this important hearing. Mr. Fugate, I would like you to, I guess, outline, do you believe that moving to upfront project-based grants will reduce the costs of rebuilding following a disaster? Mr. Fugate. Yes. That's an easy one. Mr. Fong. Can you go into specifics in terms of how we can--kind of give me some real-world examples? Mr. Fugate. Okay, let's use a fire station. Everybody gets a fire station. You know what a fire station is? It's a building, right? It's also a function. So let's say you have a flood or a hurricane or a wildfire and the fire station gets destroyed. If you had insurance, what would be the first steps you would take? Contact the insurance, they send out an adjuster, they determine the building was destroyed, they look at the insured value, they write you a check. You go build a fire station. How hard is that? The current system is, FEMA goes out there and first has to determine that the fire station was destroyed because of the disaster. Then they have to determine if there was any predisaster causes that would have increased the cost, like deferred maintenance and stuff. Then they have to determine, well, what is the value of the building and contents, and then what would it take to replace that. And they write an estimate of that, and that is the project worksheet. But because they do actual cost, they don't give them the money. The local governments now have to go get a contractor to go build a fire station. They have to get an estimate. They have to submit that to FEMA for review. Well, they want to change because the station was too small. They want to build it bigger. Well, FEMA says, we are only going to replace what was there. That is on you. We are not going to approve that. But that is a change we have to approve on that. You can have as many as 10 versions of that worksheet getting to the final answer. And then you are reimbursing them. So what the locals have to do is they have to borrow the money, issue a bond, to go build that fire station because they do not have the cash. They generally don't have that much money sitting around. And this process will take, the entire process of just getting to approval, a year or more. And then up to 5 years of changes and everything else. It doesn't take 5 years to build a fire station. So by going to an estimate, here is how it would work. We get there. Everybody agrees it's destroyed. Now those of you that are concerned about fraud, waste, and abuse, here is what the thing requires. They have to get an engineer or architect of license in their State to put in their estimate of what that is. Because everybody is afraid, well, it won't be enough money, or there will be things they discovered later. I said, well, that is why you have got them putting their seal on there. Because they have insurance and if they didn't get it right, that's where you get your money, not the taxpayer. We agree to it, 75 percent of them. We issue it. We put it in smart link. It goes down. The State got the money; they issue it to them. They now have the cash to go build the fire station. That's the difference. Mr. Fong. We have a situation in my district, and maybe you can shed some light into this, where a road gets washed out, it gets washed out every single time there is a flood. The community wants to build it to a higher standard. But because of the rules, you have to build it to what existed predisaster. Would it make sense to allow the community to fix it permanently and build it to---- Mr. Fugate [interrupting]. Oh, absolutely. And I think one of the things is, looking at cost-benefit analysis, I don't think we ought to be putting culverts back in anywhere. We ought to be using box culverts. I have never seen a culvert that you put in after a flood that survives the next flood. I mean it's just dumb stuff we do to try to keep it cheap. We ought to be going in there and not looking at what the road was before. We ought to be looking at the function of the road and going, how much does it cost every time that road gets washed out? And that should be the basis of the estimate. It's just like rebuilding that fire station. I had fire stations in Hurricane Charley got wiped out in that storm. To build them back to the building code was stupid, because they got wiped out being built to the building code. I need to build them for category 5. They said, well, it's not worth the cost- benefit analysis. I said, what about the function of the fire station? Oh, that changes the equation. Mr. Fong. Yes. Mr. Fugate. So I don't disagree. But guess what? This is getting people to think differently. A road is not a construction project; it's a function. What is the cost of losing that function? Wouldn't it then make more sense to spend 10 to 15 percent more to ensure the function is there after the disaster instead of fixing it again? Mr. Fong. That makes perfect sense to me. Mr. Matheson, I wanted to ask you, in your experience, which regulations or policies could FEMA eliminate to reduce delays for utilities, such as rebuilding poles and substations and transmission infrastructure after a disaster has occurred? Mr. Matheson. I think the legislation creates greater certainty in terms of timeframe. The immediate--the initial assistance, the 120-day limit, that would be a big help for us in terms of moving quickly with greater certainty when we are trying to repair storm damage. I mean, some of these repair projects, like building a fire station, we have heard that takes time. We want the electric system up immediately, if we can. And so the ability to move quickly and make quick decisions, that is in all of our interest to have the lights on for people when they are dealing with all of the other impacts of the disaster. Mr. Fong. Thank you for that. I'm running out of time, Mr. Chair. I yield back. But thank you for the panel. Mr. Rouzer. Mrs. Sykes, you are recognized. Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the ranking member, for holding this hearing today. As we are in the midst of disaster season, many Americans are concerned that if disaster strikes in their communities, the support that they need to survive and rebuild may not be available to them. Two years ago, my community in northeast Ohio was hit by back-to-back storms in a 3-day span that caused widespread flooding. I led a letter with a bipartisan delegation from northeast Ohio, calling on the Governor to reach out to FEMA for emergency assistance. During this hour of dire need, my constituents turned to the Federal Government to help rebuild and FEMA was there to deliver. And for that, we are grateful. That is why I am deeply concerned about the cuts that are being made by the Trump administration during the President's second term, drastically curtailing FEMA's ability to respond to other communities in crisis. Under this administration, FEMA's preparedness and mitigation grants have been severely delayed or canceled altogether, failing to give States the resources they need to prepare for disasters, hire staff, and harden the infrastructure that would keep Americans safe. Also, since January 2025, disaster declaration requests from Democratic Governors have been approved at a rate of 23 percent, compared with 89 percent for Republican-led States, clearly showing preferential treatment. And I have heard from many of you in your testimony about the impact of delays but didn't hear a whole lot about the impact of denials for these Democratic States. Politicizing disaster assistance hurts American families. And to make matters worse, a recent report by one of the subcommittees on this full committee also found that DHS is siphoning FEMA resources to support ICE's deportation campaign, diverting essential resources away from FEMA's disaster response. So in a word, FEMA is a disaster. In a recent raid on an Ohio voting rights organization, DHS agents raided the organization's office in northeast Ohio and went to volunteers' homes across the State to question them without a warrant. This is an example of voter suppression and intimidation, but also an egregious misuse of DHS resources in my home State that we still don't have an accounting for. And so I can't help but notice that there are no current FEMA employees or Administrators with us today. And I am sure that is not a coincidence. And I imagine, Mr. Fugate, that is why you are so popular today, to stand in and speak for those who refuse to or could not or for whatever reason are not here to answer questions on behalf of the American public. But glad that you're here. But I do want to ask you, what is the operational impact of cutting off staff and siphoning resources from FEMA to ICE, for ICE, and how will this loss impact FEMA's readiness to respond to a disaster? Mr. Fugate. It's all very subjective how you look at it. I will go back to the original issue. You gave the Secretary this authority in the Homeland Security Act. That is---- Mrs. Sykes [interrupting]. I did not give the Secretary that---- Mr. Fugate [continuing]. And that's the problem. You have given discretion. And when you have discretion, it can be used for good and bad, for things you don't agree with. But they have the discretion. That, I think either making FEMA independent, or being more specific in the language around FEMA, limiting or eliminating that. But until you do that, you have given them that. Whether you agree with it or not, they have that authority. And what you would have to do to demonstrate they have broken the law is you gave them percentages they could move. And if they are moving them at a greater percentage or they are violating the Economy Act, which means they are spending money they were not authorized or appropriated for. But until you get there, and you gave the Secretary authority to move money around--I mean, in my administration, when we did our budgets, I ended up losing money to go pay for a security cutter for Coast Guard. So as long as there is discretion, it can be used for good or for things you don't agree with. Mrs. Sykes. Thank you for that, but that was not I was inquiring of you. It was whether or not that is a good use of resources, and that is not---- Mr. Fugate [interrupting]. Has FEMA not been able to respond to a disaster because of that? And the answer is no. But we haven't had a big disaster. So I don't know. Mrs. Sykes. Well, I think that that is certainly up to interpretation, as 89 percent of Republican States are even getting a disaster declaration, while 23 percent of Democratic States are not. So I think perhaps the premises that you are basing that analysis on are flawed. You did mention FEMA becoming an independent agency. So there is an attempt to do that. And I have also heard you talk about in your testimony today the need for FEMA to take more risks at the expense of fraud, waste, and abuse. And considering this current administration, do you think that they would do that in order to be more responsive to the American public? Mr. Fugate. Yes, I try to get past the talking points and the rhetoric and all the noise out there. And I got to this point where I said, what I have heard is, they want to get the money down with the least amount of overhead. How do you do that? I think this bill gives them that tool. You could do the estimate; you get them the money. I think what they are really--and I think this is something I don't think anybody has been disagreeing with, is why does it take decades, and the cost to administer that dollar is costing in many cases more than that dollar. Mrs. Sykes. Well, some of it is because the President is refusing to help people who are in need. So I thank you for your testimony. I am really sorry that none of your colleagues from the current FEMA are not here and they are leaving you to hold the bag at the expense of the American public. Thank you for being here. I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Matheson, I was just sitting here thinking: I know we got redistricted, but I still think I can claim that I have got more electric co-ops in the 10th District of Georgia than the other districts that represent Georgia. And proud of it. But I want to go over some things with Hurricane Helene. As you know, Hurricane Helene and many other recent storms have taken a serious toll on Georgia. In fact, Georgia's electric membership corporation outages from Helene totaled about 435,000 customers. One of the hardest hit co-ops in my district was Washington EMC, which had 86 percent of its members out during an extensive restoration effort. It's my understanding the co-op had about $16 million in Helene damages alone, which is a lot of money and far more costly than previous storms. One of the improvements in the FEMA Act over the status quo is getting these reimbursements back to co-ops and counties and cities a lot faster. Can you talk about how some new timelines and deadlines for FEMA would be helpful for my constituents back home in Georgia? Mr. Matheson. Sure, I appreciate that. And Georgia, incidentally, has more consumers served by electric cooperatives than any State in the country, so I am not surprised you have a lot of cooperative members in your district as well. Helene was a significant storm, and it affected many States, Georgia being one of them, and the damage was severe. Sixteen million dollars may not sound like a lot to a large, investor-owned utility, but for an electric cooperative at a local level, that is a lot of money. And so I appreciate you raising that specific example. And making these decisions about moving ahead, getting the Public Assistance grant quickly, that is how we get started. And this legislation creates a 120-day timeline to make that happen. That will be very helpful for electric cooperatives in terms of reducing risk, allowing them to move forward with what they need to be doing, which is restoring power. The second issue is, for the longer term components of funding, there are times when co-ops are stuck for years holding loans to cover the cost before they get reimbursed by FEMA, and the interest continues to accrue. And this legislation allows for interest reimbursement to be part of FEMA award in the future. Now, historically, FEMA has done that in some cases, but it has been really inconsistent where loan interest is reimbursed and where it isn't. And this legislation creates greater certainty in that context. And that will be a significant risk reduction for electric cooperatives, as well. So those are a couple of the items that are going to be really helpful for those circumstances. Mr. Collins. And you know, I toured the 10th District and even outside the 10th District when Helene hit. And just the massive undertaking, the setting up of base camps, of co-ops moving in to help. And the teamwork. It is a huge undertaking, and a very expensive undertaking to make sure that people get their power back on in a timely manner. And it was a good job. Mr. Matheson. No question. Those are linemen that come from all over the country to come and help from other electric co- ops. It is one of the hallmarks of the electric cooperative movement, is this mutual aid where, when disaster strikes, we go help each other out. And so Georgia had a significant participation from folks all over the country to come and help restore the power. Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. And that leads into my second question for Mr. Fugate. We have also heard of situations where FEMA required contractors to provide to the EMC that FEMA is auditing their pay rates for their employees, but FEMA would reimburse the EMC for using a contractor. In what world is a contractor who competes with EMCs and IOUs for linemen are they going to want to provide their pay rates? Mr. Fugate. Well, it's actual cost, sir. That's the problem. We got to have the actual cost. You got to submit the documentation. Doing estimates gets around that. Mr. Collins. Okay. But I am sure you see my point, though, right? Mr. Fugate. Oh, no, sir, I understand perfectly. But you want FEMA to do actual cost, we need the numbers. Do an estimate, FEMA doesn't need the numbers. Mr. Collins. Okay. Well, I appreciate it. And I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Scholten. Ms. Scholten. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member Larsen, for holding this really, really important meeting. I cannot really think of anything more pressing right now than a hearing entitled ``Reforming FEMA: Ensuring the Nation's Disaster Readiness Works for Americans.'' Just going quickly down the line, just to clarify, Mr. Fugate, are you currently employed by FEMA? Mr. Fugate. No, I am a citizen. Ms. Scholten. All right, Ms. Sheng? Ms. Sheng. No. Ms. Scholten. No. Matheson? No, you are not. No. So no one currently working for FEMA is here to talk about how we reform FEMA. I am so grateful to all of you for coming and helping us to do that. But this is a critical point. The American people send us here to Washington to conduct critical oversight of this administration. And we need to be able to hold the administration accountable for failures here. We have had once-in-a-lifetime flooding in my home State of Michigan. I want to thank you again for being here today. But that point just needs to be reiterated. Severe weather events will not stop. Our communities have to be resilient. And we cannot wait any longer. In April of this year, Michigan was struck by extreme, severe weather, causing flooding, tornadoes, and widespread damage. The National Weather Service issued a record number of flash flood warnings and flood advisories, a total of 62 of these advisories for Michigan in April alone. This extreme weather caused seven river gauge sites to reach major flood stage, and four sites set new record crests. Fortunately, the State of Michigan has worked with Federal partners, and the President issued a major disaster declaration. The process of rebuilding is underway, but the progress is slow. Mr. Matheson, how would the FEMA Act of 2025 mitigate the risk of future damage to Michigan's electric grid during storms like these? Mr. Matheson. It would mitigate it because it places greater emphasis on doing predisaster funding for mitigation to harden systems. And on the electric side, that could mean a variety of things, be it burying more lines underground, be it hardening substations to prevent damage from high wind. And so the FEMA Act creates a set-aside specifically for rural areas for the prehazard or predisaster mitigation. That would be very helpful. The second thing it does is it addresses the issue that was raised earlier about the road that gets washed out and they have to be required to rebuild it exactly the same way. This legislation allows for more latitude to rebuild and not build it just the way it was, where it is in the same flood plain, move the poles a couple hundred yards one direction or the other to get out of the way. That creates more resilient systems as well. So this legislation has a couple of components that would really position electric cooperatives to be able to withstand damage in the future. Ms. Scholten. Yes, thank you. I agree completely, proud to cosponsor it. We hope Congress gets on board with this full committee in championing it. One thing the American people might not fully realize is that when actual employees and representatives of FEMA come to hearings like this, we can engage on critical legislation, they can take it back and they can champion making sure this legislation gets back. So I need to just continue to put that in the record how important it is; not to do anything to undermine you all coming here and your great testimony. So in addition to the flooding I just mentioned, Michiganders are still dealing with unprecedented 2025 March ice storms which impacted electric co-ops in the State, including in my district. This storm was a huge shock to Michigan, and I'm grateful that this co-op had access to Public Assistance funding that was available to them. Mr. Matheson, I want to come back to you again. It's my understanding that the FEMA Act would provide for loan interest accrued as a part of the ice storm. Can you touch on again just why that is such an important part of the FEMA reform? Mr. Matheson. Big issue. And you--like Great Lakes Energy is one of the co-ops that's affected and so much of their system was taken down and their loans right now are about $10 million a year in interest that they're accruing. So this just goes directly to the ratepayer. And this is a disaster where it took a while to get the disaster declaration from FEMA. I'm sure you're well aware of that. Ultimately it did happen in terms of all the categories, but the reimbursements have not come yet and so that interest continues to accrue. As I said earlier, sometimes FEMA has reimbursed loan interest, sometimes it hasn't. This legislation is going to make it much more straightforward where loan interest is accrued and paid for by FEMA. Ms. Scholten. Yes, thank you. Appreciate you all being here, genuinely. Thank you so much. I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Barrett. Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the panel for being here today and the candor and insight that you're providing us on the committee today. And I also hail from Michigan, so appreciate the remarks that you made. I think it's important. One of the things that I felt was really critical in the reforms that we put forward last year through this committee was that fact that infrastructure can be not built to the exact same specs as it was when it was damaged, but rather be forward-looking into making better infrastructure decisions so that we're not finding ourselves in the same position on a repetitive basis. I think anytime we're dealing with infrastructure, the cost of that is balanced between resiliency and the cost that comes with that, and those two sometimes work in opposite directions. But I think spending a little bit more money and doing things a little bit more thoughtfully often results in a far better outcome overall. I had heard about places that were kind of more significantly prone to natural disasters where they had aboveground power lines and they'd get knocked down every so many years and then we'd come through and we'd put them back up on the poles and then it would happen again because we couldn't get Federal approval to just bury them underground. And so I think that alone is going to have a significant quality of life improvement and resiliency for the people of this country that expect that to happen. Sometimes I think about the laws of physics and the laws of nature versus the laws of man. We have jurisdiction over the laws of man here in this committee and here in this Congress. We can't change the weather, but we can, I think, make better decisions for how we confront that when it does happen and not put ourselves in a position of making things worse. I did have a few questions. Mr. Chaitovitz--did I say your name correctly? Did I pronounce it right? Close enough? All right, thank you. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be here for your opening remarks, but I know you talk about resiliency and kind of preventative nature of things being an important and critical piece of this. Not directly under the jurisdiction of this committee, but certainly in front of us as Members of Congress is this issue of housing affordability and the ability to get people into homes. We're short the number of homes that we need for the number of people that have demand for homes. And that's become a very critical concern for all of us. And one of the challenges with that, I think, is we talked a little bit here on this panel about the building codes and building to the next highest level of building code that evolves over time. But within that is sometimes things that are not related to resiliency, they're related to energy efficiency or other things like that. Can you speak to that tradeoff a little bit? Because I think we want resilient homes that are not going to be vulnerable to natural disaster without overregulation and things unrelated to that resiliency that are going to drive up the cost of homes and price out ordinary Americans. Mr. Chaitovitz. Well, thanks so much for the question. I really appreciate it. And I'll go back to how I focused on the economic growth argument for resilience. And I'll turn to--Mr. Fugate mentioned the Alabama study, and there are specific numbers that building to the FORTIFIED standard would save in claims, about $105 million in that area, and then reduce the amount of deductibles that homeowners would have to pay. And so if you're building to those higher standards, you are getting the economic payback. That also is very consistent with the study that we talked about before: $1 invested in preparedness gives you $13 in reduced losses and economic savings. That doesn't mean that you're going to eliminate those losses. But for income, GDP, and jobs, that's going to mean more communities are able to respond and recover more quickly. And the same goes with homeowners. I think there's a good analogy there. Mr. Barrett. Sure. And I think that resiliency and maybe sturdiness of a home or a building, whether it's a public municipal building or whether it's an individual home, is one aspect, certainly. But I have concerns that we're layering on additional burdensome regulations unrelated to the resiliency of a structure. Is that something that you think we can parse through and make sure that the regulations that we are asserting are ones that are actually designed to make homes more resilient but not unaffordable for people? Mr. Chaitovitz. Well, really important point in the FEMA Act is the permitting reform measures there that will allow you to repair and recover homes more quickly. That eliminates the delays that are typically found when you're looking to rebuild a home and that will help homeowners get back in their home more quickly. Mr. Barrett. Yes. Well, thank you. Well, I am out of time. I yield back. But appreciate all of your insight. Thank you. Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Friedman. Ms. Friedman. Thank you to the chair and ranking member for bringing us together. And I want to thank the panel for being here to talk about how we can reform FEMA so that it can better serve our communities in the wake of natural disasters. Many of my constituents continue to feel the effects of the 2025 California wildfires. We are still seeing people struggling to rebuild. Their benefits are running out. They can't stay in their rentals any longer. It's really been very, very challenging. Mr. Fugate, in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, we saw that many families relied on charitable contributions from their churches, from GoFundMe pages. It was pretty common that people were asking for contributions to try to stack on top of the limited amount of money that they get from FEMA. But unfortunately, a lot of these families were surprised later to find out that FEMA deducts, in many cases, those charitable deductions from the award that they were getting for disaster recovery. In some cases, people were being deemed unable to receive any money from FEMA because they had gotten charity contributions through friends and family. This, of course, is extremely difficult for people to hear. Also, the people who contributed realized that they weren't really contributing to victims, they were basically contributing to FEMA at that point, because it was taking FEMA out of their responsibility of supporting the victims. Very confusing for people as they were trying to find help. During your time as FEMA Administrator, did you or your staff ever encounter a situation in which a disaster victim experienced this kind of confusion as they sought to receive FEMA relief due to them receiving charitable contributions? Mr. Fugate. Not specifically, but it happens. I think--I've been asked this question and it really comes back to, it's in the law, nonduplication of benefits. So when you do a strict interpretation of that, it means any assistance. I think we ought to scrap it and just go, the only thing we're not duplicating is your homeowner's insurance. Because quite honestly, even if you got the full amount of FEMA, which we already heard, you rarely get there, it isn't making people whole. So I think we just get rid of the nonsense first. You know how much it's costing the IG to go out there and find that somebody got $5,000 so we're gonna--how much did it cost us to find the $5,000? Are you kidding me? Just make it clear. The only duplication of benefits would be homeowner's insurance. I would even go so far as to look at other Federal programs and go, I'd be very cautious about making those duplication of benefits. I would just make it, you got insurance, fine, let the insurance and then we go there. That's clear. Everything else--it's not even worth accounting for. And we're not making people whole. Why are we putting up impediments? But the strict interpretation of the law is the law. Ms. Friedman. I totally agree. And I did a press conference where I had victims stand next to me talking about how they didn't get FEMA money because their friends were kind enough to reach into their own pocket and contribute to them because they knew that that FEMA money was not going to make them whole, they were not going to be able to rebuild, they weren't going to replace their personal items. And so people were helping them. And instead it ended up costing them, and it doesn't make any sense. I introduced a bipartisan bill called the Don't Penalize Victims Act, which is bipartisan, because this is something that I think we all understand how insane that law is. And I think it's imperative that the House pass the FEMA Act, because that bill that I wrote and that I received bipartisan support for is now in this FEMA Relief Act so that we will no longer be penalizing people because their neighbors are generous, good people. We're going to allow them to still receive the limited amount of money that they receive. Another question for you. While you were FEMA Administrator, States across the country experienced devastating wildfires. And I just want sort of yes or no answers because I know I only have a minute left now because we both got very passionate about the last one. Do you recall President Obama failing to submit a supplemental funding request to Congress when necessary in the wake of a natural disaster? Mr. Fugate. No. Ms. Friedman. Do you recall President Obama delaying or denying FEMA aid from communities in need? Mr. Fugate. Only one I really know was he denied Illinois because he was in the State legislature. And he said, yes, they met the threshold, but they got enough money that doesn't exceed their capabilities and manage it. But in general, it was always, did it meet the threshold? Did it demonstrate it exceeded the State's capability? And we did it. We also said no a lot to a lot of Republicans and Democrats because I took those calls as well. Ms. Friedman. So in your professional opinion, is there any disaster response rationale that would justify rejecting legitimate, like you said, legitimate requests from States just because they voted for one party over another? Mr. Fugate. Unfortunately, the law gives the discretion to the President and never precluded that. Nobody ever anticipated you'd weaponize the disaster declarations, but the law says the discretion of the President. And again, Obama used it to turn down one that we had recommended because he knew personally that they didn't meet that criteria. So he said no. Ms. Friedman. Right. Because it was a State that he had served in as well. Mr. Fugate. Yes. Ms. Friedman. So I want to thank you. It's clear that President Trump has made unprecedented efforts to politicize disaster relief and it's resulted in a delay of relief to Americans in need, not just in Los Angeles, but across this country. It's un-American, it's certainly not in the spirit of law. And I thank you for being here today. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Taylor. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens. Yes, thank you. Mr. Rouzer. Slipped in on me. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you first of all for holding this hearing. I represent Utah's Fourth District. This hearing comes at a critical time for us. Utah is having one of the worst wildfire seasons in our history. Over 400 fires, nearly 350,000 acres burned, more than the last 5 years combined. The Cottonwood fire alone burned 27,000 acres in a single day and threatened over 300 homes near Beaver. I want to thank FEMA for stepping up quickly with a Fire Management Assistance Grant to support our firefighting efforts in that area. But this experience has also shown us where the system can better work for the people closest to these disasters: our local firefighters, county emergency managers who know their terrain and communities best. That's the spirit behind the FEMA Act. Making sure disaster response is locally executed, State managed, and federally supported so we get the help to the people faster and more effectively. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and how to get FEMA out of its own way and get the help to the people who need it most, including the firefighters and families back in Utah. Mr. Fugate, in your experience running FEMA, how well does this current Fire Management Assistance Grant Program actually work in real time during fast-moving fires like Cottonwood? And are there structural changes in a FEMA Act that would speed up this process? Mr. Fugate. The Fire Management Assistance Grant is at the discretion of the FEMA Administrator. We delegate that to the regional administrators. That works pretty good. But it's really designed about the firefighting cost and what we would call category B. Historically, most wildfires had heavy insurance. Most people had homeowners insurance. But that's changing. I think one of the problems we're running into at FEMA or FEMA's running into is when the Fire Management Assistance Grants can only address the response cost. But now we have the utility, the poles got burned down in the co-op, we have the uninsured homes, we have the costs that go beyond what we would call category B. And that I think is something that's changing. We're seeing more major Presidential disaster declarations for the wildfires. The whole intent of the Fire Management Assistance Grants was to eliminate that need. But I think we're seeing a changing environment where we're having more extreme fires. Insurance is now less of a tool for homeowners. Many of them now cannot afford it or cannot get it. It's being canceled. And so we're seeing the Federal taxpayer having to pick that up. So I would continue to look at getting money quickly to jurisdictions to fight the fires to support the extreme costs that exceed their annualized firefighting cost is a key tool. But I think wildfires are going to become more of a major Presidential disaster declaration because of the unmet needs that FMAGs don't address. Mr. Owens. Thank you. And the FEMA Act emphasizes locally executed, State managed, and federally supported. From your experience, what does that actually look like in practice for wildfire versus hurricane? Mr. Fugate. It's the Constitution. I never knew why it was an issue. All powers not reserved to the Federal Government belong to the States and the people. Responding to disasters is the State's responsibility. It's in their Constitution. So I've never had a question that we should not be supporting them. We're not running it, they are. But when it comes to wildfires, many States are now struggling with--we used to have wildfire seasons. There's no wildfire season in California. It's a bad weather day, we have wildfires in California. I think we're seeing, and this is one of the things that we never got to, but I think we're seeing, and people can debate climate all they want to. I'm just saying it's changed, folks. And the system we built ain't working. We're getting more frequent events that are occurring closer together without the time we had to recover from the last one. Wildfires are becoming so extreme now that the systems we've always depended upon and built are breaking. I think this is one of the things I really appreciate about the Fixing FEMA bill. We didn't talk about climate change, but we're addressing the issue that disasters are getting worse faster in a way that States and local governments are not able to budget or compensate for. And it's giving us more flexible tools to deal with the more extreme events. Mr. Owens. Thank you. I need to ask the last question. Mr. Matheson, many of the communities in my district are served by rural electric co-ops. When wildfires take out utility infrastructure, how well is FEMA currently set up to help rural co-ops rebuild quickly? And where does the process fall short? Mr. Matheson. Look, I think that anytime electric infrastructure is damaged, whether it's a wildfire or any other natural disaster, the key is to get the lights on as safely and quickly as possible. The FEMA Act is going to give greater certainty how electric cooperatives go about doing that because the initial Public Assistance has to be done within 120 days. It removes that uncertainty for co-ops about having the resources to go in and make those repairs. So we fully endorse this bill because of that and other provisions that are going to make life better for electric co- ops in responding to these disasters. Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I'll yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Gillen. Ms. Gillen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I represent New York's Fourth Congressional District, which is a district on the South Shore of Long Island where flooding continues to be a serious threat to many Long Islanders. As you mentioned, Mr. Fugate, Superstorm Sandy devastated Long Island, causing billions of dollars' worth of damage. When flooding hits our major roads, it doesn't just disrupt traffic flow, it interferes with emergency response along our critical evacuation routes. As we deal with rising sea levels and stronger, more frequent storms, we must provide the coastal communities that I represent with the Federal resources they need to enhance our resiliency and protect our residents and our property. That is why I was proud to secure the inclusion of my amendment in the FEMA Act of 2025 during last year's markup. My amendment would require that the FEMA Administrator report to Congress on the national need for major flood resiliency investments to safeguard key travel corridors and to issue recommendations to Congress on ways to reduce flooding and to secure our roadways. Mr. Fugate, as a former first responder and former Administrator of FEMA, how important is it to the safety and well-being of Americans, particularly those in coastal communities like in my district, that the Federal Government invest in flood resiliency along our major travel corridors? Mr. Fugate. Well, it's like asking, should the lights be on? You got to have it. If I can't get there, I can't respond to it. Roads are critical infrastructure, just like power. But we have history here. We tried to do this in the Obama administration, just get everybody to build 2 feet above base flood elevation. That wasn't a big deal. It got reversed. It got put back in. It gets reversed. We have to quit building for the last 100 years. I mean, the American Society of Civil Engineers has standards. It's based upon the 100 years of the past. What in God's name is the past looking like helping us going forward if everything's a record-setting event? So we have to get past this idea that we're building it back the way it was, and build it for future risk. That means we're going to have to overdesign and overbuild to what the engineers say, well, that's not a requirement. The function of the road is the function of the road. Just being cheap about putting it back means we're going to be putting it back multiple times. I mean, I've actually seen people arguing over a 24-inch or a 36-inch culvert. I'm like, are you kidding me? Put in a box culvert, go big on this. Quit doing incremental fixes. Because as a Federal taxpayer, I'm tired of rebuilding the same roads over and over again because we build them to the last standards, not what we need to build them to. Ms. Gillen. Thank you. As FEMA Administrator, Mr. Fugate, you also oversaw the agency's preparedness grant programs, including the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which, as you know, provides essential funding to protect synagogues, churches, mosques, and other houses of worship across Long Island and across our country that are now facing even more heightened risk of attacks. First, I'm concerned because FEMA has still not awarded--I know we don't have anybody from FEMA here today, we have only former FEMA Administrators--I'm concerned that FEMA still has not awarded fiscal year 2025 Nonprofit Security Grants on a timely basis leaving vulnerable communities waiting. And second, while FEMA recently announced the fiscal year 2026 process, it gave States less than 30 days to review and submit all their applications. And as a result, New York State opened its portal on July 1st and then closed it on July 10th. So it gave houses of worship just 10 days to apply over the 4th of July holiday weekend. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record a bipartisan letter I signed urging FEMA to extend this deadline. Mr. Rouzer. Without objection. [The information follows:] Letter of July 8, 2026, to Hon. Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, from 58 Members of Congress, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Laura Gillen Congress of the United States, Washington, DC 20515, July 8, 2026. The Honorable Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472. Dear Acting Administrator Fenton: We write to respectfully request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) consider extending the July 24, 2026, deadline for State Administrative Agencies (SAAs) to submit applications under the Fiscal Year 2026 Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP). The FY2026 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) was released on June 26, leaving states and eligible nonprofit organizations insufficient time to complete the application process, and jeopardizing the program's stated intent to ``integrate nonprofit preparedness activities with broader state and local preparedness efforts.'' \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/nonprofit-security --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Historically, FEMA has provided as many as 80 days between the release of the NOFO and the deadline for SAA submissions.\2\ This year's application period provides under one month. With this shortened timeframe, many SAAs will be forced to establish abbreviated application periods. As a result, organizations will have just weeks, maybe days, to review the NOFO, obtain prequalification and a security assessment, develop project proposals, gather required documentation, and submit completed applications. In some states, the federal grant application period also overlaps with application periods for state hate crimes programs, overburdening grant writers and smaller organizations who may not have the resources to afford large, dedicated staff teams to prepare and submit applications. Further, since FEMA has not released the grant recipients for the FY2025 NSGP, organizations will be applying without knowing their eligibility, creating additional complications since eligibility for this year's grant is affected by the recipient's status for last year's grant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ 80 days in Fiscal Year 2023, 69 days in Fiscal Year 2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Congress has consistently demonstrated bipartisan support for the NSGP, recognizing its lifesaving ability to help at-risk organizations secure themselves against evolving security threats. It is essential that eligible applicants have a fair shot to apply for these funds and fully realize the program's intended purpose. The current timeline imposes significant administrative constraints on both applicants and SAAs, potentially limiting full and fair participation in this year's grant cycle. We respectfully request that FEMA consider extending the FY2026 SAA submission deadline. Providing additional time would allow SAAs to conduct a more thorough review process, give nonprofit organizations sufficient time to prepare competitive applications, and help ensure that FEMA receives the strongest possible pool of eligible projects for consideration. Thank you for your full and fair consideration of this request, consistent with applicable statute and agency guidelines. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response. Sincerely, Grace Meng, Member of Congress. Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Member of Congress. Sylvia R. Garcia, Member of Congress. Andre Carson, Member of Congress. David P. Joyce, Member of Congress. Laura A. Gillen, Member of Congress. Randy K. Weber, Sr., Member of Congress. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Member of Congress. Marilyn Strickland, Member of Congress. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Member of Congress. Madeleine Dean, Member of Congress. Juan Ciscomani, Member of Congress. Jake Auchincloss, Member of Congress. Michael V. Lawler, Member of Congress. Stephen F. Lynch, Member of Congress. Chris Pappas, Member of Congress. Jared Moskowitz, Member of Congress. Gwen S. Moore, Member of Congress. Frederica S. Wilson, Member of Congress. Brad Sherman, Member of Congress. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Member of Congress. Patrick Ryan, Member of Congress. Nellie Pou, Member of Congress. Sarah McBride, Member of Congress. Ritchie Torres, Member of Congress. Dina Titus, Member of Congress. Joe Neguse, Member of Congress. Thomas R. Suozzi, Member of Congress. Nikema Williams, Member of Congress. Wesley Bell, Member of Congress. Steve Cohen, Member of Congress. Jeff Hurd, Member of Congress. Gabe Amo, Member of Congress. Josh Gottheimer, Member of Congress. Haley M. Stevens, Member of Congress. Jefferson Van Drew, Member of Congress. Bennie G. Thompson, Member of Congress. Jennifer L. McClellan, Member of Congress. Joyce Beatty, Member of Congress. Danny K. Davis, Member of Congress. Ted W. Lieu, Member of Congress. Chrissy Houlahan, Member of Congress. Hillary J. Scholten, Member of Congress. Adriano Espaillat, Member of Congress. Greg Landsman, Member of Congress. Steven Horsford, Member of Congress. Gregory W. Meeks, Member of Congress. Shri Thanedar, Member of Congress. Jasmine Crockett, Member of Congress. Timothy M. Kennedy, Member of Congress. Betty McCollum, Member of Congress. Brendan F. Boyle, Member of Congress. Mike Quigley, Member of Congress. Jan Schakowsky, Member of Congress. Dan Goldman, Member of Congress. Diana DeGette, Member of Congress. Jason Crow, Member of Congress. Lois Frankel, Member of Congress. Ms. Gillen. So Mr. Fugate, do you agree that FEMA should extend the deadline for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program and do everything possible to give houses of worship a fair chance to apply for this funding? Mr. Fugate. I wouldn't oppose it. As FEMA Administrator, I try to make it happen. But you have to remember, we had a Secretary that shut down anything over $100,000, and they got a tremendous backlog to cover. And also, these grants have to be spent within the fiscal year. So in addition to telling FEMA to extend it, you also need to consider legislation to extend the funding into the next fiscal year so they don't die at the end of this calendar year. Ms. Gillen. Thank you. That's helpful. So what other steps can FEMA take to streamline the process to get these vital security dollars to communities that need them? Mr. Fugate. Getting a budget on October 1st would be helpful because when we get a budget--when you're under a CR, we can't initiate the grants. So when you do a CR, and you do a CR, and then you do an omnibus, and now it's February, and now FEMA's got to get the grants out before the end of the fiscal year, do the budget on October 1st, it will go a lot better. Ms. Gillen. I agree, thank you. I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Stauber. Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. It's an unfortunate but unavoidable reality that no matter where you are, a disaster will take place near your home. These disasters upend families, disrupt communities, and have lasting effects on our economy and livelihoods. Therefore, it is critical that the Federal Government can help prepare communities for difficult times and execute recovery efforts when the inevitable disaster strikes. While we all recognize the importance of this issue, Congress and FEMA have struggled to enact the necessary reforms to streamline and strengthen disaster response. This has rightfully frustrated Americans who have been let down by their Government during some of the most trying times of their lives. In Main Street America, small businesses are the lifeblood of local economies. When a disaster damages or prohibits locally owned businesses from operating, it has widespread consequences for the entire community. While recovery efforts languish in bureaucratic purgatory, investments are squandered, jobs are lost, and people are hurt. Mr. Chaitovitz, what impact will the FEMA Act have on small businesses that are affected by disasters? Mr. Chaitovitz. Thanks so much for the question. Interestingly enough, our foundation, together with Verizon, just issued a preliminary report on the impact on small businesses. And what they found was that 94 percent of small businesses think they can recover from a disaster, but only 31 percent have contingency plans in place. And about 20 percent of small businesses also only have budgeted to recover from disasters. So that's what we call the optimism gap. And I think the FEMA Act is well placed to help close that gap. And anything that we can do to reduce the burden on small businesses will be helpful. So for instance, the universal application or the permitting reforms in the bill would be very helpful to small businesses. Mr. Stauber. Yes, I agree. Streamlining determinations and the delivery of the assistance is critical for helping these communities when they need it the most. This bill also addresses how we prepare for these events. Mr. Chaitovitz, how do the preparedness incentives in this bill help business? Mr. Chaitovitz. Well, we already touched on the building to increased code. So what is the next level of modernized codes that we can build to? That's one of the incentives in the bill. One of the other incentives is to call on States to issue potential tax incentives for businesses and households to implement hardening measures. Those kinds of things will help with the sliding scale so that States can receive 85 percent of the cost share. And that's all helpful in creating a predisaster mitigation opportunity for companies in that area. Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Mr. Matheson, the rural electric cooperatives that you represent provide power to my constituents. They are critical infrastructure assets to districts like mine. When disasters inevitably knock out poles and power lines, how would the FEMA Act expedite the help you need to reconnect our rural communities? Mr. Matheson. It's going to enhance what's already been a critical partnership for years between rural electric co-ops and FEMA. It's been a great partnership, but it can work better, as I said in my opening statement. And the FEMA Act is going to create greater certainty in terms of timing of payment. It's going to create better opportunities for funding more resilient assets in the future that are more future proof instead of just building as is. It's going to allow for a reimbursement of loan interest costs when co-ops borrow money because they're waiting for the FEMA grant money to come in. These are all good steps that are going to help electric co-ops in terms of meeting the needs of their consumers. Mr. Stauber. Our Nation must do better to support disaster affected communities. And this legislation delivers commonsense solutions to help FEMA work with the people. And I want to thank Chairman Graves for his hard work on this important legislation and for all of you to be here to testify Currently in northern Minnesota, there are many fires going on as we speak. The fires are moving from west to east. Our staff just got off a phone call with Incident Command and the sheriff and stuff. And so when it's all said and done, there may be a request. And we want our communities to get that funding immediately because that's what they need. That's how they need to get back on their feet. And it's across this whole Nation. And I think that working together and as was stated earlier, a funding before October 1st is desirable and it must happen because we're all counting on it. These disasters, we can't plan on them. Mr. Chaitovitz, one of the questions I had, when you said a tax incentive, is that a one time? Mr. Chaitovitz. One time for each business? Mr. Stauber. Yes. One time or is it annual? Mr. Chaitovitz. I think it's up to each State when they're implemented. Mr. Stauber. Okay. Okay, I was just curious. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Frost. Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. The climate crisis is creating severe weather that is more frequent and more deadly across the entire country, and especially in my home State of Florida. That's why protecting my community from severe weather through preparedness, recovery, and mitigation has been a top priority since my first election. Besides the danger of the storms themselves, Floridians are becoming climate refugees thanks to the skyrocketing cost of homeowners insurance. Florida, along with Louisiana and Oklahoma, has the highest homeowners insurance premiums in the Nation. Many insurance companies have left Florida and thousands of Floridians are gambling with no insurance or left for settling for Florida's insurer of last resort, Citizens Property Insurance. Citizens nowadays is not that much better than being uninsured. It denies claims and then forces customers into an unfair arbitration process. The company almost always wins; it's something my office is currently investigating. We have to deal with this property insurance crisis as quickly as possible. Mr. Waller, insurance affordability is a housing affordability issue. How will the FEMA Act investments in FEMA's mitigation programs help lower homeowners insurance premiums in disaster-prone States like Florida? Mr. Waller. Thank you. I really appreciate the question. So one of the things is the money for the retrofit program. That money would go to make homes, individual homes, more resilient so they can better withstand storms. So if you do that and that house is more resilient, there's going to be less risk for that house and then the premiums will follow. So if it's less likely to get damaged or if the damage is going to be less severe because it's been hardened, then I think the premium will follow, and it'll drop with the risk. Mr. Frost. Thank you. Mr. Fugate, from the perspective of a former FEMA Administrator and former Director of FDEM, the premier emergency preparedness organization in the entire country, how can Congress work with FEMA to ensure that insurance companies are paying out the full amount of insurance claims that my constituents are owed after a storm? It's one of the things I hear about the most when I go knock doors after a hurricane. Mr. Fugate. Yes, well, it isn't gonna be FEMA. It's gonna be your State insurance commissioners. They regulate it, they enforce it, they're where this goes. But I would say that one of the things about giving FEMA--because you know this, we've got people that have paid off their mortgage and are going bare because they can't afford $7,000 or $8,000 on fixed income. So when those homes get damaged, they're losing everything. We saw that in Ian. At least with this bill, we can repair their homes and get them back in it. So in absence of an insurance solution, this is addressing that gap. But I also have another idea. We have BRIC, courts just ordered FEMA to do it again. Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities. Let's change it to what we really wanted to do: Building and Sustaining Insurable Communities. We ought to be building back as a standard on what the insurance industry will insure. That would start changing this dynamic. Because if we can move things back to more risk based and making sure that it's appropriate for the risk, the insurance is reflective of that, we get credit for the building codes, we get out of this where the taxpayer's exposure keeps growing. But we've really--if we're going to solve the insurance--I mean, insurance companies, they have investors, they only invest if they make money. Insurance companies can't make money if they don't write policies. So every time they pull out, they're writing off a market that they no longer can make a profit in. I realize profit may be something people are opposed to, but that's how the system works. We need to build homes and communities that are insurable, that people will make the investment to cover that risk, that they can get an honest return on it, which is set by your State insurance commissioner. And they pay out claims fully when those occur, which is also your State insurance commissioner. FEMA concurs that through mitigation, encouraging, not building back the way it was, make better investments. I mean, we should be building--that fire station I talked about earlier, we shouldn't be building it back to the code. We should build back to an enhanced level that the insurance company will say, that's a good risk, we'll insure that. Mr. Frost. Yes. Thank you. Ms. Sheng, after a disaster, accessing Federal aid to rebuild and prepare for future disasters should be as easy as possible. I've introduced the bill called the Post-Disaster Protection Act earlier this year, which is simple, but extends the time local governments have to appeal a FEMA disaster relief denial from 60 to 90 days. The bill has been endorsed by multiple organizations. How would such an extension for appeals help a city, county, or State recover from the last storm and prepare for the next one? Ms. Sheng. I think, given the complicated process of that, the appeal would match the FEMA policy, as well. And going from a 60- to a 90-day appeal is something that we would support. Mr. Frost. Okay. And Mr. Fugate, last question. Again, given your time helping Floridians recover from disasters as a first responder and leader of FDEM, what challenges do individual storm victims face when they're trying to file a timely and accurate application or appeal FEMA relief funds? Mr. Rouzer. You're out of time. Mr. Fugate. This will be quick because we're out of time. We have built our Individual Assistance Program around the process, not the survivor. So you have to go figure it out. I mean, how many people here know that the IRS will give you credit and allow you to file an amended return and get money back many times that had insurance and didn't qualify for any FEMA programs. They could have gotten the IRS to give them a refund. We don't tell people that. We make them figure out FEMA instead of building a system that is built around them. We are not survivor centric. We are process and program centric. Mr. Frost. Yes, 100 percent, I agree. And you know, just like a few months ago, I was knocking doors in one of the parts of my district most impacted by Ian. Not super recent, people just moving back into their homes. Many of them were living in the sheds behind their home. Many of them were living in hotels or had to leave the State. And a lot of these people have paid off their mortgage. That's their house. That's all they have. Very frustrated with FEMA, but I think this bill's a good step forward. Thank you, I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this meeting. And thank you also to our witnesses for the time and sacrifice you made to be with us today and for your expertise in this matter, we really appreciate it. I represent several counties along the Ohio River, and during heavy seasonal rains, flash floods threaten communities along the river. This is where FEMA needs to have policies and procedures in place to support communities before, during, and after natural disasters. I was proud to support the committee's work on H.R. 4669 and the commonsense reforms we passed earlier this Congress to reform FEMA and serve our constituents better. I'm looking forward to moving this bill through the full House. I represent Appalachian communities across southern Ohio that unfortunately struggle with broadband access. Without reliable internet access, many of my constituents use AM radio to get natural disaster warnings and evacuation instructions. H.R. 979, the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, which I'm a proud cosponsor of, mandates the inclusion of AM radio platforms in all new passenger vehicles. Several members of the panel are in very rural area adjacent situations. So by a show of hands, who else supports having an AM radio for all new vehicles? [Show of hands.] Mr. Taylor. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Under the previous administration, we saw irrefutable evidence of what we long expected: that FEMA was staffed with and policy was driven by highly partisan individuals who openly discriminated against and endangered conservative victims of disasters. The fact of the matter is it's impossible to staff a nonpartisan agency in Washington, DC. We have a lot of agencies in Washington, DC, that are called nonpartisan. It would take an amazing amount of naivete to believe that we actually have them. I applaud this administration's effort to move vital agencies out of this area. FEMA's decisions and policies are literally life and death. They cannot be made by ideologues. It should be on top of the list of agencies to be moved. Not only would it solve the inherent bias issue, it could place the agency in a location where it could be more responsive to the victims of disaster, but for now, it's located here. Is any member of the panel aware of efforts currently being made to root out the bias in the agency? [No response.] Mr. Taylor. Does anyone agree with my proposition that the agency would be better off in another location? Mr. Fugate. I agree. And I think a basic premise of working for Republicans and Democrats was always: disasters aren't about your party, it's about the communities that got hit. And as a Nation, we always pull together to help communities. It doesn't matter what your political affiliation is. I work for Governor Jeb Bush, I work for Charlie Crist, I work for President Obama. That's the standard. And if it isn't, we need to fix it. Mr. Taylor. We talked a little bit today about making the agency more independent. You think a combination of making it more independent and moving it to a more centrally located, at least relative to population area, would be helpful in that regard? Anybody, Mr. Fugate has answered 99 percent of the questions, and I'm sorry for that. But anybody wants to weigh on that, I'm happy to hear. Mr. Fugate. Yes, moving FEMA isn't going to change anything. And actually you're going to want them here because you want to do the hearings. But FEMA has 10 regional offices which are in the communities. We need to strengthen and encourage that that's the delivery mechanism. Headquarters is policy implementation, and rarely, which I did a lot, get directly involved in the response. That's what the regions are for. But moving FEMA, here's the reality, they work with the agencies that are here. You want them to account for stuff. They need to be near the White House as the President's principal advisor. Putting them in the middle of the country does nothing but break that. Strengthen the regions, keep FEMA here. Mr. Taylor. Okay, I might have misunderstood you. I thought earlier you said you thought it should be moved out of Washington, DC, but you think it should be kept in Washington, DC? Mr. Fugate. No, I never said move it out of DC. It's just they want to move it out of Homeland Security. I wouldn't oppose that. Mr. Taylor. Okay, just independent, but still located here where 90 percent of people are Democrats or further left. That's what you're saying? Mr. Fugate. Quite honestly, I never asked anybody what their party affiliation was. Didn't care. And being in DC, it really didn't make any difference. The partisanization and all that stuff, 99 percent of the people at FEMA, they were just trying to do the mission. There's always the odd duck and the stupid people that do stupid things. And I had my share of them. But most of the people at FEMA, they're there for the mission. They're there to help. And being in DC or not in DC, most of the people that worked at FEMA weren't from DC. In fact, most of our leadership came from State and local emergency management agencies. That's the team we built. So being in DC ain't got nothing to do with ``there's a lot of Democrats here.'' It's got to do with the talent and the people you recruit and you put in the system. And if you're doing it on a partisan basis, you're going to fail the mission. Mr. Taylor. Well, you're recruiting in an area that has 90 percent plus Democrats and you're trying to get a bipartisan staff. You think that's possible? Mr. Fugate. Yes. You have to recruit. You know where I got some of my best staff? Wounded Warriors. Cause I could hire a veteran under category A classification quicker than I could going through civil service. So if you want that--we used the tools, we went out and recruited. And I would assure you, most of the folks that ended up working at FEMA in the leadership roles and running the programs, they weren't from here. Mr. Taylor. Even the people that aren't from here end up reporting themselves to be 90 percent plus Democrat. I mean, whether they come from DC or not, we're talking about the people that are here that you have to hire from. Mr. Fugate. Well, again, that's opinions or opinions. I won't disagree and I won't say you're wrong. I'm just saying my observations were if there was an organization that was not partisan, it was FEMA. Mr. Taylor. Glad to hear it. Thank you. Thank you again, everybody for being here. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Carbajal. Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. I look forward to getting some data from my colleague, Mr. Taylor, who I like very much, but a lot of opinions and not enough facts. And I sure hope I get that data that supports his sort of political bias that he's talking about other than just a thought or thinking of it. So I look forward to getting that. Don't think I'll get it, but I look forward to getting that. Ms. Lee Sheng, I have heard from local governments on California's Central Coast that they're waiting months, in some cases years, for FEMA reimbursements needed to recover from the 2023 and 2024 storms. At the same time, Ranking Member Greg Stanton has raised concerns that FEMA personnel and resources have been diverted to support immigration enforcement activities. Are counties seeing any evidence that FEMA's disaster recovery workforce or capacity has been diminished, and if so, how has that affected the timelines of Public Assistance reimbursements? Ms. Sheng. Obviously, I think at the county level, we are a little bit immune of what goes on at the national level, but certainly we support FEMA's mission of helping with disasters before, during, and after disasters. And we certainly want FEMA fully staffed. Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Ms. Lee Sheng, across my district spanning through California's Central Coast, local governments have identified nearly $100 million in delays for FEMA reimbursements. In Santa Barbara County alone, there are 23 projects totaling nearly $36.9 million still awaiting reimbursement. Boy, that partisan Secretary Noem had $100,000 that had to go before her. It's appalling why reimbursements haven't gone out. San Luis Obispo County reports more than $21 million tied up in large projects in review. And Ventura County hospital reimbursements claim that they have been waiting for years for obligations. What do delays like this mean for county budgets, infrastructure projects, and the ability to prepare for the next disaster? Ms. Sheng. Well, I think there is widespread agreement on the reimbursement process taking a long time. Certainly, I think that everybody who looks in disaster management knows that is something that can be improved upon. But certainly, very, very hard on smaller counties that don't have the debt capacity, don't have the tax base to support having those funds, the immediate needs in front of them with a disaster and having the financial resources to counter that. So this is probably one of the largest segments of this FEMA Act that NACo supports, and we want that, the processing time, to get reduced in the form of giving upfront spending. Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Ms. Lee Sheng, some of the counties and local governments I represent describe constantly changing documentation requirements and repeated requests for information throughout the FEMA Public Assistance process. Some have shared that they have had to repeatedly resubmit documentation and respond to changing guidance as different FEMA staff become involved in their projects. Is administrative burden becoming one of the biggest obstacles to disaster recovery? Ms. Sheng. I think when we looked at this, the task force as well as our NACo members looked at this, as well, yes, that is the common theme that we have seen. It is complicated, there are delays, it is slow. And sometimes you have to start a process over again. And so I think, when we discuss it at NACo, that is the widespread belief is that we need to streamline these processes and it will get--again, get the funding to the counties quicker. Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Now, if I was being political like my previous colleague alluded to, this administration has put in tons of Republicans into public service. Is this what we get? Ms. Sheng. I---- Mr. Carbajal [interrupting]. Ms. Sheng, you don't even have to answer that. That was a rhetorical question. FEMA's Public Assistance Program was designed to help communities recover after disasters. But again, many local governments now describe the reimbursement process as unpredictable and taking years to complete. In your view, what has changed, and how can Congress restore a more timely process? Ms. Sheng. Well, I think the FEMA Act is critical. I think, from a county perspective, we will see a disaster happen and we will quickly try to do after-action reports and respond quickly to make it better. Certainly, when you look at a Federal system with the amount of departments that are there, it is a very large system. It is very difficult to make quick movements and changes. It takes an act of Congress to do it, I would say, and that is why we support the FEMA Act. But we just generally believe that emergency management and disasters are coming at us at a quicker pace. They are very complicated. We are having new challenges and all we want at NACo is to have our disaster relief match the challenges that we face, and so that we really believe this reform is necessary. Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. In closing, let me just say DOGE was supposed to make things more effective and efficient. It ended up costing us more and it made things burdensome, chaotic, and bureaucratic. Thank you so much. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Kiley. Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We all know that FEMA has had a lot of problems, and the FEMA Act which cleared this committee earlier this year, is certainly a major step in the right direction, and this is the way that legislation really should be done. It was done in a bipartisan way with a huge amount of local input to actually identify what are the problems on the ground, how can we improve disaster response in this country. And this is of particular concern for a lot of folks in California, where we have been hit by some truly devastating wildfires. Of course, we have all seen in the aftermath of the L.A. fires how many homeowners have struggled to be able to rebuild and how the process has been incredibly slow there, but perhaps even more so in several communities that I represent, much smaller communities that were struck by fires that weren't necessarily on the national radar but then they just went through terrible ordeals trying to rebuild their communities in the aftermath, people not being able to access their home, not being able to start rebuilding on their home. So Mr. Fugate, you mentioned in your testimony one of the provisions of the FEMA Act dealing with repair authority. So could you just talk a little bit more about that, how it might help homeowners in this type of circumstance who are trying to recover and rebuild? Mr. Fugate. Yes, I mean, this is basic economy act. If you are not appropriated and authorized to do something, you can't do it. Nowhere in the Stafford Act does it say FEMA can do permanent repairs. So we use shelter authority and we weasel- word it and try to figure out how to do it. This would give clear authority. So instead of putting a tarp on a roof at about $7,000 to $10,000, we can actually repair the roof. Now, if the home is burnt to the slab, this is not going to help them. But if there are damages, walls that were damaged and you need to make repairs to get the power back on to get people back home, it makes more sense to me, as a taxpayer, to spend the money to do permanent work to get people back in their homes than to provide a temporary solution that ends at 18 months and they have nowhere to go. Mr. Kiley of California. Yes, total, total common sense for folks who have been through the trauma of losing their home. The last thing they need is to have arbitrary bureaucratic barriers that stand in the way of getting back in their home or starting to rebuild their homes. Another important thing that the FEMA Act does is really shift the paradigm towards disaster readiness and prevention. So Mr. Chaitovitz, you talk about this some in your testimony. Can you shed a little light on how the FEMA Act will make us better prepared to stop wildfires before they happen? Mr. Chaitovitz. Well, I appreciate it. So the formula-based funding, where they switched BRIC from a competitive approach to formula-based will make funding more reliable to those communities and homeowners in order to receive the funding ahead of time to prepare ahead of the disaster to implement those measures that can help mitigate what might happen going forward. The chamber also supports the Fix Our Forests Act, which also has passed through the House early in 2025. And so those things together can be very helpful in moving forward with wildfire prevention. Mr. Kiley of California. Yes, and I think the formulation behind the FEMA Act that several others have mentioned--locally driven, State-managed, federally supported--is exactly the right formulation for all these things. And on the prevention and mitigation front, I have a couple of measures that I have introduced. One I have introduced--one we are introducing this week. The first is the SAFE HOME Act, which is giving folks a tax incentive for mitigation work that they do on their own homes, strategic tree removal, upgrading materials, that sort of thing. And then the second, which we are going to introduce this week, is a bill related to biomass. And as we have seen, one of the things that has made it more difficult to have effective forest management in our State is the industry has really collapsed when it comes to the timber industry. And one of the potential uses of timber has proven to be economically difficult, and that is biomass. And so when you--it comes to actually getting these facilities up and running, a lot of times they don't pencil out, even though it provides a good economic incentive to do tree removal that is actually good from a forest management perspective. So with that kind of externality, positive externality, we think that there is a strong case for Federal incentives there beyond just the incentives you get for the production of energy but for the construction of the facility. So this week, we are going to be introducing legislation that will provide a total 30 percent tax credit for the cost of building a biomass facility, which is another thing that I think will move us in the right direction in terms of prevention and will have a host of other benefits as well. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening this hearing. I hope to see the FEMA Act enacted into law this year, and I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Titus. Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I thank all the panelists for being here. I was the ranking member of the Emergency Management Subcommittee, so I have long been working on these issues. And one of the things that has concerned me is getting FEMA to recognize and be involved in a disaster that greatly impacts my district, and that is extreme heat. Extreme heat kills more people every year than tornadoes and hurricanes combined--and floods. Last year, there were nearly 300 heat-associated deaths in southern Nevada, and just this weekend, temperatures have already reached 111 degrees in my district. That is why, along with Mr. Stanton, I introduced the Extreme Weather and Heat Response Modernization Act. This was to bring FEMA more into the process to help them better address the issue of extreme heat and provide communities with more resources like cooling centers to address the issue and keep people safe during these times. Key provisions of the bill were in the FEMA Act, which I am very pleased passed out of this committee last year. One of them was to convene an advisory committee to study periods of disaster that are slow onset or noncontiguous, which is what extreme heat is. So I would ask you, President Lee, in your testimony you talk about how the Jefferson Parish experienced 43 consecutive days of record-breaking heat in recent years. That is a different kind of heat from in Las Vegas. That is not a dry heat like we have, but it is just as threatening. I wonder if you could talk about some of the challenges you faced at the local level responding to this kind of nontraditional natural disaster and how having Federal support would help you to mitigate the threat. Ms. Sheng. I think what you said is very key, that it is a nontraditional disaster. And certainly, that has been our experience where I come from in Louisiana. In 2023, we had 43 days of record-breaking heat. That hazard--I generally like to say that hazards make babies. That hazard caused an infrastructure line to break, where I had to turn off the water for 100,000 people. That hazard of drought also caused something called saltwater intrusion, which I didn't even know about at the time, which threatened the entire drinking supply in the Greater New Orleans area. So again, this is the importance of the FEMA Act is we are seeing different kinds of challenges, different kinds of hazards that we have never seen before. We had snow where I come from in Louisiana. We have never had snow before. So it is very frightening, to be frank. And we want, as a country, to have a disaster reform and disaster response that matches the new challenges that we face. Ms. Titus. I appreciate that, and this is going to get worse with climate change. We are going to see more of these kinds of instances, and we are going to see it in places where you haven't seen it in the past. Extreme heat doesn't get the attention that it deserves because it doesn't make for good TV. You can't see the big flood, you can't see the tornado results, and it is more prolonged. When did it start? When did it stop? Who all is impacted? Can you offer any suggestion for how FEMA might better work with local governments on this issue? Ms. Sheng. Well, I think, especially in this act, it is-- what we want to see is mitigation reform. And that is something that, especially with heat for where I come from, it is challenging to all of our infrastructure. Not only does extreme heat affect people in vulnerable communities, but it also affects soil conditions. So a lot of things are going on underground that you don't know about that are going to pop up, so I think the mitigation piece in this and moving to a project-based mitigation instead of a competitive will help on that front. Ms. Titus. Thank you. Mr. Chaitovitz, we are talking about how heat impacts lives, but it also impacts livelihoods. Can you talk about kind of how the toll of extreme heat is on industry? Mr. Chaitovitz. Well, I--thanks so much for the question, and I agree with President Lee Sheng about the kind of the multihazard nature of heat and its relationship to drought. And drought has direct relationship to the economy, impacting not just agriculture, but sectors across the economy like electric cooperatives. Ms. Titus. Also on forest fires, you are seeing more connection with the drought and the heat and the forest fires. Mr. Chaitovitz. Sure. The issues related to wildfire that were raised earlier, the predisaster mitigation provisions in the bill to look ahead of the next disaster so that we can address an all-hazards approach, I think, is an appropriate way for FEMA to address this, and the bill is well positioned to do that. Ms. Titus. We see a lot of spread of data centers in wide- open spaces in the Southwest, where heat is an issue. And how is that going to connect to water use and power use, I think, is going to be part of this discussion. Mr. Chaitovitz. Can you repeat the question? I didn't---- Ms. Titus [interrupting]. Well, it wasn't really a question. It was just an observation---- Mr. Chaitovitz [interposing]. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Titus [continuing]. About the impact of data centers on this as well. Thank you, I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Ms. King-Hinds. Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of you for your insight and sharing your experiences so that we can all learn and hopefully be better contributors in terms of the reforms that we are discussing. I represent the Northern Mariana Islands, where we have been through more than enough named disasters that we don't measure time by years, we measure them by storms. And every time we try to get back on our feet, something else knocks us down. And just to give you context, we got hit by Typhoon Soudelor in 2015, which was described as the world's strongest tropical cyclone. And then in 2018, we got hit by Super Typhoon Yutu, which was described as the strongest storm anywhere on Earth in 2018. And then 2020, we all got hit by the pandemic, which basically brought global tourism down to, like, a standstill. And because tourism is our economy, it killed that, too. And then earlier this year--and by earlier, 2 months ago-- we got hit by Typhoon Sinlaku, which lasted for 4 days and was described as the world's strongest storm of the year. And then just a week ago, we get hit by Super Typhoon Bavi, which was described as the world's strongest typhoon to hit, right, in just a matter of time. And so, in having these conversations about reform, I do agree that everybody needs to have skin in the game. And I guess this is a question to Mr. Fugate: What happens when communities--and how do we look at these policies and these reforms to consider communities who are experiencing these disasters not as a singular event, but are feeling this cumulative impact and no longer have skin to give? Mr. Fugate. Yes, this is--I mean, I remember the tracks were all going to Guam, and now they shifted north. And if you went down to Guam and you looked at how it got rebuilt-- fortunately it had a big military, so that supported that--it changed the construction. There were no more wooden poles. Everything was concrete, they had to harden. And I think that is where, from a Federal taxpayer, the advantage is we should not be putting CNMI back the way it was. We should be building for the fact that you are going to have continual exposure to super typhoons, and a lot of construction that people would think would be appropriate doesn't work there. That costs more money on the front end, but it doesn't make sense to keep rebuilding every time. And as you pointed out, the frequency of the occurrence of these--I mean, it was--for a long time, Guam got hit, Saipan and CNMI got outskirts. Now you are getting hit directly. Now you--and this is kind of like how south Florida, southwest Florida feels. You get hit, like, three hurricanes in a row, you get to the point where we can't keep doing what we have been doing and expect it to work. I think that is where the bill gets to, is we are going to have to change what we are doing. But I think, more importantly, this concept of building back based upon 100 years of data and standards won't work, especially in your situation. So we have to build for future risk. We have to build as if super typhoons are not rare events. And I think that is a hard thing for people to get around, because they think of these as singular events and you know they are not. But communities get hit hard, they go, that was our disaster for 100 years and we will go back to the way it was. And then it happens 5 years later and they go, I thought you said that was a 100-year event. They have no idea what that means. Ms. King-Hinds. Yes, it is like every other month now. Mr. Fugate. But it does not make sense to do incremental improvements because it will only fail for the next one. It is like rebuilding a fire station that got hit by a category 4 hurricane and building it to the building codes. It will fail in the next category 4 hurricane. Why don't we build it for the function? So I think that is really--this bill gives that flexibility, but it is also going to come back to FEMA working with the Governor and Congress. There are going to be some cases where the rebuilding costs will be substantially higher in the Territories than it would be domestically. We had to rebuild homes in American Samoa. People had heart failure at what it cost. We also have Buy American, which also conflicts and causes problems because all the resources have to come from the mainland. But if you build it back the way it was, you will have it destroyed again. It's as simple as that. Ms. King-Hinds. Thank you for that. I am running out of time. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and to all of our witnesses, of course. Let's be clear why we are here. The President is weaponizing the Federal disaster aid process. Since 2025, residents of Illinois have faced severe storms and tornadoes that have damaged homes and businesses. In my district, communities like Burbank Summit and Chicago's Southwest Side endured intense thunderstorms last July. This heavy rainfall flooded roads, overwhelmed drainage systems, causing severe flooding of people's basements. Flooded basements cause mold, which creates health hazards for residents, especially children and the elderly. Families have been forced out of their homes while expensive repairs are made. Despite the extensive documented damage from the July 2025 storms, the President denied the State's major disaster request. Unfortunately, it wasn't surprising. The decision fit the larger pattern of denials of requests from Democratic Governors. It is yet another example of the President's willingness to put politics over working families who are the affected ones. This hearing is also timely due to the release of a report by the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management detailing how FEMA staff and resources are being shifted to support ICE and CBP. Let's let that sink in. The people tasked with responding to disasters in the U.S. were diverted to provide support for executing arrests, raids, and patrols for ICE and CBP, the same ICE and CBP that killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston; Joan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine; Silverio Villegas Gonzalez in my district in Chicagoland; Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis; and others over the last year and a half. The Trump administration deportation machine truly knows no bounds. This report clearly lays out how this administration has repeatedly undermined FEMA's primary mission. My questions. Mr. Fugate, thank you for being here. In your opinion, why is it important that the FEMA Administrator have clear operational authority over the Nation's emergency management system, free from interference from DHS? Mr. Fugate. Do you really want a committee coordinating the response? Because that is what happens when everybody has a say. Giving FEMA, the Administrator--which the law says they have got, but if they are not allowed to do that, now they are having to go through all these other people who weigh in who have their ideas of how to do it. That's the problem. You can't run disasters by committee. You need to put people in accountable positions. And remember, FEMA is not running the disaster. FEMA is running the Federal response in support of the Governor. And so that ability to do that job to execute on behalf of the President, where the authorities arise, to meet the needs of those States--not always giving them what they want, but what the law allows and working as much as possible to get to the margins, that is the job. And when you have to go through multiple opinions, other people weighing in, a Secretary that imposes a $100,000 purchasing limit--which in FEMA would be like a joke--I never did anything that was under $100,000, which meant now, when I activate to send the search and rescue teams to Texas for the flood, that is $1 million to crank up a team. And they have to get permission to do that? You know how much time that delays? Those are the kinds of decisions we had told our staff, make them, we execute. You gave us that authority. You gave us authority to respond before a Governor asked for help. But if you have to get a committee to make a decision, you are losing every advantage you gave FEMA. And if they are not executing the authority, it slows down response and it causes more problems. Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, sir. And just quickly, does a reduced FEMA workforce impact the agency's ability to lead and support a comprehensive emergency management system? Mr. Fugate. Well, you are not going to like this answer. The answer is yes and no. Yes because of the complexity of how we run things. If we did the Fix FEMA Act, we can run it with a lot less people. Most of the staff are tied up in recovery. If we simplify procedures, we can do it with fewer staff. Running it as today, it takes a lot more people than you realize. Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, sir. And that is why I support this bill, because emergency response and disaster relief should be nonpartisan. It shows how absurd the structure at DHS is. I am ready to approve this bill. Thank you. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Patronis. Mr. Patronis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this important meeting today. Ladies, gentlemen, thank you all for being here, and especially your expertise and time. Mr. Fugate, thank you for your service to the State of Florida and also our Nation. It is a thankless job. You take a lot of arrows in the front and in the back over your career. I hate that you come from Gainesville, but it is what it is. But really, you are admired and appreciated for your candidness today. I had the honor of being the State CFO and fire marshal in Florida for about the last 9 years and had nine hurricanes that we responded to. And it was interesting watching the evolution of people's confidence and ability to make decisions over time, as they kind of understand what the battle rhythm of what to expect. The one thing that I have learned and I point out to people all the time, especially when it comes to the insurance claims process, when you think about a person that lives in their home, most people in America, if they are in the ability where they bought a home, they are living at home, they bought it. And you think about how much smaller that audience is of maybe the home they live in, they built it. Who in the hell rebuilds a home? It's overwhelming. And I keep on speaking just to the point of--where I am most familiar is with hurricanes, and the trauma and the vulnerability and the challenges and the fussing that local government--and there is a reason why they call these events disasters. They don't move smoothly. But to Mr. Fugate's point earlier, sometimes you have to make a decision and move on because you have to be able to start to put things back together. Your comments regarding allowing FEMA to get into the space of rebuilding, I would like you maybe to elaborate on that, because that has always been something I was excited about. Instead of giving somebody $37,000 or $38,000 worth of living expense money over the period they are entitled to, over 18 months, you could have given them nine grand, and they could have fixed their roof, and they would be back in their home. Where is the impasse for those types of solutions from becoming a reality? Why can't we have that on a consistent basis? Mr. Fugate. Well, Representative--and again, I thank you for your service as fire commissioner. That is not an easy job, either. We used to measure recovery by how many blue roofs we had. Mr. Patronis. Yes. Mr. Fugate. Remember that? Mr. Patronis. Yes. Mr. Fugate. We would fly over and go, we got blue. We are recovering. No you don't. You got a patch that will last 6 months and then it is going to fail. And it is costing us, through the contractor, $6,000, $7,000, $10,000 to put that tarp up there---- Mr. Patronis [interposing]. Right. Mr. Fugate [continuing]. Because FEMA can only do temporary sheltering. So we were sheltering in their homes. By giving them permanent authority, you can go, well, instead of putting a--and we may still put the patch on there to begin with--why don't we fix the roof, you know? Even if I did a full roof replacement and brought it to code, that is $30,000 to $35,000. That is a lot cheaper than putting a travel trailer, a mobile home, or paying 18 months of hotel expenses. And I get people back in their home. And you saw, as I did---- Mr. Patronis [interposing]. Yes. Mr. Fugate [continuing]. If we don't get them back in their home quick enough, they are never getting back there. Mr. Patronis. That is right. Mr. Fugate. You got to get the power on, the air conditioning on, stop the water, control the mold. And if we lose that home, we just lost another workforce housing that will never get rebuilt affordable. Mr. Patronis. Well, you are exactly right. And then you get the trauma of 18 months later, well, we got to get you out of your mobile home that FEMA has provided for you, and how hard it is on that community because you are trying to stabilize it, putting a roof over somebody's head. But I just--I have always thought that was such a brilliant idea of a better use of taxpayers' dollars and pre-event contracts for repairs. With Mr. Waller, let's talk about insurance claims a minute. So in Florida what we did, we would set up insurance claims villages and we would bring in people. But now we also-- we played a role of dealing with insurance fraud and how predatory the environment is. I mean, I told people, I said the public adjusters and the shady contractors, they are better prestaged than utilities are. I mean, it is what it is. They are there waiting to pounce and get people to sign up. And some of the horrific things I saw people go through--but the challenge that people have, it is what it is. You know what? I think everybody can find the salesman that approaches them in a vulnerable time with a gas can and a case of water pretty attractive, but sometimes an insurance adjuster, the frustration they get--and I have to explain to people. I said, it is not like you are replacing a 2026 Chevrolet Tahoe that has a VIN number that thousands of them are produced and they are all cookie cutter. Every home was built at a different time, a different day. But how do we--where are our shortcomings of helping build more consumer confidence in the claims process? Is it the role of Government to do it? Where can the industry step up? Mr. Waller. So we are talking about the fraud after a storm, in particular? Mr. Patronis. All of the above, and ensuring the policyholder gets money in a timely manner. Because here is the deal. We all have insurance and it is embedded in our mortgage. Sometimes I don't even know that it's in there. Some people don't know that. But please elaborate. Mr. Waller. One of the things I thought of when you were talking about the issues after a storm, I have seen more States pass laws regarding assignment of benefits. So it prohibits that exact situation where a roofer rolls up on your yard, and they step out and they tell you, hey, your roof is torn up, but it's okay, I can take care of you. I have got this iPad. Just check a couple boxes here. You won't even have to deal with your insurance company. I will deal with your insurance company. Oh, do you have a deductible? No problem. I will take care of that deductible, too. That sounds great. And like most things that sound too good to be true, it is. What we often see is that that shows up to the insurance company. Our first notice is when we get a bill that may be two or three times what it should have cost to repair that roof. Now it is a problem. We start to--now this is the first time we know about it, and we let our insured know. It is the first time the insured knows, because they weren't aware that they gave up that claim. And it puts them in a real spot, because if that issue isn't able to be resolved, and sometimes it isn't, that roofer can then put pressure on the insured by saying--or the person that had the house--saying, I am going to put a lien on, and maybe I will just foreclose on your house and that way I will get all this money. So I have seen States pass that. And the commissioner in Kentucky said, I can't do a lot about storms; I can do something about fraud. And that has really helped in some of those States where they have passed that. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Figures. Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, guys, for all coming to what I thought was the FEMA hearing, but it appears that it is the Craig Fugate oversight hearing today. But I appreciate you being here. Certainly, I appreciate you guys' collective expertise. FEMA plays a critical role that you guys all know in helping communities prepare and respond and recover to disasters. And as we examine opportunities to reform the agency, our goal should certainly be to ensure it can deliver assistance more efficiently, effectively, and equitably to the Americans who depend on it. This discussion is especially important for communities like those I represent in Alabama's Second Congressional District, which includes my hometown of Mobile that has a very interesting FEMA history with being the location where President Bush uttered those famous words about then-FEMA Administrator Mike Brown doing an excellent job in Katrina recovery. But as a Gulf State, Alabama is particularly vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes. Every hurricane season our communities prepare for the possibility of those devastating winds and flooding and storm surge and prolonged power outages. In recent years, we have also seen severe weather become more frequent, more intense, and more costly. Whether it is hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, drought, or severe storms, communities across Alabama are facing disasters with increasing regularity, as are many communities across this Nation. Over the past 5 years alone, Alabama has received at least six major disaster declarations, and communities across the State continue to face severe weather events that strain local resources. Several of those counties are in my district. In addition to Mobile, counties like Barbour County, Bullock, Butler, Clarke, Conecuh, Crenshaw, Monroe, Montgomery Counties; Pike County, Russell and Washington Counties. Look, as these disasters become more frequent and more costly, we examine whether the Federal disaster assistance process is working as intended. I represent a district where the individual median income is about $33,000. And I know, President Sheng, your communities there in Louisiana are not much different. And so when these disasters come through, a lot of times what we see--I heard--I was talking about tarps-- Representative Patronis was talking about tarps. What we see in a lot of situations in my district is those tarps are going on houses that people don't own. They are going on rental properties, essentially. And I grew up in Mobile. There are some tarps that have been up there 20 years, 20-plus years. Can you talk to me a little bit about the challenges that you face in communities where you have this sort of income level, and the challenges that are unique to those communities and how you think FEMA can better assist those people who are not necessarily homeowners? Ms. Sheng. Yes, I think one of the elements of the FEMA Act that would directly help those people is the universal disaster application. Obviously, you get relief in over--I think the number I have heard--17 different Federal agencies give disaster relief. And when you are a member of a vulnerable community, you have lost your housing, your kids are displaced, trying to reach and access those benefits is very, very, very difficult, and it ends up being the help--the locals have to help them to the extent that we can. So the benefit is there, it's legally there, but how do you access it? It is very, very difficult. So we really promote the universal disaster application for benefits for survivors. Mr. Figures. Thank you. Ms. Sheng. And that is in this act. Mr. Figures. Thank you. And Mr. Fugate, what are your thoughts on the matter in terms of how FEMA can be better streamlined to provide assistance for those poorer communities? Mr. Fugate. A lot of those rental properties--because we treat it like a business, and so we are not supposed to provide business assistance. Mr. Figures. Yes. That is my point, yes. Mr. Fugate. A lot of those are second homes. People are retired, they rent their homes out. And that is the affordable housing. I am not talking about the investment firms that go up and buy them; I am talking about people that don't even have the resources to make repairs. But we put a wall up saying, if it's privately owned and being rented, it's not eligible, and we are losing housing stock. I don't know if that is FEMA, if that is HUD, but you have seen it, the mayor has seen it. We have seen this every time. When a storm hits, a flood hits, we lose the workforce housing. And those rental properties are key because the people that had insurance on those rental properties, when they rebuild them, they are not renting them at what it was before. So we are getting priced out. It is a hole. I don't think the FEMA Act can address this. I don't think FEMA, the current Stafford Act, is addressing this. But I think, of all the things--insurance--these are symptoms. We are losing workforce housing faster than we can build it, and I am not talking just affordable housing. I am talking about where firefighters live, doctors, nurses, paramedics, people running the local home improvement stores. They can't even afford to live in their communities. You have seen this in Mobile. We have actually watched the progression as people have moved inland and inland because there is nothing left in the communities you used to live in that they can afford, and it's getting worse. Mr. Figures. Well, I appreciate it, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on ways to address that. Thank you. Mr. Rouzer. Dr. Babin. Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is very sobering testimony there, Mr. Fugate. Thank you. And I want to thank the chairman and ranking member, and also thank you to all you witnesses here. As we consider reforms to FEMA, it is important that we focus not only on improving disaster response, but also on strengthening disaster preparedness before storms and other emergencies even occur. Families, businesses, and local communities in my district in the Texas 36, southeast Texas, are very, very familiar with hurricanes, tornadoes, and a lot of floods. We know firsthand that preparing before a storm makes landfall can save lives, reduce damage, and speed recovery. I recently joined local officials at a hurricane preparedness expo in Chambers County, which I represent, where we discussed the importance of helping communities prepare before disasters strike. These conversations reinforce that effective preparedness begins at the local level and depends on strong coordination among Federal, State, and local partners. And I want to say how much--again, how much I appreciate all of you all being here today. Mr. Fugate, I recently participated in this preparedness expo in Chambers County where local officials stressed that preparation is key to saving lives. And as Congress considers reforms to FEMA, what are the most effective steps that FEMA can take to help communities better prepare before a hurricane makes landfall? And where do you believe that the biggest preparedness gaps still exists? You have got a long resume, and I appreciate your service. Mr. Fugate. It's not the Fixing FEMA Act, but this committee oversees--it is the emergency management preparedness grant program. That is a 50/50 cost share program. That means State and local puts up 50 percent, and the Federal taxpayer puts up 50 percent. That helps fund in many communities-- especially in your district, they couldn't even have an emergency management director out of their budgets. They couldn't afford it. But when it is 50/50, they make it work. And I think that program gives us the basis of having competent emergency managers and the baseline program because I think that is one of the things we always forget. We can do everything for FEMA, but if the State and locals can't execute and run it, we haven't fixed it. So I think those grant programs that are predisaster, especially that program that is a 50/50 match, is the best investment for the Federal taxpayer because it builds capabilities, it allows communities to handle the disasters that never rise to the Federal level. But when the Federal level is implemented, it works. The biggest gap? Too many people think it won't happen to them, and then they expect somebody to come save them. Dr. Babin. That's right. Mr. Fugate. And that's why I'm adamant the public is part of the resource. The public is the first responder. They get there before anybody else. We got to quit treating them as victims, treat them as part of the team, and make it clear--no matter what Government does. Government ain't going to get to you fast enough. Most of the time you are going to be rescued by a neighbor. We ought to be building upon that. Dr. Babin. Amen. Southeast Texas has endured devastating storms, and I remember them very vividly: Hurricanes Harvey, Laura, Beryl. Looking back on these disasters, what lessons have been learned that Congress should incorporate into FEMA reform that would improve disaster response and long-term recovery for communities that face repeated hurricanes? Other than the 50/50 cost share that you were talking about, what else can we do? Mr. Fugate. Again, I think it's working with the Governors and the local communities of when does it make sense? Because what we don't want to do is--and I think this is a real problem--we got too many communities that are waiting for somebody else to come take care of them, and they won't invest their own money. That is why I like the 50/50, because that keeps--everybody has got skin in the game. But how do we make sure that when we are spending Federal taxpayers' money, it is buying down the Federal taxpayers' exposure? That's why the sliding scale is so critical, because it recognizes States that are doing more, that have more skin in the game, that are buying down their risk. And the Federal taxpayers should reward that. For States that are failing there, they shouldn't continue paying the full price. Dr. Babin. Amen. Thank you so very much. I appreciate all your service, Mr. Fugate, and thank you all to all you witnesses for being here, as well. So, I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Pou. Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When FEMA was created, its purpose was simple: to centralize emergency disaster relief so communities could get the help that they need and get it fast. States and cities put their lives in the hands of FEMA. Communities like mine believe FEMA will, in fact, be there for them, regardless of their political affiliation or where they live. But sadly, as it has already been spoken about earlier in this hearing, that clearly is no longer the case and that is no longer true. And I say that because earlier we heard the statistics whereby since President Trump was sworn in, FEMA has only just approved 23 percent of those disaster requests from States that have Democratic Governors and two Democratic Senators. And this all while, clearly, blizzards, heat waves, and catastrophic rain have only increased. And I realize and know the response that was given earlier, so I am not going to ask the question. But make no mistake, FEMA absolutely can benefit from reforms. Too often, communities are waiting for months or years to receive aid. Mr. Fugate, you were in New Jersey with President Obama after Hurricane Irene, and know the importance of communication and coordination, an area that could indeed be improved today. Yet FEMA has slashed its workforce by 6,000 workers. It has delayed or eliminated the release of vital funding and resources that a State like mine depends on. Mr. Fugate, very simply because I know our time is very short, yes or no, do mass firings and eliminating funding negatively impact FEMA's ability to effectively perform disaster response? Mr. Fugate. It's neither yes or no. The simple answer would just say yes and move on. The answer is, it's very complicated. There is a tendency to think we measure response by number of bodies and seats, and that's not how it works. And how many staff we have is really about how effective the staff are and the programs. I think the Fixing FEMA Act addresses the complexity that requires all the staff, and it can be done with fewer staff. Remember, in the Obama administration, my staffing level at the maximum is less than the current staffing level at FEMA. Ms. Pou. Well, thank you for that, but here is what I would just say. Just last Friday, President Trump denied disaster aid to four States, including an $84 million request from New Jersey for February's extreme winter storms. That in itself-- once again, I think it's important for us to make sure that we have the ability to provide those services, whether or not it is with the ample number of employees, as you have mentioned, or to making sure that we are not eliminating those very employees who have the wherewithal and the proper training and the ability to perform their job. So I think that's the important part, and we need not make decisions just simply on political decisions. But thank you very much for that. Again, I think FEMA has been critical in trying to prevent catastrophic harm through the agency's disaster mitigation funding. Mr. Waller, your group, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, has spoken in support of predisaster mitigation funding. These programs have been critical investments to prevent catastrophic harm. Tragically, this administration is gutting that as well. Fortunately, the Federal courts have ruled that the administration illegally dismantled the BRIC and ordered its restoration. However, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program has had no funding opportunities released for fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026. Mr. Waller, quickly, can you list three ways in which predisaster mitigation programs help prevent costly postdisaster rebuilding? Mr. Waller. Sure. So when our--in the FEMA Act, it provides for a retrofit program for our existing housing stock, which is very important. So those homes will be hardened when they get that money so they are less likely to have damage or are less likely to have severe damage. That saves money both on the repairs and insurance is going to follow that risk. But also with the BRIC program and the money that has been invested this year, if the public infrastructure is stronger, then, as you heard earlier, we are going to be able to--if the roads are dry, the pumps are working, the lights are on because the substations have been hardened, all of those things, we are going to be able to get in quicker to assess the damage as the insurance industry, and the construction workers are going to be able to follow us more quickly and get those repairs done. So I think in all those ways, it will benefit the public. Ms. Pou. Thank you so very much. My time has run out, so I will thank the chairman. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I have been through far too many disasters in my State of California, especially in northern California, so I am all too familiar with FEMA, and Mr. Fugate and I have interacted on many occasions over the years. But to start off, just to speak to this politicization issue that keeps getting brought up by the other side, here is what I know in California. Billions of dollars in FEMA aid have come through. In the first Trump administration, when we had the Oroville Dam spillway disaster and there was a request for Federal funding, it came through from the Trump administration. When we had the deadly Camp Fire, the deadliest fire in California history, every single Federal request for aid came through. And even in the L.A. fires, $2.7 billion has been allocated to California for the L.A. fires. So to say that somehow this is being politicized is completely ridiculous. And in the case--and California is exhibit A of that. We have had many disasters and we have asked for that aid. And I also--look, FEMA is a little bit like lawyers, right? Everybody hates them until you need them, right? And I will say there have been many occasions where FEMA has come through and been very helpful in some calamities that we have experienced in the State. It doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be reform, and I appreciate the comments of former director Mr. Fugate on that point. I think many of those things were identified. I want to move into the real business here, which is let's talk a little about wildfire. And in terms of hardening, there has been a real focus on just, like, full hardening of existing homes. It is--number one, that is very expensive, especially if you are talking about retroactively doing it to an older home. What about partial hardening and clustering that helps provide community defense? Might that be actually a lower cost, and maybe even a more effective way of dealing with wildfire disasters? And maybe I will go to Mr. Fugate and then Mr. Waller, if you wanted to follow up on that. Mr. Fugate. A blunt answer? A partial home still has burned down. I mean, it is pretty much--everybody is complaining about the cost, but if the home has combustible material exposed to the outside, and we get a fire, and they start that blowing-- because when you get into Paradise, what you found was it wasn't the fire, it was the embers. And once one home lit, they were all gone. Mr. Gallagher. The rest of them went, too. Mr. Fugate. So if you are not going to increase the space between the homes, you are not going to enforce not having any combustibles around there, and you are not going to use building materials that are noncombustible, I don't know if a partial works in these extreme conditions. I mean, we face the same thing in utilities when we harden. Do we go underground or do we merely harden? So it is a tradeoff. It's a risk decision. Do we buy down risk enough where it's a good investment, or are we just setting up the scenario where it will work some of the time but not in the catastrophic wildfire? And again, I realize people--they make this all about affordability. I look at total cost of ownership. Will my home be there after the fire? Mr. Gallagher. Yes. Mr. Fugate. That is what I want to know. Mr. Gallagher. I get that. Mr. Waller, and, like, community defense, certainly clearing around homes, we have to keep combustible materials from around homes. But clustering, is that a function that maybe helps reduce risk? Mr. Waller. The only thing I would say in addition is that we started off by talking about the embers, and they can fly for miles. And so, from the community perspective, yes, if we are, from a community perspective, reducing the fuel load, paying more attention to the vegetation, things like that, and making the community more hardened, then I think that is going to help overall. Mr. Gallagher. And then, just to follow up on that, in the wake of wildfires, especially in places like California, insurance premiums have markedly increased. How do the provisions of the FEMA Act speed up and improve mitigation funding, help make insurance more affordable, especially in a place like California where we are seeing rates go up quite a bit? Mr. Waller. Sure. Well, I think when the grant money is used for things that we know from building sciences that will better harden, protect houses from wildfire, that that is going to reduce the risk. And I think insurance will follow that. Mr. Gallagher. Yes. Well, that is good news. I mean, we want to do things and that is why I think this legislation is so important. We need to bring down insurance premiums, especially in places like California. Then my last question here is Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, we have had a lot of issues with that, the lengthy environmental review and obligation. So for example, in Shasta County, FEMA received project deliverables in July of 2023, but EHP review didn't finish until May of this year, 2026. So that is just one example. These delays put critical wildfire mitigation work at risk, especially when the State match funds expire in 2028 and cannot be extended. In this committee's FEMA Act, it would address several of those structural problems we are seeing with those delays. From your experience, what are the most important structural changes FEMA could make to improve that Hazard Mitigation Grant Program? Mr. Waller. Staying with me? I think some of the upfront funding would really help. It gets that money out quick so the work can begin quicker. Mr. Gallagher. Okay, and I see my time has expired. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mrs. Foushee. Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for their testimonies, and to our chair and ranking member for holding this timely briefing today. When Hurricane Helene devastated western North Carolina, lives were lost, bridges were swept away, and businesses and homes were destroyed. Both Federal and State investments have proven to be critical in helping rebuild these communities. Just this weekend, FEMA announced another injection of disaster relief funding for North Carolina totaling $48 million, while at the State level, Governor Stein signed a budget bill last week that included more than $700 million for Helene recovery. While I am immensely grateful that these hard-hit communities continue to receive much-needed Federal and State relief, there is still a great deal of work left to be done. I think there is bipartisan consensus that FEMA needs to work more efficiently to coordinate disaster relief and recovery efforts, and that is a large part of why we are here today and why the FEMA Act is so vital. But it also hasn't escaped me that, despite this consensus, this administration has been making it objectively harder for FEMA to do its job, redirecting over a half billion dollars from FEMA to build migrant detention centers, reassigning FEMA caseworkers to process deportations instead, and making drastic funding cuts and staffing reductions. Administrator Fugate, can you speak to the ways in which these actions from the administration may be compounding FEMA's struggles to quickly and efficiently provide much-needed disaster relief to affected communities across the country? Mr. Fugate. I don't even think it's the money or the staffing. I think it's the morale. People at FEMA were so scared in the first part of the administration with the way the Secretary operated that it was paralysis. They couldn't make decisions. They couldn't authorize anything over $100,000. Of all the damage that occurred in that first part, I would say it was the morale and fear of FEMA--just people doing their jobs. It has more impact than people realize. It isn't the money. The Stafford Act didn't run out of money. There was money there. They transferred it, but it didn't run out. They moved staff around. The issue was, I think, morale. I think that has changed. You have the Acting Administrator, Bob Fenton, who is a seasoned pro, probably one of the most experienced emergency managers in the country. He has been given full authority to run that. You now have a nominee going through a confirmation process. You have a Secretary that is letting FEMA do its job. Money is starting to move. There are still issues there, but I would say it was the morale. Yes, if you are going to cut staff, you can cut staff, but not the way they did it. I would say more about how FEMA employees were treated, the disrespect, the threats, the fear has had more impact on FEMA being able to do its job. That was a specific person and an advisor that produced that environment. Mrs. Foushee. It's good to hear those changes. Following up on that, during his time in office, the President has also significantly cut funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In what ways might this hamper or harm the work of FEMA in regards to national disaster preparedness? Mr. Fugate. FEMA depends upon our partners at National Weather Service for the forecast to determine where and how we prepare. We don't wait until the disaster happens. So on weather events, whether it's a forecasted extreme flood event or hurricane, those forecasts are critical, because we are going to spend tens of millions of your taxpayer dollars to go get equipment and personnel in place. The better the forecasts are, the more likely they have the stuff where they need it, when they need it. If the forecasts are not as accurate, that's going to be a problem. The one thing I would say, we have not seen dramatically a change there. And we also saw that after all the cuts, the National Weather Service has gone back to hiring people. But I am still concerned. There are certain areas where, yes, we are only doing radio silence once a day, the models are still working. But I know that during hurricanes and tornadoes and other severe weather threats, they are doing it with--used to do it two to three to four times a day. It made the models more accurate. So, we don't have a definitive case where I can say, ``that's where it failed.'' We're on the edge. Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that. And I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Wied. Mr. Wied. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Over the past year, Wisconsin, my home State, has experienced two separate severe weather events which resulted in widespread damage to private and public property, and subsequently met the requirements for major disaster declarations. I am thankful that the requests for Individual Assistance in most of the jurisdictions requesting Public Assistance were recently approved by the Trump administration. However, the process gave me an upclose look at the many challenges that the counties face when disasters strike. Ms. Sheng, in your testimony, you cited a concerning statistic that 20 percent of your members that--with open Public Assistance claims process, like, up to 4 to 6 years, and it was 28 percent at processing times exceeding 6 years. Under the current reimbursement model, delays like this present a significant threat to areas which are forced to bear the upfront costs for repairs during that timeframe and lack the financial means, obviously, to do so. I'm glad that the FEMA Act would transition the Public Assistance Program to a grant-based model, and I was hoping you could speak a little bit on that as to how that would help prevent future backlogs and what else Congress should consider in the coming years to help with that. Ms. Sheng. Absolutely. I think that is one of the most important aspects of this legislation, is currently transitioning to a---- [Audio malfunction.] Ms. Sheng. I'm sorry, a grants-based model rather than a reimbursement model. So when you have a reimbursement model, the locale and the county is forced to use their own funding or take on debt to handle the recovery. And it takes years that-- we have shown, a very, very long time--to put that money back, which could be used for other needs. And so if we can go to a formula-based model and really-- across the board, when you speak to counties, they just need the resources in a shorter period of time, more upfront. And I think if that part of this act gets passed, we would really move forward in disaster assistance in this country. Mr. Wied. So obviously, there are some that are still waiting, have been waiting for 4, 5, 6 years. Ms. Sheng. Yes. Mr. Wied. What can be done for those jurisdictions? Ms. Sheng. Well, I think the frustration is every project is different. I mean, Mr. Fugate knows that. I think if the rules change in the mid-cycle, that will delay a project. I think if a change of personnel--not only on the Federal side, but on our side too, we lose staff as well. And then if you get an experienced person who was with you during that hurricane and then they leave and a new person comes in, it really sets you back. So I think an overall simplification of the whole system, making the rules simpler, making counties understand what the rules are at the get-go would really move us forward a lot in terms of that, and reduce the processing times. Mr. Wied. You had also mentioned there is a lot of bureaucratic redtape---- Ms. Sheng [interposing]. Yes. Mr. Wied [continuing]. Throughout this process. Ms. Sheng. Yes. Mr. Wied. And I have heard from constituents across our district, too. It is obviously a very difficult thing to navigate, disaster recovery. Specifically smaller counties, they often lack grant writers or technical staff to navigate the redtape in the first place. So something that the universal disaster assistance application in the FEMA Act obviously is meant to address. In your opinion, what else can we do here in Congress to make navigating Federal disaster easier? Ms. Sheng. Well, I think as you mentioned, the universal disaster application would absolutely help survivors. We are left--we have challenges to put back a water system, a sewer system to bring our own public networks back up to place, but we are also in charge of helping vulnerable people, people who are outside of their homes, people who need assistance drawing down the benefits from the Federal Government. So that would certainly be help. And then the mitigation piece, I think. I come from the Greater New Orleans area, and we really speak--we can speak about mitigation. Katrina happened to us in 2005, probably changed emergency management as we are in a country. We went back, the Federal Government went back, and built a hurricane reduction system. It was an investment that was made. And we saw with Hurricane Ida in 2021, it worked. It worked. We did not see the flooding that we saw in Katrina, we did not see people on roofs of their homes hoping that helicopters would rescue them. The mitigation works, and I think the counties, being able to mitigate their risk--we know what our risks are in our community. And having that mitigation dollars and changing that formula would be crucial to changing the outlook of our country. Mr. Wied. All right, thanks. Mr. Matheson, you cited an example of a co-op in Arizona that saw its entire system destroyed by a windstorm. Yet due to the remote nature of the territory, it didn't meet the threshold for disaster declaration. This is the exact fear that I hear from my constituents. Of course, we are in a very rural area. The small, localized disasters will leave their areas in a state of disrepair and unable to access Federal aid. So, if you could, just explain a little bit about the FEMA Act's approach to lower disaster thresholds, and how that would fix that gap. Mr. Matheson. Well, clearly, this is an issue where these more sparsely populated areas--where the infrastructure still costs the same to replace, but you have fewer people who can shoulder the burden, the FEMA Act creates a much better set of criteria for allowing those locations to be qualifying for FEMA aid. It is one of the reasons we are such strong supporters of this legislation. Mr. Wied. All right, thank you. I yield back. Dr. Van Drew [presiding]. Ms. Hoyle, you are recognized. Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want to thank the panelists for being here. This is critically important. And Republicans and Democrats have long recognized that FEMA is too slow, too bureaucratic, and often fails to help communities rebuild stronger. In an effort to prevent fraud, there are administrative rules that are incredibly burdensome for victims of natural disasters who have lost all ability to provide documentation, who have lost their homes. I know for us in the 2020 fires, we had a lot of our manufactured home parks where our farmworkers and low-income seniors live that were just destroyed, and they had no ability to build back. We are still, in Oregon, waiting on $371,000 from a 2016 disaster, and millions of dollars from our 2020 fires where we lost over 1.2 million acres. In 2024, we had 1.9 million acres burned and roughly $350 million in response cost, and we expect that this year we will have a really bad fire season, as well. So, before 9/11, FEMA was an independent agency, and that allowed FEMA to focus on disaster response as a Cabinet-level agency. We now have between 30 and 40 percent of FEMA employees that are temporary employees, because previously, you would have a natural disaster, and maybe 4, 5, 6 months later you would have another one, so you didn't want to have people there permanently. We now have year-round disasters. There are hurricanes, there are floods, there are tornadoes, there are fires, there are ice storms. And I think that under DHS--and Mr. Fugate, you pointed out how when Director Noem was heading up DHS, it had a terrible effect on the morale of employees who, again, couldn't do their job and were concerned about the politicization of FEMA. Disaster response should be nonpartisan, and that is absolutely critical. So Mr. Ezell and I introduced the POWER Act in response--for myself--to the 2024 ice storms after hearing firsthand from utilities and my five rural electric co- ops that FEMA would pay to rebuild infrastructure as it was, as opposed to how it needed to be. So this is why I am supporting this bill. Mr. Matheson, I would like you to talk about specifically-- because I represent so many rural communities--where our rural electric co-ops are critical in preventing wildfire and also in the response. What would you like to see from FEMA and for us to do in a bipartisan way to make things easier to prevent and then respond to disasters? Mr. Matheson. Well, first of all, for FEMA, this legislation we are talking about, the Fixing FEMA Act, addresses many of these concerns, including what you just mentioned, which is there are opportunities when we can build something back in a better way and not just replace as is. And we have got lots of examples, and we have heard some in this hearing where, because it's restricted, you have got to build it exactly as it was. That doesn't make sense going forward in terms of the future risk we have. Outside of this bill that we are talking about for this hearing, the Fix Our Forests Act would be very helpful. It has passed the House. We would love to see it move through the Senate. But again, for wildfire mitigation, from, like, a utility standpoint, the Fix Our Forests Act is a critical opportunity. It passed the House overwhelmingly. We would love to see that signed into law. Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Well, we don't deal with that on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. But fundamentally, I know that every agency and every office, mine included, is only as strong as the staff that are in that agency. And if we are kneecapping people's ability to actually do their job by putting them out to do immigration enforcement when we actually need them responding to disasters, I think that that is a poor use of our resources. And I will once again say I will work with anyone, Democrat or Republican, to work to make FEMA an independent, Cabinet- level agency again. Mr. Fugate, I know you don't like quick yes-or-no questions. Do you think that's a good idea? Mr. Fugate. It's better than what we got. Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Amen to that, sir. And with that, I yield. Mr. Rouzer [presiding]. Mr. Hurd. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fugate, if Congress passes this bill, the FEMA Act of 2025, what objective measures should we expect to see improve in the next 5 years? Mr. Fugate. FEMA gets the money out faster with greater accountability, with less overhead and cost. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. And how will that be measured? Mr. Fugate. You measure it and you get--Congressional Budget Office has to score this. How much does it cost to get a dollar of assistance out? How much does it take a dollar to get here to the mayor? In some of the smaller disasters I---- Mr. Hurd of Colorado [interrupting]. Okay. So what should it be? Like, how much---- Mr. Fugate [interrupting]. You're probably spending a couple of bucks to get $1 out the door. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Okay. Mr. Fugate. So I would go, what is it now? What does it go to? I would look at the timelines of FEMA resolving this, getting the money out the door. And can they do it with fewer staff? This is really, I think, where the savings in this bill is, is reducing the number of staff and the time it takes to get the money in the hands of the local jurisdictions so they can start building. And that will save money. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. How long would it take for a--what should the timeframe for measuring this be? Should it be 1 year after enactment, 2 years, 3 years? How long do you think it---- Mr. Fugate [interrupting]. I wouldn't give them---- Mr. Hurd of Colorado [continuing]. Would take for this to trickle down? Mr. Fugate. I wouldn't give them a week. They already have this authority. They can do this, they just refuse to, both at the local, State, and Federal level. You are just making it mandatory. So they already have the mechanisms. We have already done this. This should not take a year to implement. This can be implemented, I think, within weeks, because once the bill passes they are giving it time to phase it in. But the idea of doing quick grants based upon estimates was already given to FEMA in the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act. It was optional. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Yes. Mr. Fugate. And people both on the Federal side and the State and local thought they were going to lose out and didn't use it. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Okay. Mr. Fugate. This makes it: this is the way we are going to do it. So the fact that they can already do it, and the fact I have already done it means it is implementable today. It will not take--and do not give them 3 years. That just ensures they will wait you out until somebody else changes their mind. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Got it. Okay, thank you. Very, very helpful. Mr. Waller, disaster preparedness isn't just a public safety issue, it is an affordability issue. Everyone wants to lower insurance premiums, but insurers ultimately price risk. In your experience, what is the single most effective action a community can take to become more insurable? Is there something that actually moves the needle, from the underwriting perspective? Mr. Waller. I think the FEMA Act really helps with that with the mitigation on two fronts. One, through the BRIC program, making public infrastructure harder so it's going to survive storms, that's going to help. So after there's a disaster, we are going to be able to get in more quickly because the roads are going to be dry, the power is going to be on, things like that. And you can get people behind us to do the work. And then I think just communities being harder. They are going to cost less money to insure because there is going to be less damage. So when you are able to control risk like that, that's going to help with insurance. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you. Mr. Matheson, having represented rural electric co-ops before going to Congress, I can appreciate the important mission that electric co-ops have after a disaster to get power back on quickly and safely. From your perspective, what is the biggest obstacle that FEMA creates or could remove to speed up restoration, power restoration, after a wildfire disaster? Mr. Matheson. I think the obstacles are addressed in this legislation. But in no particular order, I think the 120-day limit for the very initial funding, that would be very helpful for co-ops. I think the ability to pay for loan interest if there is a long time before FEMA provides funding for permanent work, that is helpful to co-ops. And finally, the predisaster mitigation funding component of this bill is really a step forward in terms of allowing electric cooperatives to get in front of this issue to some degree. That is what we have been talking about for a lot of different sectors. But for us, that would be---- Mr. Hurd of Colorado [interposing]. Yes. Mr. Matheson [continuing]. Very helpful. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Talk to me a little bit about that mitigation. So if we spend billions of dollars responding to disasters, if we are shifting--if Congress shifts more money to hardening the electric grid beforehand, where would rural electric cooperatives invest the most? What makes the most sense to put those dollars to right away? Mr. Matheson. In the co-op world, everyone says we are unique, so it's tough to give you an answer about---- Mr. Hurd of Colorado [interrupting]. If you've seen one co- op, you've seen one co-op, right? Mr. Matheson. Exactly, you know the phrase. That being said, I think each co-op would make what's in the best interest of their community. We heard just from the Representative from Oregon about--wildfire mitigation is a big hardening component in that area. Other areas, it may be for flooding. So different locations are going to dictate where co-ops would invest those funds. Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Okay. I think the last thing I will say is I think Congressman Collins said his district in Georgia had more electric co-ops than Colorado's Third. I am not sure. I have to dispute that with Congressman Collins. We have quite a few great electric cooperatives in western and southern Colorado. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Van Drew. Dr. Van Drew. I thank the chairman, and I want to thank the chairman; he has delayed his own testimony so that everybody else would have a chance here to go first, and he's a gentleman. I want to thank the witnesses. This is the part of the hearing where you all are tired--seriously, it has been going on for hours--and the questions do become a little bit repetitive. But we are Members of Congress, so you know we are not going to let the opportunity go anyhow. We are still going to talk, including me. And I guess I would say, it's sort of indicative--FEMA-- where we are with America a little bit. We can do better. America is innovative, it's smart, it's hard-working, it's faster, it's stronger. And it's sort of--this whole FEMA problem, I think, to some degree, indicates how we need to do better. And by the way, let me say this. It's something we can fix. Healthcare is a huge issue in our country, as well. It's really complicated. I'm a dentist, I have been involved in some of those conversations and issues. This is something we can fix, and we can fix relatively rapidly, and that's why we want to keep speaking about it over and over again because it has been awful. And it isn't--and by the way, Mr. Fugate, I want to thank you all for being here. You all are great, because I did watch even when I wasn't here. I am jockeying two committees today. Your testimony is candid, honest, and sincere--all of you, but I just want to point you out. It was not political, it was focused. And thank you for your testimony. But to all of you, it is not about the amount of money, really. So I have seen sometimes where we throw money--I have been involved in politics a lot of years. It's not about the number of people that are working. Don't get me wrong, staff and money is important, but in itself is not the answer and, God help us, sometimes makes it worse, and we can do so much better. I am the Jersey Shore. I am in South Jersey, for those of you who are familiar with it. We get whipped pretty good. You think of Florida. And we have got some communities that are on the top 10 of the most vulnerable communities in the United States of America, places like Cape May. And I remember, I have been there. I have been a county commissioner. I was a State assemblyman, a State senator, all before Congress, and on the ground when people were going through this stuff. And they hired a bunch of people, tons of people came in, and sometimes you were getting two and three different answers. You shouldn't need a Ph.D. in Government bureaucracy if you are just a victim of these storms. We have got to make it simple and easy and fast and effective. And I think we can do it. I think we can do it. We know that the delayed recoveries are nearly as damaging as the storms are themselves. We know that there are more than 1,000 disaster, emergency, and fire management declarations that still remain open. Some are dating back decades. The current system stretches across more--and I am looking to make sure I am right, and I am--30 Federal entities in total. It's too much. It doesn't work. It's bureaucratic paralysis. So let me ask some questions. Former Administrator, I am going to give you a little break because everybody has been asking you a lot, and I think your answers were good. President Sheng, local governments are usually the first to respond, and they are the last to finish rebuilding because they only have so many resources. Which Federal--if you can-- which Federal requirements create the greatest delays? Where are the greatest inefficiencies, and where can we shift things closer to the local level while making sure that there is no corruption and there is still integrity? Ms. Sheng. What was largely discussed is the Public Assistance Program. I mean, I am--that's what we are familiar with that funds the local assets that we own, and that's what we are largely talking about in terms of the reimbursement for counties. And so, again, the smaller communities are absolutely overwhelmed by the disaster itself. And then, as I mentioned, there is a financial disaster behind the scenes that they have to cough up a lot of expenses across the community. They might have limited borrowing capacity to do that. And so the upfront money that we could get from FEMA would be just critical. And the--we are talking about the cost, but we need to look at the cost of how long it takes for a community to get back on its feet. The longer it takes and the slower the recovery that we get back--that--the longer that a business takes to open, we lose our revenue. That is our source, that is our fuel for local government. Dr. Van Drew [interrupting]. If---- Ms. Sheng [continuing]. We lose revenue, our sales tax base. Dr. Van Drew. If I can just interject here, you are so right. I mean, I remember Superstorm Sandy and other storms. The Jersey Shore has gotten hit a lot. Businesses just never came back, some of them. They got killed. Ms. Sheng. Yes. Dr. Van Drew. And we could have done better. So I thank you. Ms. Sheng. Yes. Dr. Van Drew. I thank you for your answer. Real quickly, Mr.--and I want to say your name right-- Chaitovitz? I did pretty good? Okay. Besides the incredible reforms that are in this bill--and damn it, we should do this thing if we really want to make a difference. We don't talk about it enough almost in America, we get so tied up in the political stuff. But anyhow, anything else besides what is in the bill do you think could really be helpful? Mr. Chaitovitz. Well, we have talked a lot about the incentives and the sliding scale and how that is going to help States. There has been mentioned by Mr. Kelly of a bill to provide tax incentives from the Federal level for households and businesses to help harden, and I think that is one thing that certainly the chamber has been supporting. Dr. Van Drew. It's a good idea. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Bresnahan. Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for persevering to this hour in the day. But this one, this subject, is quite important to me. Northeastern Pennsylvania is certainly no stranger to natural disasters, especially from flooding. From last year's flash floods in Honesdale to Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, these storms devastated our entire region. In the Wyoming Valley especially, the question isn't if the next flood comes, it's most certainly when is the next flood going to hit. And once you smell flood mud, it's a sensation that you will never forget. So that is why it is so important that the committee pass the FEMA Act, which includes my bipartisan bill, the SMART Act, which directs FEMA to figure out whether its mitigation dollars are actually working. Vital programs like the BRIC program need to be focused on actual mitigation so communities in northeastern Pennsylvania can get to work rebuilding and reinforcing their levees. I don't remember 1972 Hurricane Agnes, but I certainly remember the photographs of the devastation. And in 2011, we saw something similar. And it was truly devastating, where entire communities, property tax bases were completely eroded. And I have heard from several communities that we have put in the timeline to work to meet every Federal standard, and they still get stuck behind an outdated flood map that doesn't reflect any of it. So my first question, Mr. Waller, does completed mitigation work undertaken by communities, does that traditionally translate into lower NFIP premiums for homeowners in that area? And if so, how long does that process normally take to see the actual rebates or the savings? Mr. Waller. I don't know the actual time that there usually is between seeing the mitigation and the change in premiums, but I can tell you that the market is healthy and it's competitive. And when you have a healthy, competitive market, you are going to see--as soon as someone sees the experience and they show that in their rates, then I think there is pressure on the industry to follow suit. Mr. Bresnahan. I think it's after those investments are made, we need to make sure that those investments are actually paying off and generating an ROI, because it's certainly leading our communities and political subdivisions and creating apprehension, because they obviously want to do right by their constituents and their friends and their neighbors, but ultimately they want to actually see that ROI and having those premium dollars reduced. Something that we also have seen because of the geographic location, some of the property owners are grandfathered in from escalation of those premiums. But if they were to ever transition that property to a family member or sell it, the next buyer certainly isn't given that same stature of increased protection. So we have seen property values of $300,000 homes now, because they are inside of a flood map that has already been rectified or--corrected, it doesn't flood there anymore, the proper mechanisms have been deployed, but they are still inside of that zone. And those families are having a hard time selling that property because of the proposed increase. So I am going to ask Administrator Fugate. If we want FEMA to be more proactive than reactive, would treating flood map reassessments with the same urgency incentivize communities to make these investments in the first place? And I think all of these questions tie together because we want to get to the root cause of allowing the communities to make the necessary investments. But how do we incentivize these communities to be proactive instead of reactive? Mr. Fugate. Just fixing the flood zones isn't the answer. And here is a problem. Just because I am not in a zone A where I have to do a mandatory purchase doesn't mean I won't flood. And too often the people drop flood insurance and become an uninsured loss. Flooding is growing faster than any other hazard, including wildfires. It's more costly than any other hazard including wildfires, and it's occurring in areas that are not in the high-hazard risk area. Those maps are insurance maps; they are not flood prediction maps. But I do agree that if a community can go in there and do the mitigation and move that out of a flood zone, it isn't an indication they don't need to buy flood insurance, but it does reduce the cost. And that should happen relatively quickly. However, remember, flood maps have to be processed, passed, and adopted by ordinance by that jurisdiction. And there is often disagreements on how much should come in or come out. And I have been on the other end of that. But yes, if we are able to do mitigation, we can take people out of the high-risk area--not negate they need flood insurance, but lower that cost and reflect that in the maps which are adopted by ordinance and then are enforced by ordinance. Yes, we should be able to move that faster. Mr. Bresnahan. I appreciate that. And in closing, I just want to recognize our National Lineworker Appreciation Day. And as a former electrical contractor myself, I have seen their work up close: the hours, the conditions, the risk it takes to get power back on so families and businesses can start to recover. Sometimes they don't get the credit they deserve, and nearly not as often as I would like to see. So I want to say thank you. And with that, I yield. Mr. Rouzer. The gentleman yields back. I want to thank each of our panelists for being here today. Pretty much all of my questions have already been asked and answered from all kinds of various perspectives throughout the course of the hearing here, so no more questions from me, but I do want to thank you. This has been a, I think, a really great and exhaustive hearing with a lot of really good information shared. And so I greatly appreciate that. The committee now stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] Submissions for the Record ---------- Statement of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves APCIA is the primary national trade association representing the broadest cross-section of home, auto, and business insurers. Our member companies write nearly 66 percent of the U.S. property casualty insurance market, protecting families, communities, and businesses in every region of the country. APCIA members also service more than 81 percent of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Write-Your-Own policies and provide more than 80 percent of the private flood insurance coverage written in the United States. As a result, APCIA and its members have a unique perspective on disaster preparedness, disaster recovery, the operation of FEMA, and the future of the nation's flood insurance framework. APCIA supports H.R. 4669, the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025 and commends the Committee's bipartisan consideration and passage of the bill in September 2025. Since the Committee's passage of the bill, significant developments, including extensive stakeholder discussions and the release of the FEMA Review Council Report, have further informed the national conversation regarding emergency management, disaster resilience, and the appropriate role of FEMA and the NFIP. Drawing upon both our members' experience serving disaster-impacted policyholders and the final recommendations in the FEMA Review Council's May 2026 report, APCIA offers our perspective for the Committee. FEMA Reforms APCIA continues to support efforts to modernize and strengthen the nation's emergency management system