[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BUILDING CODES IN MITIGATING
AGAINST DISASTERS
=======================================================================
(118-71)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 25, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-133 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking
Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas
Grace F. Napolitano, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
John Garamendi, California Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaian Babin, Texas
Andre Carson, Indiana Garret Graves, Louisiana
Dina Titus, Nevada David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Greg Stanton, Arizona, Puerto Rico
Vice Ranking Member Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Colin Z. Allred, Texas Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Vice Chairman
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Patrick Ryan, New York Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Robert Menendez, New Jersey Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Mike Collins, Georgia
Mike Ezell, Mississippi
John S. Duarte, California
Aaron Bean, Florida
Celeste Maloy, Utah
Kevin Kiley, California
Vince Fong, California
------
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania,
Chairman
Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Garret Graves, Louisiana
District of Columbia Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Sharice Davids, Kansas, Puerto Rico
Vice Ranking Member Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon,
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana Vice Chairman
Grace F. Napolitano, California Anthony D'Esposito, New York
John Garamendi, California Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Jared Huffman, California Mike Ezell, Mississippi
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Celeste Maloy, Utah
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
WITNESSES
Russell J. Strickland, President, National Emergency Management
Association, oral statement.................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Buddy Hughes, First Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors,
National Association of Home Builders, oral statement.......... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Jordan Krahenbuhl, Executive Director, Plumbing, Heating, Cooling
Contractors of Nevada, oral statement.......................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of Building and Fire
Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (Retired), on behalf of the International Code
Council, oral statement........................................ 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of September 24, 2024, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and
Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, from
the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; the
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; the National Stone,
Sand & Gravel Association; and the Portland Cement Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Derrick Van Orden............. 51
APPENDIX
Questions to Russell J. Strickland, President, National Emergency
Management Association, from Hon. Rick Larsen.................. 53
Questions to Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of Building
and Fire Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development (Retired), on behalf of the International
Code Council, from Hon. Rick Larsen............................ 53
September 20, 2024
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Examining the Role and
Effectiveness of Building Codes in Mitigating Against
Disasters''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday, September 25, 2024, at
10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to
receive testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Examining the Role
and Effectiveness of Building Codes in Mitigating Against
Disasters.'' The purpose of the hearing is to examine how the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is implementing
existing policies related to building codes across its
programs, including the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) predisaster mitigation program. Members will
receive testimony from the National Association of Home
Builders, the International Association of Plumbing &
Mechanical Officials, the National Emergency Management
Association, and the International Code Council.
II. BACKGROUND
THE HISTORY OF BUILDING CODES IN DISASTER RECOVERY
Building codes have played a role in disaster assistance
and recovery since before the establishment of FEMA. In 1974,
the Disaster Relief Act (P.L. 93-288) was signed into law,
which established the presidential disaster declaration
process.\1\ Included in the legislation was language that gave
the President the authority to provide funding to state and
local governments to help, ``repair, restore, reconstruct, or
replace public facilities [. . .] which were damaged or
destroyed by a major disaster.'' \2\ The legislation goes on to
say that these repairs must be ``in conformity with current
applicable codes, specifications, and standards.'' \3\ However,
at that time, FEMA had not yet been created.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 93-288, 88 Stat. 143.
\2\ Id.
\3\ Id.
\4\ William L. Painter, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R45484), The Disaster
Relief Fund: Overview and Issues, (Jan. 22, 2024), available at https:/
/crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That changed in 1979, when President Carter issued
Executive Order 12127 to formally establish FEMA.\5\ With this
Executive Order, Federal disaster assistance and recovery were
now consolidated into one agency.\6\ Executive Order 12127
delegated to FEMA many of the authorities that had previously
been established in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Exec. Order No. 12127, 44 Fed. Reg. 19367 (Mar. 31, 1979),
available at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/
executive-order/12127.html.
\6\ Id.
\7\ Diane P. Horn and Erica A. Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47612),
Building Resilience: FEMA's Building Codes Policies and Considerations
for Congress, (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R47612?source=search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1988, Congress passed the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), which
amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 to clarify and further
expand FEMA's authorities.\8\ Like the previous law, the
Stafford Act included language that stated that the President
could provide funding to state and local governments to help
cover ``the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or
replacing a public facility or private nonprofit facility [. .
.] in conformity with current applicable codes, specifications,
and standards.'' \9\ In 2016, FEMA released FEMA Policy 204-
078-2.\10\ This guidance required that some projects funded by
FEMA Public Assistance adhere to specific building code
standards.\11\ Specifically, the International Code Council's
(ICC) International Building Code (IBC), the International
Existing Building Code (IEBC), and/or the International
Residential Code (IRC).\12\ However, it was not until the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) that Congress put
more focus on building codes as they relate to mitigation and
resiliency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Stafford Act, Pub. L. No. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4689.
\9\ Id.
\10\ FEMA, ``Public Assistance Required Minimum Standards,'' FEMA
Recovery Policy FP_104-009-4, (Sept. 30, 2016), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_pa-minimum-standards-
policy.pdf.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Diane P. Horn and Erica A. Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47612),
Building Resilience: FEMA's Building Codes Policies and Considerations
for Congress, (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R47612?source=search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISASTER RECOVERY REFORM ACT OF 2018
In 2018, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA)
was signed into law, which contained 56 different provisions
that made significant changes to FEMA, including changes to its
predisaster mitigation programs.\14\ As it relates to building
codes, Section 1234 of DRRA amended FEMA's predisaster
mitigation program to provide dedicated funding for predisaster
mitigation and authorized funding to be used:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FEMA, Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, (July 6, 2021),
available at https://www.fema.gov/disaster/disaster-recovery-reform-
act-2018.
To establish and carry out enforcement activities and implement
the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based
codes, specifications, and standards that incorporate the
latest hazard-resistant designs and establish minimum
acceptable criteria for the design, construction, and
maintenance of residential structures and facilities that may
be eligible for assistance under this Act for the purpose of
protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the
buildings' users against disasters.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ DRRA, Pub. L. No. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186.
DRRA also directs FEMA to take at least eleven different
criteria into account when making predisaster mitigation
awards, including the extent to which the applicant and sub-
applicant, ``has facilitated the adoption and enforcement of
the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based
codes, specifications, and standards, including amendments made
by state, local, Indian tribal, or territorial governments
during the adoption process.'' \16\ To comply with
Congressional directives outlined in Section 1234 of DRAA, FEMA
established the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) program in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 to replace
FEMA's existing predisaster mitigation program.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
\17\ FEMA, DRRA Provisions 1230-1239, (Sept. 11, 2023), available
at https://www.fema.gov/disaster/disaster-recovery-reform-act-2018/
provisions-1230-1239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF BUILDING CODES: THE BUILDING RESILIENT
INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES (BRIC) PROGRAM
While FEMA has building code requirements for many of its
programs (see Appendix 1), in recent years the BRIC program has
been the clearest example of FEMA's increased emphasis on
building code implementation. In the first year of BRIC
funding, FY 2020, one of FEMA's main priorities was, ``to
support the adoption and enforcement of building codes,
standards, and policies.'' \18\ For the National BRIC
Competition, applicants were given additional points if they
had mandatory building code adoption requirements.\19\ As
highlighted on FEMA's website, for FY 2020, ``all of the
projects selected under the national competition came from
applicants that had mandatory statewide adopted building codes
of either the 2015 or 2018 International Building Code and
International Residential Code.'' \20\ In FY 2021, FEMA
continued to prioritize the adoption and enforcement of
building codes; however, FEMA began awarding some points in the
National BRIC Competition for applicants that had adopted the
2015 versions of the International Building Code and
International Residential Code.\21\ FEMA held the same criteria
for FY 2022.\22\ In FY 2023, FEMA further adjusted the scoring
so that some points were awarded to sub-applicants in
localities that have adopted the latest editions of building
codes regardless of whether their state has adopted the latest
editions of statewide building codes.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FY 2020 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities,
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_fy20-bric-notice-of-
funding-opportunity_federal-register_August-2020.pdf.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
\21\ FY 2021 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities,
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nofo-fiscal-year-2021-
building-resilient-infrastructure.pdf.
\22\ FY 2022 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities,
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), available at https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_fy22-bric-
nofo_08052022.pdf.
\23\ FY 2023 Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities,
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), available at https://
www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/learn/notice-funding-opportunities/bric-
fma/fy2023-nofo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While FEMA has made changes to the BRIC funding criteria
since its establishment in FY 2020, many states without
statewide building codes had raised concerns.\24\ Specifically
noting that the receipt of additional points in the National
BRIC Competition if a state has a mandatory statewide adoption
of building codes, disadvantaged many states.\25\ In fact, the
majority of states currently do not qualify for those
additional points.\26\ Beginning in FY 2023, FEMA reduced the
weight of the building codes score for BRIC program grant
awards. In the FY 2023 funding cycle, FEMA also added a
Building Codes Plus Up funding for the BRIC program.\27\ Under
the Building Codes Plus Up, $2 million is available to each
state and territory for building code and enforcement
activities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Diane P. Horn and Erica A. Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47612),
Building Resilience: FEMA's Building Codes Policies and Considerations
for Congress, (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R47612?source=search.
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. RECENT CHANGES TO FEMA'S BUILDING CODES
Over the past few years, an increased emphasis has been
placed on building code adoption and enforcement. In November
2020, FEMA released the Building Codes Save: A Nationwide
Study, a nearly decade-long assessment of losses avoided
through the adoption of hazard-resistant consensus-based
building codes and standards.\29\ The study found that 65
percent of United States counties, cities, and towns had not
yet adopted modern building codes, as defined to be codes
developed since 2000.\30\ Analysis of the data provides savings
in multiple hundreds of millions of dollars for disaster
response and recovery costs across disaster-impacted areas with
modern codes.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ FEMA, Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study. November 2020,
available at https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/
building-science/building-codes-save-study.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2022, building off the release of FEMA's study in 2020,
FEMA published the agency's Building Codes Strategy.\32\
According to FEMA, the Building Codes Strategy will serve, ``as
the blueprint for organizing and advancing FEMA's building code
efforts over the next several years to help people before,
during, and after disasters.'' \33\ To accomplish this, the
strategy outlines three main goals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ FEMA, Building Codes Strategy. Mar. 2022, available at https:/
/www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_building-codes-
strategy.pdf.
\33\ FEMA, Timeline of FEMA Policies and Regulations Related to
Building Codes and Standards, available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/fema_timeline-policies-regulations-related-
bldg-codes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIntegrate building codes and standards across
FEMA;
LStrengthen Nationwide capability for superior
building performance; and
LDrive public action on building codes.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
Over the years, studies like FEMA's have supported the
value of building codes in reducing disaster losses, and FEMA
has continued to press for the latest edition of the building
codes.\35\ Experts have noted the importance of building codes
with the flexibility to focus on the specific hazards in any
given state, but that also incentivize strong statewide
standards.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation:
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 117th Cong.
(Mar. 18, 2021).
\36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, studies like FEMA's have supported the
value of building codes in reducing disaster losses. However,
there has been some debate surrounding how to best implement
building codes standards across the country. For their part,
FEMA, has continued to press for strong statewide standards and
the adoption of the latest edition of the building codes. In
response to FEMA, some stakeholders have noted the importance
of giving states and localities some flexibility to follow
their own code adoption, while other stakeholders have
advocated for statewide standards.
V. CONCLUSION
Building codes have played a role in the disaster
assistance and response space prior to FEMA's establishment.
Over the years, legislation, including the Stafford Act and
DRRA, as well as policies adopted by FEMA, have advanced FEMA's
role in building codes. Given this, the hearing will focus on
FEMA's implementation of these policies and examine the impact
and effectiveness of those policies in mitigating against
disasters.
VI. WITNESSES
LMr. Russell J. Strickland, President, National
Emergency Management Association (NEMA)
LMr. Buddy Hughes, First Vice Chairman, National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
LMr. Jordan Krahenbuhl, Executive Director,
Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Nevada (PHCC of NV)
LMs. Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of
Building and Fire Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development (Retired), on behalf of The
International Code Council (ICC)
VII. APPENDIX\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Diane P. Horn and Erica A. Lee, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47612),
Building Resilience: FEMA's Building Codes Policies and Considerations
for Congress, (Oct. 17, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R47612?source=search.
FEMA Building Code Requirements by Program \37\
For eligible funded projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Code
Program Name Key Authorities Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual 44 C.F.R. Part Regulations require, at
Assistance (IA)-- 9 minimum:
Individuals and 44 C.F.R. Sec. FEMA-provided
Households Program 206-117(b)(1)(ii)(c) direct housing
(IHP) 44 C.F.R. Sec. assistance to comply
Sec. 206-117(b)(1)-(4) with applicable local
FEMA Policy FP- and/or state codes and
206-21-0003 ordinances and Federal
floodplain management
regulations.
FEMA-funded
permanent or semi-
permanent housing
construction to conform
to applicable local and/
or state building code
or industry standards
and Federal
environmental laws and
regulations.
FEMA guidance:
Allows FEMA to
provide home repair
assistance to cover
eligible costs of code
compliance.
Requires
compliance with interim
FFRMS for structures in
Special Hazard Flood
Zones (SHFZs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Assistance Stafford Act, Statute requires, at
(PA) for Repair, Sections 323 and minimum:
Restoration, and 406(e), 42 U.S.C. Sec. FEMA to
Replacement 5165a and Sec. 5172(e) estimate awards so that
44 C.F.R. Sec. repair and replacement
Sec. 206.226(d) and projects comply with
206.400-402 ``the latest published
44 C.F.R. Sec. editions of relevant
Sec. 9.4, 9.6 & consensus-based codes,
9.11(d) specifications, and
Americans with standards that
Disabilities Act, 42 incorporate the latest
U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et hazard-resistant
seq. and related designs'' for disasters
regulations at 28 after August 1, 2017.
C.F.R. Sec. 35.151 FEMA to
estimate awards so that
repair and replacement
projects ``meet the
definition of
resilient.'' FEMA has
not yet issued the
definition.
Funded projects
comply with the
Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Regulations
additionally require:
Funded projects
to comply with codes
that include minimum
requirements of the
National Flood
Insurance Program
(NFIP) and National
Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program
(NEHRP).
Funded projects
to comply with
Executive Order 11988,
Floodplain Management,
Executive Order 12699,
Seismic Safety of
Federal and Federally
Assisted or Regulated
New Building
Construction, and any
other applicable
executive orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazard Mitigation Stafford Act FEMA guidance requires,
Grant Program Sections 323 and 404, to establish minimum
(HMGP) 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5165a design and construction
and Sec. 5170c requirements for
44 C.F.R. Sec. structure elevation,
206 dry floodproofing, and
FEMA Policy FP- mitigation
206-21-0003 reconstruction:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Mitigation National Flood FEMA guidance requires,
Assistance (FMA) Insurance Act to establish minimum
42 U.S.C. Sec. design and construction
4104(c) requirements for
FEMA Policy FP- structure elevation,
206-21-0003 dry floodproofing, and
mitigation
reconstruction:
The use of ASCE
24-14, or the latest
edition.
The minimum
standards of FEMA's
partial implementation
of the FFRMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Resilient Stafford Act FEMA guidance requires,
Communities and Sections 323 & 203 to establish minimum
Infrastructure 42 U.S.C. Sec. design and construction
(BRIC) 5165a and Sec. 5133 requirements for
FEMA Policy FP- structure elevation,
206-21-0003 dry floodproofing, and
mitigation
reconstruction:
The use of ASCE
24-14, or the latest
edition.
The minimum
standards of FEMA's
partial implementation
of the FFRMS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguarding Stafford Act The FY2023 Notice of
Tomorrow Revolving Sections 323 & 205 Funding Opportunity
Loan Fund Program 42 U.S.C. Sec. requires that
(STRLF) 5165a & Sec. 5135 recipients of loans for
FEMA Policy FP- new construction or
206-21-0003 substantial improvement
must comply with FEMA
Policy FP-206-21-0003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Flood 42 U.S.C. Sec. Regulations require, at
Insurance Program 4102(c) and 44 C.F.R. minimum, that
(NFIP) Sec. 60.3 communities:
Require permits
for development in
SFHAs.
Require
elevation of the lowest
floor of all new
residential buildings
in the SFHA to be at or
above BFE.
Restrict
development in the
regulatory floodway to
prevent increasing the
risk of flooding.
Require certain
construction materials
and methods that
minimize future flood
damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMINING THE ROLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BUILDING CODES IN MITIGATING
AGAINST DISASTERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
The Chair now asks unanimous consent that the chairman be
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on
the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an
opening statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks our witnesses for being here
today to discuss the effectiveness of building codes and the
Federal Government's role in encouraging their use.
Currently, FEMA provides direct funding for building code
adoption and enforcement through the Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities Program, heretofore known as
BRIC.
After a major disaster, FEMA encourages the adoption and
enforcement of consensus-based building codes through the
Public Assistance Program. FEMA also considers the extent to
which a community has complied with the building code standards
set out in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 when making
decisions about grant awards.
In short, FEMA spends a lot of taxpayer resources on
coercing building code adoption and compliance. This includes
releasing the first-ever Building Codes Strategy in 2022 with
the objective of, quote, ``amplifying climate science messaging
to increase public demand for building codes and standards,''
end quote.
I am deeply concerned that under this current
administration, FEMA continues to attempt to impose these types
of ideology-based agendas. I believe that building codes should
be the purview of State and local governments, which will help
ensure that building code enforcement remains economically
feasible for communities.
However, recognizing that since Congress has directed FEMA
to support building codes as one aspect of pre-disaster
mitigation, we should at least make sure that these
requirements are practical, cost-effective, and actually make
our communities safer and more affordable.
As it stands, I am concerned that Federal overreach
regarding building codes is imposing unnecessary burdens on
business and property owners. It certainly appears that FEMA is
using a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to take into
account where different sets of codes that reflect industry
standards or geography or respond to local hazards might be
better suited to the needs of a community.
I am hoping that our witnesses here today will shed light
on the successes and challenges of FEMA's building code
policies, particularly as compared to their experience working
with other Federal agencies that require code adoption.
I have not seen sufficient data to convince me that
requiring the adoption of the latest editions of building codes
saves taxpayer dollars or makes anything more affordable in an
unaffordable housing market.
Are the changes between editions significant enough to
significantly lower disaster costs and protect life and
property? My understanding is that many of the changes between
code editions have nothing to do with disaster resiliency, but
instead are related to things like energy efficiency.
Additionally, FEMA is expending taxpayer dollars and human
resources on promoting building codes and standards at the
expense of other mitigation measures. The Agency is steadily
increasing the number of pre-disaster mitigation awards funded
for building code adoption and enforcement. According to the
CRS, in the first year of BRIC, eight such grants were awarded.
By last year, it was 93.
Now, if we are seeing more than a 1,000-percent increase in
the number of mitigation grants being directed toward building
codes, is the Agency truly meeting the congressional intent of
the DRRA?
So, what I would like to know is what your experience has
been like from the other side. In your view, has FEMA's
enforcement of building codes made communities safer and more
affordable, or has it diverted limited disaster dollars away
from higher impact projects?
Has FEMA provided applicants and subapplicants with an
appropriate spectrum of building codes to choose from that can
ensure flexibility, or are they being overly rigid and
prescriptive?
Is the emphasis on building code adoption limiting pre-
disaster mitigation dollars from going to the 65 percent of
communities in this country that have not yet adopted the
latest editions of the building codes?
Federal regulations often pose unnecessary burdens and
unaffordable mandates on State and local governments, as well
as everyday Americans. My hope is that if our tax dollars are
being used to support building codes, then we are seeing a
significant return on our investment in the form of safety and
affordability.
[Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
effectiveness of building codes and the federal government's role in
encouraging their use.
Currently, FEMA provides direct funding for building code adoption
and enforcement through the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) program.
