[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10543-H10546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SNOW REMOVAL POLICY ACT OF 1996
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3348) to direct the President to establish standards and
criteria for the provision of major disaster and emergency assistance
in response to snow-related events, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3348
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Snow Removal Policy Act of
1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) winter snow storms in recent years, and particularly in
1996, have interrupted essential public services and
utilities, caused widespread disruption of vital
transportation networks, stranded many motorists, and
isolated many homes and businesses;
(2) the impact of the winter snow storms was of such
severity and magnitude that effective response was beyond the
capability of State and local governments;
(3) the policy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
for providing major disaster and emergency assistance in
response to snow-related events is unclear; and
(4) regulations should be promulgated for providing major
disaster and emergency assistance in response to snow-related
events in order to ensure the fair treatment of States and
local governments that have incurred costs associated with
such a response.
SEC. 3. RULEMAKING TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR
SNOW-RELATED EVENTS.
(a) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.--The President, acting
through the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to
promulgate--
(1) standards and criteria for declaring a major disaster
or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act in response to a snow-related event;
and
(2) standards and criteria for providing assistance under
such Act in the case of a snow-related major disaster or
emergency, including reimbursement for snow removal and for
debris removal and emergency protective measures.
(b) Requirement.--Rules to be promulgated under this
section shall ensure that in determining the eligibility of a
State or local government for assistance in connection with a
snow-related event, the President will give consideration to
existing capabilities of the State or local government.
(c) Deadlines.--The President, acting through the Director
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall issue--
(1) a proposed rule under this section not later than 3
months after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) a final rule under this section not later than 9 months
after such date of enactment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Borski] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the blizzard of 1996 swept across 12 States and the
District of Columbia threatening the lives of thousands of individuals.
Many of my constituents were cut off from critical facilities, such as
hospitals, by record snowfalls.
At the time it appeared that the Federal response to this crisis was
haphazard. Many State and local officials considered FEMA's response
unfair and inconsistent with previous policy.
H.R. 3348 simply requires FEMA to set a coherent policy for
responding to snow events so that Federal assistance will be more
uniform and fair.
I would like to thank Mr. Quinn for bringing attention to this
matter. However, as he points out, this is a bipartisan effort. More
than half of the 25 cosponsors are Democrats, including Mr. Traficant,
Mr. Mascara, Ms. Norton, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Lowey,
and Mr. Kildee.
FEMA has had the authority to provide assistance to clear roads in
the event of severe snowstorms since 1988. Since that time, FEMA has
responded to snowstorms in three winters, 1993, 1994, and 1996. In each
year, the total assistance was well under $1 million.
[[Page H10544]]
H.R. 3348 does not expand this authority but does require a
consistent policy. The Congressional Budget Office agrees this will not
result in significant new costs.
It is argued that this bill is unnecessary because FEMA is already
working on a snow removal regulation.
The fact is, we need H.R. 3348 to make sure FEMA completes its work.
FEMA often starts rulemakings but does not complete them or finishes
them months late.
For instance, in 1993 FEMA initiated approximately 14 new rules. Only
4 of these were completed on time--8 are still pending or have been
discontinued.
H.R. 3348 makes sure this rule will happen and that it will happen
quickly.
Again, I commend Mr. Quinn and the other sponsors of the legislation.
I strongly support this bipartisan bill and urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3348 demonstrates the lasting impact of
the blizzard of 1996 when cities throughout the northeast were faced
with unprecedented snow removal costs.
My own city of Philadelphia ran up a bill of $11 million for snow
removal for which we have received Federal reimbursement of $4 million.
Many other cities from the Canadian border to our Nation's Capital
had equally staggering costs for which they were totally unprepared.
These cities looked to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for
help and many were disappointed with FEMA's response.
FEMA, which has done an outstanding job under Director James Lee
Witt, is currently working on a snow removal policy, which is scheduled
to be released in draft form on October 1.
