[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF BUILDING CODES AND MITIGATION
EFFORTS TO HELP MINIMIZE THE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISASTERS
=======================================================================
(112-94)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-290 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
------ 7
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Columbia
Arkansas, HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
Vice Chair MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BOB FILNER, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, (Ex Officio)
Tennessee
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Panel One
Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida............................................... 5
David Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 5
Panel Two
Jim Mullen, President, National Emergency Management Association. 16
James J. Gianato, Director of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, State of West Virginia............................. 16
Chief Hank C. Clemmensen, First Vice President, International
Association of Fire Chiefs..................................... 16
Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State
Floodplain Managers............................................ 16
Julie A. Rochman, President and CEO, Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety (IBHS)................................ 16
Rod Matthews, CPCU, P&C Operations Vice President, State Farm
Insurance Companies, testifying on behalf of the BuildStrong
Coalition...................................................... 16
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Billy Long, of Missouri..................................... 37
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia.......... 39
Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, of West Virginia......................... 42
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart........................................... 47
David Miller..................................................... 50
Jim Mullen....................................................... 55
James J. Gianato................................................. 60
Chief Hank C. Clemmensen......................................... 68
Chad Berginnis, CFM.............................................. 72
Julie A. Rochman................................................. 87
Rod Matthews, CPCU............................................... 91
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Public Works Association, written statement of Diane
Linderman, PE, PWLF, President................................. 99
International Code Council, written statement.................... 102
National Association of Home Builders, written statement......... 105
National Institute of Building Sciences, written statement of
Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA, President............................ 108
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A REVIEW OF BUILDING CODES AND
MITIGATION EFFORTS TO HELP MINIMIZE
THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
NATURAL DISASTERS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Denham. The committee will come to order.
Today's hearing will focus on building codes and mitigation
efforts to help minimize the cost associated with disaster.
I want to thank our witnesses and, in particular,
Representative Diaz-Balart, former Republican ranking member of
this subcommittee and a leader on these issues. Last June
Representative Diaz-Balart introduced H.R. 2069, the Safe
Building Code Incentive Act. That legislation would provide
States with an incentive to adopt statewide building codes by
providing additional mitigation assistance.
Why encourage mitigation in building codes? As a Member
from California, I know firsthand the difference building codes
can have in saving lives and reducing costs. With the threats
of wildfires and earthquakes, good building code can mean the
difference between life and death or whether homes remain
standing or are completely destroyed.
But it is not just anecdotal evidence that shows mitigation
saves lives and reduces costs. Study after study has shown that
investment in mitigation projects directly results in lower
Federal disaster payments. For example, a study completed by
the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 concluded that of
nearly $500 million invested by pre-disaster mitigation grants
between 2004 and 1007, $1.6 billion in future losses was
avoided. That is, for every dollar spent three dollars were
saved.
The National Institute of Building Sciences also studied
this issue and concluded that for each dollar spent four
dollars were saved, and more recently, just this year a study
commissioned by the National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies examined hurricane damages dating back to 1988. That
study showed that since that time $67 billion of the $125
billion paid by FEMA for disaster grants were related to
hurricane and wind damage. That study concluded that had model
building codes been in place, FEMA disaster payments would have
been $13 billion, or almost 20 percent less.
Mitigation of building codes, in particular, has proven to
save lives and taxpayer money. It makes sense for FEMA to
encourage such mitigation measures so that the costs of
disasters are reduced. And for families and communities facing
a disaster, minimizing the damage and protecting lives is
critical.
Again, I want to thank Representative Diaz-Balart for his
work on this issue and the other witnesses here with us today.
I now call on Ms. Norton for a brief introduction
statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning. I want to join the chairman in welcoming
today's witnesses to discuss the benefits of mitigation, and
our building codes, in particular, may reduce costs associated
with natural disasters.
Over the past several years, the subcommittee has held
several hearings on the importance and benefits of mitigation,
including building codes. The committee has referred to studies
by the National Institute of Building Sciences and the
Congressional Budget Office, both of which found that
mitigation saves taxpayers three to four dollars of every
dollar invested.
Mitigation does far more than save money. It reduces
injuries and saves lives. The underlying question is what
should Congress do to encourage more mitigation activities.
FEMA has two mitigation programs, the Pre-disaster
Mitigation Program and the Hazard Mitigation Program. Both
programs are essential to saving lives and saving tax dollars
by decreasing the amount of damage resulting from disasters.
Over the past several years this subcommittee has explored
other avenues for strengthening our Nation's efforts to limit
future damages. One such avenue is strong building codes. It
seems logical that if State and local communities have
enforceable building codes in place when construction occurs,
disaster related damages could decrease.
I look forward to hearing from our colleagues and the
former member of this committee, who was ranking member when I
chaired the committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and I am pleased to be
a co-sponsor of his bill, H.R. 2069, the Safe Building Code
Incentive Act of 2011. This bill would provide an incentive for
States to adopt and enforce model building codes that will
result in less damage from disasters.
Recently, the National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies released a study finding that FEMA would have saved
$11 billion in hurricane damage payouts since 1988 if those
damaged structures had been built to a model building code.
While disasters always expose new avenues for mitigation after
the fact, given the potential savings, Congress must do more to
try to limit or prevent damage before it happens.
An important benefit of mitigation that is often overlooked
is the investment in communities. Mitigation can help stimulate
the economy through increased economic development. Communities
benefit when the effects of disasters can be eliminated and
prevented. Providing disaster resilient structures and
infrastructure will encourage communities, residents and
businesses to stay or return to a community after a disaster.
Finally, I must note that like the rest of the east coast,
the District of Columbia was hit hard by the June storm with
hurricane force winds that downed many power lines. I am
interested in hearing more about mitigation and best practices
to prevent or limit future power outages, particularly
considering that the June storm was not the first time that
this region had suffered mass power outages and, unfortunately,
will probably not be the last if mitigation activities are not
performed and if we do not learn more about how to mitigate
these outages.
I appreciate today's witnesses preparing testimony to help
the committee think through this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Rahall for an opening statement.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this opportunity, and I certainly welcome all
of our witnesses to today's hearing, and particularly extend a
special welcome to my friend and the head of our homeland
security in West Virginia, Mr. Jimmy Gianato.
Jimmy has a well-deserved reputation in West Virginia as a
crisis manager, having served as a West Virginia Director of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management since 2005. His
dedication and expertise were critically important in helping
our State to organize its response to the June 29th derecho
storm that left residences and businesses in every county of my
State, 680,000 electrical customers in total without power.
Jimmy's tireless efforts are even more remarkable, given
the loss of his own home in this came massive storm due to a
lightning strike.
Mr. Chairman, it should be disconcerting to this committee
that more than 2 weeks after that monstrous storm has passed
thousands of West Virginia residents and businesses were still
without power. That means 2 weeks without air conditioning in
extreme heat; 2 weeks without refrigeration, as food spoiled in
family kitchens and grocery stores; 2 weeks of relying on
battery powered radios, flashlights, candles, canned goods, and
the generosity of friends and neighbors.
But that is what we are about in West Virginia, coming
together, helping each other, friends helping friends,
neighbors helping neighbors, family helping family, strangers
helping strangers. That is what we are about.
In addition, the lack of generators, gas stations created
fuel shortages, leaving many in long, panicking lines that
lasted for days. The lack of generators at hospitals and
nursing homes, along with disruptions of power to water and
sewage treatment facilities left elderly and vulnerable
residents sweltering and caretakers struggling to provide food,
water and medicine, and in some cases oxygen.
Small businesses were forced to close their doors for days,
losing critical sales. Workers were unable to do their jobs,
losing pay, and these already financially strapped families and
business owners were hit with multiple unexpected costs, like
the purchase of generators, if they could be found, made worse
by the inability to get cash at banks that had no power.
The Governor of West Virginia estimates that residents and
businesses combined lost a total of at least $340 million.
Emergency response officials, all of whom I commend for the
manner in which they responded, are appropriately asking
questions about the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
burying power lines and considering the potential need for
generators to be locally available at gas stations, health care
facilities, and other public and private locations.
Concerns have been raised about the electrical grid and its
capacity to endure emergencies like that devastating story, and
I certainly associate with the comments just made by the
gentlelady from DC. We must search for future methods of
mitigating such power outages.
Since 1995 over $58 million has been invested in West
Virginia mitigation activities, primarily for flood prevention.
In 2005 and 2007, two separate studies confirmed that hazard
mitigation activities reduced future losses by three to four
dollars for every dollar spent.
This morning I am interested to learn about the types of
mitigation activities that can be undertaken to prevent future
power outages like that experienced on June 29th. Equally
important, I want to know about potential steps that Congress
should take to allow or encourage more mitigation activities to
present future widespread power losses.
So I look forward to Jimmy's testimony and the other
witnesses this morning on how risk assessment, planning and
construction may help reduce further damage and limited some of
the turmoil caused by the massive power outages.
Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, let me remind the committee
that just yesterday the President did issue a disaster
declaration to help communities, including every county in my
district, with recovery expenses resulting from the June 29th
story, making it the third such declaration for my State this
year. While I am grateful that the administration acted so
expeditiously and I commend FEMA for the manner in which they
have reacted to this circumstance, as well as many others in
the past, this declaration has opened the way for the public
assistance.
And I must note that the State is now in the process of
seeking that individual assistance to help families and
businesses hard hit by the storm. It is certainly my hope that
this part of the process has moved along just as quickly so
that West Virginians can soon receive the full measure of help
they so badly need to recover from this devastating storm.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to today's
witnesses.
Mr. Denham. I ask unanimous consent that written testimony
by Representative Billy Long, a member of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, be entered into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[Please refer to the table of contents section entitled,
``Prepared Statements Submitted by Members of Congress'' for
Hon. Long's statement.]
Mr. Denham. I want to just read one brief paragraph of his
statement. ``Joplin's tragedies should serve as a warning to
all of our Nation's communities that despite modern technology
advancement, we are still very much at the mercy of extreme
natural events like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and
floods. It is important that we continually work to improve the
strength of our Nation's building, especially critical
infrastructure in large buildings in order to reduce the damage
and loss of life which can be caused by natural disasters. A
little common sense should help take us a long way.''