After a major disaster, FEMA encourages the adoption and
enforcement of consensus-based building codes through the Public
Assistance (PA) program. FEMA also considers the extent to which a
community has complied with the building code standards set out in the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) when making decisions about
grant awards.
In short, FEMA spends a lot of taxpayer resources on coercing
building code adoption and compliance. This includes releasing the
first-ever Building Codes Strategy in 2022, with the objective of
``amplifying climate science messaging to increase public demand for
building codes and standards.''
I am deeply concerned that under this current administration, FEMA
continues to push these types of ideology-based agendas. I believe that
building codes should be the purview of state and local governments,
which will help ensure that building code enforcement remains
economically feasible for communities.
However, recognizing that since Congress has directed FEMA to
support building codes as one aspect of pre-disaster mitigation, we
should at least make sure that these requirements are practical, cost-
effective, and actually make our communities safer.
As it stands, I worry that federal overreach regarding building
codes is imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses and property
owners. I fear that FEMA is using a one-size-fits-all approach that
fails to take into account where different sets of codes that reflect
industry standards or respond to local hazards might be better suited
to the needs of a community.
I am hoping that our witnesses here today will shed light on the
successes and challenges of FEMA's building code policies, particularly
as compared to their experience working with other federal agencies
that require code adoption.
I have not seen sufficient data to convince me that requiring the
adoption of the latest editions of building codes saves taxpayer
dollars. Are the changes between editions significant enough to
significantly lower disaster costs and protect life and property? My
understanding is many of the changes between code editions has nothing
to do with disaster resiliency, but instead are related to things like
energy efficiency.
Additionally, FEMA is expending taxpayer dollars and human
resources on promoting building codes and standards, at the expense of
other mitigation measures. The agency is steadily increasing the number
of pre-disaster mitigation awards funded for building code adoption and
enforcement. According to the Congressional Research Service, in the
first year of BRIC, eight such grants were awarded. By last year, it
was 93.
If we are seeing a more than 1,000 percent increase in the number
of mitigation grants being directed toward building codes, is the
agency truly meeting the Congressional intent of DRRA?
So, what I'd like to know is what your experience has been like
from the other side. In your view, has FEMA's enforcement of building
codes made communities safer or has it diverted limited disaster
dollars away from higher impact projects?
Has FEMA provided applicants and subapplicants with an appropriate
spectrum of building codes to choose from that can ensure flexibility,
or are they being overly rigid and prescriptive?
Is the emphasis on building code adoption limiting pre-disaster
mitigation dollars from going to the 65 percent of communities in this
country that have not yet adopted the latest editions of the building
codes?
Federal regulations often pose unnecessary burdens on state and
local governments, as well as everyday Americans. My hope is that if
our taxpayer dollars are being used to support building codes, then we
are seeing a significant return on our investment.
Mr. Perry. With that, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses on this issue.
The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Titus for 5 minutes
for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses for joining us today to
discuss FEMA's implementation of building codes across all its
programs in order to help communities prepare for and recover
from disasters.
Even before FEMA's creation, building codes have played a
role in disaster assistance and recovery, beginning with the
1974 Disaster Relief Act. This act gave the President authority
to provide funding to State and local governments to help
repair or reconstruct buildings damaged by a major disaster,
and this was to be in conformity with applicable codes and
standards.
Following the creation of FEMA, then, in 1979 and the
signing of the Stafford Act in 1988, this practice continued
for disaster response. The signing of the Disaster Recovery
Reform Act, DRRA, in 2018 marked an even greater emphasis on
building codes when it comes to hazard mitigation.
In this regard, the DRRA directed FEMA to create the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program, which you heard from the chairman
is now known as BRIC, and to consider 11 different criteria
when awarding pre-disaster mitigation funds, including the
extent to which applicants have adopted and enforced the latest
building codes.
The incentives and funding provided by the DRRA are
critical since 35 States have not adopted modern building
codes. This creates a public safety hazard and unnecessarily
increases the cost of disaster recovery. Additionally, the
National Institute of Building Sciences found that designing
new buildings that exceed the 2015 International Residential
Code and the International Building Code would result in 87,000
new, long-term jobs.
Since the DRRA was enacted, FEMA has adopted a wide range
of building code requirements across its disaster response
program. Codes from two of the organizations represented here
today, the ICC and IAPMO, are referenced in the current
programs, which is particularly helpful for Nevada because we
use IAPMO's plumbing and mechanical codes, which form the basis
of our State's regulations.
I would also be remiss if I didn't recognize the role that
the Nevada plumbing, heating, and cooling industry has played
during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure the efficient use of our
water supply and to protect the safety of our hospitality
workers.
While FEMA has recently recognized a more diverse set of
codes, including those predominantly used in Nevada, for
disaster response, it is my understanding that more could be
done to update education and guidance documents for resilience
programs, which are essential to helping communities avoid
physical and economic losses from future disasters.
So, as we convene this hearing today, I am interested in
learning more from our panel on the limitations that may be
placed on States and localities when a more diverse set of
codes is not recognized and how this impacts disaster
mitigation, costs, and local workforces.
I want to be clear: I am not advocating for FEMA to approve
any particular building code, but rather for there to be
greater consideration of all building codes that have a basis
in research, expert scrutiny, and application to State and
local needs.
So, again, I thank our witnesses for joining us.
And I yield back.
[Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for joining
us today to discuss FEMA's implementation of building codes across its
programs in order to help communities prepare for and recover from
disasters.
Even before FEMA's creation, building codes have played a role in
disaster assistance and recovery, beginning with the 1974 Disaster
Relief Act, which gave the President authority to provide funding to
state and local governments to help repair or reconstruct buildings
damaged by a major disaster, in conformity with applicable codes and
standards.
Following the creation of FEMA in 1979 and the signing of the
Stafford Act in 1988, this practice continued for disaster response.
The signing of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018 marked a
greater emphasis on building codes when it comes to hazard mitigation.
In this regard, the DRRA directed FEMA to create the pre-disaster
mitigation program now known as BRIC and consider 11 different criteria
when awarding pre-disaster mitigation funds including the extent in
which applicants have adopted and enforced the latest building codes.
The incentives and funding provided by DRRA are critical since 35
states have not adopted modern building codes, creating a public safety
hazard and unnecessarily increasing the costs of disaster recovery.
Additionally, the National Institute of Building Sciences found that
designing new buildings that exceed the 2015 International Residential
Code and International Building Code would result in 87,000 new, long-
term jobs.
Since the DRRA was enacted, FEMA has adopted a wide range of
building code requirements across its disaster response programs. Codes
from two organizations here today, the ICC and IAPMO, are referenced in
the current programs which is particularly helpful for Nevada as IAPMO
plumbing and mechanical codes form the basis of our state's
regulations. And I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the role the
Nevada plumbing, heating and cooling industry played during the COVID-
19 pandemic to ensure the efficient use of our water supply and to
protect the safety of our hospitality workers.
While FEMA has recently recognized a more diverse set of codes,
including those predominantly utilized in Nevada, for disaster
response, it is my understanding that more could be done to update
education and guidance documents for resilience programs which are
essential for helping communities avoid physical and economic losses
from future disasters.
As we convene this hearing today, I am interested to learn more
from our panel on the limitations to adopting and enforcing hazard
resistant codes and limitations that may be placed on states and
localities when a more diverse set of codes is not recognized, and the
impact this may have on disaster mitigation, costs and local
workforces.
I want to be clear--I am not advocating for FEMA to approve any
particular building code, but rather for there to be greater
consideration of building codes that have a basis in research, expert
scrutiny and application to state and local needs.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I yield
back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, subcommittee Chair
Perry and subcommittee Ranking Member Titus, for calling
today's hearing on the effectiveness of building codes in
mitigating against disasters.
Before we delve into the topic of building codes, I do want
to recognize FEMA's current funding crisis. For the second year
in a row, FEMA is currently operating in Immediate Needs
Funding.
For a month, FEMA has been forced to pause all funding for
recovery and mitigation projects. There are currently over
2,687 projects on hold. Five of those are in my district.
This hold slows recovery and hurts communities in their
time of need. It is especially dangerous that Congress has
allowed this to happen at the height of disaster season.
Last fall, the administration submitted a $9 billion
disaster supplemental to Congress. I am pleased that the
continuing resolution the House will vote on later today
includes some money for the Disaster Relief Fund.
However, I am disappointed it does not include any of the
funding included in the President's disaster supplemental
request. Without that funding, communities throughout the
country will still be denied resources they desperately need,
and FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund will likely run out of money
before the start of the next fiscal year.
So, Congress should approve the President's request for
supplemental disaster assistance funding before the end of this
Congress.
Today, we are focused on reducing the impacts of disaster
through mitigation. Since 1980, the Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety reports the U.S. has sustained over
$2.7 trillion in losses due to natural disasters.
As these disasters grow in intensity and frequency, the
adoption and enforcement of hazard-resistant building codes is
essential to prevent future funding shortfalls at FEMA. There
is a connection here. Investment in hazard-resistant codes is a
scientifically proven way to save money and to protect
communities.
According to FEMA, the adoption and implementation of
resilient codes is the most effective mitigation measure a
community can take.
FEMA has reported that a nationwide adoption of modern
codes would result in $600 billion in savings from disaster
impact by 2060, and the National Institute of Building Sciences
found that hazard-resistant codes saved the taxpayers $11 for
every $1 invested.
The implementation of stronger codes helps local
governments and homeowners alike since they reduce insurance
premiums and post-disaster financial exposure.
A recent study by CoreLogic and the Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety also found that modern codes reduced
the likelihood of mortgage default following extreme weather by
about 50 percent--5-0 percent.
Unfortunately, FEMA reports that 65 percent of counties,
cities, and towns across the U.S. have not adopted modern
building codes. If we want to support mitigation efforts that
offer the greatest return on investment, it is common sense to
provide communities with the resources they need to adopt the
latest codes.
Funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for FEMA's
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Programs, including BRIC and the
Safeguarding Tomorrow Loan Fund, is making it possible for
communities without hazard-resistant codes to catch up.
Last year, FEMA allocated an additional $2 million for each
State and Territory and up to $25 million for Tribal
governments for building code improvements. This funding
reflected policy that bipartisan members of this committee have
long advocated.
I hope the Agency will again include building code funding
in the upcoming BRIC notice of funding opportunity.
Thank all of you for being here today, and I look forward
to your testimony.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Perry and Subcommittee Ranking
Member Titus, for calling today's hearing on the effectiveness of
building codes in mitigating against disasters.
Before we delve into the topic of building codes, I want to
recognize FEMA's current funding crisis. For the second year in a row,
FEMA is currently operating in Immediate Needs Funding.
For a month, FEMA has been forced to pause all funding for recovery
and mitigation projects. There are currently over 2,687 projects on
hold. Five of those are in my district.
This slows recovery and hurts communities in their time of need. It
is especially dangerous that Congress has allowed this to happen at the
height of disaster season.
Last fall, the Biden Administration submitted a $9 billion disaster
supplemental to Congress.
I am pleased that the Continuing Resolution the House will vote on
later today includes some money for the Disaster Relief Fund.
However, I am disappointed that it does not include any of the
funding included in the President's disaster supplemental request.
Without that funding, communities like Maui will still be denied
the resources they desperately need, and FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund
will likely run out of money before the start of the next fiscal year.
Congress should approve the President's request for supplemental
disaster assistance funding before the end of this Congress.
Today, we are focused on reducing the impacts of disaster through
mitigation. Since 1980, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home
Safety reports the United States has sustained over $2.7 trillion in
losses due to natural disasters.
As these disasters grow in intensity and frequency, the adoption
and enforcement of hazard resistant building codes is essential to
preventing future funding shortfalls at FEMA. There's a connection.
Investment in hazard resistant codes is a scientifically proven way
to save money and protect communities.
According to FEMA, the adoption and implementation of resilient
codes is the most effective mitigation measure a community can take.
FEMA has reported that nationwide adoption of modern codes would
result in $600 billion of savings from disaster impact by 2060. The
National Institute of Building Sciences found that hazard-resistant
codes save the taxpayer $11 for every $1 invested.
The implementation of stronger codes helps local governments and
homeowners alike since they reduce insurance premiums and post-disaster
financial exposure.
A recent study by CoreLogic and the Insurance Institute for
Business and Home Safety found that modern codes reduce the likelihood
of mortgage default following extreme weather by about 50 percent.
Unfortunately, FEMA reports that 65 percent of counties, cities and
towns across the U.S. have not adopted modern building codes.
If we want to support mitigation efforts that offer the greatest
return on investment, it is common sense to provide communities with
the resources they need to adopt the latest codes.
Funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for FEMA's pre-
disaster mitigation programs, including BRIC and the Safeguarding
Tomorrow Loan Fund, is making it possible for communities without
hazard-resistant codes to catch up.
Last year, FEMA allocated an additional $2 million for each state
and territory and up to $25 million for Tribal governments for building
code improvements.
This funding reflected policy that bipartisan members of this
Committee have long advocated for.
I hope the Agency will again include building code funding in the
upcoming BRIC notice of funding opportunity.
Thank you all for being here. I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair would now like to welcome our witnesses and thank
them for being here today.
Briefly, the Chair will take a moment to explain our
lighting system to our witnesses. There are three lights in
front of you. Green means go, yellow means you are running out
of time or it is coming to an end, and red means please
conclude your remarks.
The Chair asks unanimous consent that the witnesses' full
statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair asks 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.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record
remain open for 15 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.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
And at this time, the Chair now recognizes Ranking Member
Titus for introductions.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure to welcome the panel and to introduce two
of its members.
I am pleased first to introduce Cindy Davis, who is
testifying on behalf of the International Code Council.
Ms. Davis recently retired following a dozen years with the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, 9 of
them as the deputy director of the department following a 3-
year stint as director of Virginia's Building Code Office.
Before moving to Virginia in 2012, her career in the
building and fire code profession began in 1988 in western
Pennsylvania. She has served on the boards of the
congressionally chartered National Institute of Building
Sciences, the Building Officials and Code Administrators
International during the merger of three model code
organizations that became the International Code Council--it is
a mouthful--and as president of the International Code
Council's board in 2022.
Last month, Governor Youngkin appointed her to the Virginia
Board of Housing and Community Development.
I want to thank her for being here, and she certainly
brings a wealth of experience and knowledge.
Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Now it is a special pleasure for me to introduce our next
witness, who comes from my district in Nevada, Mr. Jordan
Krahenbuhl, who serves as the executive director of the
Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors of Nevada, based in
Henderson.
A licensed journeyman plumber and master plumber in the
State of Nevada, Jordan was raised working in his father's
plumbing and heating company and has been involved in local and
national code development since 1991.
He certainly knows this industry from the ground up--and
maybe below ground.
Between 1988 and 2018, he worked for the Clark County
Building Department, starting as a plumbing and mechanical
inspector, and went on to lead plumbing and mechanical code
official for about 27 of his 30 years with the department.
As a lifetime member of the International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, Jordan has served on
multiple code committees for the Association and has been
extensively involved in its leadership, having served on their
board of directors for two terms between 2000 and 2006.
Now, many of you may not know that the IAPMO codes serve as
the basis for Nevada's regulations when it comes to plumbing
and mechanical codes, and they played a significant role in
managing the efficient use of our water supply, which, as I
mentioned earlier, has protected our hospitality industry,
especially during the COVID pandemic.
Jordan's experience and extensive knowledge of code
development, adoption, and implementation will certainly
benefit our subcommittee greatly today, and I want to thank him
also for being here.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady from Nevada, the
ranking member.
With that, we are going to start over here and go that way.
Mr. Strickland, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL J. STRICKLAND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; BUDDY HUGHES, FIRST VICE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HOME BUILDERS; JORDAN KRAHENBUHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLUMBING,
HEATING, COOLING CONTRACTORS OF NEVADA; AND CINDY L. DAVIS,
FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND FIRE REGULATIONS,
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL
TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL J. STRICKLAND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
Titus, and distinguished members of the committee, for allowing
me to testify today.
I am proud to testify today representing the State
emergency management directors of all 50 States, Territories,
and the District of Columbia.
I will get to the topic at hand in a minute, but would be
remiss if I did not first address the markup that occurred just
before we began here.
NEMA could not be more pleased with the committee reporting
of H.R. 7671, the Disaster Management Costs Modernization Act.
This bill will make it easier to manage and track disaster
grants, including easing oversight of waste, fraud, and abuse.
It will incentivize the rapid close-out of disasters, thereby
reducing the need for a large FEMA footprint and ultimately
driving down the cost of disasters, and to the topic at hand
today, give States and localities the flexibility needed to
enhance the adoption and enforcement of building codes,
critical steps to ensure resilience.
And we realize that resilience cannot just be a buzzword
used to identify a long-term goal. It must be actionable and
tangible to be effective. NEMA remains focused on identifying
and promoting methods to ensure that resilience is incorporated
into all stages of emergency management. This includes updating
preparedness and mitigation plans, incorporating resilience
principles into exercises, and rebuilding stronger post-
disaster.
By making resilience a cornerstone of what we do as
emergency managers, we can drive improvements that make our
communities safer and better able to adapt to changing threats.
As disasters become more frequent and larger in scale,
scope, and complexity, we know we will never be able to respond
our way out of the vulnerabilities our communities face.
Instead, we must invest in strong mitigation projects and
building resilience. One of the ways we do this is through
initiatives relating to building codes.
Two examples come to mind when thinking about the impact of
code initiatives.
In 2018, Alaska suffered a 7.0 earthquake that was very
geographically similar to the famed 1964 earthquake which
killed more than 100 people. In 2018, however, with the
adoption of model building codes, there were no reported deaths
or serious injuries.
In Pennsylvania, grant-elevated homes were not impacted by
floodwaters along the Schuylkill River in West Norriton
Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, during Tropical
Storm Ida. These homes had been retrofitted to a new code and
to best available data heights through a FEMA grant,
experienced no damages on the first floor and below, and thus
saving a significant amount in rebuilding.
Despite these success stories, code initiatives cannot be
one-size-fits-all across our diverse Nation. For States, a
challenge lies in comparing building code requirements,
metrics, and implementation on a national scale. At the local
level, smaller or underresourced jurisdictions may lack the
expertise, funding, or staff to develop and enforce strong
building codes, leading to inconsistent protection across the
State and negatively impacting scoring for programs like BRIC.
More generally speaking, we as a Nation will never have the
capacity at the State, local, and Federal levels to achieve all
that is desired in the business of consequence management. We
can take small, integral steps, however, that can add
widespread impacts.
Investing in mitigation and resilience makes real
differences in the lives of those affected by disasters and
allows us to build back smarter to lessen the impacts of future
events. While every community's approach to mitigation and
resilience will differ based on vulnerability and risk
environments, priorities, and areas of vulnerability, the
cumulative effect will be a stronger Nation better postured to
adapt to the threats of the future.
And one note in closing with this. The comments from
Congressman Larsen we concur with 100 percent. Moving forward
with the DRF, it must be funded--and funded appropriately--for
all of us to survive. As a Nation, we must find a way to be
more deliberate in how we manage the DRF.
I thank you.
[Mr. Strickland's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell J. Strickland, President, National
Emergency Management Association
Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished
members of the Committee for allowing me to testify today.
I am proud to testify today representing the National Emergency
Management Association (NEMA). NEMA represents the state emergency
management directors of all 50 states, territories, and the District of
Columbia. As Secretary of the Maryland Department of Emergency
Management, and on behalf of my colleagues in state emergency
management, we thank you for holding this discussion on the importance
of strong mitigation through resilience programs and supporting code
initiatives.