while preserving FEMA's critical role in disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. We appreciate the Committee's bipartisan work on this legislation and encourage continued advancement of reforms that improve disaster readiness, reduce losses, and support more resilient communities across the United States. We support a streamlined and nimble FEMA and believe it should remain an agency within the federal government as it plays an important and critical role with regard to interagency communication at the federal level and can serve in an advisory and coordinating capacity with the states in addressing catastrophic events and national security issues. FEMA performs a vital role when coordinating and developing an immediate response to natural catastrophes such as flooding, hurricanes, and wildfires. APCIA supports preserving FEMA's important role in providing federal emergency assistance, streamlining disaster assistance programs, increasing state flexibility in resiliency efforts and post- catastrophe response, boosting pre-disaster mitigation efforts, and improving processes associated with applications for aid by organizations and individuals. We recommend retaining FEMA's important role in providing grant assistance to improve property and infrastructure resilience to states and other approved entities through project-based grants, addressing historically slow bureaucratic processes, and allowing for greater flexibility and efficiency in resiliency and recovery work. This can be accomplished by improving the coordination across federal agencies involved in disaster recovery and the efficiency in response work in post catastrophe circumstances. Insurers play a critical role in catastrophe recovery by providing financial stability, managing the claims process, and helping individuals and communities rebuild. In the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe, insurers focus on providing urgent financial aid and support to policyholders who have been displaced or suffered losses, often working closely with state emergency management offices and FEMA. Efforts to reform FEMA should address inefficiencies by making the agency more agile, effective, and focused on helping Americans recover from disasters and preventing future losses. To align the various post- disaster programs (e.g., grants, low-interest SBA loans, etc.) the federal government should align these programs in one central location, using a single form for consumers, and include the coordination and authority of the FEMA Federal Coordinating Officer to help states access federal resources and coordinate support from other states. States like Texas and Florida have robust, well-funded emergency management agencies prepared for major disasters. FEMA should be encouraged to work with other states, and the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), to help further develop more robust state agencies. These agencies would allow additional states to undertake the work and administration proposed by the formation of the Council, which would help reduce disaster losses. Preparedness is also key to recovery. For significant events, FEMA should continue to provide supplemental personnel and financial support to fill in gaps at the state and local levels. In the near term, FEMA could provide financial incentives to the states to establish their own disaster aid programs for individuals, businesses and other unmet needs to help expedite community commitments to mitigation and post-event restoration. Over time, as the states build more responsive programs to address such issues, FEMA could phase out such supplemental support. Existing programs, such as federal ``block-grants'' can be provided in a single pre-event amount at the state level. This will allow the states to work with local communities to mitigate the impacts of disaster events through targeted efforts based on risk of loss and infrastructure needs. Such a major change would require a phase-in period across federal, state, and local governments. Also, state governments could look to purchase or develop other financial products, such as parametric insurance, which would pay quickly once loss triggers are met and without significant delays due to claims adjudication. Such programs have been used in crop insurance programs and in other countries for disasters to facilitate immediate financial support that would help more quickly restore infrastructure and communities. Privatization of the NFIP Flood insurance is a vital resource for homeowners that live in flood-prone areas of the country. In recent conversations related to the reform of the nation's emergency management as well as during the FEMA Review Council's meeting on September 3, 2025, it has been suggested that property and casualty industry could write the majority of NFIP's policies in the private marketplace. This viewpoint is not shared by APCIA members, nor does it reflect the market realities that would undoubtably impact affordability and availability of flood insurance. As a result of the passage of Biggert-Waters reform act in 2012 and the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA) in 2014, the NFIP now is on a ``glidepath'' to more actuarially sound rates. The implementation of the actuarially based rates and the glidepath were finally established in 2020 and implemented by the end of 2022. However, since the glidepath only provides gradual increases (Congressionally capped to 18% per year), many NFIP policies do not reflect the full risk-based actuarially sound rates. Requiring the private sector to take on this business would mean an increase from the existing NFIP rates that would create a significant market and political shock. Such an action would also require insurers (who are subject to state regulatory form and rate approvals) to devote significant amounts of capital to this effort. Unlike private sector insurance offerings, this governmentally administered program does not include the cost of capital, a profit load, or tax payments. Functionally, the components and methodology used to determine the rates for the NFIP are significantly different from private carrier rates filed and approved under state established laws and regulations. If the NFIP were to match the state requirements, their rates would reflect the cumulative debt to U.S. taxpayers ($22.525 billion in funds borrowed from Treasury) and past debt forgiveness ($16 billion following Hurricane Harvey) and increased surplus requirements. Even with the ``encouragement'' for the private industry to write more flood insurance, NFIP policyholders have not demonstrated a willingness to go to the private market. This is directly due to pricing. If a homeowner currently has a subsidy (in the form of a grandfathered rate or a rate on the ``glidepath''), they will lose it and not be able to come back to that premium, due to FEMA's interpretation of the ``continuous coverage'' rule that it says only NFIP coverage meets. For example, a current NFIP policyholder, who chooses to purchase a private market flood policy now (due to lapse), would need to pay the full ``risk-based'' rate if they later elected to return to the NFIP policy. The gradual glidepath (partial subsidy) they were on under the preexisting NFIP policy would not be available after the lapse period, once the program is reauthorized. Private flood insurers are not restricted from offering additional coverage and expanding policy count and the private flood insurance market has grown over time. However, private flood insurance underwriters (as opposed to agents) have not shown a willingness to dramatically increase exposures for risks that are currently priced well below full risk-based premiums. Private risk appetite is expected to increase over time to the extent that NFIP premiums normalize and if the continuous coverage limitations are fixed. Private flood underwriters oppose explicit government coverage mandates or implicit mandates from a discontinuation of the NFIP. They have neither the expertise, nor the desire to be ``adversely selected against'' as the main NFIP policy purchasers are those who are required to buy it or believe they will have a flood. The requirement to purchase is being in a 1-in-100-year floodplain and having a Fannie/Freddie mortgage.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Fannie Mae Selling Guide: B7-3-06, Flood Insurance Requirements for All Property Types (02/07/2024): https://selling- guide.fanniemae.com/sel/b7-3-06/flood-insurance-requirements-all- property-types#P6116 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are 4.7 million NFIP policyholders (down from what was a ``peak number'' of 5.4 million policyholders following Katrina) \2\. Yet, depending upon the source, there are anywhere from 35 to 45 million properties that are at significant or very significant risk of flooding. This points to a significant opportunity but, more importantly, a significant societal protection gap. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ FEMA: National Flood Insurance Program Backgrounder: https:// agents.floodsmart.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2025-08/ fema_nfip_media-toolkit-brochure_07-2025.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the current state regulatory environment, it will be challenging for insurers who may want to write the coverage to do so at adequate rates. A few companies that tried it (one in a significant way in Florida) and stopped doing so due to the losses and inability to charge the true risk-based premiums. The ``Write-Your-Own'' (WYO) insurers do not take on the risk; they are third-party administrative partners selling the NFIP product. Agents, brokers, and managing general agents (MGAs) typically do not directly assume any balance sheet risk either. Some insurers have established separate companies to write flood insurance or have started to include flood insurance in their mainstream product offerings (e.g., business, home, etc.). However, since the NFIP is now on its 34th short-term extension, and ``long-term reauthorization'' is seen as unlikely in the near future, private insurers are reluctant to ``jump in the water'' when the Federal government could, at almost any time, decide to revise, re-subsidize, or otherwise ``compete'' with the private sector. While the industry may, at some point, again start to ``dip their toes into the water'' and write flood insurance, the NFIP has been the ``market of last resort,'' the market of first choice, and the least expensive, often subsidized option for nearly six decades. With the costs of homeownership rising significantly in recent years, creating further affordability and availability pressures, adding private sector flood coverage at higher costs will not help improve that situation for consumers, regulators, and certainly not policymakers. NFIP Reforms Any NFIP reforms should include a minimum 7-year reauthorization that would help stabilize the NFIP and the housing market. The short- term extensions undermine confidence and delay reforms. The NFIP should remain within FEMA due to its disaster response coordination capabilities, but collaboration with HUD and FHFA is encouraged. APCIA also supports a means-tested affordability program (e.g., HUD-style vouchers). This would avoid blanket subsidies that would distort risk signals to consumers about the true costs of living in disaster-prone areas. A continued or accelerated glidepath approach, continued support of the revised rating program (Risk-Rating 2.0) would also provide certainty that, over time, would allow NFIP to stabilize and the private sector to grow. Mapping should be regularly updated (e.g., every 3-5 years) and working with the private sector (e.g., through contracting a separate entity) would allow more granular information that would include advanced modeling and more frequent updates in high-risk areas. However, mapping is a complex process that is impacted by infrastructure, community, and housing development. The federal government mapping and resiliency programs have specific requirements for communities that promote resiliency as well. Additionally, APCIA recommends that Congress review the impact of Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) properties on the overall financial solvency of the program. This review could span a range of different policy options including a streamlined pre-approval process for mitigation grants (including property buy-outs) so that these property owners do not need to decide whether to take a grant or remain without a home for an extended period. By reforming this mitigation review process for SRL properties, the NFIP could also begin to consider options for balancing the underlying desire to ensure flood insurance is available to property owners and whether every property should be entitled to coverage under the program. An approach to appeal to additional consumers who are not covered today could be more community involvement (and at the state level) regarding education and mitigation, including infrastructure improvements. A study of mitigation measures that significantly reduce the likelihood or severity of flood losses should be conducted, then FEMA should consider increasing the premium credits associated with those actions. Alternatively, if the measures are found to have limited impact, FEMA should initiate a broader study to identify more effective mitigation strategies and explore how they could be incentivized. In addition to premium credits, APCIA supports exploring other forms of incentives, such as: A tax credit for property owners who invest in qualifying mitigation measures; A deduction or rebate for policyholders who maintain flood-resilient properties and do not file claims during a given tax year; and Access to federally funded property-level grants to undertake qualifying mitigation measures. To improve transparency and encourage adoption of mitigation practices, FEMA should provide clear, accessible information on how specific mitigation actions affect premiums. This information should be made available to: Insurers and agents; Policyholders, to help them make informed decisions about property improvements; Communities, to support local mitigation planning; and Builders and contractors, to guide resilient construction practices. By aligning premium rates more closely with actual risk reduction, FEMA can incentivize mitigation, improve program sustainability, and support affordability for policyholders. The current ``Mandatory Purchase Requirement,'' which applies to properties with federally backed mortgages in ``Special Flood Hazard Areas'' is, first, a safety and soundness measure designed to protect property owners and communities. Ensuring compliance with the mandatory purchase requirement under the NFIP requires a multi-pronged strategy that addresses enforcement, education, and coordination across federal, state, and local levels. By addressing both administrative gaps and public awareness challenges, these actions can help ensure that the mandatory purchase requirement fulfills its intended role in reducing uninsured flood risk and promoting the safety and soundness of our financial markets. The existing ``continuous coverage requirements'' that FEMA has imposed can currently penalize homeowners who experience a lapse in their policy. Additionally, FEMA's refusal to recognize private flood policies as satisfying the continuous coverage provision results in homeowners who comparison-shop losing subsidies when they return to the NFIP. The unfair penalization of policyholders who choose to explore the private flood insurance market has become a principal barrier in growing the private flood insurance market. This is concerning as there appears to be near universal agreement that growing the private flood insurance market is vital to closing the flood insurance gap and provides consumers with choices. Unfortunately, this barrier is self- inflicted by FEMA; there are published legal opinions affirming that FEMA has the authority to recognize private flood insurance for continuous coverage and, in fact, the clearest reading of the statute says that they must. If FEMA agrees that the growth of the private market is important (which has been the stated policy of FEMA across Presidential administrations), they should be encouraged to fix this regulatory problem as soon as possible. APCIA supports the permanent authorization and preservation of the Community Assistance Program-State Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) as a vital tool for strengthening floodplain management and advancing the goals of the NFIP. CAP-SSSE enables states to provide technical assistance, evaluate community compliance, and proactively address flood risk through land use and development standards. By leveraging state-level expertise and relationships, CAP-SSSE fosters more localized and effective floodplain management, which is essential for reducing flood losses and enhancing community resilience. Its cooperative structure also ensures that federal resources are used efficiently to support NFIP implementation and compliance. Conclusion APCIA urges policymakers to prioritize reforms that reduce future risk, strengthen mitigation, improve implementation, modernize flood risk management, and responsibly steward taxpayer resources. Federal disaster policy should help communities prepare for future hazards, not merely respond after losses occur. We appreciate the Committee's continued work to support improved resilience through H.R. 4669, the FEMA Act. Statement of BuildStrong America, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record for the Committee's hearing, ``Reforming FEMA: Ensuring the Nation's Disaster Readiness Works for Americans.'' BuildStrong America commends the Committee for its sustained, bipartisan attention to disaster mitigation and resilience, and we appreciate the opportunity to build on the testimony the Committee received from our coalition partners and allied witnesses at this hearing. BuildStrong America, formed in 2011 to respond to the rising frequency and cost of disasters, is a coalition of firefighters, emergency managers, insurers, engineers, architects, contractors, manufacturers, consumer organizations, code officials, and members of the broader business community united around a single proposition: that the federal government saves the most money, and the most lives, when it invests before a disaster rather than only after one. Over the past decade, BuildStrong has been a partner to Congress in developing key provisions of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254) and in advancing the Resilient AMERICA Act, and we have submitted testimony, comments, and coalition letters to this Committee, the Senate, and FEMA on the specific mechanics of how federal mitigation policy is written and implemented. BuildStrong America supports the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025 (H.R. 4669) and urges the full House to pass it without delay. Having advanced out of this Committee by a bipartisan vote of 57-3, the bill reflects years of stakeholder engagement, including our own, and represents the most significant opportunity in nearly a decade to realign federal disaster policy from a reactive posture to a proactive one. We offer the following recommendations to strengthen the bill's mitigation and building-code provisions as it moves toward Floor consideration and conference. I. Ensure the New Cost-Share Sliding Scale Rewards Real, Predisaster Investment BuildStrong America commends the Committee for the new Stafford Act Section 409(c), which for the first time moves the federal cost-share itself--not merely a process around it--in response to a state's own mitigation decisions, rather than the size of the disaster. As reported by the Committee, Section 409(c) keeps a 75 percent federal share as the statutory floor, permits it to be reduced to as low as 65 percent where a state or tribal government has failed to fund its own mitigation programs, maintain specified insurance, or employ qualified emergency management personnel, and permits it to rise on a sliding scale to as high as 85 percent for states that invest in measures including a dedicated disaster account, state-funded risk pools, Community Rating System participation, tax incentives for risk- reduction projects, robust floodplain management, and adoption and enforcement of one of the two latest editions of a relevant model building code. BuildStrong America agrees this is a substantial and overdue change in federal disaster policy: it is the first time the cost share itself, rather than an incentive layered on top of it, has moved in response to a government's own decisions. We ask the Committee, and FEMA in its implementation, to ensure Section 409(c) is administered in a way that fully realizes this intent by: Ensuring implementing guidance treats the full list of criteria in Section 409(c)(3)(A) as genuinely available and achievable for States of varying size and capacity, rather than concentrating eligibility on the criteria easiest for FEMA to verify; Recognizing state-funded risk pools, captive insurance, and other actuarially sound self-insurance arrangements, alongside commercial insurance, as satisfying the insurance-related criteria in Section 409(c)(2)(B) and (c)(3)(A)(ii), consistent with how many states already manage risk on public facilities; and Learning from FEMA's implementation of the similar, narrower cost-share incentive authority Congress created in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. In comments BuildStrong America and a coalition of partners--including the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, Marsh McLennan, the National Institute of Building Sciences, the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--filed with FEMA in January 2025 on its interim policy implementing that earlier authority, we documented how FEMA's regulations leaned on a post-disaster, project- by-project approval process rather than rewarding predisaster investment, and added administrative burdens that fall hardest on smaller and under-resourced communities. We ask FEMA to write the regulations implementing the new Section 409(c) sliding scale so that they do not repeat those errors, and we would welcome the opportunity to share that comment letter with the Committee as a reference. We appreciate that the testimony from the Shelter Insurance at this hearing raised closely related concerns about enforcement of FEMA's existing post-assistance insurance requirements, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to ensure the final bill's cost-share and insurance provisions are mutually reinforcing. II. Dedicate Resources to the Adoption and Enforcement of Modern Building Codes BuildStrong America supports the bill's update to the Stafford Act's definition of ``applicable building code'' to require that mitigation projects comply with one of the two most recent editions of a relevant, nationally recognized model code, while preserving the flexibility of states and localities to tailor standards to their own hazards. Consistent with our coalition's longstanding position, we do not ask Congress to dictate a uniform code to every jurisdiction; state and local governments are the building regulators, and the federal government's most effective role is to make adoption and enforcement of up-to-date codes the financially rational choice. To that end, we ask the Committee to build on FEMA's own precedent. FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program included a multi-million-dollar ``Building Code Plus-Up'' set-aside beginning in Fiscal Year 2023 specifically to fund code adoption and enforcement capacity in states and territories. We recommend the FEMA Act codify a comparable, dedicated set-aside for building-code adoption, enforcement, and workforce capacity--including code-official training and permitting and inspection capacity--within its mitigation grant programs, rather than leaving that funding to compete against other eligible mitigation activities each year. The economic case for this investment is well documented. Widely cited analysis by the National Institute of Building Sciences has demonstrated that every dollar spent adopting and enforcing model building codes results in an average avoidance of $13 in future disaster losses, and that building above code can save as much as $13 to $14 for every dollar invested, compared with roughly $6 saved for every dollar spent on federal mitigation grants generally. Alabama's Strengthen Alabama Homes program, which provides grants of up to $10,000 dollars for homeowners to retrofit roofs and structural elements to the FORTIFIED construction standard, saw more than 95 percent of over 17,000 FORTIFIED homes in coastal Alabama experience little to no damage during Hurricane Sally in 2020. In Florida, statewide adoption and enforcement of the Florida Building Code is credited with reducing windstorm losses by up to 72 percent in the decade following implementation, and Florida's code enforcement is estimated to have saved between $1 billion and $3 billion dollars in structural damage during Hurricane Ian in 2022. Notwithstanding this evidence, FEMA has estimated that nearly 65 percent of counties, cities, and towns nationwide have not adopted current model building codes--underscoring how much of this savings opportunity remains unrealized. III. Continue BuildStrong America's Longstanding Support for the Residential Retrofit and Resilience Pilot Program BuildStrong America is glad to see the FEMA Act of 2025 carry forward a residential