[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3119-H3121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF

  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 39) expressing 
the sense of the Congress regarding Federal disaster relief, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to yield to the gentleman from Missouri to explain the request that is 
now before us.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members know, we will soon consider fiscal year 1995 
budget rescissions to pay for $5.36 billion in emergency supplemental 
appropriations for last year's Northridge, CA, earthquake. Combined 
with the $8.6 billion we appropriated last year, the cost to the 
Federal Government alone from this tragic disaster will be almost $14 
billion. It has now been reported as of yesterday that an additional $2 
billion in damages have occurred, with that number growing daily.
   [[Page H3120]] I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to offer this resolution 
expressing the sense of the Congress to address the serious issue of 
reforming our Federal disaster policy, and I outline a number of 
measures that should be taken to reform our Federal disaster policy.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
thank the gentleman for his fine explanation and I comment him for 
bringing this important issue before the House.
  Everyone is familiar with our recent legacy of natural disasters. 
Hugo, Andrew, Iniki, Loma Prieta, Northridge. The names alone are 
sufficient to conjure images of death and destruction. But experts tell 
us that these are but a prelude to future events which could be even 
more catastrophic. Whether it be Missouri or Tennessee or Washington 
State or California, the point is that natural disasters are going to 
happen and it is our responsibility as homeowners, Government leaders, 
and as businessmen and women, to prepare for them.
  To do that, a new partnership is urgently needed, so that more of the 
disaster relief burden can be borne by insurance and less by the 
Federal Government. That is what this resolution urges us to do, and 
that is the cornerstone of H.R. 2873, the Natural Disaster Protection 
Partnership Act, which I proposed in the last Congress.
  That bill was the subject of hearings and wide-ranging discussions 
among homeowners, consumer groups, the insurance industry, realtors, 
labor unions, firefighters, and countless others.
  What began as a modest proposal became, in the eyes of more than 160 
of our colleagues, the nexus for solving the crisis facing millions of 
Americans affected by the likelihood of a natural disaster touching 
their lives.
  Last September, the Public Works and Transportation Committee--which 
I had the privilege to chair--approved H.R. 2873 without opposition. We 
knew we couldn't get the bill enacted into law so close to the end of 
that Congress, but we also knew that we had to begin to force the issue 
and chip away at the apathy which says that we can worry about this 
crisis some other time. We can't.
  This country simply must begin to stop the fear of what may come 
tomorrow, and we do that by forging a consensus where none has been 
possible in the past. That consensus is becoming possible because of 
the nature of the partnership proposed in H.R. 2873.
  The partnership would lower the cost of coverage for natural 
disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and windstorms by 
spreading the financial risks and requiring that coverage in all 
policies.
  We would enable homeowners to continue to rely on private insurance 
by creating two new funding backstops to cover the cost of claims which 
a State insurance pool or private insurance company could not cover on 
its own.
  The first backstop would be a private, nongovernmental corporation. 
The corporation would become a reinsurance pool to be tapped into when 
either an insurance company or a State has reached the limits of its 
financial resources.
  The second backstop would be a new Federal Disaster Trust Fund. This 
trust fund would provide short-term loans if the reinsurance pool is 
temporarily depleted.
  And since we are talking about Federal loans, it is important to 
remember that this partnership would not increase the Federal deficit; 
the bill requires that the Treasury be reimbursed, with interest, after 
the crisis ends.
  But more than these backstops, we would take actions up front, such 
as requiring States to adopt one of several model building codes, and 
the enforcement to go with it. What we all saw in Florida after 
Hurricane Andrew, for example, was a code which had not been enforced--
and roofs that flew around the citrus State like flies in an orange 
grove. In other words, there must be a partnership in preventive 
medicine before disaster strikes as well as in financial surgery after 
the fact.
  A bipartisan House Task Force on Natural Disasters--cochaired by the 
gentleman from Missouri whom, again, I want to commend for bringing 
vision and leadership to that effort--endorsed many of the principles 
embodied in H.R. 2873 when it issued its report last year.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously, what was a Democratic leadership agenda in 
the 103d Congress is now Republican in the 104th. Legislation dealing 
with the Contract With America has preoccupied the House in these first 
100 days.
  Given this, the task force report in December, the reality of scores 
of new Members, the legislative schedule, and my own desire to tackle 
as many disaster insurance-related problems as possible in my 
legislation, I decided not to simply reintroduce the same bill that my 
committee approved last fall.
  Working with the gentleman from Missouri, we are now looking at 
issues ranging from unfunded mandates to commercial losses.
  Our goal is to get the legislation as right and as complete as 
possible so that we can do even better than the 162 cosponsors from 
last year, and quicken the pace from the time the bill is introduced to 
the time the House approves it.
  I expect that the new legislation will be about 90 percent or more of 
what we reported last year, and that the bill will be ready in a few 
weeks.
  House Concurrent Resolution 39, which I cosponsor, supports that 
effort. If it is the most we can do at this time to address the issue 
of preparing for natural disasters; it is the very least we must do.
  As the resolution states, ``* * * a fundamental overhaul of Federal 
disaster policies should be undertaken to reduce costs to taxpayers and 
encourage more effective partnerships between private sector and 
government at all levels in anticipation of future catastrophes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I just 
wish to take this time to thank the very distinguished gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta] for his leadership in this subject area, both 
in the last Congress as the chairman of the then Public Works and 
Transportation Committee and for his leadership in this Congress as the 
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
and also the role that he played, most constructively, in the 
Bipartisan Task Force on Natural Disasters, which rendered, I think, a 
very fine bipartisan set of recommendations that will be transformed 
into legislative language using the gentleman's bill from the last 
Congress as a base. I hope, together with the gentleman, to move 
forward very expeditiously in this Congress with passage of this much 
needed legislation.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri, and I 
withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 39

       Whereas catastrophic natural disasters are occurring with 
     greater frequency, a trend that is likely to continue for 
     several decades according to prominent scientists;
       Whereas the Federal Government has responded to disasters 
     by appropriating relief funds, which provide only short-term 
     assistance to victims but long-term burdens to tax-payers; 
     and
       Whereas the increasing reliance on Federal disaster relief 
     has overshadowed the need to perform more comprehensive 
     disaster planning and rely on private insurance for 
     protection against disaster risks: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) persons who live in areas at high risk to natural 
     disasters should assume more responsibility for their actions 
     by insuring against such risks in order to minimize the 
     rising cost of Federal disaster relief;
       (2) sensible, cost-effective disaster mitigation programs 
     should be encouraged and enhanced at the State and local 
     level;
       (3) insurers should create a privately funded pooling 
     mechanism for the spreading of disaster risk in order to 
     encourage the continued availability and affordability of 
     private insurance in all parts of the Nation; and
       (4) a fundamental overhaul of Federal disaster policies 
     should be undertaken to reduce costs to tax-payers and 
     encourage more effective partnerships between the private 
     sector and government at all levels in anticipation of future 
     catastrophes.

  The House concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                      [[Page H3121]] GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 39; the concurrent resolution 
just agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________