We will have two panels today. The first panel includes the
Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart from Florida, Member of Congress,
and Mr. David Miller, associate administrator, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration under FEMA.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Since your written testimony has been made part of the
record, the subcommittee would ask you to limit your testimony
to 5 minutes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARIO DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA; AND DAVID MILLER,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION
ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Holmes Norton, for holding this important
meeting. It is a privilege to be back at the T&I Committee.
I served on this committee for 8 years, including the last
2 as ranking member. So, again, I appreciate the work that you
are doing.
And as you said, my entire statement is in the record. So I
will just hit some highlights if that is all right with you,
Mr. Chairman.
Let me first piggyback on what you just read from
Congressman Billy Long. He is absolutely right. We know what
the problem is, and we know that there are a number of things
that we can do to help. Whether it is the wildfires in Colorado
this summer, whether it is the tornadoes that wreaked havoc in
Missouri, whether it is Hurricane Irene which pounded and
flooded big parts of the east coast, Mother Nature continuously
sends us telegrams, sends up wake up calls.
The economic losses just this year, the first part of this
year, of 2012, are already estimated to be at $14.6 billion. I
mean, it is mind boggling. So given those facts and given also
the fiscal climate that we face, it, frankly, does not make any
sense just after a big storm just do another emergency
supplemental.
We know that these storms are going to continue to happen,
and we also know that there are meaningful steps that we can
take to promote sound strategies that save lives, that mitigate
the devastation of future disasters, and by the way, ultimately
also save taxpayers money.
A commonsense approach, as the ranking member said just a
little while ago, should be to adopt model building codes that
will make our homes and our businesses more resistant to the
forces of nature. Strong building codes are widely accepted in
the emergency management community as being our best line of
defense against these storms, these natural disasters.
So while the evidence is overwhelming, most States have yet
to either adopt strong building codes or, frankly, do not have
mechanisms to enforce them if they have. So because of this, my
colleagues, Representative Albio Sires, Mr. Richard Hanna from
this committee, Steve Southerland and I have introduced H.R.
2069, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act. It provides
financial incentives for States to voluntarily adopt and
enforce the model building codes, for the construction of new
commercial and residential properties.
This legislation, frankly, Mr. Chairman, just simply
rewards good behavior. It rewards States that have those
building codes and that enforces those building codes and
provides incentives to do so for the States that have not done
so. It is important to note, however, that this bill does not
place mandates on States that do not currently or do not
enforce statewide building codes.
Mr. Chairman, next month is the 20th anniversary of
Hurricane Andrew. That was a turning point for many of us in
south Florida. It killed dozens. It was $26.5 billion in
damage. In those days it is hard to believe, but in south
Florida what we thought about when a hurricane was coming is we
would tape our windows. We would put tape on the windows and we
thought that would solve the problem.
Well, we learned the hard way. After that, Florida became a
leader in building codes, and because of that, research
conducted by the Insurance Institute of Business and Home
Safety, because of Florida's building codes, it reduced the
severity of property damage resulting from Hurricane Charlie in
2004 by more than 40 percent, 40 percent. And so think of what
that means in money and also in disruption of people's lives
and potentially saving people's lives.
So the evidence is clear, Mr. Chairman. Building codes
work. It is vital that we seize this opportunity to encourage
States to adopt their building codes in a manner that will save
lives, that will protect property, and ultimately also reduce
taxpayers' exposure to natural disasters.
I want to thank the BuildStrong Coalition for their
advocacy on this important issue. They have been an incredible
partner in promoting the needs for stronger building codes.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, sir, for
your leadership, for this committee's leadership. This is a
commonsense issue. We, I think, have a good piece of
legislation that would go a long way.
With that I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Miller, you proceed.
Mr. Miller. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member
Norton, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is
David Miller, and I am the associate administrator of the
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
In my testimony I will share an overview of FEMA's role in
building codes and discuss current programs and initiatives
used by the Agency to encourage mitigation efforts. Mitigation
is the thread that permeates emergency management and links
together preparedness response and recovery to reduce the loss
of lives and damage to property resulting from disasters.
Mitigation is about building stronger and more resilient
communities.
Mitigation efforts like building codes, flood-proofing
requirements and earthquake design standards support rapid
recovery from disasters and lessen the financial impact of
disasters on the Nation. To achieve FIMA's vision of a Nation
committed to a disaster resilient and sustainable future, we
engage and partner with a broad spectrum of whole community
stakeholders that include Federal, State, tribal, territorial,
local, nonprofit and private sector organizations.
FEMA works side by side with organizations like the
International Code Council to support development of the
International Codes, I-Codes, a family of building and fire
safety codes which provide a complete set of coordinated,
comprehensive and contemporary building and fire safety
standards available for adoption by jurisdictions.
Over the past 30 years, FEMA has worked with stakeholders
from across the whole community to propose and gain adoption of
numerous disaster-resistant provisions for earthquake, wind,
and flood hazards in the Nation's model codes and standards.
The Agency has championed hundreds of provisions now published
by the American Society of Civil Engineers in their publication
``Flood Resistant Design and Construction,'' which serves as
the core reference standard for the International Building Code
flood provisions.
FEMA's role in building codes is likely to evolve given the
recent passage of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 2012, which directs the Agency to conduct a study and submit
a report to Congress regarding the impact, effectiveness and
feasibility of amending sections of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, to include widely used and nationally
recognized building codes as part of the flood plain management
criteria in that section of the Act.
FEMA helps thousands of communities and tens of thousands
of individuals avoid the suffering and economic loss associated
with disaster damage through mitigation efforts like strong
building codes and grants to strengthen the build environment.
We encourage construction of safe rooms through grant programs
such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and since 1999,
have helped fund 1,334 community safe rooms in 20 States. This
includes 235 safe rooms in 2011, a nearly 90-percent increase
from the 124 rooms constructed with FEMA funding during 2010.
According to a 2005 report by the Multihazard Mitigation
Council, a public-private partnership designed to reduce the
economic and social costs of natural hazards, FEMA grants
disbursed between 1993 and 2003 to mitigate the effects of
floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes are expected to
save more than 220 lives and almost 4,700 injuries over
approximately 50 years.
Mitigation programs save the American public an estimated
$3.4 billion annually through a strategic approach to natural
hazard risk management. In 2011, FEMA's Hazard Mitigation
Assistance (HMA) Programs helped local communities across the
United States prepare for future disasters by providing up to
$252 million in flood grant funds for mitigation activities
affecting more than 1,300 properties. These measures are
expected to result in potential losses avoided of approximately
$502 million for flood programs.
FEMA's HMA Programs are one way FEMA supports mitigation
through a whole community approach. We are also working to
implement Presidential Policy Directive 8, which aims to
strengthen the security and resilience of the United States
through systemic preparation for threats that pose the greatest
risk to the security of the Nation. As part of PPD-8, FEMA and
its interagency partners are developing the National Mitigation
Framework and its companion, Federal Interagency Operation
Plan, which support efforts to create a nationwide, holistic,
integrated model for mitigation.
In an effort to support development of building codes and
engage State and local partners, FEMA has collaborated
nationally to bring attention to the importance of the codes
through a number of activities, including a Presidential
proclamation declaring the month of May as National Building
Safety Month in both 2011 and 2012; publishing articles
highlighting the importance of disaster resistant building
codes in technical journals and magazines; blog posts and
postings on the FEMA Web site; and the creation of a Building
Codes 101 toolkit for communities to use to adopt and enforce
effective building codes.
FEMA also uses a variety of programs to reach members of
the whole community, including Risk Mapping, Assessment, and
Planning, our Risk MAP Program, which strengthens State,
tribal, territorial and local government capability by
providing actionable risk information, mitigation planning
tools, and risk communication outreach support. Risk MAP is the
intelligence function that helps us better inform and reduce
risk, and it's critical to our toolkit.
FEMA coordinates with communities to use data identified
through the Risk MAP processes to inform communities and
citizens about their risk so they can take effective actions to
reduce their risk. As you are aware, the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000, as written by the committee, requires the
development of State-approved hazard mitigation plans to pre-
identify projects for execution once funding becomes available
through the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The programs and initiatives I described here today help
FEMA help our Nation to save lives and property through
mitigation. Adoption and enforcement of effective building
codes in local ordinances can further mitigation efforts and
preserve lives and property that would otherwise be lost.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me this opportunity
to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any
questions you or other members of the committee may have.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Diaz-Balart, in your testimony you
highlight some of the issues that you saw with Hurricane
Andrew. I remember very vividly after returning home from
Desert Storm that was one of our deployments, was to send help
from California. I know how devastating that was for your
State.
Can you describe the process Florida went through in
evaluating the need for building codes and the work that you
have done on this issue?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually I was involved in the statewide building code
effort when I was in the State legislature, and I will tell you
that it was a heavy lift. There were some that because they had
not gotten hit by a hurricane in recent years just said they
did not want to do that. However, we succeeded, and I worked on
that.
We succeeded in first having a very strong building code in
south Florida and southeast Florida. Then we were able to get
the State to pretty much do the same thing.
I will tell you, by the way, a little anecdote about that.
There was a wonderful member of the Florida Senate who,
frankly, I was working with in trying to get a statewide
building code, and he refused to have his part of the State be
part of it because he said that it was not necessary. They had
not gotten hit by a storm in, you know, 100 years or whatever.
So we exempted that part of the State, frankly. So we had a
statewide building code with a gap.
Well, then we had that year, I think, five hurricanes that
hit the State of Florida. The legislature right after that
closed that gap, and now we have one of the strongest building
codes in the entire country.
So it is a heavy lift, but I will tell you, as I think
Congressman Billy Long said it very well, better than I could:
Look. These things are going to happen, and the question is are
we ready beforehand. Can we take some commonsense measures to
avoid loss of life, loss of property damage, and also to save
taxpayer money?
Yes, we can, and this is one of those. I think the
legislation that a number of us have is a commonsense approach
because it is not punitive to the States. It encourages the
States to do so. So that is one way to do that.
Now, is it a heavy lift in some cases? Yes. That changes as
soon as they get hit by a flood or a fire or a tornado. All of
a sudden, the States realize that they can do better.