Understanding the Landscape of Mitigation and Resilience
As disasters become more frequent and larger in scale, scope, and
complexity, we know we will never be able to respond our way out of the
vulnerabilities our communities face. Instead, we must invest in
mitigation projects that work with our communities to build resilience
where it is needed most. I am known among my colleagues for saying,
``mitigation is the center of the universe,'' because these projects
are imperative as we seek to avert the worst possible impacts of
disasters and prepare our communities for when the next disaster
strikes. Investments in mitigation are key to ensuring that when a
disaster occurs, the communit(ies) affected will be able to withstand
its impacts and rapidly recover.
We must also place comprehensive, transformational mitigation at
the forefront of our national security strategy to reduce risk. For
that to be effective, communities need to be supported and provided the
resources to pursue a pathway to increase their resilience. This
includes support for the full lifecycle of their mitigation projects--
from inception to implementation. We must also be flexible with
communities across the United States and recognize that each has its
own set of unique risks, vulnerabilities and opportunities. Only then
can we implement solutions that overcome various community obstacles
and continue to build upon our successes.
As a coastal state, Maryland is prone to a host of water-related
hazards, including flooding, severe storms, and hurricanes, as well as
tornadoes, earthquakes, and excessive heat. This is in addition to the
risks faced across our nation by threats such as pandemics. Just as our
threats are varied and diverse, so must be the actions we take to
mitigate those threats. Some mitigation activities can be as simple and
individual as washing hands and wearing a mask to combat COVID-19 or
purchasing flood insurance when living in a flood zone. In other cases,
mitigation activities may be as large as conducting coastal restoration
to lessen the impacts of climate change in the Chesapeake Bay.
Resilience cannot just be a ``buzz word'' used to identify a long-
term goal. Rather, it must be actionable and tangible to be effective.
NEMA remains focused on identifying and promoting methods to ensure
that resilience is incorporated into all stages of emergency
management, from updating preparedness and mitigation plans to
incorporating resiliency principles into exercises and rebuilding
stronger post-disaster. By making resilience a cornerstone of all that
we do as emergency managers, we can drive improvements that make our
communities safer and better able to adapt to changing threats for
generations to come.
Maryland and other states across the nation are working to
inculcate a culture of preparedness and promote resilience through
increased public awareness of risk, enhancements to critical
infrastructure, and mitigation projects that incorporate nature-based
solutions and public-private partnerships.
Implementation of Consensus-Based Building Codes
Strong building codes save lives and protect property. Moreover,
the research is clear that building code adoption and enforcement are
among the most cost-effective measures that governments can enact. A
commonly cited statistic (and appropriately so) from a series of
ongoing National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) studies is that
mitigation investments return $6 for every $1 invested. Even more
impressive, the study's authors found that there is a national benefit
of $11 in return for every $1 invested in designing buildings to model
building codes.
In 2020, FEMA released Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study
which concluded that the U.S. will avoid $132 billion in losses from
hazard events by 2040 because of buildings built to international
standards. While not all codes are appropriate in all instances,
ensuring building codes meet the needs of a locality and its hazard
profile has a demonstrated impact on community resilience in the event
of a disaster.
We have seen this play out nationwide where more modern, research-
based building codes have been implemented. Notably, Alaska underwent a
7.0 earthquake in late 2018 that was very geographically similar to the
famed 1964 earthquake which killed more than 100 people. In 2018,
however, with the adoption of model building codes, there were no
reported deaths or serious injuries. In addition to life saving,
utilizing codes can save costs too. In Pennsylvania, grant elevated
homes were not impacted by flood waters along the Schuylkill River in
West Norriton Township, Montgomery County (PA) during Tropical Storm
Ida. These homes had been retrofitted to new code and to best available
data heights through a FEMA grant, experienced no damages on the first
floor and below and thus saving a significant amount in rebuilding and
had no collateral debris impact and first responders did not have to
operate around these grant funded structures in high velocity waters
under tree canopies, nor direct precious ancillary resources to this
local catastrophic event.
Managing Federal Programs and Building Codes Within Maryland
Historically, Maryland has not received any awards under FEMA's
Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs related to building codes. With
the addition of the Building Code Plus-Up state set-aside within FEMA's
FY23 Building Resilience Infrastructure in Communities (BRIC) awards,
Maryland applied for four projects requesting a total of $1,999,998 in
federal dollars. The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) is the
sub-applicant for all four projects which have been ``Selected for
Further Review.'' A brief summary of each project applied for is as
follows:
Increase Transparency of & Accessibility to Building
Codes. MDE will create a central repository of local floodplain
ordinances and adopted building codes, including identification of
higher standards, for every community in the State.
Flood Resilience Through Building Codes--Enhance Building
Codes Statewide. This project will complete five distinct, but related,
tasks including code-coordinate the Maryland Model Ordinance; create
and adopt a State Floodplain Ordinance; completing a needs assessment
to improve the review of State projects based on FEMA's State
Assessment; developing elevation certificates for State buildings near
the floodplain; and train professional staff statewide on the
provisions in the Maryland Floodplain Ordinance after it is adopted.
Flood Resilience Through Building Codes--Evaluate Higher
Standards for Resiliency. This project will help communities and the
State to understand better the costs and benefits of incorporating
resilience design through enhanced building codes and higher standards
outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). In this project, MDE
will: undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the State adoption of higher
standards in areas inside and outside of the SFHA for State Facilities;
use a watershed approach and case study to examine the costs and
benefits of adopting a local floodplain and higher standards in the
NFIP community of Westernport and then expand that analysis to the full
Georges Creek watershed; and create guidance for all communities on the
benefits of adopting higher standards.
Flood Resilience Through Building Codes--Building Codes
Training and Local Land Use Policy Workshops. This project will
develop, promote, and deliver professional workforce capabilities
through technical assistance and training by developing and
implementing a robust state-wide training program for flood provisions
in building codes, ordinances, higher standards, and regulations. The
training will be in the form of multiple regional workshops targeted
for Floodplain Administrators (FPAs) and building inspectors. Training
will be offered in each region of the state and will include specific
material that will address the needs and requirements of each
participating community. A one-stop-shop webpage will be created to
allow access to course material for future reference and refresher
training.
While the FY24 program is not yet released, Maryland has already
fielded interest in additional building-code related projects.
Building Codes as a Component of BRIC Scoring
Building codes are an essential mitigation tool and play a
significant role in programs such as FEMA's BRIC program scoring.
Building code initiatives, however, cannot be a ``one-size-fits-all''
solution nationwide. When considering local versus state building codes
as a criterion for BRIC scoring, both levels of adoption and
enforcement present unique benefits and challenges. For states, a
challenge lies in comparing building code requirements, metrics, and
implementation on a national scale. At the local level, smaller or
under-resourced jurisdictions may lack the expertise, funding, or staff
to develop and enforce strong building codes, leading to inconsistent
protection across the state and negatively impacting BRIC scores for
projects in those areas. Furthermore, it has frequently been noted that
the adoption process to stay current with code models is a significant
challenge for both state and local governments, partly because the
necessary review and approval process can take years to complete.
Due to the significant differences in risk, capacity, and resources
across the nation, many states opposed using state building codes as a
criterion in the BRIC program scoring. While updated building codes are
an important mitigation consideration, and there may be some benefits
related to statewide consistency, there are significant downsides to
comparing building code implementation and enforcement across all
states. Nearly half of states, for example, do not have a statewide
building code, so their communities would be at a significant
disadvantage--particularly the non-coastal, rural states and many of
our nation's territories. Even in states that do have statewide
building codes, however, they can be politically charged, and state
emergency management agencies often lack the ability to influence code
updates. As a result, using state building codes as a BRIC scoring
criterion would effectively penalize communities and emergency
management agencies for decisions of state legislatures, leading to
missed opportunities to execute critical mitigation projects.
Many of the issues cited above regarding the use of state building
codes for BRIC scoring also apply to the use of local building codes.
Furthermore, there is a misconception that many local jurisdictions do
not adopt and enforce building codes because they disagree with them,
or do not want to direct residents on how to handle their property.
Many communities understand the importance and benefits of building
code adoption and enforcement, but do not have the financial
capabilities or capacity to adopt and enforce a building code or run a
local building code program. Even when local communities are able to
adopt updated building codes, the frequency with which new codes are
released makes it unrealistic for many local communities to keep up.
Congress should also bear in mind that states vary in issues as
simple as the definition of ``local.'' For example, in several New
England states, there are no county seats of government. This
significantly increases the number of local governments working
directly with the state and penalizes small, rural, and under-resourced
communities already struggling to receive funding.
Given FEMA's current preference to ensure equitable access to, and
equitable delivery of federal programs, having building code adoption
and enforcement as a scoring criterion within the BRIC program would be
in conflict. Instead of using building code adoption and enforcement as
a criterion in BRIC scoring, FEMA should focus on incentivization of
building code adoption and enforcement. For example, remove
requirements and incentives from scoring criterion, but provide
incentives later in the process, such as cost share adjustments for
adoption and enforcement. If build codes must be a criterion for BRIC
scoring, both state and local sub-applicants should have opportunities
to earn additional points for adopting more stringent, hazard-specific
building codes tailored to their risks--without the penalty of losing
points. Another proposed approach is a change to a ``state OR local
code'' approach, in which the community gets to choose whichever awards
them more points in the scoring process.
In short, given the important role the BRIC program plays enabling
communities to reduce their hazard risk and enhance resiliency, FEMA's
approach to scoring must not make it harder for disadvantaged, rural,
and highly vulnerable communities to compete.
Solutions Beyond BRIC
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) included a
provision entitled Federal Cost-Share Adjustments for Repair,
Restoration, and Replacement of Damaged Facilities (Sec. 20606). This
provision allows the President to provide incentives to grantees to
invest in measures that increase readiness for, and resilience from, a
major disaster by recognizing those investments through a sliding scale
that increases the minimum federal share. Implementing the approved
language would give states concrete actions to incentivize resilience
and empower them to take proactive steps to drive down disaster costs
before an incident occurs. Despite the statutory one-year deadline, the
lack of movement on implementing Sec. 20606 delays an opportunity for
engagement and innovation to incentivize resilient strategies.
NEMA remains confident that raising the federal cost share for
FEMA's post-disaster Public Assistance program from 75% up to 85% for
proven mitigation measures represents a powerful motivator for all
communities to invest in resilience. Were FEMA to demonstrate a
willingness to recognize and reward such investments in mitigation and
resilience by implementing this now six-year-old provision of law, it
would inspire communities to harden themselves against future disasters
by undertaking the prescribed actions.
Integrating Community Lifelines Into Mitigation and Resilience Efforts
BRIC is an opportunity to create transformative, community-based
projects that work with the private sector, homeowners, locals, and
other stakeholders that incentivize large infrastructure projects for
community lifelines. Maryland officials have testified before Congress
in the past on the importance of investing in resilient transportation
and infrastructure projects which bolster our collective resilience in
the face of disasters and cyber threats. As a designated community
lifeline, resilient infrastructure and transportation networks will
enable areas affected by disaster to more rapidly return to normal
function.
Ensuring community lifelines, particularly energy and
communication, are resilient against hazard impacts is a priority for
Maryland and many other states to ensure the safety and security of our
residents post-disaster. Proactive investments in mitigation can help
enable the quick restoration of these community lifelines when impacted
by disasters, which aids in response efforts, prevents loss of life and
property, and decreases the overall cost of recovery. As the assets,
services, and capabilities that comprise community lifelines are often
owned and operated by the private sector, this further underscores the
need to embrace partnerships and educate those outside of traditional
emergency management on the role everyone can play in mitigation and
resilience.
Conclusion
On behalf of the state emergency managers, thank you again for
holding this hearing and drawing attention to the needs of the
emergency management community. In Maryland, we are acutely aware of
the need to build upon the momentum from the implementation of the BRIC
program to further improve mitigation and resilience efforts to ensure
we effectively support our communities in their time of need. As you
consider the topics of this hearing, please remember that investing in
mitigation and resilience makes real differences in the lives of those
affected by disasters and allows us to build back smarter to lessen the
impacts of future events. While every community's approach to
mitigation and resilience building will differ based on their unique
risk environments, priorities, and areas of vulnerability, the
cumulative effect will be a stronger nation better postured to adapt to
the threats of the future.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hughes for your 5 minutes for
an opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF BUDDY HUGHES, FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
Mr. Hughes. Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and
esteemed members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National
Association of Home Builders.
The recent increase in natural disasters has underscored
the important role homebuilders serve in constructing safe and
resilient homes.
NAHB represents over 140,000 members who construct
approximately 80 percent of the new housing built in the U.S.
each year. We are committed to collaborating with all levels of
Government to develop cost-effective solutions that enhance
home and community resilience while preserving housing choice
and affordability.
While NAHB acknowledges the important role building codes
play in enhancing resiliency, we are concerned about FEMA's
disproportionate focus on the adoption of the very latest
codes. Building codes do little to improve flood control,
manage stormwater, or address the existing building stock. They
also fail to strengthen essential infrastructure, like power
supply and roadways.
Creating true resiliency requires a holistic approach that
encompasses all community systems. FEMA's emphasis on building
codes can divert attention and resources from improvements to
infrastructure, emergency services, and existing buildings.
A resilient building is of little value if the supporting
infrastructure is lacking, and a resilient home offers little
comfort if it remains unaffordable. Builders know firsthand
that housing affordability is at the top of mind for
homebuyers. Adopting the latest building codes can
significantly impact affordability.
For example, a study by Home Innovation Research Labs found
that implementing the 2021 International Residential Code could
add up to $5,700 to the cost of an average single family home
compared to the 2018 code. NAHB estimates that 77 percent of
U.S. households cannot afford a median-priced new home. Even a
$1,000 increase in price could push over 100,000 households out
of the market. These challenges only deepen the struggle for
families seeking affordable housing.
The ability to customize building codes becomes crucial as
it ensures not only resilience and relevance, but also cost-
effectiveness.
NAHB has been an active participant in the ICC's code
development process since its inception, ensuring that our
members, who are the primary users of these model codes, bring
their extensive hands-on experience to the evaluation of
proposed changes. However, it is crucial that State and local
governments retain the flexibility to adopt codes that address
their specific geographic and jurisdictional needs, even if
those codes are not developed by ICC.
If FEMA takes an overly prescriptive approach, we risk
diverting our attention from enhancing community resilience to
merely navigating the codes that qualify for FEMA funding. FEMA
should allow jurisdictions to tailor codes to their unique risk
to avoid imposing unnecessary requirements that can drive up
costs for builders and homebuyers.
The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act is vital legislation
that seeks to permanently codify the definition of ``latest
published editions'' of building codes, giving State and local
governments the necessary time to adopt codes tailored to their
specific needs and economic conditions.
Without this legislation, FEMA could restrict certain funds
to only the jurisdictions that have adopted the most recent
codes, pressuring them into hasty changes that may not enhance
safety or resilience.
Thank you to the subcommittee for your unanimous support of
this important legislation. And I would like to thank you for
your time and attention today. I look forward to working
together to forge a path that balances safety, resilience, and
affordability, ultimately benefiting all Americans.
Thank you very much for your time.
[Mr. Hughes' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Buddy Hughes, First Vice Chairman of the Board of
Directors, National Association of Home Builders
Introduction
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus and members of the committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of
the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) to share our view on
the role and effectiveness of building codes in mitigating against
disasters. My name is Buddy Hughes, and I serve as NAHB's First Vice
Chairman of the Board of Directors. I am a home builder and developer
based in Lexington, North Carolina, with over 45 years of experience in
the industry.
NAHB represents more than 140,000 members who are involved in
building single-family and multifamily housing, remodeling and other
aspects of residential and light commercial construction. NAHB's
members, most of whom build 10 or fewer homes per year, construct
approximately 80% of all new housing in the United States each year.
The recent rise in major natural disasters serves as a powerful
reminder of the critical role the residential construction industry
plays in building safe and resilient homes and communities. It has also
ignited a broader conversation about risk, resiliency, and mitigation.
NAHB has long been at the forefront of these discussions, taking a
leadership role in improving the resilience and performance of both new
and existing homes. Our organization and its members have a proven
track record of supporting, developing, and participating in state,
local, and federal initiatives focused on reducing disaster-related
losses and enhancing resiliency.
We have consistently demonstrated our commitment to collaborating
with all levels of government to promote and implement effective
disaster and floodplain management policies while improving the
resiliency of the homes we build and the communities we serve. NAHB
takes pride in developing cost-effective, market-driven solutions that
strike a balance between preserving housing affordability and ensuring
reasonable protection for life and property. We work to address the
needs of growing communities while promoting safety and resilience in
home construction.
FEMA's Role in Mitigating Disasters
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created in 1979
to help Americans recover from Presidentially declared natural
disasters. Its role has since evolved to include actions aimed at
building, sustaining, and improving the nation's ability and capacity
to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate
all types of hazards. Following various authorizations from Congress,
FEMA relies on a range of policy tools and programs to do so, including
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), the National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Program, the NFIP's Community Rating System (CRS) Program,
and funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, among others.
While FEMA has promoted the adoption and enforcement of hazard-
resistant building codes, for years, it issued its Building Code
Strategy, which organizes and prioritizes FEMA activities to advance
the adoption and enforcement of hazard-resistant building codes and
standards in March 2022. More recently, FEMA was chosen to lead the
National Initiative to Advance Building Codes (NIABC)--an effort aimed
at helping state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments adopt the
latest building codes and standards, enabling communities to be more
resilient to hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, and other extreme weather
events that are intensifying due to climate change.\1\ While NAHB
agrees that building codes play an important role in improving the
nation's resiliency, we remain concerned about the outsized focus FEMA
has given this one aspect of preparedness. Building codes do little to
improve flood control or manage stormwater. Building codes do not
notify citizens or move them out of harm's way. Building codes rarely
touch the existing building stock, which makes up the majority of the
nation's homes. And building codes are unable to shore up the power
supply, roadways, or other necessary infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The White House, FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration
Launches Initiative to Modernize Building Codes, Improve Climate
Resilience, and Reduce Energy Costs (June 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creating resiliency is not just about improving buildings' ability
to weather a storm or other disaster, but a holistic approach to all
systems within a community. FEMA's undue emphasis on building codes
skews the attention and support these other systems need to make our
communities and citizens better able to adapt and respond. A resilient
building is of little use if the supporting and necessary
infrastructure (energy, communications, transportation, wastewater,
etc.) are not in place following an event. Likewise, a resilient home
provides little comfort if no one can afford to purchase it. Given the
current housing crisis, instead of placing additional burdens on new
construction, the emphasis should be on improving the resilience of
infrastructure, emergency services, and existing buildings.
FEMA's Dependence on the Latest Published Editions of Building Codes to
Enhance Resiliency
NAHB supports a comprehensive approach to addressing natural
disasters, advocating for cost-effective solutions that enhance the
resiliency of the nation's housing stock while safeguarding housing
affordability. FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs,
particularly the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
(BRIC) program, have the potential to play a pivotal role in this
effort by empowering communities to take proactive steps toward
resilience. However, FEMA's heavy emphasis on adopting the latest
building codes presents significant challenges for states, localities,
builders and homebuyers.\2\ The short window for reviewing newly
published codes, coupled with the continuous cycle of code updates,
leaves builders, contractors, architects, engineers, manufacturers, and
building officials with little time to fully understand and implement
the changes effectively. This pace undermines these programs' goals by
making it harder for communities to adopt and enforce these codes
without disrupting their operations and increasing administrative and
enforcement costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, for example, DHS/FEMA, Fiscal Year 2021 Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities, Notice of Funding Opportunity DHS-21-
MT-047-00-99 (2021) under which FEMA limits BRIC funding for code
adoptions to those communities that update to hazard resistant codes
and requires BRIC funded infrastructure adhere to current codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopting the latest building codes as soon as they are released
also presents a significant challenge to housing affordability. A study
by Home Innovation Research Labs found that adopting the 2021
International Residential Code (IRC) could add up to $5,700 in costs
for an average single-family home compared to the 2018 IRC, excluding
energy efficiency provisions.\3\ This increase adds further pressure to
housing affordability, which is already a growing concern, even before
factoring in additional price or interest rate hikes. NAHB estimates
that 103.5 million U.S. households--77% of all households--cannot
afford a median-priced new home, which was $495,750 as of 2024.
