HB3347, titled the Sovereign States Emergency Management Act, would abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) two years after enactment and transfer FEMA’s functions to the President. Any remaining unobligated FEMA funds at the time of abolition would be moved to the Treasury’s general fund, and references in federal law and regulations to FEMA or its Administrator would be treated as references to the Executive Office of the President or the President.
The bill would also create a new federal disaster-relief block grant program administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. Under that program, each state would receive annual grant funding based on a formula that must consider population, historical disaster frequency and severity, geographic risk, and per-capita income. States could use the money for preparedness training and equipment, disaster response and recovery, and mitigation projects, but administrative costs would be capped at 5 percent. States would have to submit annual emergency management plans and post-year reports, and the Treasury Secretary would conduct annual audits. The program would end four years after the implementing rule is issued.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would significantly restructure federal disaster management law by eliminating FEMA as an agency and shifting its statutory functions to the President and the Executive Office of the President. It would also replace much of FEMA’s role in disaster assistance with a state-based block grant system, changing how federal disaster relief is allocated, administered, and overseen. The bill would affect federal emergency management statutes, appropriations, and any laws or regulations that currently reference FEMA or its Administrator, while imposing new planning, reporting, and audit requirements on states receiving funds.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available legislative context, the measure appears to reflect a deregulatory, states-rights approach to emergency management, emphasizing state control over disaster preparedness and response. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broader support or opposition. The bill’s introduction and referral to subcommittee suggest it is still in an early stage of consideration.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the abolition of FEMA itself and the transfer of disaster-response authority to the President, which could raise concerns about federal capacity, continuity, and centralized oversight. Another likely issue is the block grant structure: supporters may favor flexibility for states, while critics may question whether formula-based grants would adequately account for catastrophic events, interstate disparities, or rapid emergency needs. The bill’s limits on administrative spending, duplication-of-benefits restriction, and temporary program duration may also draw scrutiny from states and disaster-response stakeholders concerned about implementation and funding stability.