Mr. Denham. And from your personal experience, do you have
examples of homes or buildings that are compliant versus maybe
in the same area or in different parts of the State where you
did not have compliant homes, the differences in the damage and
the assessment after the fact?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Sure. Actually the Insurance Institute has
a facility where they test different buildings. Florida
International University has a similar facility, what they call
the Wall of Wind, I believe, where they test different
facilities and different mitigations to see what works and what
does not work.
But we saw that very clearly in south Florida after
Hurricane Andrew, and we have seen it after other storms. Those
buildings, whether it is residential or commercial, that were
built under higher standards, frankly, withstand the damage,
and those that are not, well, they disappear.
And so they rebuild. They have to be rebuilt. It costs
insurers. It costs the taxpayers. It costs everyone a lot more
money. So, look, this saves money and it saves lives in the
long term.
And what we do know is that every time one of these things
happen, Congress gets together and we will then do a bill to
make sure that we can fund whatever we need to fund to try to
get those communities back and running. Does it not make sense
if that is going to happen that we at least encourage those
States to have stronger building codes so that we do not have
to do that time after time after time? It is throwing good
money after bad or bad money after good, however you want to
call it.
Yes, we have seen it in south Florida. It works. It has
made a huge difference, and it is part of my statement today
that after a recent storm, after looking at that, we were told
that the stronger building codes reduced the damage by 40
percent. That just pays for itself right there, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for returning to
this subcommittee about your bill. I liked the way your bill
was framed. That is why I was a co-sponsor, because it does
seem to me that particularly in light of federalism, if the
Federal Government wants you to do something, you offer
incentives, as I recall. You get more hazard mitigation funds
if you did a building code.
I understand that there was a score on it. Somehow the CBO
does not get it, this extraordinary saving, three to four
dollars for every dollar invested. Is there a way to somehow
enact your bill?
I would hate to take the incentive out, but you and I know
what happens when a bill gets scored. Is there some way to move
your bill through the CBO scoring process so that it does not
get stopped dead in its tracks, despite all of the information
that has been collected. I mean, it is just the way scoring
works.
So have you considered another way to get our bill passed
or to the floor?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. We understand why CBO has
scored it the way they do. They do static scoring. They do not
look at the savings. They look at what potentially more money
could go out.
Now, you know, all of this is subject to appropriations
anyway, obviously, like most things. We are looking at ways
that we can try to, again use the word ``mitigate'' that
scoring; the problem being, however, that we do need to have an
incentive for States to do so, and we are always looking at
ways of doing that.
Again, we understand the scoring problem, but the issue is
this: We have actual evidence that this saves money. It
actually saves money, but the ranking member knows and I know
the frustration that she has had over the years with issues of
leasing versus buying properties and how that is scored, and we
know that that is, frankly, also a static score.
We have to deal with that reality. We are looking at ways
to do that. We have not yet come up with a good answer for
that.
Ms. Norton. Well, I think it is worth our trying to think
of a way. If not incentives, I do not know. If we said you
would not get any hazard mitigation funds if you did not do it,
I guess that would not score. That is pretty draconian. Instead
your bill is framed as a win-win, and we need a score.
I do not know what to do about it, but I very much think it
is worth thinking through, and I certainly would like to work
with you to.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. If I may, you know, it is interesting. If
we were to do that obviously, you know, we would read about it.
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. However, you are right. It would score
then with huge savings, and we all know that that would not
happen; that after a storm, Congress would get together and we,
of course, would fund that, which I think highlights how
sometimes the scoring issue can be very frustrating.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Miller, I had a question about this
National Mitigation Framework because we have been sitting in
the committee talking about this framework for almost 10 years,
and when we passed the Homeland Security Act, there is a
section in there that calls for strategies, mitigation
strategies.
Then in 2005, we had this extraordinary result. Congress
mandated the study. We have the extraordinary results, and now
we are 10 years later, and you are speaking about a National
Mitigation Framework. I mean, it looks to me as though this has
been 10 years in the development. So I have to ask you when
will we have a framework.
Mr. Miller. Well, ma'am, the framework is not in
development, but is going through the final concurrence
processes now. We hope to have it out in the next few days and
be able to publish that.
But I think as importantly as the framework itself, and
getting that published after it goes through the concurrence
process, is the Federal Interagency Operational Plan. We are
putting that together now.
The approach that we are taking is to look at a
``mitigation all the time'' strategy instead of just after
disasters, and look at the role all of Government can play
along with our other partners in taking effective mitigation
action. So it is not just a single focuse on the largest
disaster. It is not just the flood focus we have seen in the
past. We really want to broaden that, talk about the role all
Government can play, not just the----
Ms. Norton. Well, your testimony is that your National
Mitigation Framework is about to be published.
Mr. Miller. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. In addition, you are calling on other agencies.
What agencies? What kinds of agencies' help would FEMA elicit?
Mr. Miller. Well, ma'am, we go across the broad Federal
spectrum. When we look at mitigation activities and we really
look at it writ large, all of the things that are possible, we
involve agencies like USDA, the Department of Transportation,
the Department of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development,
Public Health. There are a number of mitigative actions that
can be taken both in their current authorities as they exist
and then what comes to play during a disaster declaration.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have got a question for Mr. Miller. From your personal
experience at FEMA and previously in Iowa, could you share some
examples of some specific cases in which building codes made a
difference in terms of lives saved and damages reduced?
Mr. Miller. I think there are any number of those. As we
walk through it, in my own experience in Iowa, we looked at
building code and building code enforcement. It is sporadic in
Iowa. There is not a statewide building code enforcement. The
various communities have adopted building codes but do not have
a statewide enforcement.
But as we looked at those that have done that, have built
to that environment, and we looked at wind damage, we looked at
damages from floodings; we have seen the benefits of that code
and code enforcement. As far as specific lives saved, that I
cannot talk to, but again, we look at the forensics of it.
In FEMA, one of the things that interests me is that we
actually go out with a mitigation assistance team to go out and
look at the forensics and the performance of buildings after a
disaster to see how well they perform. And the truth is that
those that have been built to code perform much better than
those that have not.
So not only do we have the testing facility that
Congressman Diaz-Balart talked about, but we actually have
forensic testimony that tells us buildings have performed and
performed well, especially those that are built to code.
Mr. Crawford. Do you think that this bill would reduce
Federal disaster costs and actually save taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Miller. I do. I think time and time again as we go
through this and, again, look at the forensics and the proof
before us, look at the testing that is done, the testimony of
others, we see time and again that the adoption of building
codes and the enforcement of building codes is a good value
statement to our communities. It makes them more resilient. It
saves lives, and it protects property and people.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
The last question to Congressman Diaz-Balart.
Just to be clear, and if I am repeating myself forgive me,
does the Safe Building Code Incentive Act place mandates on
States?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. It does not. It gives incentives to the
States.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And that is one of the issues that we have
with the scoring, but yes, I think I am one of those who does
not like mandating things to the State. So this is a different
approach to that.
Mr. Crawford. I appreciate it. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Miller, let me begin by highly complimenting
you and FEMA for the manner in which you have responded to our
crises in West Virginia, not only the recent storm, but many in
the past. You know, you have been in our State. You have
partnered with our State after numerous storms, been there
within days after a disaster has hit, and many in the past have
grateful words of praise for FEMA. Many parents sometimes say
they want to have the nickname of FEMA for their newborn child
that has been born out of the storm. So we do compliment you
and thank you for all that assistance.
You heard my opening comments, and I was on the ground
after this recent disaster, as I am after every one that
occurs, personally experiencing with each family the damages
and the turmoil through which they are traveling.
This latest one in which we had such severe power outages
does not fit the classical definition of traditional sources of
damage like a food would. A flood destroys one's home. You have
figures immediately you can put on the value of that home. When
you have power outages, as you know, it is a little different.
You have families that have to go to hotels in order to
maintain their dialysis machine to keep their medical supply
going, and oftentimes these families are in the middle class.
They have no other form of assistance available. Their income
is above a certain level, and they are certainly not in the
upper class. So they are in that middle class where they often
fall through the crack as far as receiving help that they need
after such a disaster.
We thank you for what you have declared just yesterday in
providing public assistance to our communities. That will help
a great deal, and my question is headed toward the individual
assistance that we now need. Even though we may not fit the
traditional criteria or figures for such an individual disaster
declaration, will you give that same sense of urgency to this
individual request that our Governor and you will hear from our
Homeland Security Director in a few moments, when all of the
figures will be before you?
But will you give that the same sense of urgency that you
have, and we thank you for, the Community Assistance
Declaration?
Mr. Miller. I believe we will, sir. I have not talked to
Administrator Fugate about this issue, but knowing his feelings
about how we respond to and how we help the survivors of
disasters, I am sure it will receive our full consideration as
we move it forward.
You know, it is the part that we look at. It is one thing
to affect communities, but how it affects individuals I know
weighs on his mind considerably, and he will give it the
fullest consideration.
Mr. Rahall. I appreciate that because, as I said, you know,
you sometimes have to look beyond the cold, hard figures as to
what the suffering was really all about.
While it is up to each State, of course, to prepare and
submit a hazard mitigation plan to address such State hazards,
what type of outreach does FEMA do to distribute best practices
to the States?
Mr. Miller. Actually, we do it in a number of areas, and we
are looking at broadening that dialogue. When I spoke in my
testimony of Risk MAP, the first thing that we really want to
do is enter a dialogue with the community about risk. Risk MAP
is based primarily on flooding, but it is not the only dialogue
we want to have.
We have talked about how we brought in other sectors of
FEMA to talk about overall risk. One of the things that is
going to drive the process as we issue our grants and as we do
mapping is what we call THIRA, the threats and hazards
identification and risk assessment, that will happen.
It is another opportunity to have a conversation about the
total risk facing a community and what they can do to buy down
that risk either by effective building codes or by taking other
measures in their community. We think there is some real
opportunity there, and we look forward to engaging the whole
community.
I think in the past we have focused oftentimes on talking
to emergency managers and not talking to everybody in the
community. I think the real effort here will be to talk about
it in terms of the value to the community of taking effective
measures before the disaster to enforce codes and standards
that will help them mitigate against the next event. That has a
benefit over a broad array, not just the direct benefit about
avoiding disaster loss.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Chairman.
Currently there is 15 percent allowance for mitigation. We
are going to raise it to 19 percent. The Government is full of
incentive plans for hiring people, filling any number of things
that look good on paper and work well in our imaginations, but
what specifically makes anybody think, and I am on board for
this incidentally; what tools do we have to make us believe
that municipalities and State governments after they have done
their cost-benefit analysis will actually pull that lever to
direct this money towards building codes as opposed to other
things?