Moreover, a $1,000 increase in the median home price could price
106,031 additional households out of the market, while a 25-basis point
rise in the 30-year fixed mortgage rate could make homeownership
unaffordable for approximately 1.1 million more households. However, as
mentioned, complying with many code changes can lead to costs well
beyond $1,000, pushing even more families out of the housing market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Estimated Costs of the 2021 IRC Code Changes, January 2022,
https://www.nahb.org/
-/media/NAHB/advocacy/docs/top-priorities/codes/code-adoption/cost-
impact-2021-irc-hirl.pdf?rev=
8b1cda54131d4b328ca4ab99fa7e86b0&hash=578FFBD88B617D87F679BAC9C2B5C2CB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than focusing solely on adopting the latest version every
three years, the priority should be on recognizing the effectiveness of
current modern codes and ensuring proper enforcement to maximize their
effectiveness while maintaining flexibility to address regional risks
and specific needs.
Modern Building Codes are Resilient
Although most states and localities have enacted building
regulations that are designed to protect homes and occupants from
severe weather events and hazards, FEMA has placed a strong emphasis on
the adoption of the latest building codes as the primary means to
enhance safety. This focus is unwarranted and unnecessary. Modern
building codes have proven to be resilient.
Building codes set the minimum standards for public health and
safety in both commercial and residential structures. While they have
existed in various forms for decades, a major milestone occurred in
2000 when the three regional code organizations in the United States
consolidated into the International Code Council (ICC), leading to the
creation of the first set of ``I-Codes.'' These codes, first published
in 2000, are the most widely adopted model building codes in the
country. The International Building Code (IBC) is used in all 50
states, and the International Residential Code (IRC) is adopted in 49
states. Like most model codes, the I-Codes undergo a formal public
consensus review and are updated every three years, with new editions
released in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2021, and 2024.
When the I-Codes were introduced, significant improvements were
made to residential building codes to address issues identified after
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the California earthquakes of 1989 and
1994. While further enhancements have been made since the I-Codes'
debut in 2000, the number of changes in newer editions of the IRC that
significantly impact structural reliability and occupant safety has
greatly decreased. In other words, modern building codes (post-2000)
have proven to be highly resilient, and triannual updates are not
necessary for further enhancing resilience. Homes built to national
model building codes are designed to withstand major disasters and
already offer substantial protection against high seismic activity,
strong winds, heavy snow, wildfires, and flooding.
Despite this, FEMA's recent strategic focus on mandating the
adoption of the ``latest published editions'' of certain codes or
standards to enhance building resilience is concerning. While it is
often assumed that homes built according to the most recent codes are
inherently more resilient, this is not always the case when compared to
homes constructed under previous editions of the IRC. In fact, homes
built to modern building codes--defined as any edition of the IRC--have
consistently demonstrated resilience. Evidence from FEMA and other
sources shows that the IRC has been highly effective throughout its
history in significantly reducing damage to walls and roof
coverings.\4\ Likewise, FEMA has recognized, ``Some states have broken
the chain of destruction by adopting modern building codes that protect
property and people during natural disasters. Florida and California,
pioneers in this field, have had modern hazard-resistant building codes
in place since the 1990s.'' \5\ Additionally, many of today's new homes
are built ``above code,'' incorporating sustainable and high-
performance features that further enhance their durability. As such,
mandating the adoption of the latest code editions is often unnecessary
and overlooks the effectiveness of current building practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, FEMA's Summary Report on Building Performance--
2004 Hurricane Season (FEMA 490, March 2005) indicated that ``no
structural failures were observed to structures designed and
constructed to the wind design requirements of . . . the 2000 IBC/
IRC'', and FEMA's Summary Report on Building Performance from Hurricane
Katrina (FEMA 548, April 2006) stated ``most structural failures
observed . . . appeared to be the result of inadequate design and
construction methods commonly used before IBC 2000 and IRC 2000 were
adopted and enforced.''
\5\ FEMA, Protecting Communities and Saving Money: The Case for
Adopting Building Codes (Nov. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, it is unclear whether FEMA's approach to building code
adoption accounts for the varying risks, building technologies, and
landforms across the country, or allows for necessary amendments to
model codes--an essential step to ensure their effectiveness. Each
state and local government has its own code adoption, implementation,
and enforcement processes, and often has limited resources with which
to do so. Many are simply unable to adopt the latest codes within the
expected timeframes. Evaluating and adopting a new or revised building
code is a complex and costly process that often requires both
legislative and administrative action, which can take years to
complete. Due to the short, three-year turnaround, many localities
would need to start considering the most recent code even though the
newest code had not yet been implemented. How can they reasonably
consider proposed changes when they don't yet know what may or may not
work? Given these challenges, mandating the adoption of the ``latest
published editions'' places an unintended burden on many states and
localities that would otherwise be considered up to date because they
are following a standard and predictable process for maintaining their
codes.
Finally, the strong performance of the IRC over the past 20 years
reflects the ``maturing'' of building codes through a continual process
of refinement since 2000. While future adjustments to incorporate
technological advances are inevitable, it is clear that major changes
are no longer as crucial as they once were. Certain code provisions are
approaching or have already crossed a point of diminishing returns,
where additional updates may not be cost-effective given the current
cost/benefit ratio. Homes can be constructed to withstand disasters,
but they cannot consistently be both disaster-resistant and affordable.
New homes built to modern codes are both safe and resilient. Therefore,
there is no need to impose more stringent requirements or mandate
adherence to the latest edition of the code, particularly if that is
interpreted as the most recent version.
Modern Codes Address Local Conditions
NAHB has been an active participant in the ICC's code development
process since its inception. NAHB members, as the primary users of
these model codes, bring their extensive hands-on experience to
evaluating the practicality and effectiveness of proposed code changes
as they help to shape codes that work for state and local governments,
building officials, builders and homeowners.
The I-Codes provide a solid foundation to ensure the safety,
durability, and resilience of the homes we build and have been highly
effective in reducing damage due to natural disasters. One reason the
I-codes work is that they are designed to be flexible and amended so
that they can meet the specific needs of state and local governments.
We fear that if too much rigidity is imposed, such as the adoption of
the most recent code, the focus of the building codes conversation may
shift away from meaningful discussions about enhancing community
resilience to confusion over which specific code will result in
eligibility for FEMA funding. It is essential for state and local
governments to retain the flexibility to adopt the hazard-resistant
codes that are best for them, even if those codes are outside the ICC's
suite of model codes. Communities must also be free to tailor those
codes to their specific geographic and jurisdictional needs, so that
they may effectively protect and safeguard their citizens.
State and local governments play a crucial role in the code
adoption process, assessing the value and necessity of specific code
requirements. Since model codes are intended to be amended, these
governments have long been tasked with reviewing each new edition of
the consensus-based building codes and determining which provisions are
suitable for their jurisdictions. This involves adding, removing, or
modifying provisions to align the codes with local construction
practices, geographical risks, and economic conditions. Without the
ability to make these essential adjustments, state and local
governments would be forced to apply a one-size-fits-all national code
that doesn't account for regional differences. This approach would also
impose numerous unnecessary requirements on builders, ultimately
resulting in higher costs for home buyers.
The ability to customize building codes is essential for ensuring
their resilience and relevance. Some states make minimal changes to the
model codes, while others selectively adopt certain provisions or use
the model code as a foundation to create their own state-specific
regulations. This flexibility allows jurisdictions to evaluate their
unique risks--such as seismic activity, wind, flooding, and other local
conditions--and craft codes that best address those needs. At the same
time, they can avoid imposing mandates and associated compliance costs
for provisions that are not applicable or designed to address levels of
risks that are not present in their areas, such as elevation
requirements outside the traditional special flood hazard areas or
increased structural requirements for snow loads in more temperate
regions.
Under this rubric, Nevada is free to identify the risks it faces
and adopt the codes that are best suited to its locale, geography, and
economic conditions, while North Carolina can do the same. In fact,
because the model codes are intended to be tailored, amendments are
made to nearly every code that is adopted at the state or local level,
whether it applies to only the administrative requirements or a major
rewrite of the entire document. For example, North Carolina adopted its
2018 building codes based on the 2015 I-Codes on January 1, 2019, with
38 pages of amendments. Similarly, Nevada adopts the building codes at
the local level but collaborates statewide on the amendment process and
had 14 pages of amendments on the residential code alone. Any federal
efforts must not alter this vital underpinning and must allow and
embrace amendments as an important component of ensuring both the
codes' applicability and resiliency and, in turn, their affordability.
The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act Improves Flexibility
In 2018, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) was enacted as
part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization. This
bipartisan legislation addressed the rising costs of disasters in the
United States and reformed federal disaster programs to ensure
communities are better prepared for future hurricanes, flooding,
earthquakes, wildfires, and other disasters. The DRRA amended the
Stafford Act, the primary statutory authority for most federal disaster
response activities, most notably the Pre-disaster Hazard Mitigation
Funds. These funds are crucial for various resilience efforts, such as
property elevation, retrofitting existing buildings, stormwater
management, and other activities designed to enhance community
resilience against natural disasters. The final language of the DRRA
defined ``latest published editions'' of building codes to include the
latest two published editions of relevant codes, specifications, and
standards, while specifically providing jurisdictions the flexibility
to amend them as needed. This definition unfortunately sunset in
October 2023, underscoring the current need for legislative action to
ensure jurisdictions can retain control over their code adoption
processes and not be forced into adopting costly and unnecessary
construction requirements.
The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act is crucial legislation that
aims to help jurisdictions maintain local control over the building
code adoption process while encouraging communities to take proactive
steps to withstand and recover from extreme events.\6\ The bill seeks
to permanently codify the previous definition of ``latest published
editions'' of building codes, giving state and local governments the
necessary time to engage in comprehensive code adoption processes that
result in codes tailored to their specific needs and are cost-effective
for their jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ H.R. 5473, The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act, https://
www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without this legislation, FEMA could consider funding for only
those jurisdictions that have adopted the very latest editions of
building codes. This would put jurisdictions in a difficult position,
pressuring them to adopt the newest codes without a thorough vetting
and amendment process, potentially resulting in costly code changes
that do not necessarily enhance safety or resiliency. In the midst of a
national housing affordability crisis, it is crucial that adding
further uncertainty and unnecessary costs to the home-building process
is avoided.
Thank you to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and
specifically this Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management for your unanimous support of this
legislation. Your commitment to this issue plays a vital role in
ensuring that communities can build resiliency without compromising
local control or affordability.
Building Codes and the Overlooked Existing Housing Stock
Currently, most building codes focus solely on new construction or
existing buildings that are under repair or reconstruction, placing a
disproportionate burden on new builds while largely overlooking the
performance and resilience of existing homes. This approach is
inadequate, especially given the aging American housing stock. With a
recent decline in new construction, there is increasing pressure to
keep older homes in service--homes that may not perform as well or be
as resilient as newer builds. One hundred and thirty million homes out
of the nation's housing stock of 137 million were built before 2010.
Equally problematic, the latest Census statistics show the number of
homes built before 1970 that are taken out of commission is only about
six out of every 1,000 being retired per year. These low rates of
replacement mean that the built environment in the U.S. will change
slowly and continue to be dominated by structures that are at least
several decades old.
Advocating for more stringent and costly building requirements for
new construction overlooks the reality that such changes would offer
minimal additional protection from natural disasters. An undue focus on
new builds not only challenges state and local governments but also
risks making new housing increasingly unaffordable and unattainable for
many families and thereby encouraging them to remain in lower-
performing homes.
The Need for Retrofitting Older Homes
Older homes are generally less resilient and energy-efficient than
their newer counterparts. Built without the rigorous standards of
modern codes, they typically consume more energy and are more
vulnerable to natural disasters. Post-disaster investigations support
this conclusion. For example, FEMA's Mitigation Assessment Team Report
on Hurricane Sandy noted that ``many of the low-rise and residential
buildings in coastal areas [that had observable damage] were of older
construction that pre-dates the NFIP''.\7\ Similarly, the Insurance
Institute for Business and Home Safety found in its preliminary report
on Hurricanes Harvey and Irma that ``total destruction from wind
occurred to mobile homes, as well as older site-built conventional
homes,'' while ``newer homes generally performed better than older
buildings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Assessment Team
Report Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York, November 27, 2013,
accessed at (https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/44511/
PDF/1/play/) on May 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To enhance the nation's overall resiliency, greater focus is needed
on upgrading the existing housing stock. Homes built to modern building
codes have consistently demonstrated their ability to perform well
during natural disasters. Therefore, the priority should be on
preparing older homes for such events. This requires more funding and
guidance on cost-effective retrofit strategies to bring these homes up
to current standards. The Promoting Resilient Buildings Act offers a
valuable pathway to do so by including a residential retrofit and
resilience pilot program, which would allow FEMA's BRIC program to
better address the resiliency of existing homes. Strengthening the
current housing stock is essential to reducing the impact of natural
disasters on our communities, homes, and families.
Flexible and Cost-Effective Options Are Critical
As policymakers seek to eliminate, reduce, and mitigate the effects
of future natural disasters, they must offer diverse and flexible
options for upgrading older homes and infrastructure. Many of these
buildings were constructed either before national model codes existed
or under outdated standards, leaving them more vulnerable to damage.
Improving the resiliency of these structures can take many forms, such
as sealing roof penetrations, installing hurricane shutters, elevating
buildings, or enhancing stormwater management systems.
Effective mitigation strategies depend on various factors,
including property location and condition, hazard type, level of risk,
geographic conditions, and available resources. Given this complexity,
no single solution can address all the issues related to improving
resiliency. Flexibility in program design and implementation is
crucial. Federal assistance should be adaptable across diverse
geographic and economic spectrums, benefiting state-, regional- and
community-wide efforts and those of individual homeowners. While some
may require financial support, others may benefit more from technical
expertise or innovative solutions.
NAHB strongly urges Congress to recognize and promote voluntary,
market-driven, and viable green building, high performance, and
resiliency initiatives for both new and existing homes. Unlike
mandates, these programs can promote lower total ownership costs
through insurance savings as well as provide the flexibility builders
need to construct homes that are recognized as being cost-effective,
affordable, and appropriate to a home's geographic location.
Congress has taken several steps over the years to alleviate the
challenges associated with funding retrofits. NAHB asserts that
continuing and expanding these programs is necessary to realize
measurable changes in the resiliency of the housing stock. Indeed,
covering the upfront costs or increased down payments needed to finance
resiliency improvements, which are often significant, is one of the
most difficult aspects of upgrading new or existing homes.
Tax incentives are a proven way to achieve results and have been
effective in advancing energy efficiency improvements. Sections 25C for
qualified improvements in existing homes, 45L for new homes, and 179D
for commercial buildings have already permeated the market, helping
many families and building owners invest in efficiency. These
successful programs could serve as a model for promoting resiliency.
Creating similar incentives for resiliency efforts would encourage more
homeowners to take positive action.
Other Incentives
There are several opportunities to facilitate, incentivize, and
offset the costs of voluntary above-code construction and pre-disaster
mitigation through public-private partnerships and other
collaborations. These options include modifications to property
valuation and financing protocols, loans, grants, and other funding
programs, as well as insurance premium reductions within the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), among others.
Under current practice, mortgage companies, appraisers, assessors,
and real estate professionals typically do not consider the costs or
benefits associated with various resiliency upgrades. This creates a
disincentive for homeowners to take proactive steps to reduce their
home's exposure, as those expenditures are not necessarily viewed as
valuable amenities and any return on investment is illusory. If credit
for the improvements is not included in the appraisal or appraised
value of the structure, the buyer remains uninformed about the home's
qualities, and their willingness to pay for a more resilient home can
be significantly diminished.
By recognizing and valuing resiliency upgrades, appraisers can
consistently give weight to these improvements in their valuations.
Likewise, lenders may reconsider qualifying loan ratios, realtors can
promote the benefits of these upgrades, and homeowners would receive
assurances that their investments will retain value and be recognized
in resale. In addition, homes would receive the necessary upgrades to
better withstand storm events, reducing future damage, insurance
payouts, and homeowner displacement.
Other opportunities to facilitate, incentivize, and offset the
costs of voluntary above-code construction and pre-disaster mitigation
include tax incentives, grants, the creation of a weatherization
assistance-like program for resiliency, and financing programs that
would allow the costs of retrofits to be added to a mortgage.
Congress is encouraged to consider a full range of federal
incentives and funding opportunities, as well as ways to promote and
facilitate state-level and private efforts to optimize the resiliency
of new and existing homes. Overcoming the significant hurdles of how to
finance upgrades and entice homeowners to take action will be key to
the success of any effort to increase investment in resilience and
mitigation.
Strengthening the Residential Construction Workforce for Disaster
Recovery
Access to a reliable workforce is crucial for increasing the
resiliency of homes, rebuilding homes after natural disasters, and
meeting the ongoing demand for housing. When considering resiliency
upgrades, homeowners need access to experienced remodelers who
understand structural systems and cost-effective mitigation options.
After disasters, communities depend on a skilled workforce to quickly
and effectively restore homes and infrastructure, helping families and
businesses return to normalcy. The current housing market also faces
significant labor shortages, making it more difficult to keep up with
the demand for new construction. To address these challenges, NAHB
strongly advocates for residential workforce development programs to
help bridge these labor gaps.
Building a pipeline of skilled workers requires more than just
filling current vacancies; it involves ensuring a steady and dependable
influx of new talent while fostering an environment that encourages
retention in the residential construction industry. Programs that offer
training and career development can attract newcomers to the field,
equipping them with the skills needed to succeed. Furthermore, creating
opportunities for career advancement and stability within the industry
will help retain these workers, ensuring that the residential
construction sector can grow and respond effectively to natural
disasters and ongoing housing needs.
NAHB continues to actively push for legislation to address these
workforce challenges. For example, the CONSTRUCTS Act, introduced by
Sen. Jacky Rosen (NV), aims to ease the severe labor shortage in the
home building industry. This legislation supports new and existing
residential construction education programs, helping ensure a steady
supply of workers to build the homes our nation needs. Furthermore,
NAHB strongly supports continued funding for Job Corps, a crucial
program that helps prepare young adults for rewarding careers in
construction and other essential trades.
To further support these efforts, FEMA should encourage
jurisdictions to establish robust residential workforce development
programs. By incentivizing the creation and maintenance of a skilled
workforce, FEMA can play a pivotal role in ensuring that communities
have the labor force needed to perform pre-disaster mitigation and
rebuild efficiently after disasters occur. Additionally, a well-trained
workforce is essential for maintaining a healthy housing market,
reducing the pressure on housing supply, and keeping construction costs
in check. Strengthening the residential construction workforce not only
addresses immediate recovery needs but also contributes to the long-
term resilience and sustainability of communities nationwide.
Conclusion
Sound building codes are already in place in most communities, and
they are effectively doing their job. The NAHB strongly supports
voluntary, incentive-driven initiatives to bolster the nation's
resilience. However, we have significant concerns about any expansion
of federal authority that could limit the ability of state and local
governments to adopt building codes tailored to their specific regions.
Such actions could potentially hinder housing development and restrict
the availability of affordable housing options. NAHB is troubled by the
excessive emphasis on adopting the latest versions of building codes,
which places an undue focus on new construction while neglecting the
existing housing stock. We strongly believe that expanding mitigation
opportunities and targeting upgrades to existing structures could help
manage and reduce risks more evenly.
We urge this Subcommittee, through its oversight role, to focus
efforts related to housing on cost-effective, market-driven solutions
that encourage greater resiliency in the nation's housing stock while
preserving affordability for both new and existing homes. Given our
members' knowledge and experience in building homes and communities, we
stand ready to assist in delivering positive results and helping you
achieve your goals.
