10/4/2025 – One in 3 counties across America receive federal disaster declarations each year. A big question on the minds of many in Congress and the Administration is how to deliver aid more efficiently and effectively.

The bi-partisan FEMA Reform Bill, H.R. 4669, passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on 9/3/25, but the full House has not yet considered the bill.

The sprawling 200+ page bill has several primary goals: cut red tape, speed up disaster assistance, and put more authority in state and local hands. But how would it do that?

The bill has two main divisions:

• Division A re-constitutes FEMA as an autonomous federal entity, gives it direct line to the President, strengthens internal oversight, and ensures statutory clarity across related laws so that FEMA is directly accountable rather than filtered through DHS.
• Division B is where many of the operational and programmatic changes occur, especially for Public Assistance (PA).

I asked ChatGPT to summarize the changes between current and proposed law, section by section. at the end of this post, I’ve also included a section of cross-cutting provisions and strategic shifts.

DIVISION A — Establishment of FEMA as Cabinet-Level, Independent Agency

Sec. 11: Establishment of independent agency

FEMA is currently a component agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bill would remove FEMA from DHS and reconstitute it as an independent agency at the Cabinet level, reporting directly to the President. 

Sec. 12: Administrator, Deputy Administrator, other officials

At the moment, the FEMA Administrator and leadership are under DHS’s organizational structure; appointment and removal authority is tied to DHS rules. If the bill passes, this section would codify the leadership roles, establish qualification requirements (especially for the Deputy Administrator), and assign them to the executive schedule (i.e. Cabinet rank) positions. 

Sec. 13: Authority and responsibilities

FEMA’s authorities now derive from existing statutes (e.g. Stafford Act, etc.), but coordination is mediated via DHS. The bill would explicitly consolidate FEMA’s authorities, clarify mission statements, and ensure FEMA holds responsibility for preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation tasks directly. 

Sec. 14: Office of the Inspector General

FEMA currently shares or depends on DHS-level IG functions for oversight. HR 4669 would establish a standalone Inspector General for FEMA, restoring oversight independence.

Sec. 15–16: Transfer of functions; Personnel and other transfers

Many FEMA functions, personnel, assets, and contracts are now embedded within DHS. These sections would govern the transfer of relevant functions, personnel, contracts, records, and unexpended balances from DHS to the newly independent FEMA.

Sec. 19: Working Capital Fund

DHS has working capital or revolving funds that support cross-cutting functions; At the present, FEMA doesn’t directly control a dedicated revolving fund. This section would create a FEMA Working Capital Fund: a revolving fund for operations, facilities, equipment, and services, with fee mechanisms (charging other agencies, etc.) to cover costs. 

Sec. 20: Improving disaster assistance for veterans

No explicit role or codified office within current FEMA statutes solely focuses on veterans in disaster recovery. The new bill adds a Veterans Advocate role within FEMA (under Stafford Act) to ensure veterans’ needs are addressed in declarations, assistance, and coordination. 

Title II (Sec. 21): National emergency management & related amendments

Many statutes across emergency management, public health, etc., now refer to “Secretary of Homeland Security” or coordination via DHS. The bill amends multiple statutes (Stafford Act, Public Health Service Act, Homeland Security Act) to substitute or reassign relevant authorities, functions, or references to FEMA’s Administrator.

DIVISION B — FEMA / Disaster Program Reforms

Sec. 101: Rebuilding public infrastructure

Currently, FEMA provides Public Assistance in a reimbursement model: states/localities or subrecipients perform eligible repairs, then submit claims for reimbursement, subject to environmental reviews, procurement, etc. The bill would introduce a more grant-based, project-driven funding model (sometimes via Section 409 expedited grants) to accelerate rebuilding, reduce dependence on consultants, and shift more decision-making to states/local governments.

Sec. 102: Task force to address backlog of open declared disasters

Many disaster declarations linger for years (especially older ones), with projects not closed out. This section would create a Recovery Task Force to close out long-open disasters (e.g. those lingering since Katrina, etc.) and improve accountability.

Sec. 103: Disaster declaration damage thresholds

The Stafford Act sets thresholds (e.g. per-capita, total damage levels) that localities must meet to request a major disaster declaration. This bill revises thresholds, potentially lowering barriers in some cases, giving more flexibility to declare support in disasters.

Sec. 104: Federal permitting improvement

Currently, FEMA projects must comply with environmental, historic preservation, and other federal requirements. Permitting often delays reconstruction. This section implements reforms to accelerate permitting, streamline or delegate certain reviews, reduce duplication, and shorten timelines.