So the question is: did they do it very well at 15 percent
and will 19 percent increase that in your opinion? And
generally do States look at changes in their codes as a way to
use mitigation money?
Anybody.
Mr. Miller. From my experience they do, and they are
looking for the incentives to allow them to move forward. As
you stated in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, we offer 15 percent
for those that have a plan in force. We offer 20 percent to
those who have an enhanced plan, and there are a handful of
States that have enhanced plans.
But I think as we move forward in communities and we look
at that 4 percent adjustment and an incentive, anything that
allows us to move to building codes, I think those that have
lived in the margins and question the values of building codes,
perhaps this will push them over the edge.
We have done the other efforts. We have done the community
outreach, the things that that we need to do. We have worked
with the code councils. We have talked to a number of groups
about the performance of building codes, and right now I think
we are at about 51 percent of the communities that have
building codes.
What I do not know is the level of enforcement, the energy
by which they enforce those codes across the United States, but
we do know they perform and they perform well. I think an
incentive that allows them to move forward is certainly
something that States would entertain and need, especially in
these tough economic times. To tip that edge.
Mr. Hanna. Do you feel as though you may need it within the
context of this bill a way to formalize that incentive?
I think part of it is the discussion, and I will defer a
little bit to the States. I know they are on your panel today,
on what tips them and moves over the edge. I have some
experience in our own State. I know part of the question is the
cost of compliance and moving forward and what it does to the
overall economic stability of an area and how they develop and
compete.
But I think, again, for us it becomes the value judgment.
As far as implementing it, should the law pass, I think that is
a fairly straightforward implementation for us, much like we do
the other incentives in the bill, including the enhanced
planning status.
I think the question is, as I recall, the bill asked for
those codes to be submitted to the State. We would have to work
with the code and other committees to insure that it is the
newest, up-to-date code. There are some things that we would
have to do to administer the program within FEMA.
Mr. Hanna. And you think 4 percent is a reasonable place to
go with this?
Mr. Miller. I would not question that, sir. I mean, we have
not done an effective study to say what the real incentive
should be and what the tipping point is. You know, we will have
some costs for administration, but again, I think moving in a
direction that allows us to move building codes forward is the
right direction.
Mr. Hanna. Have you seen some marginal changes in behavior
before as the incentives changed?
Mr. Miller. We have, but with incentives a lot of times
comes requirement, and I think there needs to be some balance
there. I do not know that we will know the full effect of that
until we try it out.
I will give you the for-instance. As we looked at it in
enhanced States, and we talked about the 5-percent increase
between 15 and 20 percent for States that have an enhanced
plan, frankly, we have held, I think, in about 10 States that
incentive for a long time. It is a fairly arduous requirement
on States to have an enhanced plan and to administer that.
So as we look at these things and at incentives, the
question will be relative to building codes how arduous are
they; what is our implementation; what is the cost of
compliance; how do we move forward. Again, the general feeling
is incentives work, but to the degree that they will work, I am
sure all of these questions will have to be answered.
Mr. Hanna. My time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Denham. I would like to thank this first panel for your
testimony today, and specifically Representative Diaz-Balart
for your efforts not only on the State level but the fact that
you are able to save your State money and save lives. But now
certainly with your bill here being able to stretch our FEMA
dollar and save lives from a national perspective is something
that you should be commended for.
So thank you for your efforts and thank you for your
testimony today.
And if our second panel would take the witness stand here,
today's witnesses include Mr. Jim Mullen, president, National
Emergency Management Association; Mr. Jimmy Gianato, director
of homeland security and emergency management, State of West
Virginia; Chief Hank C. Clemmensen, first vice president,
International Association of Fire Chiefs; Mr. Chad Berginnis,
executive director, Association of State Floodplain Managers;
Ms. Julie Rochman, president and CEO, Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety; and Mr. Rod Matthews, CPCU, P&C
operations vice president, State Farm Insurance Companies.
I would like to welcome our witnesses here with us today. I
ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements be
included in the record.
Without objection so ordered.
Since your written testimony has been made part of the
record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your
testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullen, you may proceed. If you could, pull your
microphone a little closer to you and push the on button.
TESTIMONY OF JIM MULLEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; JAMES J. GIANATO, DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND
SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
CHIEF HANK C. CLEMMENSEN, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS; CHAD BERGINNIS, CFM, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS; JULIE A.
ROCHMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS
AND HOME SAFETY (IBHS); AND ROD MATTHEWS, CPCU, P&C OPERATIONS
VICE PRESIDENT, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF THE BUILDSTRONG COALITION
Mr. Mullen. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Norton,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Jim
Mullen, and I am the director of Washington State Emergency
Management Division. Thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony today as the president of the National Emergency
Management Association.
NEMA represents State Emergency Management Director of the
50 States, District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories.
Few professions lend themselves to sports metaphors like
the emergency management does. One that I think is particularly
appropriate is offense wins games, defense wins championships.
In our case, response and recovery addresses short-term goals
following a disaster, but mitigation, like defense, is critical
to winning in the long-term battle for disaster resistant
communities.
The emergency management community plays a large role in
communicating the message of mitigation, and what is that
message? We mitigate so that preparedness is based on the best
assessment of threats and hazards. We prepare because we cannot
mitigate every threat, and we respond because mitigation and
preparedness cannot completely eliminate risk, and we recover
because it is important that we return to what our new normal
has become.
In the wake of a disaster we then resume mitigation efforts
all over again. The cycle of emergency management begins and
ends with mitigation.
At its core, mitigation is easy to justify, and it seems
like common sense. In practice, however, challenges still
exist. The current funding structure for mitigation limits full
integration and implementation of a National Mitigation
Strategy.
FEMA has mitigation assistance grant programs to provide
funding for pre and post disaster mitigation. While funding
levels for the other HMA grants are set, Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program funds are only available to jurisdictions that
experience a major disaster declaration and levels are
determined as a percentage of their overall Federal assistance.
In examining funding history over the past 10 years, it
becomes evident that HMGP funding far outweighs investment in
the four other programs. It cannot be overstated how crucial
mitigation is post disaster to address critical points of
failure, but instead of capitalizing on the 1 to 3 ratio of
dollars invested to dollars saved on recovery costs, the
Federal Government is missing the opportunity to focus money on
the frontend instead of on the backend.
Lack of effective communication is also a barrier to
mitigation. For example, the private sector makes mitigation
decisions all the time, but they do not always call it
mitigation. Businesses take actions to invest in long-term
profitability and eliminate or lessen future losses. Mitigation
makes good business sense, and the private sector is able to
communicate their motives to corporate and community
stakeholders.
In order to achieve the goals of mitigation as a national
strategy, there are actions that must be taken. First, we must
imbed mitigation and policy development as broadly as possible.
Risk reduction policies and specific hazard mitigation measures
are not the sole domain of any single agency, discipline, or
profession. Policymakers in many domains could advance the
reduction of risk in ways outside their traditional scope of
responsibility.
Secondly, we must educate Federal, State and local
officials. Local elected and appointed officials make tough
decisions and weigh costs versus benefits every day to make
wise policy decisions where mitigation investments are
concerned. They deserve to be educated about the threats,
risks, benefits, and costs as fully as possible.
Third, we should emphasize incentive, not punitive
mitigation policies. Mitigation can be encouraged and rewarded
or it can be mandated with punishment for the noncompliant.
Policymakers should consider funding programs designed to
reward effective land use and building design actions,
including building codes and ordinances, and flexibility is
needed to realize that one size does not fit all.
And, lastly, there should be a focus on measuring and
capturing success, along with some enhanced ability to measure
the effectiveness of mitigation. Strategies that publicize
those successes must also be developed, exploring ways to
measure the long-term benefits of mitigation on tourism, the
environment and economy, and enhance the attractiveness of
mitigation efforts.
In order to encourage investment and promote the goals of
mitigation activities on the State and local level, specific
recommendations should be considered. Better coordination is
needed between Federal agencies with roles in mitigation. No
single agency or level of Government sector of business or
individual community can achieve successful mitigation on its
own. Mitigation must be connected to other programs. Mitigation
objectives for specific projects can differ among individuals,
but if the same project supports multiple desired outcomes,
success and achievement are increased.
To support a National Mitigation Strategy, we must rethink
the Federal grant structure. The current mitigation structure
is centered on the Federal Government. Local governments and
communities must find a way to illustrate their commitment to
mitigation and demand partnerships to leverage their
investment.
The funding that comes down from the Federal Government
must supplement, not supplant the work already being done at
the State and local level. The path to successful
implementation of a national strategy is filled with
challenges, but there are numerous opportunities for effective
collaboration between all mitigation stakeholders.
NEMA and our partners remain committed to advancing the
message of mitigation and furthering the core goals of risk
reduction and loss avoidance.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Gianato. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Congresswoman
Norton, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before before you today on behalf of
the citizens of West Virginia and all Americans that were so
affected by this devastating storm known as the derecho.
I have been the director of homeland security and emergency
management in the State of West Virginia since 2005 and
previously served for 22 years as a local county and State
official dealing with numerous disasters. I can honestly report
to you that I have never witnessed anything of this magnitude
with the impact it had on our State. The widespread devastation
the storm produced in West Virginia was without precedent.
The June 29th derecho was one of the most destructive, fast
moving severe thunder storms in North American history. The
massive storm brought straight line winds of over 100 miles per
hour and traveled close to 700 miles in just 10 hours. It
devastated 10 States, left over 4 million homes and businesses
without electricity, and resulted in the deaths of at least 22
people.
In West Virginia we realized almost immediately that the
damage would be particularly heavy. Before 10:00 p.m. on June
29th, 2012, Governor Tomblin had already declared a state of
emergency for the entire State of West Virginia. I had
activated the State Emergency Operations Center and Adjutant
General Hoyer had activated the West Virginia National Guard's
Joint Operations Center and the first complement of our
soldiers and airmen.
For West Virginia the major impact from the storm was the
loss of electrical power, which at its peak included almost
700,000 customers or roughly 1.6 million citizens. The power
outages result in as many as 87 public community water systems
going offline, as well as hundreds of families depending on
privately owned water wells without power to run their pumps,
leaving tens of thousands of mountaineers without water.
