H. Res. 1035 is a non‑binding House resolution that condemns recent and proposed workforce reductions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and expresses concern that those cuts will undermine disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and counterterrorism grant administration.
The resolution collects a series of findings—dating back to FEMA’s founding by Executive Order 12127—and points to GAO reporting and recent staffing losses as evidence that reduced personnel levels jeopardize mission performance.
The measure does not change law or appropriate funds; instead it records the House’s stance: it denounces cuts that would degrade surge capacity, criticizes planning that contemplates deeper reductions, and commits the House to supporting a stable, adequately resourced FEMA workforce. For practitioners, the resolution signals congressional attention to FEMA staffing, highlights specific program areas at risk (flood insurance and several counterterrorism grants), and sets up likely oversight and appropriations pressure focused on personnel and capacity.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution collects factual findings about FEMA’s staffing history and formally condemns current and proposed workforce reductions; it expresses concern about operational impacts and pledges congressional support for maintaining staffing levels. It names specific program risks, including disaster response, recovery operations, the National Flood Insurance Program, and counterterrorism grant administration.
Who It Affects
Primary focus is on the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Homeland Security personnel and management; secondarily it calls out impacts on State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, first responders, and beneficiaries of FEMA-administered programs such as flood insurance and preparedness grants. House committees with jurisdiction (Transportation and Infrastructure; Homeland Security) are the likely policy audience.
Why It Matters
Although non-binding, the resolution crystallizes congressional concerns that can translate into oversight hearings, appropriation priorities, and legislative remedies. For agencies and grantees that rely on FEMA staff and technical expertise, the resolution raises the prospect of increased scrutiny of staffing plans and potential shifts in funding or program administration.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 1035 lays out a sequence of findings and then five formal statements of position.
The preamble recaps FEMA’s origin (citing Executive Order 12127), summarizes repeated Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings of chronic staffing shortages, and lists instances—Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and the 2017 California wildfires—where staffing shortfalls affected response. It also highlights that FEMA had been incrementally growing its workforce until a steep decline in 2025, which the resolution attributes to actions by the Trump Administration and claims resulted in at least 2,000 permanent staff leaving.
The resolution points to a GAO determination in 2025 that Federal delivery of disaster assistance is a high‑risk area, linking that designation in part to what it describes as a 35 percent staffing shortage at FEMA. It also notes internal planning by DHS and FEMA contemplating deeper reductions, and lists ongoing operations—Hurricane Helene recovery, Central Texas flooding, and California wildfires—that it says would be harmed by further cuts.
The text calls out programmatic areas that depend on FEMA expertise, including the National Flood Insurance Program and several counterterrorism grant programs (Urban Area Security Initiative, State Homeland Security Program, and the Nonprofit Security Grant Program).In the operative clauses the House “condemns” current and proposed cuts, “expresses grave concern” about ignoring lessons from past deadly storms, “denounces” reductions that could undermine counterterrorism grants and frontline responders, “disapproves” of cuts that would compromise surge capacity and institutional expertise, and “commits” to supporting a stable, adequately resourced FEMA workforce. The resolution does not direct specific funding levels, create new hiring authorities, or change FEMA’s statutory responsibilities; its practical effect is to record congressional judgment and put executive workforce decisions on the record for oversight and appropriations consideration.For compliance officers, grant managers, and state/local officials, the resolution is a signal: expect intensified congressional interest in FEMA staffing metrics, program delivery performance, and the potential for follow‑on statutory or budgetary action aimed at restoring permanent staffing and preserving institutional knowledge.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution cites Executive Order 12127 (1979) as the origin of FEMA and uses that history to frame its findings about mission dependence on a stable workforce.
It states that at least 2,000 permanent FEMA staff left the agency following workforce reductions in 2025, a figure the text uses to argue those cuts exacerbated chronic shortages.
The bill references GAO’s 2025 designation of Federal delivery of disaster assistance as a high‑risk area, attributing that listing in part to a reported 35 percent staffing shortage at FEMA.
H. Res. 1035 identifies specific program risks: the National Flood Insurance Program and counterterrorism grant programs (Urban Area Security Initiative, State Homeland Security Program, Nonprofit Security Grant Program) as particularly dependent on experienced FEMA personnel.