Thank you, Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Titus, for the
opportunity to testify today and share NAHB's views. The nation's home
builders have consistently supported the adoption and implementation of
cost-effective building codes to ensure the homes we construct are
solid and safe. With each new home built, we are not only safeguarding
individual families but also shaping our communities into resilient
cities of the future.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks Mr. Hughes.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Krahenbuhl for your testimony
for 5 minutes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JORDAN KRAHENBUHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLUMBING,
HEATING, COOLING CONTRACTORS OF NEVADA
Mr. Krahenbuhl. Thank you, Ranking Member Titus, for that
introduction and for your leadership on construction codes and
water-related issues.
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Jordan Krahenbuhl. I have been serving as the
executive director of the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling
Contractors of Nevada since 2019. Prior to joining the
association, I worked for the Clark County Building Department
for 30 years where I was the lead plumbing mechanical code
official. I am also a member of IAPMO, an organization that
develops model codes and standards used in our sector.
The resiliency of America's buildings relies on a robust
ecosystem of model codes and standards developed by standards
development organizations. These organizations include but are
not limited to IAPMO, ICC, NFPA, ASHRAE, and ASCE. The model
codes and standards developed by these reputable organizations
contain important hazard-resistant provisions.
At times, these codes and standards compete with one
another. Today's buildings are more resilient because of the
competition, which results in improved safety, affordability,
and resiliency. Jurisdictions benefit from being able to choose
which of these model codes best meet their requirements.
Federal policy should support this effort.
FEMA's building code policies and guidance can be improved.
The challenge in our industry has been that FEMA, in its
building code initiative, seems to only be interested in
promoting the products and services of one standards
development organization.
More than 100 organizations across 15 States have asked
FEMA and Congress to address this issue. The industry
appreciates the efforts made by Members of the House, including
this panel, who have urged FEMA to act on this issue.
Thanks to these efforts, there has been some movement.
However, it continues to be a challenge and has created several
problems that I would like to highlight.
Number one, it discourages competition and limits options
for local skilled professionals.
FEMA's policy states that it does not approve or endorse
any products or companies. It is concerning that FEMA's
communications relating to building codes do not seem to follow
that policy.
Examples of how FEMA has outright marketed the products of
a single standards development organization have been provided
for the record.
As a Federal agency, FEMA's role is not to weigh in on a
competitive environment and to usurp the role of skilled
professionals at a local level who select these codes. FEMA
does not improve resiliency by telling jurisdictions which
brand of model codes they should select.
Number two, it introduces barriers in State and local code
adoption.
One of the major unintended consequences of FEMA's singular
focus is that it has interfered with code adoptions. From New
Jersey, Texas, and Missouri, we have seen examples where code
adoptions have been delayed because of confusion over which
specific national model code meets FEMA's requirements. To
clarify, these are jurisdictions who are trying to do the right
thing and update their construction codes, but they are being
delayed because of the confusion created by FEMA's own
marketing materials and the stakeholders promoting them.
Number three, it threatens to negatively impact
construction trades.
My organization is one of the largest trainers of plumbing
professionals in the State. If Nevada, because of FEMA's
misaligned efforts, were to change its construction code to
another code, it would be very detrimental. The cost of
recreating our training and certification programs to address
the specific provisions of an entirely new construction code
would be hard to recover from and threaten our existence
without any benefit to resiliency.
Finally, the benefits of construction codes come from their
effective implementation and enforcement, not just adoption.
FEMA's strategy on resilient building should address the very
real workforce training and supply chain issues faced by
communities across the United States.
In conclusion, implementing hazard-resistant construction
codes is important to improving the resiliency of communities
in Nevada and nationwide.
We appreciate the actions of this committee that you have
taken to date and continue to seek your assistance in helping
ensure a level playing field for all major construction codes
in FEMA's policies, programs, and upcoming strategic efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
[Mr. Krahenbuhl's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jordan Krahenbuhl, Executive Director, Plumbing,
Heating, Cooling Contractors of Nevada
Introduction
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf
of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of Nevada regarding the
role and effectiveness of FEMA's focus on building codes in mitigating
against disasters.
My name is Jordan Krahenbuhl, and I have been serving as Executive
Director of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors (PHCC) of Nevada
since 2019. As an organization, PHCC is dedicated to the education and
advancement of the plumbing and HVACR industry. The Association's
members, spread across the state of Nevada, work in the residential,
commercial, new construction, industrial, and service and repair
segments of the construction industry. Collectively, they represent a
key segment of the skilled construction professionals who work to keep
homes and businesses healthy, safe, comfortable, and efficient. Prior
to joining PHCC of Nevada, I worked for the Clark County Building
Department for 30 years, where I was the lead plumbing and mechanical
code official. I am also a member of IAPMO, an organization that
develops model codes and standards used in this sector, trains and
establishes credentialing requirements for the workforce, and tests and
certifies many of the products used in Nevada's homes and businesses.
Overview of Construction Codes
The resiliency of America's buildings relies on a robust ecosystem
of model codes and standards developed by standards development
organizations. These organizations include, but are not limited to,
IAPMO, the International Code Council (ICC), the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), the American Society of Heating
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The model codes and standards
developed by these reputable organizations contain important hazard-
resistant provisions related to drought, earthquakes, fires, floods,
storm surges, energy surges, and wind damage.
At times, these codes and standards compete with one another.
Today's buildings are more resilient because of this competition and
the resulting increased involvement of stakeholders interested in
improving safety, affordability, and resiliency. Building codes
establish an industry-accepted minimum criteria for the design and
construction of residential and commercial structures and facilities in
their communities. Updated every three years, these model codes
continue to be refined to better address needs of the built community
in the United States.
State and Local Jurisdictions Select Construction Codes for a Reason
It is important to note that skilled professionals in these
jurisdictions, working through locally defined processes, choose which
construction codes are adopted based on local needs and preferences.
Nevada for decades has chosen IAPMO's Uniform Plumbing Code and
Uniform Mechanical Code to govern its plumbing and mechanical systems.
Jurisdictions have made this choice for several reasons. First, IAPMO's
codes are the only model plumbing and mechanical codes that are
designated as an American National Standard. This means the codes are
developed through a process accredited by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI is a process that represents the
``gold standard'' in the United States for standards development,
ensuring openness, transparency, due process, and a balance of
interests. This ensures that all parties have a voice and a vote and
work together to achieve true consensus on the proper design,
installation, and inspection of plumbing and mechanical systems.
Additionally, IAPMO's codes incorporate the latest research and
innovation. The Uniform series of codes include the most advanced
provisions available on such critical topics as water and sanitation
pipe sizing, storm rainfall resiliency, leak detection, minimizing
Legionella growth, and water treatment technologies. IAPMO's codes
continue to be an important tool in ensuring the efficient use of much
of our state's limited water supplies and enhancing the safety and
resiliency of our buildings. In Nevada, skilled professionals review
each edition of these model codes to ensure the codes are tailored to
Nevada's own unique needs.
The major model building codes benefit public health and safety and
contain hazard resilient criteria. States and local communities benefit
from being able to choose which of these model codes best meet their
requirements. Federal, and in particular FEMA, policy on construction
codes should promote a competitive environment so that Nevada and other
jurisdictions have access to all of the tools they need.
FEMA's Building Code Policies and Guidance Can Be Improved
As amended by Section 1235(b) of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act
of 2018 (DRRA), FEMA-funded repair or reconstruction of buildings is
required to comply with the ``latest published editions of relevant
consensus-based codes, specifications and standards that incorporate
the latest hazard-resistant design'' specifications. To meet these
requirements and to assist communities with the consistent and
appropriate implementation of consensus-based design, construction and
maintenance codes, FEMA released Recovery Interim Policy FP-104-009-11,
Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications and Standards for Public
Assistance (CCSP) in December 2019. I was encouraged by FEMA's draft
interim update of this policy, dated April 26, 2024, because of the
inclusion of flexible options that allow jurisdictions to tailor
resilience solutions to their specific needs and risks by incorporation
of national model building codes developed by several organizations.
However, it must be noted there remains inconsistency with FEMA's
Building Science Resource Library, which currently limits the
definition of ``building codes'' to those from only one standards
development organization, contradicting the broader recognition of
codes from 17 organizations in the CCSSP interim policy. It appears
that on the disaster response and recovery side of FEMA, competition of
codes will be recognized, whereas on the resilience side of FEMA, there
is preferential treatment for one organization, further contributing to
confusion among States and local communities.
Specifically, FEMA has created a number of publications promoting
the adoption of construction codes. Unfortunately, these efforts have
fallen short as FEMA has repeatedly failed to recognize the ecosystem
of model construction codes and standards that jurisdictions use, and
it has continued to promote the products and services of only one
standards development organization. More than 100 organizations across
15 states have asked FEMA and Congress to address this issue. The
industry appreciates the efforts made by members of the House,
including this panel, and the Senate, who have urged action on this
issue. However, it continues to be an issue and has created several
problems. FEMA's failure to include all of the major construction codes
in its policies and guidance:
1. Discourages competition and innovation
FEMA's policy states that it does not approve, endorse, or certify
any products or companies. It is concerning that FEMA's communications
related to building codes are contrary to that policy. FEMA appears to
endorse a single vendor's products to the exclusion of and without any
mention of other model codes and standards that are widely used in the
marketplace. Failing to be inclusive is causing a negative influence on
the competitive and innovative environment. Examples of how FEMA has
specifically promoted the products of only one standards development
organization include the following FEMA publications:
1. Protecting Communities and Saving Money: The Case for Adopting
Building Codes (November 2020) \1\--Features only one standards
development organization and its products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/fema_building-
codes-save_brochure.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Building Codes Toolkit (July 2021) \2\--Features the products
of only one standards development organization throughout the document,
including color photos of their products. It also advertises where
these codes can be purchased on the organization's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.scribd.com/document/637320830/Fema-uilding-Codes-
Toolkit-07-19-2021&
ved=2ahUKEwiQ75LF48-IAxVMD1kFHeLFNP4QFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw29vSSW
7Zk3VhezS4p2n10G
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Guide to Expanding Mitigation: Making the Connection to Codes
and Standards (August 2021) \3\--Highlights only standards development
organization and features four of its products. No other standards
development organization is mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_guides-
expanding-mitigation-codes-standards_08052021.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. FEMA Resources for Climate Resilience (December 2021) \4\--This
publication only specifically references construction codes created by
one standards development organization. No other standards developer is
mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_resources-climate-resilience.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. FEMA Building Codes Strategy (March 2022) \5\--The only
national plumbing and mechanical codes identified in Appendix D are the
products of one standards development organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_building-codes-strategy.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Building Codes Adoption Playbook (August 2022) \6\--The model
codes of only one standards development organization are featured
throughout. It includes features on this organization's code
development process and color photos of all 15 of its code book
products, with a link to where to purchase them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_building-codes-adoption-playbook-for-authorities-having-
jurisdiction.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Building Codes Toolkit (May 2023) \7\--The products and
services of only one standards development organization are mentioned
20 times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_building-codes-toolkit.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Hazard Mitigation Assistance and Program Policy Guide
(Effective July 2024) \8\--The products and services of one standards
development organization are mentioned more than 40 times in the
document. No other national plumbing or mechanical code is mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
fema_hma_guide_082024.pdf
FEMA's publications highlighted above stand in stark contrast to
HUD's Resilient Building Codes Toolkit (June 2022) \9\, in which
standards development organizations such as ASCE, ASHRAE, IAPMO, ICC
and NFPA are presented with parity and without preference to one brand
or another. As a federal agency, FEMA should remember that reduced
competition frequently leads to monopolies and often results in higher
prices and less innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Page 37, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/6701/
resilient-building-codes-toolkit/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By including all of the national model construction codes, FEMA
could directly address this concern and clarify that jurisdictions have
multiple tools from which to choose when deciding how best to meet
their resiliency needs. The most important point is that these
jurisdictions are regularly updating and implementing their
construction codes with included hazard-resistant provisions.
2. Introduces Barriers in State and Local Code Adoption Processes
It is very concerning that one of the major unintended consequences
of FEMA's focus on only one standards development organization is that
it has interfered with code adoptions across the United States. By not
including all of the major construction codes, like those widely used
in the electrical, plumbing, and mechanical sectors, FEMA's policies
and guidance create significant confusion on what model codes
jurisdictions can adopt. From New Jersey, Missouri, and Texas we have
seen examples in our industry where the conversation around code
adoption has devolved from which code provisions will help our
communities to be most resilient in an affordable way to a confused
discussion of which specific national model code will qualify buildings
for reimbursement following a disaster. To clarify, these are
jurisdictions who are trying to do the right thing--update their
construction codes. But, they are being delayed because of the
confusion created by FEMA's own materials and the stakeholders
promoting them. More information can be provided for the public record
that highlight this point should that be needed.
3. Threatens to Negatively Impact the Construction Trades
My organization is one of the largest trainers of plumbing
professionals in the state. Plumbing apprenticeships and training
programs involve structured courses with a formal curriculum in a
classroom setting in addition to on-the-job training. These courses are
centered around the hazard design criteria contained in Nevada's
current plumbing and mechanical codes.
If Nevada, because of FEMA's misaligned efforts, were to change its
construction code to another code, it would be extremely detrimental.
The cost of re-creating our training and certification programs to
address the specific provisions of an entirely new construction code
would be hard to recover and threaten our existence. Additionally, the
existing workforce in Nevada is trained, designs to, installs, and
inspects product installations in compliance with existing adopted
codes. Not only would the apprentice channel have to change but the
entire workforce of designers, technicians, and inspectors would need
to be educated on the differences in the code.
FEMA's goal should be making sure that jurisdictions have access to
all of the tools that they need to strengthen the resilience of our
communities and not serving as the de facto marketing arm of a private
sector organization.
4. Excludes Key Stakeholders
The number of organizations who work with state and local
jurisdictions to review and adopt their construction codes is a
relatively small group of stakeholders. They are natural allies and
partners for FEMA in its building code initiative. Yet, many of these
stakeholders (such as national standards development organizations,
labor groups, and local code officials) are not able to engage with
FEMA on this effort. It is difficult for an organization to use FEMA's
building code materials when it only references the products and
services of their competitors, instead of being agnostic to what
hazard-resistant code they are adopting. It is difficult for many trade
organizations in the plumbing and mechanical sector that I represent to
refer to FEMA's Initiative to Advance Building Codes, with its
supporting toolkits and materials, because it seems to want us to
promote changing the construction codes used by our industry--an
expensive change that would not improve the overall resiliency of our
communities.
Regularly updating building codes is important to improving the
resiliency of communities nationwide. As a federal agency, FEMA's
building codes policies and materials should recognize the diverse
group of stakeholders, who develop model construction codes and work
with jurisdictions to implement them, and make it possible for them to
engage with the agency in this effort.
Benefits of Construction Codes Come from their Effective
Implementation, Not Just Adoption
The ability of model construction codes to promote resiliency and
protect public health is only proven in how they are implemented and
enforced. This requires skilled workers who are trained and
credentialed in the design, construction, and maintenance of these
buildings. It requires a steady supply of quality products and building
materials that are tested and certified for safety and performance. It
requires training regulators to consistently apply the provisions of
these standards uniformly across their jurisdiction. FEMA's programs
and guidance materials should recognize these very real implementation
challenges. Adopting the latest construction code is only helpful when
the community has the capacity and ability to implement and enforce it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, implementing hazard-resistant construction codes is
important to improving the resiliency of communities in Nevada and
nationwide. FEMA can play an important role in encouraging and
incentivizing communities to adopt the latest hazard-resistant design
criteria. However, as a federal agency, it should explicitly recognize
the diverse group of codes and standards developers and other
stakeholders that make this possible. We appreciate actions that the
Committee has taken to date and continue to seek your assistance in
helping to ensure a level playing field for all major construction
codes in FEMA's current policies, programs, and upcoming strategic
efforts.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Krahenbuhl, for your
testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Davis for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF CINDY L. DAVIS, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BUILDING
AND FIRE REGULATIONS, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CODE COUNCIL
Ms. Davis. Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and
members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Cindy Davis. I have worked to advance and
implement building codes for more than 35 years and have served
as the board president of the International Code Council.
ICC is a nonprofit organization--driven by its more than
60,000 members--dedicated to helping communities and the
building industry provide safe and resilient construction
through the development of model codes and standards, the I-
Codes, which are the most widely used codes in the United
States.
In the U.S., there is no national building code. Our codes
are developed by standards development organizations which
develop model codes at no cost to taxpayers. States and
communities then choose whether to use these models to govern
construction activities.
This system aligns with the OMB directive which tells
Federal agencies to use private sector standards instead of
expending public resources developing redundant or Government-
unique ones.
The I-Codes are updated every 3 years through a vigorous
open consensus process involving all stakeholders and
interested parties, including valued participation from NAHB,
PHCC, fire services, architects, engineers, emergency managers,
and other industry and manufacturer representatives. They are
the only model codes that expressly consider affordability in
their development.
Regular updates ensure the codes reflect the most recent
developments in building science and technology, new
construction materials and techniques, and lessons learned from
building failures and disasters.
From the start, ICC has prioritized hazard mitigation in
code development. Studies have confirmed that the adoption and
implementation of current model codes is one of the best
mitigation strategies.
The National Institute of Building Sciences estimates that
building to recent editions of the I-Codes saves $11 for every
$1 invested, and FEMA projects $600 billion in cumulative
savings by 2060 if all future construction adhered to current
I-Codes.
Also, research continues to find that these codes have no
appreciable implications for housing affordability. No peer-
reviewed research has found otherwise, and one analysis found
that 30 years of code advancements only increased a home's
purchase price by half a percentage point.
Up-to-date codes reduce homeowners' net flood insurance
costs by at least 5 percent, while multiple studies have found
that current I-Code construction significantly reduced the
likelihood of mortgage default following a disaster.
For these reasons, FEMA has incentivized and encouraged the
use of resilient codes to protect lives and property and to
reduce the need for future Federal disaster recovery funding.
This approach has been consistently bipartisan. It was
advanced through the Trump administration's National Mitigation
Investment Strategy and continues today. These efforts have
appropriately focused on codes and standards that are
comprehensive and have demonstrated mitigation benefits.
A blanket expansion of FEMA's code recognitions to
thousands of codes developed in the U.S. is presenting a
solution in search of a problem, and, respectfully, FEMA should
not be handing out participation trophies when it comes to
building safety and community resilience.
This subcommittee has a lengthy and bipartisan record that
has recognized the importance of building safety and provided
vital resources for the adoption and enforcement of current
model codes.
DRRA enabled FEMA to help communities implement resilient
codes pre-disaster and further incentivize these cost-savings
activities through the mitigation project scoring.
Virginia secured a BRIC grant to build out a Disaster
Response Support Network where code officials can quickly
evaluate impacted properties to accelerate reoccupation. In
July of 2022, our code officials used this training after
historic flooding in southwest Virginia.
This past BRIC cycle saw FEMA create the Code Plus-Up,
which recognized that BRIC's prior structure was preventing its
use for code projects.
Although the Code Plus-Up made progress, code investments
represent less than two one-hundredths of 1 percent of BRIC
spending, and this is for an activity that FEMA views as one
of, if not the most, impactful community mitigation measure.
ICC's top priority and recommendation is the continuation
of the Plus-Up program.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to answering your questions.
[Ms. Davis' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of
Building and Fire Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development (Retired), on behalf of the International Code
Council
Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on a
topic as important as building codes.
My name is Cindy Davis, and I am here to share my professional
experiences, attest to the effectiveness of modern building codes and
standards in mitigating against disasters, and discuss opportunities
for improvement in code-related programs and policies under the
jurisdiction of the subcommittee.
I retired earlier this year after more than 35 years of public
service in the building safety field, at both the local and state
levels.