The suffering from this lack of power and water was
compounded by the record heat wave that swept the country
during this outage period. With high humidity and a heat index
touching 110 degrees, our most vulnerable populations were
particularly at risk.
The lack of power impacted much more than the comfort of an
air conditioner. With most gas stations inoperable, the few
that had power saw lines of over 2 hours long. Grocery stores
lost the ability to keep perishable foods and lost most
business for over a week.
Pharmacies were unable to dispense badly needed
medications. Cell phone towers became inoperative, and at least
50 percent of the State's hospitals were on generator power.
Immediately we set to coordinate one of the largest
response efforts in West Virginia history. Governor Tomblin
took swift action in activating the State Emergency Operations
Plan and requested Federal assistance as soon as the magnitude
of the storm was realized. Hundreds of State employees from
almost every State agency reported for duty ready to assist
their fellow citizens. At least 50 percent of our Division of
Highways' support was solely dedicated to disaster response,
clearing 1,846 roads and delivering fuel to all of our
counties.
Our Department of Health and Human Resources activated its
Health Command Center to assist at one time during the storm up
to 50 percent of the hospitals reporting on generator power.
Thirty-eight long-term health care facilities were on backup
power. Seventy-nine percent of the community water systems in
the State were impacted by the storm, and at least 146 used
generators in one or more water plants.
Another major issue encountered during the event was the
lack of our ability to acquire oxygen for patients who used
concentrators. Lack of power caused them to switch to bottled
oxygen, which was in short supply, and local home health
providers were unable to meet the demand.
FEMA also assisted us in acquiring additional oxygen. I
have attached copies of the DHHR report to my written
testimony, but as with many agencies, they are still gathering
data related to this event.
The FEMA response to this disaster was immediate. From the
time the Governor made the request to FEMA at about 3:00 in the
morning, relief supplies and personnel began arriving within 6
hours. Throughout the duration of the event, FEMA personnel
were extremely helpful and responsive to our needs.
To give you an idea of the supplies provided, almost 2.6
million liters of water were provided by FEMA, over 669,000
meals, 97 generators and 20 infant kits.
The West Virginia Emergency Operations Center focused its
immediate response on identifying initial impacts and to trying
to determine what needs will be required. Even with the large
volume of communications not functioning, our statewide Public
Safety Radio Network provided us a solid and reliable
communications backbone.
By Saturday, June 30th, the next day of the storm, we knew
that 53 of our 55 counties had been impacted. Among the most
impressive response efforts came from our citizen soldiers and
airmen of the West Virginia National Guard. Over 700 Guardsmen
disbursed throughout the State to provide life sustaining
supplies and even door-to-door checks.
The support from the private sector was tremendous. Our
interaction with agencies, such as the West Virginia Oil
Marketers and Grocers Association, were a tremendous support
system for our State. This was just one example of the private
sector stepping up to assist.
I appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of what
we have done in West Virginia to deal with this event. I have
submitted written testimony to you, and I will be glad to
answer any questions at the end.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Chief Clemmensen.
Chief Clemmensen. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking
Member Norton and members of the subcommittee. I am Chief Hank
Clemmensen of the Palatine Rural Fire Protection District
located in Inverness, Illinois, and the first vice president of
the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to
represent the fire and emergency service's support for building
codes and effective hazard mitigation.
America suffers from one of the worst fire problems in the
civilized world. In 2010, there were more than 1.3 million
fires in America which resulted in the deaths of more than
3,100 Americans and more than 17,000 injuries.
The economic cost of these fires is equally compelling. For
example, the economic loss due to fires in 2009 was $16.1
billion. The total cost for fire that year, including insurance
costs and local fire department expenditures, was $331 billion.
This amount represents approximately 2.3 percent of the
national gross domestic product.
Model building codes and fire codes play a key role in
mitigating the damage done by fires, windstorms, earthquakes
and other disasters. They are designed using a consensus-driven
process that includes all of the stakeholders. The fire service
participates in the development of these codes to ensure that
modern construction is safe for the public and first
responders.
There is strong evidence that building and fire codes
prevent the tragic loss caused by extreme weather and national
disasters. For example, a 2009 World Bank report demonstrated
that the strict adherence to tough zoning and building codes
resulted in greatly reduced fatalities in California as
compared to earthquakes in other countries. A 2012 report by
the IBHS found that the adoption of high wind provisions in
residential buildings reduced the frequency of claims after a
hurricane by 60 percent and the severity of such claims by 42
percent.
Unfortunately, some jurisdictions do not adopt model
building codes or update them until after a natural disaster
occurs. In Illinois, there was a greater focus on adopting
sprinkler codes for schools after the Our Lady of Angels fire
in 1958. Sadly, more than 90 students and teachers perished in
that fire before sprinkler codes were changed.
The IAFC believes that H.R. 2069 will encourage States to
adopt the most current commercial and residential building
codes proactively. By adding a 4-percent incentive to FEMA's
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the bill will create a
virtuous cycle for States to receive more funds to protect
their citizens.
As the subcommittee begins to consider this legislation, we
would like to raise three points for your consideration: (1) To
qualify for the 4-percent incentive, States should not be able
to opt out of or reduce substantial code requirements. For
example, the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code
included a requirement for residential sprinklers. Many States
opted out of this requirement when adopting the code.
The IAFC is greatly concerned about this decision since
there is clear evidence that fire sprinklers save lives.
A report by Scottsdale, Arizona, found that one or two
sprinkler heads controlled or extinguished the fire 92 percent
of the time. Because of their proven efficiency, the U.S. Fire
Administration recommends the installation of fire sprinklers
in residences.
The decision to opt out of residential fire sprinkler
requirements presents a serious problem for public safety.
Sixty-six percent of all civilian fire injuries from 2008 to
2010 resulted from fires in residential buildings. So, the
decision to opt out of the residential sprinkler requirements
will do nothing to mitigate two-thirds of the casualties caused
by fires.
(2) Local jurisdictions should be allowed the latitude to
adopt more stringent codes than the State minimum code
requires. Especially in large States, the various regions in a
State may face different threats. For example, the wind
resistance requirements for buildings in south Florida and the
Panhandle vary due to the threat of hurricanes. When
implementing H.R. 2069, local jurisdictions should be allowed
to strengthen their requirements to address all hazards.
(3) The legislation should also include both building codes
and fire codes. Both building codes and fire codes work
together in tandem. In many communities a building code
addresses design and construction of a building while the fire
codes address specific life safety hazards associated with the
facility's use. The adoption of both building codes and fire
codes at the State level will ensure that there is a minimum
level of fire protection in local communities across the
Nation.
Finally, on behalf of the America's fire and EMS chiefs, I
would like to thank you for holding today's hearing. Model
building and fire codes play an important role in mitigating
the effects of fire and other natural disasters. H.R. 2069
proposes an incentive that will improve the safety of the
American public and first responders.
We urge Congress to consider this legislation and look
forward to working with the subcommittee.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Berginnis.
Mr. Berginnis. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking
Member Norton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I
am Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of
State Floodplain Managers. We are pleased to offer our thoughts
related to hazard mitigation and building codes.
ASFPM's 14,000 members and 33 chapters are the country's
practitioners who administer flood hazard mitigation programs,
land use and building codes on a daily basis.
2011 was a record-setting year in the United States. Data
indicated that 2011 resulted in at least $10 billion in flood
damages. The Nation experienced 14 disasters from natural
hazards where the cost of each exceeded $1 billion, and
President Obama issued a record 99 major disaster declarations.
As the cost of disasters continues to rise, Governments and
citizens must find ways to reduce cost from natural hazards.
Hazard mitigation means taking a sustainable action to reduce
or eliminate long-term risks from hazards and their effects.
There is a variety of mitigation tools though, including
planning, building codes, land use standards, planning, hazard
insurance, mitigation grant programs, protection of critical
facilities, infrastructure protection, and high engineered
structural measures.
Hazard mitigation also saves money. The 1993, Mississippi
River flood affected hundreds of homes and caused several
million dollars of damage in the small city of Arnold,
Missouri. In 1995, a large number of at-risk homes were bought,
demolished, and the remaining property was deed restricted as
open space.
By 2008, over 322 homes had been acquired. When flooding
occurred that year, a total of $12,000 in damages resulted.
Today flooding is mostly an inconvenience in Arnold, and the
long-term cost to the U.S. taxpayer is essentially zero.
Mitigation grant projects are an important tool used
nationwide, especially in older communities that have existing
inventories of at-risk buildings and infrastructure. Demand for
these programs far exceeds available resources. A poll of State
hazard mitigation officers found that current demand ranges
anywhere from 3 to 10 times available funding.
Mitigation practitioners in the Nation though are concerned
about the administration's proposed FY 2013 budget to zero out
the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program, and ASFPM appreciates
Congress' expression of support of that program through
restoration of some of those funds. PDM is a significant source
of mitigation funds for mitigation planning, and it is not
redundant to other sources that may be available after a
declared disaster.
In fact, over half of the States depend upon PDM for
planning assistance.
ASFPM also thinks that building codes can play an effective
role in hazard mitigation, and there are six key considerations
for any legislation addressing building codes and mitigations.
First, State adoption does not necessarily equal all
communities adopting the same code. As the previous panelists
had indicated, there is the ability to opt out of codes, and
the code adoption process is voluntary and variable.
Many States do not require local jurisdictions to adopt
building codes, and others allow communities to adopt a
building code of their choice. Ohio serves to illustrate this
point well. The States of Ohio adopted international codes. In
fact, they are required in all communities. Those codes are
required for three-plus family, residential, commercial and
industrial buildings.
However, the Ohio residential code is optional in
communities for one to three family dwellings. Furthermore in
2012, when the Ohio residential code was updated, controversial
provisions of the International Residential Code were omitted.
Second, State adoption does not necessarily equal
enforcement of those codes. Over the past 25 years, FEMA post
event reports find that the construction does not meet targeted
building code performance. Anecdotally, many local flood plain
managers indicate that code enforcement can be difficult.
Everything from political pressure, misuse of the variance
process, to other inadequate legal counsel can impact a
community's ability to enforce its regulations.