retrofit and resilience pilot program that our coalition has championed for more than a decade. The concept traces to the Resilient AMERICA Act, which the then BuildStrong Coalition urged this Committee and the Senate to pass in part because it would create a pilot program to fund residential resilience retrofit grants, and which we later helped refine into freestanding legislation as the Promoting Resilient Buildings Act of 2023, advocating for its pilot program to be built on FEMA's existing hazard mitigation grant framework. As described in the Congressional Research Service's overview of this bill, the FEMA Act of 2025 would direct FEMA to establish and carry out a residential retrofit and resilience pilot program, using up to 10 percent of the assistance made available annually under Stafford Act Section 203, to provide grants to individuals for residential resilience retrofits, with priority given to applicants who demonstrate financial need. BuildStrong America has long argued that mitigation policy cannot stop at new construction and post-disaster rebuilds. The nation's existing housing stock, much of which predates today's hazard-resistant codes by decades, represents the largest share of the country's resilience gap, and a dedicated retrofit program is one of the only federal tools that reaches homeowners directly, on their own timeline, rather than waiting for a disaster to trigger assistance. We urge the Committee to preserve this pilot program through floor consideration and conference, and we ask FEMA to meet the program's establishment deadline and to report transparently on the number of homes retrofitted and the resulting reduction in disaster losses, so that Congress has the evidence base to expand the program in future reauthorizations. IV. Extend Mitigation Focus to Lifeline Infrastructure As noted, our coalition includes firefighters, emergency managers, and infrastructure interests alongside the residential building and insurance sectors, and we would be remiss not to flag that predisaster mitigation policy should not stop at the building envelope. The electric grid, water and wastewater systems, roads, and bridges are all lifeline infrastructure whose failure compounds and prolongs the damage of any disaster, and whose resilience should be recognized on equal footing with building codes in the cost-share incentive and mitigation grant provisions of the final bill. We were glad to see the testimony of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association at this hearing raise related concerns about the pace and predictability of Public Assistance funding for the rebuilding of electric distribution infrastructure, and we would encourage the Committee to ensure any final mitigation-incentive criteria explicitly credit investments in resilient lifeline infrastructure, not only structures. Conclusion The FEMA Act of 2025 represents the most significant opportunity in a generation to shift federal disaster policy from paying for damage after the fact to investing in resilience before it occurs. BuildStrong America urges the House to pass H.R. 4669 and asks the Committee to use the legislative process ahead to ensure the bill's new cost-share incentive and building-code provisions are implemented in a way that rewards genuine predisaster investment, avoids the administrative pitfalls of FEMA's prior attempt at a similar incentive, and extends the same logic to the lifeline infrastructure on which every community depends. BuildStrong America and its members stand ready to serve as a technical resource to the Committee, as we have for more than a decade, as this legislation moves toward passage. We thank the Committee again for the opportunity to submit this statement and for its continued leadership on disaster resilience. Appendix ---------- Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Craig Fugate, Former Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, from Hon. Mike Ezell Question 1. We often measure FEMA by how quickly it responds immediately after a disaster, but recovery can last decades. Should Congress establish stronger accountability metrics or deadlines for FEMA to close out long-term recovery projects? Answer. Congress should focus on measuring recovery outcomes rather than imposing arbitrary deadlines for FEMA to close out projects. Long recovery timelines are often driven by factors outside FEMA's direct control, including environmental reviews, permitting, insurance settlements, litigation, local planning decisions, state and local capacity, and the complexity of rebuilding infrastructure to current standards. Simply imposing deadlines risks encouraging faster paperwork rather than faster recovery. Congress has already begun addressing many of these challenges through provisions in the FIXING FEMA Act. Section 106 would allow block grants in lieu of project-by-project awards for smaller disasters, easing the administrative burden on jurisdictions with limited Public Assistance staff capacity. Section 109 would streamline preliminary damage assessments across FEMA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Small Business Administration. Section 113 directly targets closeout of critical services, Section 116 strengthens the appeals process, and Section 117 sets a 120-day reimbursement timeline for emergency work. Section 418 would establish a public assistance dashboard, giving Congress and the public the visibility to see where delays actually occur. If enacted, these reforms should help communities recover more quickly while maintaining appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars. FEMA should be accountable for the things it directly controls, including timely eligibility determinations, consistent policy decisions, prompt obligation of funds once requirements are met, efficient processing of appeals, and reducing unnecessary administrative burdens on applicants. Congress should also require greater transparency through publicly reported performance measures that identify where delays occur throughout the recovery process. If delays result from Federal requirements outside FEMA, Congress should know that. If they result from state or local capacity limitations, that should also be clear. Identifying where the bottlenecks occur is more valuable than simply measuring how long a project remains open. Ultimately, the measure of success should not be how quickly FEMA obligates funding or closes a grant. Those are important management metrics, but they are not the outcome that matters most. The real measure is how quickly communities restore essential services, rebuild homes, businesses, and infrastructure, and emerge more resilient to the next disaster. Congress should hold FEMA and its partners accountable for achieving those outcomes rather than simply moving money or closing files. Question 2. I've had the opportunity to meet with companies developing some incredible technologies that have the potential to transform how we prepare for and respond to disasters. The innovation is there. We just need to make sure the Federal government is keeping pace. The FEMA Act and the FEMA Review Council recommendations both emphasize modernizing disaster response. Commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR, satellites can provide near real-time imagery of disaster areas, even through clouds and at night, giving emergency managers a much clearer picture of what's happening on the ground. How can Congress help FEMA better utilize modern technologies like SAR to improve damage assessments, speed resource deployment, and ultimately help communities recover faster? Answer. Commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) demonstrates how modern technology can significantly improve disaster operations. Because it can collect imagery day or night and through cloud cover, SAR can rapidly identify flooding, landslides, ground deformation, and other impacts that may not be immediately visible through traditional imagery. The larger opportunity, however, is not any single technology but FEMA's ability to integrate multiple sources of information into a common operating picture that supports faster and better decisions. Congress can help by providing FEMA with standing authority and funding to rapidly acquire commercial technologies and data following disasters without lengthy contracting or procurement delays. That common operating picture should integrate SAR, optical satellite imagery, aerial photography, drones, ground-based LiDAR, GIS data, weather information, utility outage information, crowdsourced reports, and other commercial data sources. Artificial intelligence can dramatically reduce the time required to analyze these large and diverse data sets by rapidly identifying damaged structures, flooded areas, blocked transportation routes, damaged utilities, infrastructure failures, and emerging unmet needs. AI should not replace emergency managers; it should accelerate analysis, identify patterns and priorities that may otherwise take days to discover, and allow experienced decision-makers to act more quickly and with greater confidence. Technology should support, not replace, field operations. Remote sensing, AI, and ground-based LiDAR can rapidly identify the areas most likely to have significant damage, allowing assessment teams to validate conditions, identify survivor needs, and focus limited personnel where they are needed most. This improves the speed and accuracy of damage assessments while accelerating Individual Assistance and Public Assistance decisions. If FEMA becomes an independent agency again, Congress should also restore an internal research and development capability. Prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA had greater capacity to identify operational needs, evaluate emerging technologies, conduct pilot projects, and rapidly transition successful innovations into practice. Since becoming part of DHS, much of that capability has been consolidated elsewhere. An independent FEMA should once again have the ability to work directly with the private sector, universities, national laboratories, and state, local, tribal, and territorial partners to identify operational challenges, test emerging technologies, and rapidly field innovations that improve preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience. The objective is not simply to collect more data. It is to reduce uncertainty, shorten decision cycles, improve the accuracy of damage assessments, speed assistance to survivors, and help communities recover stronger and more resilient than before. Congress should ensure FEMA has not only access to the best available technology, but also the institutional capacity to evaluate, develop, and rapidly adopt the next generation of disaster management capabilities. Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Cynthia Lee Sheng, President, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, on behalf of the National Association of Counties, from Hon. Mike Ezell Question 1. We often measure FEMA by how quickly it responds immediately after a disaster, but recovery can last decades. Should Congress establish stronger accountability metrics or deadlines for FEMA to close out long-term recovery projects? Answer. Recovery timelines that stretch for years, or even decades, place an enormous administrative and financial burden on counties, who are often the ones fielding constituent questions long after the disaster has faded from the news. We support Congress establishing clear, statutory milestones for closing out long-term recovery projects, paired with public reporting requirements so counties and states can track where a project stands and why it may be delayed. Accountability metrics should not be a one-size-fits-all timeline, however; recovery in a small rural county looks different than recovery in a major metropolitan area, so any deadlines need built-in flexibility for extenuating circumstances like supply chain delays, workforce shortages, or environmental review requirements. What matters most to local governments is predictability: knowing when funding will be obligated, when projects will be closed out and having a clear escalation path when FEMA falls behind schedule. Codifying these expectations would give counties the certainty we need to plan budgets, staff recovery offices appropriately and ultimately deliver results to residents faster. Question 2. I've had the opportunity to meet with companies developing some incredible technologies that have the potential to transform how we prepare for and respond to disasters. The innovation is there. We just need to make sure the Federal government is keeping pace. The FEMA Act and the FEMA Review Council recommendations both emphasize modernizing disaster response. Commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR, satellites can provide near real-time imagery of disaster areas, even through clouds and at night, giving emergency managers a much clearer picture of what's happening on the ground. How can Congress help FEMA better utilize modern technologies like SAR to improve damage assessments, speed resource deployment, and ultimately help communities recover faster? Answer. Congress has an important role to play in making sure FEMA's procurement and data-sharing practices keep pace with the technology already available in the commercial marketplace. We'd encourage Congress to direct FEMA to establish standing contracts or blanket purchase agreements with commercial SAR providers so imagery can be accessed immediately after a disaster rather than negotiated in the moment, and to require that this data be shared quickly and in a usable format with state and local emergency managers, since counties are usually the ones making real-time decisions about where to send resources. Investing in modern damage assessment tools also has a direct fiscal benefit for counties: faster, more accurate assessments mean faster Public Assistance obligations and fewer disputes down the line. We'd also urge Congress to ensure any technology modernization push includes training and technical assistance for county emergency management staff, since new tools only help if the people on the ground know how to use them. Ultimately, closing the gap between what's technologically possible and what FEMA actually deploys is one of the clearest, lowest cost ways Congress can speed up recovery for communities. Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Hon. Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, from Hon. Mike Ezell Question 1. We often measure FEMA by how quickly it responds immediately after a disaster, but recovery can last decades. Should Congress establish stronger accountability metrics or deadlines for FEMA to close out long-term recovery projects? Answer. America's electric cooperatives support Congressional efforts to establish stronger accountability metrics and deadlines for FEMA to close out long-term recovery projects. For example, the FEMA Act would establish a declared disasters task force at FEMA to develop processes and mechanisms necessary for the Administrator to eliminate the current backlog of open declared disasters. NRECA also strongly supports the deadlines established by the FEMA Act to provide more accountability for future disasters, such as the 120-day window for emergency work obligation and the similar timeline for permanent work. These new timelines should drastically cut down on endlessly open projects. Question 2. I've had the opportunity to meet with companies developing some incredible technologies that have the potential to transform how we prepare for and respond to disasters. The innovation is there. We just need to make sure the Federal government is keeping pace. The FEMA Act and the FEMA Review Council recommendations both emphasize modernizing disaster response. Commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR, satellites can provide near real-time imagery of disaster areas, even through clouds and at night, giving emergency managers a much clearer picture of what's happening on the ground. How can Congress help FEMA better utilize modern technologies like SAR to improve damage assessments, speed resource deployment, and ultimately help communities recover faster? Answer. Congress can help FEMA better leverage technologies by sustaining support for their integration into disaster response operations and ensuring agencies have the resources, data-sharing authorities, and workforce expertise needed to use these tools effectively. NRECA's members are adopting advanced technologies to improve damage assessments, speed resource deployment, and help communities recover faster--such as using existing interoperability standards to integrate data from multiple co-op systems and make outage predictions before severe weather hits. These efforts are complemented by FEMA and other federal agencies that provide critical forecasting, mapping, and geospatial information services. Continued investment in advanced technologies, along with enhanced data-sharing and analytics capabilities across federal agencies, would strengthen situational awareness before, during, and after disasters. Congress could also support workforce development programs that train federal, state, local, and private-sector partners, including rural electric cooperatives, in geospatial analytics, SAR imagery interpretation, and other emerging disaster response technologies. Building a broader network of trained users could serve as a force multiplier for FEMA, enabling faster damage assessments, more efficient power restoration, and improved support for rural and hard-to-reach communities. Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Brian Waller, Vice President, External Relations, Shelter Insurance Companies, on behalf of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, from Hon. Mike Ezell Question 1. We often measure FEMA by how quickly it responds immediately after a disaster, but recovery can last decades. Should Congress establish stronger accountability metrics or deadlines for FEMA to close out long-term recovery projects? Answer. Yes, Congress can and should establish stronger accountability metrics and deadlines for FEMA and other programs involved in emergency management. There are many entities, not just the federal government, who participate in disaster response and recovery. Most disaster programs are federally administered, state managed and locally executed. This aspect of multilayer disaster funding governance is sometimes lost in rhetoric and amid the push to further empower the state and local system. Increased oversight related to disaster assistance funding, compliance, and execution would be beneficial across these ecosystems, with accountability metrics and deadlines expanded beyond FEMA. NAMIC supports stronger accountability for FEMA's recovery programs, with enhanced long-term community resiliency as the goal. However, we urge Congress to measure and further prioritize risk reduction outcomes rather than simply imposing arbitrary deadlines for a project closeout. The FEMA Act and FEMA Review Council recommendations both recognize FEMA has many challenges due to administrative complexities, fragmented decision making and lengthy project delivery. Many disaster survivors have encountered bureaucratic backlogs and longer than necessary recovery periods. Efficiency is imperative. Prolonged delays in disaster funding extend community disruption, increase rebuilding costs, and slow the restoration activities of insurance operations. Disaster recovery is a shared responsibility, and Congress has an opportunity to strengthen accountability across the entire disaster recovery enterprise. NAMIC recognizes that successful long-term recovery requires coordinated actions among various federal agencies; state, tribal, territorial, and local governments; and private-sector entities. The performance of all parties responsible for advancing recovery activities should be part of any accountability measure. Reforms should prioritize transparent performance metrics, milestone reporting, streamlined grant administration, and earlier delivery of recovery funding while preserving flexibility for catastrophic events where restoration can often span years. Sec. 402 of the FEMA Act, ``Transparency and Online Accountability,'' would help with these concerns by mandating disaster assistance be publicly reported by not only FEMA but also the Small Business Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This would be accomplished via a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, Sec. 14 establishes an Office of the Inspector General for an elevated, cabinet-level FEMA to help improve the agency's programs and execution. Question 2. I've had the opportunity to meet with companies developing some incredible technologies that have the potential to transform how we prepare for and respond to disasters. The innovation is there. We just need to make sure the Federal government is keeping pace. The FEMA Act and the FEMA Review Council recommendations both emphasize modernizing disaster response. Commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR, satellites can provide near real-time imagery of disaster areas, even through clouds and at night, giving emergency managers a much clearer picture of what's happening on the ground. How can Congress help FEMA better utilize modern technologies like SAR to improve damage assessments, speed resource deployment, and ultimately help communities recover faster? Answer. NAMIC supports efforts to modernize disaster response through leveraging emerging technology solutions, including SAR and other advanced remote sensing capabilities that improve situational awareness and operational speed. These tools can significantly improve response and recovery times before, during and after disasters. Remote sensing tools aid emergency managers with protecting lives and property by providing timely and accurate information to support disaster response, pre-disaster mitigation and long-term recovery. We encourage Congress to support voluntary public-private collaboration among FEMA, technology providers, state and local governments, and the insurance industry, while maintaining appropriate privacy protections and state regulatory oversight. The property and casualty insurance industry uses technologies like aerial imaging that can reduce claim payment times significantly. Insurers also continue to use and evolve geospatial and risk assessment tools that can enhance FEMA capabilities. NAMIC would encourage Congress and FEMA to consider updated technologies for implementation in the agency's own internal geospatial mapping components. This would help ensure risk is identified prior to an event for crucial preparedness purposes, pre-disaster mitigation, advanced emergency response capabilities, improved recovery outcomes, more accurate damage assessments, and reductions of losses. Post-Hearing Questions for the Record to Chuck Chaitovitz, Vice President, Environmental Affairs and Sustainability, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, from Hon. Mike Ezell Question 1. We often measure FEMA by how quickly it responds immediately after a disaster, but recovery can last decades. Should Congress establish stronger accountability metrics or deadlines for FEMA to close out long-term recovery projects? Answer. Yes, current FEMA metrics seem to be more focused on the administrative process such as how fast a project application was processed and funded, not the outcomes from tangible actions by the community, such as schools or businesses reopening. In addition, Congress should require FEMA to measure outcomes from predisaster projects and initiatives to begin demonstrating that return-on- investment from these actions. FEMA also might provide guidance to states regarding community ``readiness.'' Question 2. I've had the opportunity to meet with companies developing some incredible technologies that have the potential to transform how we prepare for and respond to disasters. The innovation is there. We just need to make sure the Federal government is keeping pace. The FEMA Act and the FEMA Review Council recommendations both emphasize modernizing disaster response. Commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR, satellites can provide near real-time imagery of disaster areas, even through clouds and at night, giving emergency managers a much clearer picture of what's happening on the ground. How can Congress help FEMA better utilize modern technologies like SAR to improve damage assessments, speed resource deployment, and ultimately help communities recover faster? Answer. While DHS has programs that have looked at more effectively taking advantage of innovations such as the DHS Science & Technology prize competitions, there is nothing FEMA specific. DHS has technology innovation programs. FEMA has recovery programs. But neither appears to have a major, dedicated ``Recovery Innovation Program'' whose mission is to develop, pilot, and scale technologies that measurably reduce recovery time. In addition, neither the Build Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program nor the predisaster provisions in the FEMA Act include specific innovation components. The U.S. Chamber welcomes the opportunity to work with the Committee and other Members of Congress to authorize a FEMA implemented predisaster and recovery focused innovation prize or other resilience and preparedness technology innovation programs with the goals of infrastructure or household losses avoided and/or recovery days saved per federal dollar spent. [all]