There are some complicated issues involved in this rulemaking, as was
shown by the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], during our
subcommittee hearing on H.R. 3348 last week.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the tremendous job that Mr. Witt
has done at FEMA. I have been involved in the oversight of FEMA for
several years and it is clear that he has turned this Agency around.
Under Director Witt, there is an unprecedented level of
professionalism and responsiveness.
After earlier disasters, there were numerous complaints about FEMA's
lack of responsiveness.
We do not hear complaints about lack of responsiveness directed to
FEMA under Director Witt.
It is because of Mr. Witt's outstanding performance at FEMA, his
understanding of the needs of State and local governments and his
experience in dealing with disasters that I have full confidence in his
ability to issue a fair policy on snow removal.
In fact, H.R. 3348 does no more than tell FEMA to issue a policy. It
does not direct what that policy should be.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, I will be
working with FEMA to make sure the snow removal policy meets the needs
of the entire Nation. The problems faced by Philadelphia and other
northeastern cities must be addressed in a fair and consistent manner.
FEMA is in the process of issuing its policy in less than 2 weeks and
I look forward to seeing the agency's proposal.
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to associate myself with the remarks of my friend from Pennsylvania in
praising James Lee Witt and his leadership of FEMA. I think he has
brought very, very substantial improvements to that agency.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Quinn], the distinguished Member who has really
provided leadership in moving this legislation forward.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, and the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Boehlert, the subcommittee chair, for their assistance in moving
this legislation forward, and begin by associating my remarks with the
gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski and Mr. Shuster, and others,
that Mr. Will has done an fantastic job at FEMA.
The purpose of our legislation, as we have said from the beginning,
is to move FEMA in the right direction. This is also an opportunity for
me to acknowledge and to thank the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman
Bart Stupak, who has worked as an advocate of this legislation on the
other side of the aisle, as well as the others mentioned in Mr.
Schuster's opening remarks: Mr. David Rodham, the President-elect of
the National Emergency Managers Association, for his early support; and
especially the Water Resource Subcommittee staff, who were a great help
in promoting this bipartisan measure from the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation earlier this year in the
interest of developing a new, clear, concise snow removal policy. Last
year, as we mentioned, in cities and towns in my district like Buffalo
and Lackawanna, Cheektowaga, West Seneca, and Lancaster, all of those
towns and cities endured 36 inches of snow in less than 24 hours.
When I tried to find help for these communities I ran into an
astonishing maze of bureaucracy. It seemed that no one could give me a
straight answer as to whether these towns and cities would be eligible
for any kind of assistance.
Now, I know some of my colleagues are thinking, ``Mr. Quinn, you are
from Buffalo, and it snows in Buffalo; you ought to expect it.'' And we
do expect it. But as I discovered, no city, not even Buffalo, NY, can
prepare for a storm of that proportion in any budget or with any amount
of planning.
I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in Buffalo as a
community to get ourselves out of that terrible mess. It might have
taken other cities weeks to clean up, but Buffalo and western New York
had our traffic bans and our travel advisories lifted within 3 days.
Regardless of how much one prepares going into a winter season, a
storm such as the one we experienced in the Northwest and the mid-
Atlantic region States last winter cannot be accounted for in any
budget.
We worked with New York Governor Pataki and the National Emergency
Managers Association to clarify the Federal snow removal policy and to
help our communities cut through the bureaucratic redtape. The purpose,
Mr. Speaker, of this legislation is to reduce the confusion, the
ambiguity, and the lack of criteria we dealt with over this past
winter.
The bill promotes a clear, concise and simple plan that will benefit
everyone, from the Congress to FEMA to our local communities. Our
thoughts and prayers go out to those people along the East Coast who
were recently devastated by Hurricane Fran. Hurricane Fran illustrated
why we as a Nation must reach out to our fellow Americans inflicted
with natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, floods, tornadoes,
and hurricanes.