Third, model codes are consistent with minimum national
standards, but do the standards achieve the needed amount of
loss reduction? While flood provisions of the model building
codes are consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program
standards, minimum standards of the NFIP have not been updated
in over 25 years, and much loss experience has been learned.
Are these minimum standards enough? Steps should be taken
to encourage or incent States and/or communities with unique
hazards or long-term vision to implement standards beyond those
in the international codes.
An effective approach must include both incentives and the
elimination of perverse disincentives. Today's communities and
States get rewarded for doing little or nothing to increase
their resiliency. If a community is not willing to do the day-
to-day mitigation through codes and land use, why should even
they be eligible for programs such as HMGP, public assistance
or disaster assistance in general?
Fifth, local capacity is key to successful implementation
of building codes.
And finally, effective land use and planning must work in
concert with building codes to achieve overall community
resiliency.
ASFPM appreciates the committee's interest in and
encouraging adoption and enforcement of statewide building
codes. H.R. 2069 is a good step in the right direction through
offering an incentive for adoption enforcement of nationally
recognized building codes.
Thank you.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Ms. Rochman, and I understand you have a brief video.
Ms. Rochman. We do, yes, sir. We will show it in the middle
of the testimony if that is all right.
Mr. Denham. Perfect. Thank you.
Ms. Rochman. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today regarding the importance of
enacting and enforcing strong statewide building codes.
Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Norton, thank you for being
from jurisdictions with good, strong building codes.
I am Julie Rochman. I am the president and CEO of the
Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, or IBHS. IBHS
is a 501(c)(3) organization wholly supported by the property
insurance industry. Our mission is to conduct objective
research to identify and promote effective actions and
strengthen homes, businesses and communities against natural
disasters and other causes of loss.
We believe that because every region of this country is
vulnerable to one or more potentially devastating natural
hazard, improving disaster mitigation, preparedness response
and recovery must be a national priority.
The centerpiece of our research program is our unique IBHS
Research Center in South Carolina. Using a massive 105-fan
array, and each of these fans has 350 horsepower, and other
specialized equipment, we can recreate a variety of highly
realistic wind, rain, fire and hail events. Only IBHS can look
at full-scale structures as a system. The ability to mimic
Mother Nature in a controlled, repeatable environment allows
IBHS to do several things: to demonstrate the effectiveness and
financial value of stronger building codes and better built
structures; to identify different kinds of solutions to
building vulnerabilities; to strengthen the relationship
between theoretical and real building performance; and to
validate and improve current scientific bases for designing and
installing building products and systems.
In addition to laboratory research, IGHS conducts post
disaster field research. In one such study following Hurricane
Charlie, which has been referenced a few times here today
already, we found that homes built to then modern codes
suffered 40 percent less severe damage and 60 percent less
frequent damage than homes built to older codes.
These are not marginal rates of return on a relative modest
investment in codes. These are huge rates of return.
Unfortunately, disasters such as Hurricane Andrew have shown
that lax code enforcement of otherwise effective building codes
needlessly and greatly increases total damage. Strong safety
requirements were in place in southeast Florida in 1992, but
local officials failed to make sure that they actually were
followed during the construction process.
Recognizing the importance of comprehensive building code
safety systems, IBHS recently completed a first of its kind
Rating the States Report, examining regulations and processes
governing residential construction in the 18 States most
vulnerable to hurricanes from Texas to Maine. The report looks
at adoption, enforcement of strong statewide building codes, as
well as code official certification and training, and
contractor and subcontractor licensing.
Employing a 100-point scale with 100 being the best, the
quality of code systems ranged from Florida and Virginia up at
95 points down to Mississippi which scored only 4 points. The
purpose of this analysis was to shine a much needed spotlight
on how States can take specific steps to better protect their
citizens.
In order to fully understand how real world performance
compares to technical requirements, IBHS has conducted several
unique, full-scale tests in our laboratory of houses. These
tests examine the way structures work as a system either to
withstand or to succumb to natural forces.
Mr. Chairman, now I would like to show the subcommittee a
quick video. It is about 40 seconds, from one of these tests.
This is from the fall of 2010, where we put two full-scale wood
frame houses into our test chamber and created a highly
realistic storm with wind speeds and gusts up to 120 miles an
hour. In this test, as you can see, the roof of one of the
homes built using conventional constructional practices as they
exist in central Illinois, where by the way there is no
statewide building code, lifted off entirely under the force of
95-mile-an-hour winds. The loss of the roof caused total
destruction of the home only moments later.
It is simply inexcusable that we do not ensure that houses
in areas subject to moderate and severe high wind events, which
is much of this country, do not have strong connections between
the walls and the roof, between each floor, and between the
walls and the foundation. Most of the roofs in this country are
held on by nothing more than gravity.
The strapping needed to provide a continuous chain of
connections from roof to foundation costs less than $1,500 to
$2,000 for a home or small business, yet greatly increases
building strength and safety in the face of a variety of wind
events, including hurricanes, tornadoes and straight line wind
storms.
Fortunately, there are States like Florida where this chain
of connections is an integral part of the building code. A
continuous load path should be a feature of residential and
commercial construction everywhere and can be through building
codes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here
today. We urge the subcommittee to advance H.R. 2069. It is
important legislation that provides a vehicle to put important
knowledge about proven benefits of building codes to work by
significantly improving our Nation's safety and resilience.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Matthews.
Mr. Matthews. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton,
members of the subcommittee, the BuildStrong Coalition thanks
you for holding this hearing to examine the vital role that
strong building codes can play in mitigating the damage and
costs associated with natural disasters.
My name is Rod Matthews, and I am the property and casualty
operations vice president for the State Farm Insurance
Companies based in Bloomington, Illinois.
State Farm is proud to be a founding member of the
BuildStrong Coalition, a group of national business and
consumer organizations, insurance companies, firefighters,
emergency managers and building professionals dedicated to
promoting stronger building codes. The BuildStrong Coalition
shares the subcommittee's goal of helping communities to
prepare for and recover from natural disasters while saving
taxpayer money in the process.
But our fist consideration must always be the safety of our
communities and the American people. Our thoughts and prayers
go out to the victims of natural disasters, events which compel
us to advance legislation to help fortify the Nation's defenses
against similar events in the future. Stronger, safer homes and
businesses save lives and better protect people's biggest
investment.
Not only is the cost of natural disasters measured in the
loss of precious lives. It is also measured in the dollar cost
to our economy. 2011 was the fifth most expensive year on
record for insured catastrophe losses in the United States.
Only 50 percent of the almost $73 billion overall cost of
disasters in the United States in 2011 was covered by
insurance.
For decades Congress has authorized insufficient funding
for disaster relief, and then needed to pass a supplemental
disaster funds in 18 of the last 23 budget years.
Natural disasters are inevitable, and while budgeting for
disaster cost is not a perfect science, the Federal Government
needs to better plan for the financial impact. Merely hoping
the weather cooperates and relying on luck is not enough.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the
conclusion that minimum statewide building codes save lives and
greatly reduce property damage and the subsequent need for
Federal disaster aid. The National Institute of Building
Sciences found that for every dollar spent to make buildings
stronger, the American taxpayer saves $4 in Federal disaster
assistance.
The Louisiana State University Hurricane Center estimated
that stronger building codes would have reduced wind damage in
Louisiana from Katrina by 80 percent, saving $8 billion.
More recently, FEMA assessed the damage from the 2011
spring tornadoes in the Southeast and Midwest, identifying
model building codes as the top recommendation to improve
public safety. Standardized building codes promote a level and
consistent playing field for design professionals, suppliers,
and builders, and create a minimum standard upon which
consumers can rely.
To alleviate the financial pressure from natural disasters,
Congress should encourage building stronger, safer homes and
businesses. The BuildStrong Coalition strongly endorses H.R.
2069, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act, as a forward
thinking investment to build stronger, safer homes and
businesses that will save lives and reduce damage.
Under the proposed law, States that adopt and enforce
nationally recognized model building codes for residential and
commercial structures would qualify for an additional 4 percent
of funding available for post disaster grants, which will be
administered by FEMA through the Stafford Act. Currently about
20 States would qualify or could with minor changes to their
laws and regulations.
This legislation will not require any additional
appropriation to FEMA since it draws funds from the existing
Disaster Relief Fund.
Furthermore, H.R. 2069 does not mandate the adoption of
statewide building codes by any State that wishes to maintain
their current patchwork structure.
Qualifying States have learned the expensive lessons of
building code effectiveness usually after an ill-prepared
experience with names, such as Andrew, Katrina, Charlie or
Northridge. Unfortunately, many States still refuse to adopt
these minimum standards in building safety, thereby putting
their citizens' lives and property at higher risk and
increasing the liability of all U.S. taxpayers.
A 2012 Milliman study found that H.R. 2069 would have saved
U.S. taxpayers $11 billion in hurricane relief payments alone
from 1988 to present had it been in place. That is almost $500
million a year in taxpayer savings. It is time for our Nation
to have a long overdue, robust conversation about building
safety and its intersection with natural disasters.
This subcommittee can ignite that debate by moving forward
with consideration of this Safe Building Code Incentive Act.
The overwhelming evidence supporting the widespread adoption of
statewide building codes proves that H.R. 2069 is a fiscally
responsible way to make our country stronger, safer, and better
prepared for natural disasters.
We must continue to work together across industries,
Government agencies and organizations to find better ways to
protect lives, home, businesses, and personal property. Based
on scientific data and supported by Federal incentives, we can
align our efforts to promote modern and effectively enforced
statewide building codes across our country.
I look forward to your questions, and thank you for your
time.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Thank you to all of our witnesses
for your opening testimonies.
We will now have 5 minutes from each Member for
questioning. I will start with myself.
Mr. Matthews, in each of the different States that have
already implemented their building codes, have you seen a lower
insurance premium in those States?
Mr. Matthews. What happens, Congressman and Chairman, is
that those reduced expenses, lost costs find their ways into
the rates, and over time that should create a more competitive
environment. Our industry is highly competitive. There are
several hundred insurance companies. So the combination of
reduce lost cost and the competitive environment works to the
benefit of customers.
Mr. Denham. And I come from one of those States that has
quite a few earthquakes. In your testimony, you talk about
Haiti and the lack of building codes there. Could you go into
greater detail about some of the impacts and some of the things
that could have been mitigated or could be mitigated in the
future if they had a standard building code?