Rather than authorizing resources, the resolution contains five non‑binding operative statements: condemnation of cuts, expression of grave concern, denouncement of impacts on counterterrorism grants, disapproval of reckless cuts, and a congressional commitment to support a stable FEMA workforce.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishing factual context about FEMA staffing and mission
The preamble assembles the factual record the resolution relies on: FEMA’s founding by EO 12127, GAO reports of chronic staffing shortages tied to past disaster responses, observed increases in disaster frequency and severity, and a reported staffing decline in 2025 that the text links to at least 2,000 permanent departures. Practically, this section frames the administration’s staffing decisions as a reversal of prior incremental workforce increases and sets the evidentiary baseline for the operative condemnations.
Formal condemnation of current and proposed workforce reductions
This clause publicly condemns both recent and contemplated future reductions at FEMA as actions that will 'endanger' national preparedness and response capacity. For stakeholders, the significance is reputational: condemnation signals the House’s view that such reductions are irresponsible and primes committees to pursue oversight or corrective measures without creating legal obligations.
Expressing concern about ignoring lessons from past disasters
Clause 2 links workforce decisions to operational failures observed after major storms—named in the text—and says reductions would impair State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments’ ability to protect lives and property. The practical implication is a policy rationale for oversight: lawmakers can point to these findings when requesting staffing metrics, after‑action reports, or revised deployment plans from FEMA and DHS.
Denouncement focused on counterterrorism grant impacts
This clause explicitly connects workforce cuts to risks for counterterrorism grant administration and frontline responder support, naming programs like UASI, SHSP, and the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. That linkage narrows the political argument beyond natural disaster response to include homeland security grant execution, which matters to jurisdictions and nonprofits that rely on those funds.
Disapproval of cuts and congressional commitment to support FEMA workforce
The resolution disapproves of 'reckless' cuts and concludes with a commitment by the House to support a stable, adequately resourced FEMA workforce. While non‑binding, that commitment functions as a policy signal that could translate into appropriations priorities, hiring oversight, or legislative fixes aimed at rebuilding surge capacity and retaining institutional expertise.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- FEMA career employees and potential recruits — the resolution defends the value of permanent staff and institutional knowledge, which supports retention and hiring efforts by signaling congressional backing.
- State, local, Tribal, and territorial emergency managers — the text emphasizes their reliance on timely Federal surge capacity and technical expertise, so they benefit politically from a House record opposing cuts.
- Recipients of FEMA‑administered programs — communities and individuals reliant on timely disaster assistance and National Flood Insurance Program administration are identified as beneficiaries because the resolution connects staffing levels to speed and fairness of assistance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Homeland Security and FEMA leadership — the resolution increases oversight pressure on department officials to justify workforce plans, defend staffing decisions, and potentially reverse reductions, which requires administrative time and may force operational changes.
- Congressional appropriators and taxpayers — the House’s stated commitment to support an adequately resourced FEMA workforce implies potential fiscal consequences: restoring permanent positions or surge capacity will likely require higher appropriations or reprogramming.
- Administration personnel policy makers — the resolution publicly rebukes executive workforce decisions, imposing political and operational costs on officials who designed or implemented the 2025 staffing changes, and may constrain future options for workforce restructuring.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: reducing headcount can produce short‑term budget savings or managerial flexibility but undermines readiness, institutional memory, and surge capacity that prevent far larger downstream costs and operational failures; the resolution condemns cuts but offers no concrete funding or personnel metrics, leaving lawmakers to choose between fiscal constraints and the demonstrated need for durable, experienced emergency management capacity.
The resolution is declaratory: it records congressional judgment but does not mandate appropriations, create new authorities, or bar the Administration from implementing workforce changes. That limits immediate practical effect while maximizing political signaling.
A central implementation question is how Congress would convert the commitment to a 'stable, adequately resourced FEMA workforce' into specific budgetary or statutory actions—targeted hires, full‑time equivalents, surge hiring authorities, or contracting limits—none of which the resolution prescribes.
The measure also relies on figures and judgments (for example, the cited 'at least 2,000' departures and a '35 percent staffing shortage') without establishing clear metrics the House expects FEMA to meet. That creates an accountability gap: oversight will require agreed definitions of adequate staffing, surge capacity, and institutional expertise.
Finally, the resolution conflates risks across different program areas (natural disaster response, NFIP claims handling, and counterterrorism grants), which may pull congressional remedies in different directions—staff increases for program administration vs. investments in contracting, technology, or state/local capacity building.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.