FEMA has a definitive policy and guidelines in place to deal with all
of those natural disasters. Currently in their regulations there is no
discernible Federal snow emergency policy. The blizzards we face across
the Nation pose no less a threat to our lives and property than those
of the other terrible disasters. Clear-cut trigger points would let
States and local governments determine whether an emergency declaration
is warranted or not and to what extent the Federal Government would be
involved.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, and others who have cosponsored and supported
the bill, that this is an opportunity for us as Federal legislators to
provide meaningful help to our constituencies.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, in these times of tight budgets where all of
us have been asked to make tough decisions on the allocation of funds,
the supporters of this legislation are not looking for a handout. The
legislation is only a straightforward attempt to come up with a policy
that will assist our communities in understanding the Federal
Government's policy concerning snow removal. Our local mayors
[[Page H10545]]
have asked for our help and our governors have asked for our help. Let
us do something to help our local leaders.
This legislation does not create more government bureaucracy. This is
an attempt to make the Government regulations we have already in place
more understandable.
I want to conclude by making two points perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker.
The first is that FEMA, who has done a great job, has had nearly 6
months to issue and to clarify these regulations; and, second, this
legislation does not ask FEMA to expand the scope of the Federal
involvement in snow emergencies, it simply asks FEMA to clarify the
policy so that emergency managers in our district can understand them a
little better.
I believe the bill is an example of responsible good government, and
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3348.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] who is a prime sponsor of the bill
on our side of the aisle.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3348 is an extremely important bipartisan piece of
legislation for those citizens and communities that experience
difficult winters year after year. In my district, which includes the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the northern section of the Lower
Peninsula, residents endured snow for 8 consecutive months last winter.
And I may add that last Friday the first snowflakes of this winter
fell.
In my area, in my district, we recorded a total snow accumulation of
321 inches or nearly 27 feet. If my colleagues can imagine for a
moment, that level of snow would completely bury the typical two-story
family home and would nearly reach the ceiling of this House Chamber.
Whether the cause of the disaster is flooding, fire, hurricane, like
the recent devastation in North Carolina caused by Hurricane Fran, or
snow, we gauge the impact of a weather event in terms of the number of
people it affects and the magnitude of its financial impact. The winter
of 1995-96 was not a single storm but rather a series of recordbreaking
storms.
The total accumulation of record-breaking snowfalls pushed road crews
and local communities to the brink of financial disaster. The financial
havoc these storms wreaked on my district will be felt for years to
come. The storm caused snow and flood damage to roads and structures,
curtailed agricultural planting, delayed home building and tourism, and
induced other detrimental personal and financial effects.
As a result, local communities in northern Michigan faced budget
overruns of at least $10 million. Many local governments do not have
the reserves to tap for this type of unexpected disaster. They must
increase their taxes, cut their community programs and services, or
even curtail road repair and maintenance, causing layoffs and other
future community and regional hardships.
The Snow Removal Policy Act will finally clarify FEMA's regulations
regarding snow-related emergencies, giving communities the opportunity
for relief from winter's violent and deadly storms.
I want to emphasize, however, that despite the clarification in these
guidelines, no Federal assistance can be provided if the Governor of
the State does not make a request for financial or disaster aid.
Regardless of the nature of the extent of any natural disaster, the
decision to ask for Federal help would remain with the State's chief
executive.
In the winter of 1993-94 my district received financial help from
FEMA. I am pleased with that response, but this legislation is needed
so there is no further delay in putting forth these guidelines.
Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my thanks to my distinguished
colleagues, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert, the gentlemen
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski and Mr. Shuster, the gentleman from
Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, for their assistance and guidance on this
legislation. I want to especially thank my friend, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Quinn], for sponsoring this important bipartisan
legislation and working with me on it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 3348.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking member of the
committee, a gentleman who knows a thing or two about snow himself.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me this time.