Sec. 105: Unified Federal review

Multiple federal agencies may now review disaster recovery projects (e.g. environmental agencies, EPA, historic preservation) independently. The bill creates a unified federal review process to consolidate and coordinate interagency reviews.

Sec. 106: Block grants for small disasters

Current law limits certain programs or assistance to “major disasters” with higher thresholds; smaller disasters may not qualify for full PA aid. This section allows block grant funding for smaller scale disasters so that eligible subrecipients can access funds more readily even if they don’t reach higher thresholds.

Sec. 107: Common sense debris removal

Debris removal is now eligible under PA, but rules around scope, timelines, and cost share can be restrictive. The bill clarifies and modernizes rules around what constitutes eligible debris removal, cost-share, and what is considered “emergency work.”

Sec. 108: Disaster management costs modernization

Currently, administrative and management costs are often constrained to a single disaster or limited scope; costs must be directly tied and justified. The bill allows management/administrative costs to be allocated across multiple disasters and provides more flexibility in how these costs are treated.

Sec. 109: Streamlining info collection & preliminary damage assessments

States and local jurisdictions must now submit extensive documentation; preliminary damage assessments (PDAs) may be time-consuming. The bill consolidates data and reporting, reduces duplication, shortens time for PDAs, and mandates more streamlined information collection.

Sec. 110: Reasonable incident periods

The period during which damages are now eligible (incident period) is defined but may be ambiguous in evolving disasters (e.g. prolonged events). The bill clarifies or extends flexibility for incident periods depending on the nature and duration of events. 

Sec. 111: Fire management assistance policy

Under current law (Fire Management Assistance Grant program), specific rules govern eligibility, cost share, and declarations for wildfires. The bill updates or revises eligibility, thresholds, and cost-share rules for fire management assistance.

Sec. 112: Indian tribal government eligibility

Tribes may be eligible under PA, but sometimes face bureaucratic or jurisdictional obstacles. The bill strengthens tribal eligibility, reduces barriers, ensures they have equal access to assistance programs.

Sec. 113: Strengthening closeouts for critical services

Some projects providing critical services (e.g. utilities, water, sewer) now take long to close out, sometimes delaying final payments. This section provides priority treatment or procedural clarity to close out critical services projects faster.

Sec. 114: Sheltering of emergency response personnel

FEMA may now provide sheltering assistance in limited contexts; rules vary. This section explicitly allows sheltering of emergency response personnel in disasters (as part of eligible assistance).

Sec. 115: Emergency protective measures for flooding damage

FEMA’s “emergency protective measures” cover multiple types of hazard responses; flooding-specific nuances exist. The bill would clarify or expand eligible emergency protective measures (e.g. repairs, mitigation) for flooding events.

Sec. 116: Fairness and accountability in appeals

FEMA now provides appeal rights, but processes sometimes are criticized for opaque denials, inconsistent notices, and lack of transparency. This section strengthens appeal rights and fairness: requires clearer, understandable notices; mandates timelines; ensures due process in appeals; and prohibits political discrimination in aid decisions.

Crosscutting Provisions

In addition, the bill provides provisions that:

• Encourage transparency with public dashboards, central tracking, and assistance across agencies.
• Provide mitigation incentives with cost-share bonuses, pre-approved mitigation projects, and better inter-agency funding coordination.
• Base procurement on local practices when compliant with federal statutes.
• Simplify survivor and individual assistance by streamlining applications, reducing duplication, and ensuring private charitable aid doesn’t unfairly disqualify survivors.

Strategic Shifts

HR 4669, if adopted, would create several seismic shifts in disaster funding:

• From reimbursement to proactive grants: Under current practice, states and localities often front costs and then wait for federal reimbursement, sometimes with delays and cash-flow stress. The bill shifts toward more upfront, project-based grants to reduce delays. Baker Donelson+1
• Stronger incentives for preparedness and mitigation: The bill links cost-share levels to state/local mitigative steps, encouraging risk reduction before disaster strikes. Baker Donelson+1
• Streamlining federal red tape: Many provisions aim to reduce delays from environmental reviews, permitting, interagency duplication, and reporting burdens. Transpo & Infra Committee+2Baker Donelson+2
• Greater clarity, fairness, and oversight: The bill emphasizes transparency (dashboards, public reporting), appeal protections, IG/GAO reviews, and improvements to notices and due process for assistance decisions. Transpo & Infra Committee+2Congress.gov+2
• Empowering sub-national actors: The reforms shift more decision-making authority to states, tribes, and local entities—assuming they meet certain qualifications—thereby reducing dependency on centralized federal control.

For More Information

Consult the exact text of the bill.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/4/2025 with assistance from ChatGPT

2958 Days since Hurricane Harvey