WASHINGTON, D.C. –– This week, the Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology, led by Chairman Dale Strong (R-AL), held a hearing to evaluate the current role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), particularly its handling of taxpayer dollars, expanding mission sets, and coordination with state and local governments during disaster or emergency response. Throughout the hearing, members assessed ways FEMA can better balance coordination with states in its disaster response, recovery, and community resilience mission. Members and witnesses also discussed ways to combat inefficiencies, waste, and bureaucratic red tape at the agency so that it can better serve the American people. 
 
Testimony was provided by Director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency Jeff Smitherman, Marsh McLennan’s Managing Director of the Public Sector Daniel Kaniewski, Ph.D., President of the U.S. Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers Carrie Speranza, CEM, and former Deputy Administrator for Protection and National Preparedness at FEMA, Timothy Manning.

In his opening statement, Smitherman called for improvement in the current federal disaster response strategy: 
 
“I believe there is a consensus on the lack of speed, consistency, and clarity from FEMA––and I know many in FEMA agree and welcome some level of change. The states already build schools, parks, government buildings, etc. I believe we can rebuild better, quicker, and more efficiently in a system more like a block grant than the cumbersome system we currently use.”

Chairman Strong asked witnesses to detail the proper balance between federal and state disaster response: 
 
“Based on your experience, what do you think is the appropriate level of FEMA involvement that enables states to maintain the lead in disaster response?”
 
Smitherman answered:
 
“To start with, from my experience, we have a lot of disasters, and…had FEMA come in. We’ve established a joint field headquarters, our joint field office. We’ve done that many times. And often, that’s really not necessary for Alabama. We were one of the pilot states that piloted the state managed disasters. We did that for Hurricane Nate in Alabama. So, we’ve already managed a disaster at the state level. 
 
“I think with proper resourcing and considerations we could do that for many of the disasters we experience and save the limited FEMA resources for the most catastrophic of events. So, like what you see in Katrina [or] Helene, when we had our tornado outbreak 2011, we kind of rank up there with that in terms of when we would ask FEMA to come in. We are not a state that relies on FEMA during the response phase. We bring them in, they’re there. We have the regional incident management assistance teams in there with us. They’re integrated into our EOC, and we keep the FEMA headquarters informed of what we’re doing through that process. But as far as I need, the biggest value to us for FEMA is during the recovery phase. When they come in, we just have got to figure out a way to make that more responsive, less complex, less bureaucratic, and actually get the funds down to the locals who are trying so desperately to get their communities put back in order after that disaster incident.”
 
Chairman Strong responded:
 
“You got it. I saw it firsthand as the chairman of the second largest county in the state of Alabama––350 homes totally destroyed. That tornado EF-4 was on the ground for 126 miles. Thousands of homes totally destroyed, and we [were] without power for ten to 12 days in some areas, but it was definitely something that we’ll never forget.”

Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability Chairman Josh Brecheen (R-OK) recounted a firsthand experience with disaster response and asked Smitherman to detail his experience with inefficiency at FEMA:
 
“[A] 2012 tornado hit an area I represented…in a very rural setting, Tushka, Oklahoma…I watched––because of federal regulations, because I was in the dirt-works business, I was in the dozer, excavator, [and] trucking business––what could’ve been something, in a country setting, could’ve been solved just like that. That is done every day today, where people in the country pull timber together, they light it on fire. We were not allowed to do that. We had to multiply the cost four times over. You had to bring in a half-round, which is a bathtub on the back of a semi, and you had to take an excavator, track hoe, and you had to load that material that I had pushed up into a brush pile, dismantle it, load it in a half-round, haul it off miles and miles, where it had to be incinerated––at a major cost––or it had to be buried by another bulldozer. 
 
“I can tell you, because I’ve turned in estimates to many customers when I was out of the government in the free market––you multiplied that cost at least by four. It didn’t make any sense. We’ve had stories come before this committee of not allowing snow to be moved––snow that melts––because of FEMA environmental regulations…I’d love to hear, Mr. Smitherman, from your experience, the waste that you’ve seen because of federal [response].” 
 
Smitherman answered:
 
“I think if you take a look at FEMA’s evaluation of our performance, you’ll see an alignment with that. We have had one small disaster where the cost of FEMA coming in and establishing the joint field office almost exceeded the cost of the disaster itself.”
 

###