Oversight Hearing – The Federal Emergency Management Agency

House Subcommittee on Department of Homeland Security

2025-05-07

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Participants

Transcript

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to conduct oversight and discuss the fiscal year 2026 budget priorities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  I'd also like to welcome Mr. Hamilton, the senior official performing the duties of the FEMA administrator, to his first hearing before our subcommittee.  Thank you for meeting with me yesterday ahead of today's hearing.   First and foremost, I'd like to thank the dedicated FEMA workforce, as well as emergency managers across the country who help our communities and constituents before, during, and after disasters.  Last year, there was a major disaster declaration every four days, affecting over 40% of Americans.  The data's clear.  Disasters and extreme weather are getting worse and will continue to do so, driven by climate change.   from hurricanes Beryl, Debbie, Francine, Helene, and Milton in the 2024 season to the 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires in Los Angeles that my colleagues and I visited in January.  Disasters are getting bigger, more frequent, and more expensive.  But the bare bones budget for fiscal year 2026 released last week proposes a $646 million cut from fiscal year 2025 levels to FEMA's initiatives that support state and local governments.   I'm concerned that this would cut critical grant programs that firefighters, first responders, and hospitals in rural communities like mine rely on.  I'm also concerned that this would cut resources for houses of worship and faith-based organizations, including non-profit security grants and the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium.  Your budget suggests that it provides duplicative efforts of existing federal and state programs without evidence.   Similarly, your termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, program in early April rips away desperately needed and life-saving resources that communities need to protect themselves from future disasters.  This short-sighted approach would raise recovery costs for taxpayers and local communities while leaving our constituents less protected.