The legislators at a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on March 25 said that they are looking for a renewal of the country’s emergency response apparatus to make it more effective, but did not ask for the removal of the Federal Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as Trump administration officials have threatened in recent weeks.
Since the return of Donald Trump’s post, several executive actions, the most recently on March 18, have fueled the speculations that led an effort for the agency. At a television meeting at the Cabinet level, on March 24, U.S. National Security Secretary Kristi Noem seemed to confirm these concerns, saying that “we are going to get rid of FEMA”.
In 2024, the number of annual United States annual disasters costing at least a billion dollars has almost doubled, from 14 to 2018 to 28, according to the Oceanic and Atmospheric National Administration. Also, a report from the United States Government Accounting Office published in late February said that FEMA has been seriously underlined, making it difficult to respond to increasingly destructive disasters.
But sight legislators seemed to agree that a federal role in responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters is necessary, even when members of the FEMA Supervision Sub -Committee acknowledged that the agency needed a review.
None “Beatdown” of FEMA
The Democrat of Michigan, Kristen McDonald Rivet [the agency] And the suggestion that [disaster response] It can actually be resolved locally if states and premises would only be more appropriately budgeted. ”
Rivet emphasized that “having been a state senator in the [state] Appropriating Committee, states cannot manage it only with budgets. “
The President of the Sub-Committee, Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Said in his initial statement that “it does not mean that it is a defeat of FEMA, but we cannot simply continue as we have been and wait for different results.”
Chris Currie, Director of the Security and Justice of Homeland for government responsibility, said that the country’s disaster response program to all federal agencies can be confused for victims of disasters. “We need to move on programs that are not government-focused, but are focused on survival … to help us help a person get the necessary assistance at the worst moment of someone’s life.”
He said that several federal agencies have disaster response programs, with requirements throughout the Government in general, which can be duplicative or even conflicting, and that they can make reconstruction efforts more difficult. Currie requested a solution “where the federal government provides the support that the states will never be able to submit, but it does so that it is provided to the state where there is flexibility … but still supervision and proper controls.”
Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida Emergency Management Division, suggested that the approach of his agency could be a model of collaboration between government. It approaches the disasters with the philosophy that “emergencies are federally supported, managed by the state and locally executed,” he said.
Harris County, Texas’s curator, Adrian Garcia, speaking in the name of the National Association of Counties, said that while some states and counties have resources and capabilities to effectively respond to emergencies, others are not.
Almost anyone in sight asked to be abolished.
The highest Democrat of the Sub -Committee, Greg Stanton de Arizona, said that there is room for important reforms to Fema, but criticized efforts to politicize the agency.
“I will never support the elimination of Fema’s help or for conditioning for the emergency of disasters,” he said in threats of administration to retain funds for the response to the California gunpowder based on his disagreement with the policies of the State Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom.