Most recently, I served for a dozen years at the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development, for three years as the
Deputy Director following a nine-year stint as the Director of
Virginia's State Building Code Office. Under my leadership, earlier
this year Virginia attained the highest score in the Insurance
Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) ``Rating the States''
scorecard, which evaluates code adoption, enforcement, and contractor
practices in states vulnerable to hurricanes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), Rating
the States--Hurricane Coast (Apr. 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I started in the building and fire code profession in 1988 in
Western Pennsylvania, focused on enforcement. There, I worked for two
different townships as the building official and zoning official before
moving to Virginia in 2012.
During my career, I served on the Board of Directors of Building
Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International, governing
during the merger of three model code organizations that became the
International Code Council (ICC).
My service to ICC includes serving on the Board of Directors from
2008 through 2011 and again from 2016 through 2023, advancing through
various board roles and eventually serving as President in 2022.
I have also served on the board of the Congressionally-chartered
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), and last month I was
honored to be appointed to the Virginia Board of Housing and Community
Development by Governor Glenn Youngkin.
My engagement with the International Code Council has provided many
opportunities to extend the success of the building safety ecosystem in
Virginia by taking advantage of the technology, technical training,
certifications, professional development, and exchange of experience
and ideas the Code Council facilitates.
I'd like to thank the Subcommittee for taking the time to hold
today's hearing and the invitation to share my perspectives and
expertise gleaned from a lifetime of service at the local and state
level, as well as helming the board for one of our nation's preeminent
standards development organizations.
About the International Code Council
ICC is a nonprofit organization of over 700 employees--driven by
the engagement of its more than 60,000 members--dedicated to helping
communities and the building industry provide safe, resilient, and
sustainable construction through the development and use of model codes
and standards used in design, construction, and compliance processes
across the built environment.
ICC members come from a wide variety of backgrounds--including
architects, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, government officials
and students--and play an active and critical role in the ongoing
development of the International Codes (I-Codes).
ICC is the largest independent organization engaged in creating
model building codes in the United States, with over 100 years of
experience in the building safety industry. The comprehensive suite of
advanced model building codes published by the International Code
Council are the most widely used and adopted codes in the United States
and around the world.
Most U.S. states and communities, federal agencies, and many global
markets choose the I-Codes to set the standards for regulating
construction and major renovations, plumbing and sanitation, fire
prevention, and energy conservation throughout the built environment.
The I-Codes are adopted in all 50 states and by the federal government.
For example, the General Services Administration (GSA),\2\ Department
of Defense (DOD),\3\ Veterans Administration (VA),\4\ and the Architect
of the Capitol \5\ all require the International Building Code (IBC),
International Plumbing Code (IPC), and International Mechanical Code
(IMC) for federal buildings. The IBC is used in all 50 states, while
approximately 75% and 87% of the U.S. population live in areas that
have adopted the IPC and IMC, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Facilities
Standards for the Public Buildings Service, P100 (May 2024).
\3\ U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Unified Facilities Criteria:
DoD Building Code, Policy 1-200, Whole Building Design Guide (Feb.
2024).
\4\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Construction
& Facilities Management, Design & Construction Procedures (PG-18-3)
(June 2024).
\5\ Architect of the Capitol (AOC), AOC Design Standards (Dec.
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The I-Codes, which cover different building types and building
systems, are intentionally correlated--through shared approaches and
hundreds of cross references--to form an integrated and coherent system
of building safety. To illustrate, the IPC and IMC contain nearly 500
total cross references with other I-Codes commonly adopted throughout
the U.S. These cross-references at the simplest level refer to terms
used throughout the codes and increase in importance to include life
safety considerations: combustible materials, roof drainage systems,
plumbing fixture numbers, fire protection systems, and means of egress.
Just as proper correlation can ease implementation of construction
requirements, a lack of correlation can create implementation
challenges that--from a response and recovery standpoint--could hinder
efforts and risk confusion, particularly for marginalized or disabled
populations.
The International Code Council is unique among its counterparts in
other countries. In the U.S. system, the responsibility for adoption,
implementation and enforcement of building codes lies with the states
and local jurisdictions (Authorities Having Jurisdiction, or AHJs).
However, there is no central government authority in the U.S. with
responsibility for a national building code; rather, building codes are
developed through a public-private partnership led by the Code Council,
which develops model codes and standards at no cost to taxpayers. AHJs
then choose whether to adopt these models to govern construction
activities under their jurisdiction. This system aligns with OMB
Circular A-119, which establishes core requirements for voluntary
consensus standards development and directs federal agencies to use
these standards wherever possible in their procurement and regulatory
activities in lieu of expending public resources developing government-
unique standards.
The I-Codes are updated and published every three years through a
vigorous, open, consensus process that involves all stakeholders and
interested parties, including valued participation from the National
Association of Homebuilders; the firefighting community; architects;
engineers; plumbing, heating, and cooling contractors; and emergency
managers. This process of regular updates ensures that the I-Codes
reflect the most recent developments in building science and
technology, consider the use of new construction materials and
techniques, evaluate cost impacts of code changes, and incorporate
lessons learned from building failures and disasters impacting the
built environment around the world.
This year marks the Code Council's thirtieth anniversary.
I want to commend the strong engagement of the federal government
in I-Code development, sharing the latest research and findings through
programs like the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP),
the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP), and the
National Construction Safety Team (NCST). Recognizing and respecting
Congressional jurisdiction, we hope the valuable contributions of these
programs will continue. The NEHRP program is due for reauthorization.
The Code Council would encourage the House Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology to advance reauthorization of this vital program before
adjourning for the year, and for this Committee to support that effort.
In the wake of the devastation unleashed upon tens of thousands of
homes and businesses by Hurricane Andrew across south Florida, the
International Code Council was formed in 1994 by three regional code
development organizations in the U.S.--the Building Officials and Code
Administrators International, Incorporated (BOCA); the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO); and the Southern Building Code
Congress International, Incorporated (SBCCI). This was done at the
request of the design and construction industries to consolidate
previously regional code development processes into a single set of
comprehensive, national model codes.
The first I-Code was published by the consolidated group in 1995;
by 2003, the three legacy organizations dissolved their independent
operations and merged into one single, incorporated entity, the
International Code Council. Since then, the Code Council has had a
lengthy and collaborative relationship with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), including being led in the early 2000s by
former FEMA director James Lee Witt.
From its earliest days, ICC has emphasized the vital role that
building safety professionals play across the U.S. and the relationship
between building codes and natural hazard mitigation.
Building Codes Protect Life Safety
Numerous studies confirm that the adoption and implementation of
current model building codes is one of the best mitigation strategies
for lessening the impacts of natural hazards, including hurricanes,\\
flooding,\\ hail,\\ earthquakes,\\ tornados, and wildfires.\6\ \7\ \8\
\9\ \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Porter, K. Do Disaster-Resistant Buildings Deliver Climate
Benefits? SPA Risk LLC (2021).
\7\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Building Codes
Save: A Nationwide Study (Nov. 2020).
\8\ CoreLogic, Can Modern Building Codes Impact Mortgage
Delinquency After Hurricanes? (Aug. 2023).
\9\ Kousky, C., M. Palim, and Y. Pan. Flood Damage and Mortgage
Credit Risk: A Case Study of Hurricane Harvey, Journal of Housing
Research v. 29 (Nov. 2020).
\10\ CoreLogic, What Are the Effects of Natural Hazards on Mortgage
Delinquencies? (Nov. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIBS estimates that building to modern I-Codes' editions saves $11
dollars for every $1 dollar invested through earthquake, flood, and
wind mitigation benefits, while retrofitting 2.5 million homes in the
wildland urban interface to wildfire
codes could provide a nationwide benefit-cost ratio as high as $8
dollars for every $1 dollar invested.\11\ FEMA projects that if all
future construction adhered to the current editions of the I-Codes, the
nation would avoid more than $600 billion dollars in cumulative losses
from floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes by 2060.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Natural Hazard
Mitigation Saves: 2018 Interim Report (2019).
\12\ FEMA, Protecting Communities and Saving Money: The Case for
Adopting Building Codes (Nov. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To have consequence, adopted codes must be effectively implemented
and enforced in the field. Strong code enforcement includes adequate
staffing; competence testing that demonstrates an understanding of the
codes being enforced; and continuing education on code updates,
improvements in building sciences, and best practices. Strong code
enforcement ensures that the public safety and resilience benefits
furthered by the I-Codes are carried through in the field.
Better trained code officials have a more complete understanding of
how codes and code provisions interact to effect the intent. This
ensures more consistent code application and a complete understanding
of all available compliance pathways, both of which are beneficial to
industry and the public. These benefits have been quantified in several
instances. For example, strong code enforcement can help to reduce
losses from catastrophic weather by 15 to 25 percent.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Jeffrey Czajkowski, Kevin M. Simmons & James M. Done,
Demonstrating the Intensive Benefit to the Local Implementation of a
Statewide Building Code, 20 Risk Mgmt. & Ins. Rev. 363 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond mitigation in a traditional sense, as it relates to discrete
hazards or systems, the I-Codes have been shown to provide broader,
second-order benefits for community resilience. For instance, three
U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories recently found that
during prolonged weather-induced power outages coupled with extreme
heat or cold, I-Codes governing buildings' envelope can reduce deaths
due to extreme heat by 80 and extreme cold by 30.\14\ Unfortunately,
Texas has twice experienced this tragic combination in recent memory:
first, in February, 2021, during a winter storm, which resulted in 161
deaths from extreme cold exposure related deaths due to a lengthy power
outage (of 246 total storm-related deaths); \15\ second, following
Hurricane Beryl this summer, which resulted in at least ten deaths
caused by heat exposure due to an extended power outage.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Enhancing Resilience in
Buildings Through Energy Efficiency (July 2023).
\15\ Texas Department of State Health Services, February 2021
Winter Storm-Related Deaths--Texas (Dec. 2021)
\16\ Houston Public Media, Two more deaths attributed to Hurricane
Beryl as Houston-area death toll rises to 38 (Aug. 27, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water conservation provisions within the I-Codes can provide
analogous protections for communities during droughts or water shutoff
events. The University of Miami studied provisions in the International
Water Conservation Provisions (IWCCP) that enable rainwater
harvesting, gray water reuse, condensate recovery, and the installation
of more efficient fixtures. Implementing these provisions for new
residential construction could save over 34 billion gallons of water
across four major U.S. cities (Houston, TX; Phoenix, AZ; Las Vegas, NV;
and Des Moines, IA).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ University of Miami, Water Conservation and Codes: Leveraging
Global Water-Efficient Building Standards to Avert Shortfalls (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government has increasingly moved towards incentivizing
the adoption and implementation of current codes due to their hazard
resistance measures. This approach was advanced during the Trump
Administration through the federal government's National Mitigation
Investment Strategy (NMIS). The NMIS was developed by the Mitigation
Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG)--chaired by FEMA and comprised of
another 13 federal agencies and departments as well as state, tribal,
and local officials--and made several recommendations concerning the
use, enforcement, and adoption of building codes: ``[a]rchitects,
engineers, builders, and regulators should use the latest building
codes for the most up-to-date requirements for structural integrity,
mechanical integrity, fire prevention, and energy conservation,'' and
``[u]p-to-date building codes and standard criteria should be required
in federal and state grants and programs.'' \18\ This work has been
continued by the current Administration through the National Initiative
to Advance Building Codes (NIABC).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG), National
Mitigation Investment Strategy (Aug. 2019).
\19\ The White House, FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration
Launches Initiative to Modernize Building Codes, Improve Climate
Resilience, and Reduce Energy Costs (June 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes Protect Communities without Harming Housing Affordability
Contemporary research continues to find that modern model building
codes have no appreciable implications for housing affordability--in
fact, no peer-reviewed research has found otherwise. Any potential
impact from codes would primarily affect construction costs. However,
one study considering the role of government regulation on home prices
found that construction costs, including labor and materials, were flat
from 1980 to 2013.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Gyourko, J. & Molloy, R., Regulation and Housing Supply,
Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume 5B Chapter 19 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier, the International Code Council was formed in
1994, the I-Codes were adopted across the country in the early 2000s,
and several significant advancements to better mitigate structures
against natural hazards were integrated into these codes during the
period studied. None of these code activities meaningfully impacted
construction costs.
After Moore, Oklahoma experienced its third violent tornado in 14
years, the city significantly strengthened its building codes. The
Moore Association of Home Builders estimated a $1 to $2 dollar per
square foot resulting increase in the cost of construction. Yet,
researchers found that the change to a stronger building code had no
effect on the price per square foot or home sales.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Simmons, K. & Kovacs, P., Real Estate Market Response to
Enhanced Building Codes in Moore, OK, Investigative Journal of Risk
Reduction (March 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar reductions in disaster damages and total losses have been
identified elsewhere through FEMA's Mitigation Assessment Team's (MAT)
reports.
The most detailed benefit-cost analysis of seismic code adoption to
date modeled six buildings in Memphis, Tennessee and compared the costs
of adhering to the seismic provisions of the 2012 edition of model
building codes as opposed to late 1990s-era codes. The study found that
adopting the 2012 codes--for the apartment building studied--would add
less than one percent to the construction cost (and less to the
purchase price, since construction cost typically amounts to between
one-third and two-thirds of purchase price), reducing annualized loss--
in terms of repair cost, collapse probability, and fatalities--by
approximately 50%.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
Consultants Joint Venture, Cost Analyses and Benefit Studies for
Earthquake-Resistant Construction in Memphis, Tennessee, NIST GCR 14-
917-26 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The principal investigator for the NIBS report found that
improvements to model building codes' resilience over the nearly 30-
year period studied only increased a home's purchase price by around a
half a percentage point in earthquake country or in an area affected by
riverine flood.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Porter, K., Resilience-related building-code changes don't
affect affordability, SPA Risk LLC Working Paper Series 2019-01 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to having no appreciable impact on housing cost, up-to-
date codes provide considerable benefits to homeowners. According to
the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), the insurance
savings from meeting current codes' flood mitigation requirements can
reduce homeowners' net monthly mortgage and flood insurance costs by at
least five percent.\24\ Codes also reduce the risk of damage or full
loss of housing in the face of hazards, helping maintain the
availability of housing units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Association of State Floodplain Managers' (ASFPM) Comments in
Response to FR-6187-N-01, White House Council on Eliminating Barriers
to Affordable Housing Request for Information (Docket HUD-2019-0092).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The adoption and implementation of building codes also has
implications for the finance industry. Multiple CoreLogic studies have
found that buildings built to recent code requirements have a
significantly reduced likelihood of mortgage default following a
disaster event. Recent analysis following hurricanes Irma (2017),
Harvey (2017), Michael (2018) and Laura (2020) in Florida found that
the adoption of codes had a statistically significant impact in
reducing mortgage defaults.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ CoreLogic and IBHS, Do Modern Building Codes Mitigate Mortgage
Delinquency Following Landfalling Hurricanes? The Influence of Building
Codes on Mortgages (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost effectiveness of modern codes is due in no small part to
the active participation in the code development process of
stakeholders representing development and property management
interests. Building owners and managers, home builders, architects,
design professionals, building trades, the fire service, plumbing and
sanitation professionals, manufacturers, and others representing the
housing industry devote considerable time and effort towards ensuring
code updates are practical, cost effective, and more economical in
comparison to alternatives. Importantly, the Code Council is the only
model code developer that requires affordability considerations with
every update to its residential code.
Congress' Efforts to Advance Adoption and Enforcement of Hazard-
Resistant Building Codes
This subcommittee has a lengthy and commendable record of oversight
and lawmaking that have both elevated the recognition of the importance
of building safety and provided vital resources for the adoption and
enforcement of modern model building codes.
For nearly two decades--regardless of House majority--the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and especially this
subcommittee, has been consistent in its work to examine what is
driving increasing disaster response and recovery costs while also
working to reduce impacts to state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments, and ultimately to taxpayers.
This focus has resulted in several landmark pieces of legislation
that have improved upon the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 as amended), which
this subcommittee stewards.
It's worth noting that the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act (PKEMRA, P.L. 109-295, Title VI), Sandy Recovery Improvement Act
(SRIA, P.L. 113-2, Division B), Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA,
P.L. 115-254, Division D), and the Resilient AMERICA Act (RAA, H.R.
5689)--the latter of which the House passed overwhelmingly last
Congress \26\--were all bipartisan, and each included provisions
related to the importance of mitigation. Further, all included
provisions bolstering the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of
current building codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Roll Call 113,
Bill Number: H.R. 5689 (Apr. 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA has affirmed the importance of code adoption and
implementation in its Mitigation Action Portfolio by highlighting that
building codes represent ``low cost, high impact hazard mitigation.''
\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance, Mitigation Action
Portfolio (Aug. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRRA has been the most impactful of the four major packages of
Stafford Act enhancements.
It recognized that disasters were increasing rapidly in frequency
and severity, with untenable costs for the federal government and
communities across the U.S., and that mitigation measures provide $8
dollars in mitigation benefits for every $1 dollar spent.\28\
Consequently, and as noted by the House Report that accompanied it,
``strengthen[ing] disaster mitigation'' is a ``major focus'' of
DRRA.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ NIBS, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report (Dec.
2019).
\29\ H.Rept. 115-1098 (Dec. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following years of unpredictable appropriations for pre-disaster
mitigation (PDM), DRRA established a steady stream of funding for these
vital mitigation activities and explicitly called out establishing and
carrying out enforcement of codes as an eligible activity under the
redesigned PDM authorities.\30\ FEMA took this authorization and
established the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
(BRIC) grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Pub.L. 115-254 (DRRA), Sec. 1234 National Public
Infrastructure Predisaster Hazard Mitigation (Oct. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another DRRA provision allows for FEMA to reimburse state, local,
tribal, and territorial governments surging capacity to support the
spike in construction, reconstruction, and accompanying code
enforcement activities following a disaster.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Pub.L. 115-254 (DRRA), Sec. 1206 Eligibility for Code
Implementation and Enforcement (Oct. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRRA also calls for more stringent repair and reconstruction of
damaged or destroyed structures in conformity with ``the latest
published editions of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications,
and standards that incorporate the latest hazard-resistant design and
establish minimum acceptable criteria for the design, construction, and
maintenance of residential structures and facilities that may be
eligible for assistance under this Act for the purposes of protecting
the health, safety, and general welfare of a facility's users against
disasters.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Pub.L. 115-254 (DRRA), Sec. 1235(b) Additional Mitigation
Activities (Oct. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a provision in the original House draft of DRRA was deemed
so important by both Senate and House leadership earlier in 2018 that
it was pulled from DRRA and carried as part of the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2018. This authorization gives FEMA the ability to raise the
federal share of Public Assistance costs--reducing the fiscal burden on
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments--for states that have
adopted ``the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based
codes, specifications, and standards that incorporate the latest
hazard-resistant designs and establish minimum acceptable criteria for
the design, construction, and maintenance of residential structures and
facilities that may be eligible for assistance under this Act for the
purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the
buildings' users against disasters.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Pub.L. 115-123 (BBA18), Sec. 20606 (Feb. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutorily, FEMA was required to have this cost share adjustment
implemented within one year of enactment of BBA18. To date--five and a
half years after enactment--and despite significant engagement on the
part of external and congressional stakeholders advocating for the
Agency to roll out program guidance for this additional federal
assistance, FEMA has failed to do so.
The mitigation benefits this provision would have otherwise
encouraged, would have saved lives, homes, businesses, along with
millions of dollars in avoidable losses. Inaction represents an
enormous missed opportunity.
BRIC by BRIC
In less than five years, the BRIC program has been wildly
successful at funding a record number of PDM projects, including
several code-focused projects. But this has not been without some
controversy regarding geographic distribution of awards, as well as how
FEMA has integrated code adoption and enforcement within its
application scoring formula.
