[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.

                          ____________________