We, too, on the other side of Lake Superior have a lot of snow, in
the range of 130 to 140 inches a year. I am afraid the gentleman from
Michigan gets the benefit of the prevailing wind passing over the
30,000 square miles of Lake Superior and dumping the excess moisture on
the upper peninsula.
I think that the Federal policy on snow removal in disaster
assistance situations should be clarified, and FEMA is moving to do
that. I do not think this legislation is necessary. In just 3 weeks,
FEMA, in their testimony before our committee, committed by October 1
to have an NPRM, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the
Federal Register, complete the 60-day comment period, and have a final
rule in place by mid-December, in time for the snow season.
I think that is quite fair, and I think that the agency is moving
along appropriately and there will be plenty of time for comment on
their regulations. It just does not seem necessary to legislate what
the agency is already doing.
I understand the arguments this is a push, this is a nudge, this is a
shove from the Congress to FEMA to stay on track and do their job, but
frankly, I am really concerned about disaster creep. We are seeing the
spread of Federal responsibility to more and more types of situations
that can be called or can somehow qualify as disasters.
Most of these calls come from State government, from local
government, who preach to the Federal Government balance your budget.
We hear this from the Governors all the time: Balance your budget,
Federal Government. But then as soon as they have an earthquake, a
tornado, a hurricane, heavy snow, they have their hand out to the
Federal Government to come in and bail them out. But in the years when
they do not have hurricanes or earthquakes or tornadoes, I do not see
them coming back to the Federal Government and saying here is a
downpayment for your good will on helping us out in times of disaster.
In the case of snow, snow is different from hurricanes. They come
with some suddenness and unpredictability. Earthquakes come with great
unpredictability. In the northern country we know the glacier retreated
10,000 years ago and every December it makes a return appearance, or at
least a return effort, and we are prepared for it.
Now, I can understand when there is an occasional extraordinary
event, a multi-State occurrence that dumps unprecedented amounts of
snow and the economy is disrupted, the travel is interrupted for long
periods of time. That makes a case for what FEMA is doing trying to
develop a common policy. But I am concerned that this legislative push
is moving us into ever more responsibility and ever greater
expenditures and outlays of extraordinary amounts of Federal funds.
Someone may think that is strange coming from one who is advocating
increasing our investment in infrastructure, but I think that is where
we need to put those investments to make our economy more efficient.
So I just say my piece, express my concern, set a mark out there for
those Governors and local government officials who come to Washington
preaching to us about balance your budget, but help us out when we have
a problem, to understand the broader responsibilities of the Federal
Government and to shoulder more and more of their own financial
obligations under circumstances of this kind.
I think we need to be careful about expansion of Federal disaster
policies. I think that we can and we shall watch very closely FEMA's
commitment to promulgating the NPRM on October 1 and getting a final
rule out in December, and I will join with the chairman in any
initiative needed to prod them along that route.
I just wish we did not have to move on legislation, but I will
certainly not stand in its way, and I appreciate the cooperative spirit
we have had with the
[[Page H10546]]
majority in scheduling hearings and hearing the issue, bringing these
matters forth.
I understand the genuine concerns of our colleague from upstate New
York, the gentleman from Michigan, and others who have concerns about
snow removal policy and the application of the disaster assistance
rules.
{time} 1145
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], chairman of the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay particular credit to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], my colleague, for his leadership
on this issue.
When Mother Nature rears her ugly head, whether it is an earthquake
on the West Coast or a storm off the coast of Florida or a heavy winter
snowstorm, it can create havoc.
Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to micromanage for FEMA, an Agency for
which I have the highest regard. I think James Lee Witt is doing a
magnificent job. But we are asking the Agency to come up with a
coherent policy so that we can give guidance to our constituents and
our communities in the event of disaster.
I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn] for his leadership in
bringing this issue forward. I commend the chairman and the ranking
member for participating in this exercise and providing the leadership
necessary to move this legislation forward.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3348, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________