Initial rounds of BRIC limited code-specific project applications
to a fixed-amount-per-state/territory through a Capacity & Capability
Building (C&CB) Set Aside. For Fiscal Year 2020 (FY202) BRIC--the first
round of the program--C&CB was up to $600,000 dollars per state/
territory. That increased to $1 million dollars per state/territory in
FY21, and $2 million dollars for each state/territory in FY22 (each
cycle also included a separate bucket of dollars for federally
recognized tribes). FEMA's publicly released data indicates that C&CB
funding was utilized for code-related projects across the first three
BRIC cycles as follows:
FY20: 14 state/local and 4 tribal code projects, totaling
$2,293,395 dollars;
FY21: 5 state/local and 6 tribal code projects, totaling
$2,207,502 dollars; and
FY22: 9 state/local and 2 tribal code projects,
$3,323,675 dollars.
The first three BRIC cycles cumulatively saw 40 code projects
totaling $7,824,572 dollars or 0.002% of the total BRIC expenditure
during this period ($500 million dollars for FY20, $1 billion dollars
for FY21, and $2.295 billion dollars for FY22). The total amount
requested overall far outstripped dollars available. While grants
constituted nearly $8 million dollars more than the PDM program had
ever invested in building code activities previously--for efforts that
FEMA and mitigation experts unanimously view as one of if not the most
impactful resilience measures a community can undertake--they were
still grossly insufficient.
Code departments identify lack of resources (staff time and
personnel, training, etc.) and political opposition to new construction
requirements as the top two impediments to adopting and implementing
resilient codes. Political considerations play out in grant
applications. Programs like BRIC historically capped grant amounts,
which forces jurisdictions to prioritize among eligible projects. Code
officials have long reported that it is nearly impossible for code
activities to compete for grants with other eligible activities, like
infrastructure and redevelopment efforts, which are tangible, have
greater visibility, and lack political opposition.
For FY23, FEMA revised BRIC in two significant ways: first,
applications were scored higher based on local codes adoption, aiding
communities adopting resilient codes in states that had not and,
second, FEMA created a Building Codes Plus Up similar to what the House
passed in the Resilient AMERICA Act in 2022 to focus directly on code-
related projects. The Building Codes Plus Up provided $2 million
dollars per state/territory and an additional $25 million dollars for
federally recognized tribes, atop of the prior C&CB dollars
available.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ FEMA, FY 2023 BRIC Notice of Funding Opportunity (Oct. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of its late and unanticipated release, several state BRIC
pre-application deadlines limited the Codes Plus Up's reach. But, that
hurdle notwithstanding, the effort was still incredibly popular and
effective at providing necessary resources that help communities
advance the adoption and effective implementation of hazard-resistant
codes:
43 states/territories took advantage of the Codes Plus
Up;
This resulted in $52.8 million dollars in code projects
for FY23 (more than six times the combined total of the first three
cycles and bringing the overall total of resources for state, local,
tribal, and territorial code projects to more than $60.5 million
dollars in four years, or just shy of .016% of the total BRIC
expenditure during this period);
42 sub applications came from 29 state agencies
representing 70% of the FY23 awards with six state agency applicants
maxing out their Codes Plus Up allocations (Alabama, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Idaho, Michigan, and Iowa); and
94% of sub-applicants were successful (137 applications
resulted in 129 successes and 8 rejections).
ICC is proud to have provided technical support to 51 applications,
representing $29 million dollars in anticipated awards across 27
states/territories. These funds will support underfunded departments'
transition from paper-based to digital permitting, allowing them to
increase efficiency and accomplish more with limited resources, and
provide training, competence testing, and professional development
activities. Additionally, several municipalities are seeking to improve
community awareness of building safety requirements through public
awareness efforts.
My own experience with BRIC while serving at Virginia DHCD was
generally positive, but I recognize that the Commonwealth may have more
resources than some other eligible applicants. Our FY 2020 award is
providing post-disaster building assessment training throughout the
Commonwealth through a program called, When Disaster Strikes. This
effort helped advance Virginia towards creating a Disaster Response
Support Network, where code officials can act as ``second responders''
and quickly evaluate impacted properties to accelerate building and
housing reoccupation. In July 2022, our network of code officials
utilized this training after historic flooding in Tazewell and Buchanan
Counties. The applications pending from the FY 2023 Building Codes Plus
Up will fund training and competence testing on the Commonwealth's
building safety requirements, including Virginia's adoption of ICC/
Modular Building Institute's development of standards for offsite
construction. I participated in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and FEMA workgroups on offsite construction and believe
there are many benefits that apply to post-disaster housing.
As for the scoring criteria changing to focus less on statewide
adoption and more favorably on local adoptions, the Code Council--an
early supporter of the now-nascent Resilient AMERICA Act--joined with
others in supporting this change, with a hope of seeing greater
geographic dispersal of BRIC awards. That said, the Code Council
discourages efforts that would remove or weaken BRIC's scoring emphasis
on resilient code adoption and implementation. Arguments that would
alter BRIC's scoring in this way are based on the premise that BRIC
awards should be handed out to any and all applicants. But BRIC is not
a block grant; it was never intended to be an entitlement for states
facing hazard risk, and receiving extensive federal recovery resources,
that have not taken meaningful actions to mitigate their communities.
It was crafted to incentivize the most impactful resilience efforts--
including current building codes.
Despite these even-more-readily available resources, eleven states
did not seek to use their designated Codes Plus Up funding in FY23. One
state has never used its set-aside award across any BRIC cycle, and
five other states have yet to submit any code projects whatsoever.
Given the BRIC program's growing, but incomplete success, FEMA data
showing that two thirds of communities facing hazard risk have still
not adopted hazard-resistant building codes,\35\ and the Agency's
view--which itself its backed by rigorous scientific documentation--
that current code adoption and implementation represent the most
effective mitigation measure a community can undertake, the Code
Council strongly supports the Building Codes Plus Up Program and
believes FEMA should continue it. As noted above, ICC also supports
continued usage of the FY23 revised scoring criteria in future BRIC
Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs), especially in the absence of
enactment of the Resilient AMERICA Act, which the Code Council
continues to strongly support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ FEMA, Resistant Code Adoption Statistics, Nationwide Building
Code Adoption Tracking (Dec. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Support for Consensus Based Codes and Standards
The Code Council believes that federal policies that leverage
consensus-based codes and standards should work to raise the bar for
building resiliency uniformly. Greater use of consistent, more
resilient construction codes advances hazard resistance but also eases
implementation for both FEMA and state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments. Greater consistency promotes market efficiency and cost
savings. In contrast, a patchwork approach would complicate and hinder
implementation and encourage balkanization of construction
requirements, which is not in the public interest.
As noted above, the Code Council encourages federal policy on codes
and standards to encourage coordination. Proper correlation of codes
and standards can ease implementation of construction requirements,
while a lack of correlation can create implementation challenges.
The Code Council strongly believes that federal government should
prioritize the use of codes that incorporate the latest hazard
resistant design and are consensus-based, nationally utilized,
coordinated, and cost effective to maximize resilience and minimize
implementation challenges.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ICC, comments to FEMA re: Public Assistance Consensus-Based
Codes, Specifications, and Standards Policy Update Public Comment
Period (April 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion and Recommendations
Without a doubt, building code adoption and enforcement are
effective at reducing disaster response and recovery costs, and this
Committee should be commended for finding a novel and bipartisan
solution to providing FEMA with the authorities necessary to provide
federal assistance to AHJs interested in bolstering their community's
resilience through adoption and enforcement of more modern codes.
Further, modern model building codes are market-based mechanisms that
drive innovation across the building and construction sector and are
core solutions to the housing affordability and availability crisis.
Despite the clear benefits of modern model code adoption and
enforcement, FEMA's Building Code Adoption Tracker still illustrates
that current construction across nearly two thirds of the U.S. is not
required to be built to current hazard resistant codes.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ FEMA, Building Code Adoption Tracking (Q2 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subcommittee should continue promoting programs and policies
that emphasize and support the incredible return on investment to the
public from robust building code adoption and enforcement, including
through:
Supporting continuation of FEMA's Building Codes Plus Up
and FY23 BRIC scoring structure, and ultimately, enactment of the
Resilient America Act; and
Encourage FEMA to implement BBA18 Sec. 20606 to encourage
states to ensure resilient construction and post-disaster rebuilding.
As a standards development organization--built on the legacy and
objectives of three organizations committed to building safety--the
International Code Council stands ready as a private-sector, non-profit
partner dedicated to protecting communities in the face of growing
hazards.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share this perspective.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
And thank you all for your testimony.
We will now turn to questions. The Chair recognizes himself
for 5 minutes of questions. And I am going to go off my own
script just based on some of your testimony today.
Of course, we are talking about FEMA and codes and how they
are used. And we were told with the creation of the 2018 Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program under FEMA that we were going to
save taxpayers anywhere from $4 to $11 for every dollar
invested. And that has been mentioned by folks on the dais
here.
Ms. Davis, you mentioned it as well. You also said that it
doesn't cost taxpayers any money. And I understand that this is
an organization that does it on its own, that Government maybe
doesn't pay for the construction of the codes.
But I know when I was serving at the township level as a
volunteer, we saw codes go from something that were literally
this thick to now we have got volumes on the table, volumes of
stuff to wade through. And of course the township has to buy
that. The township has to update that every single time. The
township is supported by taxpayers. Taxpayers do fund this.
And with all due respect to kind of everybody, I don't know
where the figures $4 to $11 saved for every dollar come from. I
would love to see the math on that other than just the claim,
as well as the math on that it has actually reduced mortgage
costs or flood insurance costs.
I lived in a home as a young child that my mother still
lives in that was flooded completely out twice. That was before
FEMA existed. We toughed it out and rebuilt the house, and so
on and so forth. But I just question all those things.
And I would ask you this. In your testimony, you talked
about enforcement. Does your organization, if you can speak on
behalf of it, see it as the proper role of the Federal
Government to enforce these building codes on the 350-plus
million Americans that live in our country? Is it the proper
role of the Federal Government to do that?
Yes, ma'am, that is to you, Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis. So, I think the proper role of the Federal
Government is to provide mitigation efforts to keep their
citizens safe.
Mr. Perry. When you say ``provide,'' so, that would be,
``it is here if you want to use it'' as opposed to ``you will
use it or you are not going to build your home'' or ``you are
not going to rebuild your home''? That is essentially where I
am headed with that question.
Ms. Davis. Yes. I don't think anybody is suggesting a
mandatory requirement, but I do think that incentivizing States
and governments in helping them to recognize the benefits and
the cost savings that could be had by implementing mitigation
measures as opposed to suffering after climatic disasters, man-
made disasters, whatever disaster, helps where you have to
rebuild. It simply makes no sense to rebuild something over and
over again----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Oh, I agree with you completely,
and I don't think the Federal Government should be in that
business. My mother still lives in the house by the creek. She
has flood insurance. She likes to live by the creek. But there
is a cost that comes with that every time--if it floods, you
have got to live with that. And I don't think and she doesn't
think that that should be a cost burden borne by every single
American citizen who doesn't have access to the nice home with
the view of the creek.
Mr. Krahenbuhl, I am just curious, these codes exist and of
course they get updated. Now, you are a master plumber. If a
home is destroyed in Nevada due to some disaster, and FEMA
comes in and says here is the code that has to be enforced--
let's say it has leaded joints on the sanitary line and you are
tearing that stuff out.
Does anybody do leaded joints anymore? Do you need FEMA and
the ICC to tell you to not put in leaded joints? You are going
to go get some PVC and glue and redo that piping that way. How
is that going to go?
Mr. Krahenbuhl. Chairman Perry, thank you for that
question.
We believe we know what is best in our State and in our
communities, and the uniform codes are up to date on the latest
technologies.
So, you are absolutely right. No, we are not going to put
in lead joints. No, we are not going to put that back. We are
going to put in the latest materials that fit best to the
approved codes that work best for----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Are you going to do that because
the Federal Government mandates that you do that, or are you
going to do that because that is the best practice and you know
it because it works?
Mr. Krahenbuhl. That is the best practice for our
jurisdiction and where we live in our State. We don't believe
that FEMA and the Federal Government should tell us what we
should be doing as far as the plumbing and HVAC codes in
Nevada. We feel we know better than they do.
Mr. Perry. I would agree with you.
And with the committee's indulgence, I just want to refer
to this chart here.
[Chart shown.]
Mr. Perry. Mr. Hughes, I want to talk to you about the
impact of building codes on how FEMA money is distributed.
This shows the distribution here, and you can see the dark
blue area for the Federal share.
Look, I am from Pennsylvania. Dark blue. So, Pennsylvania
is getting a pile of the Federal share. Some of my committee
members: Louisiana, California, New York, North Carolina; but
Mr. Ezell, Mississippi, not so much.
Now, if I look in the criteria for building code adoption
enforcement, you get five points additional if you are having a
disaster, but to attain those points you have to be up-to-date
on the 2018 or 2021 ICC Council Code. Another five points--you
get five points over and over again if you are up to date with
the ICC, but you don't get it if not.
Now, look, this is great for Pennsylvania, Louisiana,
California, but the other States, I don't know if they are just
not as good at grant writing or what the deal is.
But can you speak to how you feel the money is distributed,
if you do know, based on these points awarded by FEMA, which I
would contend not only incentivize but also coerce
municipalities to adopt these codes?
Mr. Hughes. Well, admittedly, I am not well versed on the
subject, and we can provide more information later. But there
is no question that there is some diversity on how these funds
are disbursed. I guess I can address more specifically how it
affects us in North Carolina.
I agree with some of the other comments that things simply
are not a one-size-fits-all. We feel like it is very unfair
that these funds are distributed based on that.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
And with that, I have extended my time. I yield. And I
yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Titus from
Nevada.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
I just want to be real clear that when you all say that you
don't think FEMA should impose a one-size-fits-all code and
that you know what is best for Nevada, for North Carolina, you
are not suggesting that you don't have any codes, are you? You
are just suggesting that you have your own code.
Because I believe that builders don't put these in place
because they know they are the best. We just heard Mr.
Strickland talk about how cost was a big factor.
So, let's make that clear for the record. You are not
saying no code. You are just saying you want the regional codes
that you all decide on. Is that right?
Mr. Hughes. Correct. Could I address that?
We are very diverse in North Carolina with topography and
geography. We have coastal areas with high winds. We have
mountainous areas where we have literally had problems with new
homesites sliding off the side of mountains. I live in the
Piedmont area, which is easier to build to.
But absolutely not, we have to have codes.
Ms. Titus. I just want to make that clear.
And, Mr. Krahenbuhl, the same?
Mr. Krahenbuhl. Yes, ma'am. We have codes that cover our
entire State, and they are tailored and amended to our needs.
In the South, it focuses on hot, dry climates, and in the
North, snow and ice and cold. So, absolutely, we want codes
adopted, yes.
Ms. Titus. OK. Because it was starting to sound like we
don't want no codes, we don't like codes, don't tell us what to
do. And I don't believe that is the point that you were trying
to make. So, let's be clear about that.
In 2018, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, and it
included a provision that allowed for an increased Federal cost
share from FEMA for States, Territories, and Tribes that have
undertaken mitigation measures, including the adoption of the
most recent hazard-resistant codes.
Now, that provision was supposed to have been enacted in
early 2019, but FEMA still hasn't released any policy guidance.
I would ask you all how impactful you think this incentive
would be to encouraging States to increase their own mitigation
investments, and which investments should FEMA prioritize when
implementing this law to have the greatest impact on reducing
Federal disaster responses?
Maybe we can start with Mr. Strickland.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you very much for the question.
And we do support the idea of incentivizing, and we, too,
have been looking forward to FEMA's policy on it and how it
would be implemented. Incentivizing will, in our opinion, move
preparedness forward and response to disaster capabilities
forward with additional and improved assets and resources to do
that.
And from the mitigation perspective, we look strongly at
transformational mitigation that will change a community's
threats and vulnerabilities to natural hazards as we would
approach that, and that particularly is an area that the codes
are going to be very significant.
Ms. Titus. Ms. Davis?
Ms. Davis. So, I think one of the most effective things
that FEMA can do for State and local governments is to support
action that enhances our capabilities and minimizes frequent
dependence on the Federal Government.
As a State, Virginia for 50 years has taken our
responsibilities seriously and had a statewide building code
and did that to protect our citizens. But without having any
ability of having recognition for the work that we did without
taking any Federal money, we have no way to incentivize
continuing to do that.
I think it is important that FEMA recognizes and rewards in
the event of a disaster helping to give States who do do the
right thing more benefit.
Ms. Titus. Mr. Krahenbuhl, you heard mention the Code Plus-
Up program. Has that been successful? Do you think that is a
good idea? Should it be continued?
Mr. Krahenbuhl. I have heard that, yes. Providing
resources, we think it is a good thing. But the key issue here
is providing resources for the adoption and implementation of
codes. And one way that Code Plus-Up can be strengthened by
FEMA is to recognize and treat with parity all major
construction codes.
To bring this to point, of the 17 Members of Congress that
sit on this subcommittee, 9 Members--most of the subcommittee--
live in States where IAPMO's codes or State-authorized codes
are used by the industry.
So, the recognition of all codes would help strengthen this
effort and get more people involved that want to participate
rather than if their codes aren't recognized, they are not
going to participate.
Ms. Titus. Just real briefly, I would mention that in some
of this code changing and changing courses by FEMA, unions and
contractors were on the same page on this.
Mr. Krahenbuhl. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perry. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Ezell.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
Having been through Hurricane Katrina, my home in 2005, 4
feet of mud and water and you name in it my house. It was
miserable. And I wasn't the only person in my hometown that
went through this. Many others did.
And we all know that good building codes make better and
safer homes and places to live and to rebuild in a better way.
But what I can tell you is, after the storm--and in south
Mississippi we say storm.
Before Katrina it was Camille. When you said the storm, we
knew you were talking about Hurricane Camille. Now we are
talking about Katrina.
What I would like to say is just yesterday, I was on the
phone with the FEMA administration still trying to get funding
for the city of Biloxi, and this is back in 2005. And we have
had a great deal of frustration trying to get these things done
because of various issues that continue to come up.
So, what I would like to say is that we have got to get
this together. We have got to get this straightened out.
And one size doesn't fit all. One community is not the same
as the other. And I want to work with you, and I want to try to
get some things done, but we have got to do a better job at
what is going on with this FEMA and the way that they operate.
One size does not fit all, and we can do better.
Ms. Davis, different building codes and standards cover
different systems. How are these codes and standards
coordinated so that there aren't conflicts or confusion in the
implementation?
Ms. Davis. So, the I-Codes overall are a highly
coordinated set of codes. They work together so that,
particularly when you are talking about resiliency and
mitigation efforts, you are looking at a building as a whole,
from foundation to final.
You are not looking at just a piece of pipe or a mechanical
system. They have to work together and they have to reference
other parts of the code. You have to be looking at means of
egress. You have to be looking at fire combustion. You have to
be looking at ventilation requirements.
ICC's codes, as an example, I believe the IPC and IMC
references over 500 times the requirements in their other codes
that have to be complied with.
So, it is critically important that all of the codes for
the entire building, from the foundation to the final, from the
building envelope, and everything inside, be coordinated so
that it all works together. If you have conflicting codes, it
can cause at a minimum, confusion, and at the worst, problems.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
Mr. Krahenbuhl, do you think it is appropriate for a
governing body who sets the codes and standards to also have a
business interest in the codes they produce? Doesn't this risk
some conflict of interest?
Mr. Krahenbuhl. Chairman Perry, to you, I think it can be
an issue if there are businesses or private industry. But
everyone is involved in the code process, whether it be
jurisdictional, whether it be contractors, labor, engineering,
whatever.