Mr. Matthews. Yes. Actually, as Ms. Rochman said in her
testimony, California is one of the better States in terms of
building codes. Much of the seismic code that you see that has
been adopted around the country comes out of research and
experience from the building codes in California.
California has been a leader around fire protection in
their codes as well, with residential sprinkler systems as well
as mitigating the hazard of wildfire, which is a large
exposure, natural disaster exposure in California.
So actually, Mr. Chairman, your State has done a very good
job and it would be one of the States that would already
qualify for this incentive.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
And, Ms. Rochman, if you could briefly talk about that as
well as we are very intrigued about your test facility and want
to take a group of Members down there to see firsthand some of
the things that you can exemplify with your testing facility.
If you could, talk about both please.
Ms. Rochman. Sure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
One of the things that we know from the rash of earthquakes
that we had last year, not so much the one here, although the
Washington Monument is truly even today a testimony to the
power of what even a small earthquake can do; when you look at
Haiti versus Chile versus Japan and California, we know that
where there are good, strong seismic codes in place, we see
much less loss of life and much less damage in property.
The issue we have in this country is that California is not
the only State with seismic exposure. There is a substantial
area in the midwestern part of the country call the New Madrid
Zone, and the New Madrid Zone has actually experienced 200
years ago the worst earthquake recorded in the history of this
country. At that time there was very little population. Now,
there are about 35 million people living in the New Madrid
Zone, and those building codes are not what they need to be
when it comes to residential construction.
So there are a lot of things we can do. At our facility, we
look at wind, water, fire, and hail. We do not have a shake
table. The University of California at San Diego has an
excellent research facility for earthquake, as does the
University of Illinois.
But we would love to have you come down and look. The video
that I showed a little while ago, the difference between those
two houses was less than $3,000, and the house that had the
continuous strapping, again, holding the roof on by more than
gravity stands strong. We ran that house through several tests
against houses that were not built as well, that were more
brittle, and each and every time the house that was not built
to what it should have been went away.
And we always look at those houses, even though we are in a
safe observation area as you could be if you would come to
watch the test, but it is startling how quickly a house comes
apart and how it is absolutely reduced to rubble. That is no
longer somebody's home at that point. It is just a pile of
debris.
Mr. Denham. Well, thank you. We look forward to seeing that
first hand.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I am not mistaken, only about a third, and correct me if
I am wrong, of States seem to have building codes. I am trying
to understand what it takes particularly given, as you might
have heard, my disappointment that the incentives bill met a
roadblock here in the Congress, a technical roadblock.
Are States that have building codes, those that had been
disaster prone, flood prone, hurricane prone, those States did
not have any incentives. How did you discuss the States? Does
Louisiana now have a statewide building code? Did it have one
before?
Ms. Rochman. No.
Ms. Norton. Uh-oh. Does that tell me that you need a
disaster in order to get a building code? Would that not be
terrible?
Do any of you have any notion of what has encouraged some
States somehow on their own to adopt building codes and others
have hung back?
Mr. Matthews. Congresswoman Norton, I think you have
touched on one of the things. One of the sad commentaries on
what we have seen in this field is that many times they are
very expensive experiences, and they have names called Andrew
and Northridge and that sort of thing.
Ms. Norton. And Katrina.
Mr. Matthews. And Katrina, that convince people to do the
right thing after the fact.
You know, what we are really trying to focus with H.R. 2069
is kind of the old adage of, you know, an ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure. And if you go back and look at what
Congress has done in 18 out of the last 23 years of having to
vote supplemental funds for disaster aid, you know, it really
makes sense that we deal with the issue before it actually
happens.
The Milliman study that I referenced, as well, and I
appreciate what you are saying about the CBO scoring, but the
Milliman study which showed that actually the Federal
Government would net $40 million a month, $500 million a year
from H.R. 2069 in terms of what building stronger, safer homes,
stronger, safer building codes would mean to our country.
Ms. Norton. In my experience, you never get legislation
passed in the Congress by showing dollars and cents saved. I
mean I have always been amazed at it. It is one of the best
arguments used, but somehow it does not quite matter. And, of
course, I thought the incentives might help, and you see the
problems as you indicated.
Is there resistance in the States to building codes? Is
there resistance from--I do not know--industry, from consumers,
from the States themselves? Is there resistance or simply
passivity?
Mr. Matthews. I think in some cases it is probably both,
Congresswoman. In some cases I do not think people are
necessarily aware of the exposure and what they are faced with.
Sometimes there are groups that will vocalize opposition to
building codes or they think, again, they are lulled into
complacency thinking it can never happen here, until it
happens, you know, unfortunately.
To our knowledge, at least from the BuildStrong Coalition,
no one has voiced any opposition to H.R. 2069, and it is a very
broad-based coalition.
Ms. Rochman. Congressman, if I could just add to that for 1
second, we know from the insurance industry we have taught
consumers how to demand safety in automobiles. We have showed
them what safer vehicles look like, and now consumers shop on
safety.
Safety sells. I think one of the things we have to do is
get citizens to understand that a building code is a minimum
life safety threshold. It literally keeps the house from
spontaneously combusting or falling down around your ears. This
is the minimum level at which you can occupy a building. If
people understood that the construction was not where it should
be, we think that they would demand better, safer homes. It is
one of the reasons the insurance industry built our lab, and we
are working with home builders and we are working with the
construction industry.
Like every industry, there are good actors and people who
want to do a good jobs, but in this housing market there is an
increasing number of builders who understand that quality
construction sells.
Ms. Norton. Yes. But what I take away is that, you know,
when you have a big disaster, you get a building code, and that
really bothers me.
Could you just call out the names of some of the States
that have strong building codes so I can get some sense?
Ms. Rochman. Sure. Well, you are right, Congressman.
Unfortunately people do wait until disaster. So when Katrina
hit, for example, Louisiana took 2 years to pass a statewide
building code.
Illinois and Texas are States where we have seen a lot of
catastrophes, and they do not have statewide codes, or they do
and they are not well enforced. But California, Virginia, South
Carolina, we do see a number of States increasingly looking at
codes because it also levels the playing field for all of the
builders in the States. They all have to comply with the same
standard.
But we know that there are about 20 States right now that
would comply with the legislation as it is written.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Norton. Ranking member of the whole committee, Mr.
Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gianato, you have described very well the financial
losses that our State experienced and many other damages that
occurred during the recent storms. You have also commended our
National Guard, and I join you in that. I commend you and your
staff, as well as our National Guard under the direction of
Major General Jim Hoyer. I commend our emergency responders,
our medics, our churches, our local officials, our 911
directors in each of the counties, our American Red Cross, the
Salvation Army, AmeriCorps, Vista volunteers, power company
workers who worked under very strenuous conditions in tough
terrain carrying heavy equipment to try to repair a lot of the
power lines, our public service districts, our water companies,
et cetera.
Our committee has advanced legislation to reauthorize FEMA
disaster assistance, including the requirement that FEMA review
the individual assistance program regulations. Do you think
that is sufficient or should Congress do more to ensure that
the program is flexible enough and fast enough, given that many
families have suffered losses that they cannot afford and no
Government agency seems able to assist them?
Mr. Gianato. Congressman, I think you have hit dead on that
flexibility is the key to any of these programs. No two
disasters are alike, and when we try to develop rules and
policies for one disaster to fit another, this latest storm
that impacted West Virginia, as I said, is not like anything we
have ever seen, and the impact on the citizens is not like a
traditional disaster where you can go out and count the number
of homes, as you said earlier, that are destroyed.
So I think the key is having the flexibility in the law and
the open dialogue with FEMA and the administration to be able
to work through the different problems as we come to them.
Mr. Rahall. Can you describe how our power companies and
water companies responded to the extended power outage?
And how can FEMA mitigation grants be used to prevent a
recurrence of such an extended power outage periods?
Mr. Gianato. Well, I think with the power outages we have,
in my written testimony it talks about there were 226
transmission lines that were destroyed by this storm, almost
1.6 million miles of line that were down as a result of the
storm. Again, this was an unprecedented storm, but I think we
have to take the steps to minimize the ability of the trees to
come down on those lines that pulled those down. So those are
some of the things that we have to look at that are outside the
FEMA realm.
As it relates to the water companies, one of the things
that we are doing in West Virginia is we are partnering with
the West Virginia National Guard to go out and do assessments
of every critical facility, which includes the water and sewer
plants, and we are identifying with those facilities what their
power generation needs are so that if a situation like this
were to occur again and those facilities do not have
generators, that we will have in a couple of secure databases
the information to allow us to move quickly and place a
generator on that site.
I think we need to look at using mitigation funds to
install generators on some of the critical facilities and look
at how the programs that we currently have can be utilized and
look at what changes may need to be made in the future to allow
that.
Mr. Rahall. How can we get gas stations to install backup
generators? That was one of the most shocking facts that came
out of this recent storm to me, was that gas stations do not
have backup power generators, and you would think in times of
emergency that is the first thing you need to keep open, is the
supply of gas to customers.
We had the gas. It is just the gas stations did not have
the power to run those pumps.
Mr. Gianato. That is correct. The service stations did not
have power to run their pumps or in a lot of cases even if they
had power to run their pumps and did not have their other
systems tied to it, they could not pump gasoline.
So most of those are privately owned, and that is going to
be something that we are going to have to work through at the
State level, and we plan to. If you look at my written
testimony, it also says that Governor Tomblin has ordered a top
to bottom review of this event and the impacts that it had and
how we can minimize some of the issues in the future, and that
is one of the key things that we are looking at, as well as
backup power for radio stations because one of the real
problems that we had, the traditional means of communicating to
the public that we have always utilized in the past failed.
When the radio stations and the TV stations went off the air
without power, it did not matter if citizens had battery
powered radios. They simply could not get the signal.
So we have got to go back to the basics.
Mr. Rahall. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but
it looks like there is nobody else waiting to ask questions.
May I ask one final question?
Mr. Hanna. [presiding.] Go ahead.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
And I would give the entire panel a chance to respond to
anything that has been discussed already, but my question to
the entire panel would be: do you believe that H.R. 2069
requires States to adopt entire model building codes, or can
States pick and choose from certain model provisions?
Chief Clemmensen. Well, I will start.