Can it be a conflict of interest? Maybe. But I think that
one-size-fits-all does not work. And the point is what
different States do in different regions, like Louisiana, where
the levee protected areas, they have reasons, that they do
things for a reason. We do things in Nevada for a reason.
And so, I guess that would be my response.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
Mr. Strickland, I would like for you to expand just a
little bit on your support for H.R. 7671, which I was a proud
original cosponsor, we just passed this morning.
Can you talk about that just a little bit and how it is
going to affect things going forward?
Mr. Strickland. What it will end up doing is allow eligible
expenses that came from that disaster to be used beyond the
time of the close-out of the disaster, which then will allow
the State and the local jurisdiction to build capacity as well
as projects within that particular arena forward.
It basically is--it is a plus to the community to, again,
be able to build capacity and do additional transformational
mitigation and options like that.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to go on the record to say
that in south Mississippi, we are still dealing with trying to
get some recovery done since Hurricane Katrina, and that is
just really not acceptable.
Thank you for that. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District
of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last Congress, Democrats passed several major laws to
combat climate change and to mitigate the impacts of climate
change. However, Congress must do much more to combat and
prepare for climate change.
Mr. Strickland, what are the most important things Congress
can do to help communities strengthen their climate resilience?
Mr. Strickland. There are probably several different areas,
but I think one of them is the ability for the local
jurisdiction to identify and understand what the climate change
is going to do, what additional threats and hazards it builds
for that area or creates for that area, and then allow them
through their planning, training, and exercise perspective to
better prepare for it and be aware of it.
Congress could assist us greatly, just as they have with
the management cost, in allowing us to be able to utilize that
money into the future.
One of the greatest challenges at the local jurisdiction is
there is not the capacity to do that type of planning,
training, and exercise as we move forward.
And that is even before we get into the conversation about
doing transformational mitigation in an area which could
improve it so that the climate change can be eradicated
basically or served better than it would have originally been.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Disadvantaged communities often bear the brunt of climate
change and take the longest to recover from disasters.
Ms. Davis, how could the Building Resilience Infrastructure
and Communities Building Code Plus-Up program help
disadvantaged communities mitigate the impacts of and recover
quicker from climate disasters?
Ms. Davis. So, the ability of communities to recover and to
prevent disasters in the first place rests primarily in the
communities.
If those communities do not have the resources to adopt and
enforce important building codes that keep people safe and
allow them to recover after a disaster, they will obviously not
have the same protection as communities that do have that.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The chairman thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana,
Representative Graves.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Perry, Mr.
Chairman. Appreciate that.
Number one, I want to start in saying that over the past
several years, I think the committee has made a lot of progress
in sort of pivoting or making a paradigm shift in that the
Federal Government used to just throw billions and billions of
dollars in the aftermath of a disaster and didn't pay
appropriate attention, in my opinion, on the front end of what
we can do to actually avert disasters.
The chair has been tireless in his efforts to try and save
the Federal Government money, but study after study have shown,
as Mr. Strickland's organization knows, that you can spend $1
on the front end, and depending on which study you want to
choose, you can get anywhere from $2.50 of savings to I have
seen studies showing $14 to $17 in savings.
And whatever the number is, there is no question that the
right principal investments on the front end result in cost
savings on the back end.
And coming from a disaster-prone State, the bigger thing is
that we are not picking up the pieces in our community. We are
not watching devastated families, businesses, homes, which,
that's priceless.
And the DRRA reforms that we did--and got to give a shout-
out to some people on our team, Paul Sawyer and Jennifer
Bollinger and Loganza and Peggy Ayrea and others that were a
big help in getting some of these things done. We have made a
lot of progress. But looking at what the Federal Government is
doing today with their new CISA, which is Climate Informed--
what is it? Climate Informed--dang it. I don't remember now.
Science Approach. Climate Informed Science Approach, which is
basically looking at what elevation standard you are supposed
to be using.
I want to make note that there is a Federal agency called
CISA. Maybe they could have chosen a better acronym. But we
will put that on the shelf for a minute.
But you have a scenario now to where CISA, I think, is
supposed to be the uniform standard, but you don't have
appropriate data for the country to know--for it to apply all
the way across the country.
And so, what may happen in a situation is that the CISA
data may say, all right, well, you need to do BFE plus 1, that
is what the CISA data says, it is supposed to be the most
accurate data. But then the law says that you have got to do
BFE plus 2, so, then you are back up to plus 2. Two different
standards right there. Then you have a third standard that the
Corps of Engineers uses in some cases. So, effectively you
don't have a uniform standard.
What happens--and we had a markup in here earlier talking a
lot about the Community Development Block Grant Disaster
Recovery program--you may have somebody who gets funds and they
are going to rebuild their home and they think they are
complying with this standard whenever they go and apply, but
then later on you may have a different standard in place.
You have a 3-year uniform code adoption period, but CISA
data may come in and evolve on a monthly basis or every 6
months or every year.
The bottom line is you don't have a uniform standard, and
all you are doing is causing greater uncertainty for the folks
that are out there in the community trying to rebuild.
Mr. Strickland, do you have any thoughts or reaction to
this in how we truly provide certainty and how we make a
science-informed decision and communicate that to communities?
Mr. Strickland. That is a really tough question.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. But is having disparate standards
appropriate?
Mr. Strickland. Well, and I don't know that there are,
quote/unquote, disparate standards. I think it is important
that each State and the communities accept the standard and the
most recent edition of that standard and put their efforts into
that.
I think it is going to take us time, of which none of us
will be here when that data will be present for us to review,
and as codes and standards change and improve and the
technology improves and I think the quality of life as we apply
all of that will improve. But it is not necessarily going to be
a light switch kind of operation.
We have one community in our State, Frederick, if any of
you have had the opportunity to visit downtown Frederick,
severe, severe flooding with Agnes in 1972. It went through
almost a 20-year project to channel the water and move it to
where it would be safe, not flood businesses, not kill lives.
And it wasn't until three summers ago that that system proved
that it was worth every dime of it.
So, we can only predict so much.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Quick other question for you, and
I want to follow up with questions in the record on that one.
But quick other questions.
So, we were involved in creating the BRIC Program, big
proponent, but we have watched as it has been incredibly
oversubscribed, watching as FEMA is coming in and awarding
funds for code adoption versus actual mitigation projects.
Do you think that is an appropriate approach and
utilization of funds?
Mr. Strickland. I think there has to be a balance with
that, because there are areas that are severely lacking with
codes. I mean, there has to be some standard for them to work
toward.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Mr. Hughes, I have got questions
on building codes for you, and I apologize, I am out of time.
But I will follow up questions in writing.
But thanks again. I appreciate you all being here.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady, Mrs. Napolitano,
Representative Napolitano, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Davis, please discuss any difficulties jurisdictions
have or may face using Stafford Act assistance with building
code adoption and enforcement activities within the first 180
days of a major disaster. How, if any at all, would you modify
authorities providing the assistance to ensure they are
utilized effectively?
Mr. Perry. If you could--I couldn't tell. Can you get a
little closer to the mic, ma'am? I don't think we can tell what
the question is.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
How, if at all, would you modify authorities providing this
assistance to ensure they are utilized effectively? Is there
any difficulty jurisdictions may have using Stafford Act
assistance for building code adoption and enforcement
activities within the first 180 days of a major disaster? How,
if at all, would you modify authorities providing this
assistance to ensure they are utilized effectively?
Mr. Perry. And that is for Ms. Davis, ma'am, that question?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Ms. Davis. So, I think if I understood the question right,
it is: should there be a requirement for adoption and
enforcement of a building code after 6 months of a disaster in
order to get FEMA dollars. Is that correct?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Ms. Davis. I think you should not be building back to a
lesser standard using Federal taxpayer dollars. I think it is
important in the recovery efforts to build back to current
codes.
And if I could just expand on that a little bit to clarify.
I think everybody here has said--and I want to make it very
clear that ICC and myself included for the State of Virginia
has always encouraged amendments that references local needs.
It is very clearly not a one-size-fits-all. It is every
community, every State, every jurisdiction has to do what is in
their own best interest.
And ICC has long recognized the need to amend the codes.
The model codes is a beginning point, not an end. And as long
as the amendments don't affect structural integrity and
resiliency and looks only at affordability and some of the
other things, I think it is perfectly fine.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Strickland, what authorities and resources would be
needed in order for FEMA or other Federal agencies to provide
funding, education, and support needed to increase building
code compliance by individuals and households following a
disaster as well as before a disaster occurs?
Mr. Perry. Did you understand, Mr. Strickland?
Mr. Strickland. I got part of it.
Mr. Perry. Ms. Titus is going to----
Ms. Titus [interrupting]. I think what the Congresswoman is
asking is what kind of resources are needed to educate the
public about what it can do to avoid a disaster situation or
prepare.
Mr. Strickland. And I think that is part of the effort that
FEMA is attempting, is that across the board and from a whole
community perspective that we do educate everyone involved with
it.
From a personal perspective, and I think many of my
colleagues would say, this is an educational process that needs
to start, just like ``stop, drop and roll'' does in the school
systems when you are on fire kind of thing.
This is a change and a cultural improvement that has got to
be made that we carry this through our society for the future.
I mean, it is not going it to happen overnight. And it needs to
start sooner than later from an educational perspective.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
I know that--I believe you are right, one size does not fit
all. And I am certain that some of the States that don't have
regulations are probably wishing they did if they have a
disaster hitting them.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Huffman for 5
minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Titus, for holding today's hearing. It is an important
discussion about how we can encourage more communities to adopt
and implement hazard-resistant building codes that will
increase resilience, save lives, and lower costs in the face of
a growing climate crisis. We need to consider cost-effective
ways to help communities adapt to, mitigate, and recover from
natural disasters.
I also want to address the urgent need to update our
building codes to prevent a disaster of a different kind: a
little known building safety flaw that has killed thousands of
people around the country, including a child in my district.
In 2019, 7-year-old Alex Quanbeck was tragically killed by
a poorly designed, ill-maintained gate while he was playing
with friends during recess. I am talking about the heavy iron
gates that slide open and closed usually on rollers.
Alex was tossing a football when he attempted to stop the
ball from rolling away by closing the schoolyard gate. However,
as he pushed it closed, it detached from its supporting
hardware and collapsed on him.
Alex was crushed by 300 pounds of metal in a shocking
accident which could have been prevented had the gate been
equipped with a simple safety feature that costs no more than
$50.
Unfortunately, Alex is one of many children and adults who
have been killed or injured by a faulty gate while at school,
work, home, or other settings.
To address these issues, I have been working closely with
concerned parents, consumer advocates, and industry
stakeholders to update building codes and product safety
standards.
I plan to introduce legislation to direct the Consumer
Product Safety Commission to promulgate a mandatory rule and to
run an awareness campaign to ensure new gates are equipped with
an inexpensive safety feature.
I also support the ongoing effort to incorporate new gate
safety standards into building codes, including a proposal from
The Hummingbird Alliance, American Fence Association, and
others to update the ICC's model building codes.
So, Ms. Davis, I wonder if I could ask you to please speak
to the importance of gate safety.
Ms. Davis. Thank you for that question. And I recognize the
tragedy of that event, and it is heartbreaking.
I know that our staff has been engaged with this and that
they have met and discussed this. I believe that ICC is working
with the American Fence Association, and they are working
closely on this matter, along with Alex's father, toward a code
change proposal next year.
I think they met last week with the Building Code Action
Committee and the idea seemed to receive high levels of support
from key members of the Building Code Action Committee, or
BCAC, as we know them.
So, as such, I believe that this will be an important issue
to be discussed moving forward in the code.
Mr. Huffman. I do appreciate that.
I wonder if you could speak to the specific steps that the
ICC is taking to ensure that modern gate safety standards are
incorporated in the next edition of the codes and whether you
would support an updated gate safety standard.
I also am interested in knowing about any challenges that
the ICC may face in incorporating new safety standards, such as
mandatory gate safety standards, into model building codes.
Ms. Davis. I would be in support of that.
And off the top of my head, I cannot think of any negative
reason why it wouldn't receive--I can't think of any argument
that anyone would have against implementing a standard like
that. I believe it is an ASTM standard on the gate safety that
could be implemented into the code requirement process.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Any thoughts on how Congress can support these efforts?
Ms. Davis. We can provide information as to the code
process. And if you are interested in writing a letter of
support or providing testimony during the code update process,
certainly we would welcome that.
We would also be happy to make introductions to the
California Building Officials association, CALBO, if you are
not familiar with them. I think they would be a huge help in
shepherding this forward.
Mr. Huffman. All right. I really want to thank you for
that.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to have this
exchange. I know it is a little bit outside of the main topic
of conversation, but it is a very important issue and a simple
fix. And I appreciate those who are already coming together to
hopefully find a solution and save some lives.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman
does yield back.
Are there further questions from any members of the
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
Seeing none, that does conclude our hearing for today. I
would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony,
your time to travel here.
This subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Letter of September 24, 2024, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon.
Dina Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, from the National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; the National Ready Mixed
Concrete Association; the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association;
and the Portland Cement Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Derrick Van Orden
September 24, 2024.
The Honorable Scott Perry,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S.
House, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Dina Titus,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S.
House, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Titus,
The undersigned organizations strongly support the adoption of
updated building codes. Enforcement of up-to-date building codes and
high-performance building standards is an important step to achieving
disaster resilience.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the number of billion-dollar disaster events in the United
States is increasing and the cost of these disaster events is also
increasing.
Adopting and strengthening building codes is an effective strategy
that policymakers and the building design and construction industry
must employ to reduce the impacts of disaster events, including loss of
life, property damage, and displacement of families and businesses.
The building code sets standards that guide design and construction
of structures for minimum life safety, the first step toward
resilience. There are multiple benefits to the adoption of strong and
up-to-date building codes. Minimum standards for construction preserve
our communities and livelihoods by ensuring that our homes, schools,
and businesses can survive major catastrophes. Stronger homes and
buildings mean people will have places to live and work after a
disaster. Communities with disaster resilient buildings are more likely
to be able to operate schools and businesses after a disaster. Less
disruption for a community means robust commerce and consistent tax
revenue.
Adopting strong building codes also provides economic benefits.
Building codes promote cost effective construction by providing for
economies of scale in the production of building materials. Building
codes also facilitate measurable performance. Building codes are
developed by architects, engineers, contractors, product manufacturers,
and public officials and are grounded in sound engineering principles
that have been thoroughly tested.
In its study entitled ``Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves,'' the
National Institute of Building Sciences found that adopting the latest
building code requirements is affordable and saves $11 per $1 invested.
Building codes have improved society's disaster resilience, while
adding only about 1% to the construction codes when compared to 1990
building codes and standards. The greatest benefits are realized by
jurisdictions adopting the most recent code editions. While building
codes set minimum requirements to protect life safety, above-code
design can save $4 for every $1 invested. Stronger requirements cost-
effectively boost life safety and support shorter functional recovery
times following a disaster event.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.
Portland Cement Association.
References:
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (2019). Natural Hazard Mitigation
Saves: 2019 Report. Principal Investigator Porter, K.; Co-Principal
Investigators Dash, N., Huyck, C., Santos, J., Scawthorn, C.;
Investigators: Eguchi, M., Eguchi, R., Ghosh., S., Isteita, M.,
Mickey, K., Rashed, T., Reeder, A.; Schneider, P.; and Yuan, J.,
Directors, MMC. Investigator Intern: Cohen-Porter, A. National
Institute of Building Sciences. Washington, DC. www.nibs.org
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (2007). NRMCA Position
Statement on Building Codes.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S.
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2024). https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/, DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73
Appendix
----------
Questions to Russell J. Strickland, President, National Emergency
Management Association, from Hon. Rick Larsen
Question 1. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA18) included a
provision requiring FEMA to increase the Public Assistance federal cost
share for states that have implemented hazard mitigation measures
including the enforcement of hazard resistant building codes and
funding mitigation projects. This law was intended as an incentive for
states to proactively fund mitigation measures. This month, FEMA
released the interim policy (FP-104-24-002) for this provision.
Are you satisfied with the interim policy as drafted? If no, what
changes should be made to the interim policy to better reflect the
intent of BBA18?
Answer. The interim policy should (1) incentivize applicants to
consider and submit section 406 projects, and (2) reduce non-Federal
costs to disasters. Since passage of the provision, NEMA remained
supportive of the concept of rewarding state-level mitigation
investments but fear the final product from this rulemaking may fall
short.
First of all, this rulemaking should have included robust
stakeholder input throughout the development process. Given the six
years of development, the agency had ample time to conduct outreach.
Furthermore, many states may be unaware or ill-equipped to develop and
execute Section 406 Public Assistance mitigation projects and more
responsibility should be placed on FEMA to train state staff, identify
potential opportunities, and provide necessary technical assistance.
As our members have more time to digest the interim police as
drafted, initial reactions may evolve, but we hope FEMA will take the
time to ensure the final rule fully meets Congressional intent.
Questions to Cindy L. Davis, Former Deputy Director of Building and
Fire Regulations, Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (Retired), on behalf of the International Code Council,
from Hon. Rick Larsen
Question 1. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA18) included a
provision requiring FEMA to increase the Public Assistance federal cost
share for states that have implemented hazard mitigation measures
including the enforcement of hazard resistant building codes and
funding mitigation projects. This law was intended as an incentive for
states to proactively fund mitigation measures. This month, FEMA
released the interim policy (FP-104-24-002) for this provision.
Are you satisfied with the interim policy as drafted? If no, what
changes should be made to the interim policy to better reflect the
intent of BBA18?
Answer. As noted in the written testimony, the Code Council
believes that the five-and-a-half-year delay in implementing this
single provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 represented an
enormous, missed opportunity to help bolster community and national
resilience over the last half decade. As enacted in early 2018, FEMA
was required to have this recovery cost share adjustment implemented
within one year. The mitigation benefits this provision would have
otherwise encouraged would have saved lives, homes, businesses, along
with tens of millions of dollars in avoidable losses over the last few
years.
Given the public comment period for the interim policy closes
nearly two months after this response is due back to the Committee,
I'll preface my answer that the Code Council expects to submit comments
via regulations.gov that will be publicly available.
That said, the Code Council supports the hazard-resistant code
pieces of the interim Public Assistance Policy on Mitigation Cost Share
Incentives, especially the codes recognized, the editions captured, and
the weighting provided. Providing additional recovery funding for
jurisdictions that adopt updated codes recognizes the importance of
their mitigation benefits and will incentivize smart planning before
disaster strikes.
Our membership has seen firsthand how building codes and standards
ensure public health, safety, and sustainability. Up-to-date codes and
standards contribute to individual, community, and national resilience
as well as dramatically reduce disaster-related losses of life and
property.
It requires significant work for authorities having jurisdiction
(AHJs) to regularly adopt current codes, not to mention the effort
required by those who implement and enforce codes to stay up to date
with training. With model codes updated every three years to consider
advancements in building science, technology, best practices, and
lessons learned from disasters, the ``two most recent editions'' in the
interim policy recognizes the importance of using current codes and
also provides flexibility for AHJ's individualized adoption processes.
The weighting given to resilient codes is needed to further incentivize
update efforts and will help sustain existing and effective practices
against efforts to weaken model codes.
Finally, FEMA's Building Codes Save report noted the International
Building Code (IBC) helped avoid more than $600 billion dollars in
losses, while three national labs found the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) can reduce extreme heat deaths associated with
disaster-induced power outrages by 80 percent.
FEMA already requires the use of these codes when paying for repair
and reconstruction of public facilities, and they are adopted in all 50
states to ensure building safety and an effective building envelope.
The weighting the interim policy assigned these measures rightly
recognizes the mitigation benefits resulting from more widespread
adoption and enforcement.
As the interim policy approaches a more final form, ICC expects
that it will capture additional mitigation activities and would urge
the Agency to ensure that any changes not dilute the existing resilient
codes provisions of the interim policy.