Mr. Rahall. Yes.
Chief Clemmensen. I do not see it as a mandate whatsoever.
I know there has been other testimony to that. It is an
incentive program that I believe will incentivize States to
adopt these codes. It is just important that there are the
model codes, which we consider a minimum code.
Mr. Rahall. I appreciate it. Anyone else wish to respond?
Ms. Rochman.
Ms. Rochman. Sir, it is clearly not a mandate. It is
optional.
I did want to respond to the Congresswoman's questions and
just read into the record if it is all right with you, sir----
Mr. Rahall. Sure.
Ms. Rochman [continuing]. The States that would currently
qualify. They would be California, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
All of those States would have to do nothing at this point
to qualify for the extra funds under H.R. 2069.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, I am sorry. I did not mean to
cut you off.
Mr. Berginnis. Oh, I just wanted to also say that, you
know, something that might be instructional for H.R. 2069 is
the way the National Flood Insurance Program works. I would
argue that the NFIP, 21,000 communities in the country have
building and land use codes. A lot of those do not actually
have a building code. The only thing they have is the NFIP
standards.
It is an incentive program because the incentive is flood
insurance is available, but there is a powerful disincentive
tied to that because if flood insurance is not available, a lot
of folks cannot get mortgages in those flood hazard areas, and
so while H.R. 2069 does a very good job on the incentives
portion, we need to make sure that within the array of programs
that we offer to folks, whether it be post disaster programs
and others, that there are some disincentives also tied to
that.
And I think that gets back to the question of how do we
have more States and more communities actually then adopting
these codes. That is a way to do that, by both having
incentives and disincentives.
Thank you.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
I thank the panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
Chief Clemmensen, I absolutely believe that you are correct
when you talk about sprinklers and the benefits of sprinklers.
One of the problems with an incentive program though is that if
it is not large enough or that it requires something that is so
expensive, that what we design as an incentive becomes a
disincentive as we add more requirements to it.
So you must have an opinion about that, which I can almost
guess what it is, but I would like to give you a chance to talk
about it.
Chief Clemmensen. Well, it is basically just like any other
code. There are costs involved, and Congresswoman Norton asked
about why States do not have model building codes. It is
because there are lobbyists and people that would rather keep
the codes very simplified so that the cost of the housing is
less expensive.
Fire sprinklers are the same thing. There is a code
involved, obviously, but the cost is probably the same as
putting carpeting into your home. However, it does add a bottom
line cost to the home, and there are homebuilders who would
prefer to keep that cost down so they can sell more homes.
Over the long run through, the savings to the municipality
or to the locals is incredible. As an example, I was the Fire
Marshal and code official for a large suburban town just
outside Chicago, and in 1995, we passed a residential sprinkler
code, and now that area of the community has 4,000 homes that
are sprinklered. That allowed the community instead of having
two fire stations to only have one, and that equates to roughly
$1 million a year.
So there is a large savings over the long run.
Mr. Hanna. Sure. But you can see the obvious problem with
it, whereas with Ms. Rochman's point, where you simply strap
from the foundation right over the top of the house, I assume
that is basically what was done there. That is a very cheap,
very effective tool.
Incentives are an interesting lever to pull from Government
because there is a point of diminishing returns and a point at
which, like with sprinklers, it would ultimately disappear.
Any other questions?
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
The chairman has raised a question about cost, and some do
not cost much, and you might expect the people would step up to
it. Let me raise again what has happened here, and we have had
similar things to happen across the country.
As we go across the country, the manifestations may be
different, but leave aside the discussion on climate change
because we do not know why this is happening, but I can tell
you as a native Washingtonian who grew up in this town when
there was no air conditioning, we just had the hottest. I am
glad that if it had to be the hottest, it was not when I was a
child, that is, now that there is air conditioning.
But what I really want to get to are the outages, and our
ranking member, I think, spoke about West Virginia and some of
what West Virginia went through. This entire region had storms
the likes of which in this season have never been seen before.
And, by the way, they keep coming.
Now, the communities across the region are up in arms about
outages. The last one was a full week. You can imagine at the
height of the heat there was no air conditioning. People's food
melted. So people have some out and said, ``OK. Bury the power
lines.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, nobody is going to bury those power
lines because the same constituents would yell to high heaven
for the added costs that buried power lines come forward with.
So, you know, some mitigated understand that and they come and
say, ``OK. Bury some of them.''
I have a real question, an honest to goodness practical
question. What they have done to mitigate, the power companies,
they have begun to trim the trees. That is pretty obvious. Of
course, there is some throw-back on that because some people do
not like the trees trimmed quite as much as they want to, but
let's take it that everybody agrees that that is a mitigation
strategy.
When it comes to these outages, short of burying the lines
which is cost prohibitive, in addition to trimming the trees,
what do we do to mitigate another week without power--it could
have happened here in the Congress, but I guess we would have
had some backup. Some kind of backup I am sure occurs here--are
people looking at mitigation in terms of the broader sense of
that word?
Sure, building codes are old-fashioned by now, but as you
meet new and more expensive examples where there appear to be
no strategies as to what to do to keep us from going through
this again, my question is whether or not there is research
being done so that people who honest to goodness would like to
mitigate against a shutdown of their entire life for a week,
for example, would go to some extra expense to do so.
Are we leaving mitigation only with what we already have on
the table and understand should be done, or is the research
moving us where differences in climate may be taking us, such
as when we had an earthquake here?
I mean, I was sure it was something else. I would have
thought it would have been a terrorist strike before I would
have thought it would have been an earthquake. Now, I do not
think everybody went out and bought earthquake insurance, but
when you see those kinds of unusual occurrences, I would feel
more comforted to know that those of you who are concerned with
mitigation have some word for people trying to prevent these
new occurrences.
Does anyone advice for us? Yes, sir.
Mr. Mullen. Yes. I would say that while I would never kick
any new research by the curb, I would think that would be
valuable, but I think we know enough now, and if I may, let me
tell you where I think there is kind of a contradiction in the
sense that the best awareness and the best pressure for
mitigation comes from the Federal grant programs down, and
mitigation at its core, in my opinion, and I think NEMA
believes this as well, that mitigation is a local issue which
people need to embrace at the local level, the local decision
making and the county planning meetings and those areas. That
is where the level of knowledge and commitment has to come.
The Nation has had a pretty good commitment to mitigation.
There are a lot of people in this town who believe in
mitigation.
Ms. Norton. But my question goes to what to do.
Mr. Mullen. OK.
Ms. Norton. New kinds of disasters or hazards to be
mitigated. You know, do you have any examples of what to do
with these outages which are occurring not only in this region
but across the United States?
Is anybody looking into ways to mitigate things like these
outages or other changes that have not been seen before?
Mr. Mullen. Yes. In my State we just did a major earthquake
exercise where the biggest problem we ran into was fuel, the
same thing that Mr. Gianato was referring to. This was a
revelation because we had private sector personnel in our EOC
working with us probably more extensively than ever.
We have not got the answer, but the question is clear now.
And I think that a lot of those----
Ms. Norton. The problem was fuel and what else?
Mr. Mullen. Fuel for pumps, fuel to just have critical
vehicles move around. We had a major scenario that broke a lot
of things, and so for 2 or 3 days we were facing the prospect
of not being able to do the things that needed to be done for
life safety, for basic maintenance of life and comfort because
medicines could not move. And a large part of the problem was
the absence of fuel generation.
So what we were trying to do and what we will do as part of
our followup is begin to look at with our private sector
partners how are we going to fix that. What is yours and what
is ours?
And I think that is the same point I was about to make in
terms of what the Mitigation Alliance, which ASFPM and us and
about 18 other organizations are part of, is beginning to look
at. How do we convince, persuade, cajole, educate people at the
local level to begin addressing their problems and see if
between the Federal incentives and push and the local and State
awareness we can come to some kind of middle ground here where
everyone is doing what they should be doing, and no one is
being asked to do more than is appropriate.
I have not got an answer for you, but I can tell you that
those discussions in my State and some other States are going
forward. I am sure they are going forward in West Virginia now.
Experience teaches us unfortunately. The reason our codes are
good is because we had earthquakes in the 1960s and people got
smart.
But we need to learn from the lessons, and if we do not
learn our lessons, we will repeat the mistakes.
Mr. Berginnis. Congressman, one of the things I want to
mention is that one of the tools that is available now that
this committee way back in 2000 really set the table for the
Nation, and that is mitigation planning. There is a requirement
at the local level and at the State level to update plans 5
years and 3 years, respectively.
And in updating those plans, key aspects of that include a
reanalysis of your hazards. Have they changed? Exactly as you
talked about, the hazards change over time. They are never
static, and we need to be prepared to respond and mitigate
against those. So there is a risk assessment aspect that goes.
But as important, and maybe this has not been focused on as
much as it really needs to, and that is an analysis of
mitigation options. I have gone to so many communities,
especially after floods in Ohio where they have the ``what
next'' moment. It is usually right after the event. It is the
first council meeting that happens, and all of the leadership
are saying, ``My goodness, what is next? What do we do now?''
If you have through mitigation planning in a nondisaster
time identified the range of options that you can mitigate
against a particular hazard, you are going to be set much more
effectively in your recovery and ultimately in your resiliency.
So I would offer that mitigation planning is really an
effective tool, to answer your very question.
Thank you.
Chief Clemmensen. Congresswoman, I would just like to say
that in the Chicago metro area, they have started a new power
system called a smart grid. It is too new really to take effect
yet, but we have always been trimming the trees.
But to be proactive and the part of the mitigation
testimony here is that we went out and we have created cooling
shelters because we know that no matter how smart the grids
are, how many trees they trim, the power is always going to go
out.
We just had an incident last month where over 100,000
customers were without power. So we set up cooling sites around
the city and around the suburbs for these people to go to at
least be cool in these very extreme temperatures.
Ms. Norton. I thank you for those examples, you know, and
particularly for the notion of mitigation planning. I had not
thought about that as a responsibility that the States already
have. So that one of the things that I am going to do is to go
back and see if the Federal Government and my own district and
this region are planning for the next earthquake instead of
saying, ``Well, that was a once in a century matter. Now let's
go back to business as usual.''
So thank you very much for your suggestions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15
legislative days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank the witnesses once again for your
time here today and for your service to your communities. If no
other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]