[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7298-S7301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           DISASTER MITIGATION AND COST REDUCTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 551, H.R. 707.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 707) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize a program 
     for predisaster mitigation, to streamline the administration 
     of disaster relief, to control the Federal costs for disaster 
     assistance, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3946

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, Senator Smith of New Hampshire has an 
amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), for Mr. Smith of New 
     Hampshire, proposes an amendment numbered 3946.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in favor of 
passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999. As the chairman of the 
Senate Subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA, I have been working on 
this legislation for the last couple of years. Senator Graham and I 
introduced this legislation last fall and have been working diligently 
on it ever since. We can both attest to this process being long and 
arduous, with many unforeseen pitfalls. However, the final result has 
been a piece of legislation that while changing the scope of disaster 
assistance, continues to assure that FEMA will have the resources and 
the capability to deliver disaster assistance when called upon.
  As we all know, the Federal government, through FEMA, has been there 
to help people and their communities deal with the aftermath of 
disasters for over a generation. As chairman of it's oversight 
Subcommittee, I want to ensure that FEMA will continue to respond and 
help people in need for generations to come.
  Unfortunately, this goal is becoming increasingly difficult since the 
costs of disaster recovery have spiraled out of control. For every 
major disaster Congress is forced to appropriate additional funds 
through Supplemental Emergency Spending Bills, another of which we will 
be discussing at some point later this year. This not only plays havoc 
with the budget and forces us to spend funds which would have gone to 
other pressing needs, but sets up unrealistic expectations of what the 
federal government can and should do after a disaster.
  For instance, following the Oklahoma City tornadoes on May 3, 1999, 
there was an estimated $900 million in damage, with a large portion of 
that in federal disaster assistance. In the aftermath of hurricane 
Floyd in North Carolina, estimates of $1 billion or more in damage have 
been discussed. This problem is not just isolated to Oklahoma City or 
North Carolina. In the period between fiscal years 1994 and 1998, FEMA 
disaster assistance and relief costs grew from $8.7 billion to $19 
billion. That marks a $10.3 billion increase in disaster assistance in 
just five years. To finance these expenditures, we have been forced to 
find over $12 billion in rescissions.
  The Bill we are passing today will address this problem from two 
different directions. First, it authorizes a Predisaster Hazard 
Mitigation Program, which assists people in preparing for disaster 
before they happen. Second, it provides a number of cost-saving 
measures to help control the costs of disaster assistance.
  In our bill, we are authorizing Project Impact, FEMA's natural 
disaster mitigation program. Project Impact authorizes the use of small 
grants to local communities to give them funds and technical assistance 
to mitigate against disasters before they occur; but this is not just a 
federal give-away program. Local communities are required to have a 
demonstrated public-private partnership before they can become a 
Project Impact community.
  Too often, we think of disaster assistance only after a disaster has 
occurred. For the very first time, we are authorizing a program to 
think about preventing disaster-related damage prior to the disaster. 
We believe that by spending these small amounts in advance of a 
disaster, we will save the federal government money in the long-term. 
However, it is important to note that we are not authorizing this 
program in perpetuity. The program, as adopted, is set to expire in 
2003. If Project Impact is successful, we will have the appropriate 
opportunity to review its work and make a determination on whether to 
continue the program.
  This forward thinking approach is revolutionary in terms of the way 
the federal government responds to a disaster. We all know it is more 
cost effective to prevent damage than to respond after the fact. I 
should note that in my state of Oklahoma, which has recently been hit 
by severe flooding, one of the affected communities, my home town of 
Tulsa, was a Project Impact community. While the community suffered 
some damage, the effects could have been much more severe had the 
community not undertaken preventative mitigation measures.

[[Page S7299]]

  In passing this bill, we are also allowing states to keep a larger 
percentage of their federal disaster funds for state mitigation 
projects. Under current law, states can only retain up to 15 percent of 
their post disaster assistance funds for state-wide mitigation 
programs. We are now increasing that percentage to 20 percent. Too 
often states have run into the program of too many mitigation projects, 
with too little resources.
  For example, in Oklahoma, the state used its share of disaster funds 
to provide a tax rebate to the victims of the May 1999 tornadoes who, 
when rebuilding their homes, build a ``safe room'' into their home. 
Because of limited funding, this assistance is only available to those 
who were unfortunate enough to lose everything they owned. The ``safe 
room'' program in Oklahoma is a prime example of giving states more 
flexibility in determining their own mitigation priorities and giving 
them the financial assistance to follow through with their plans.
  An additional problem we remedy with the increase is the lack of 
comprehensive state-wide mitigation plans. Under current law, states 
are required to submit mitigation plans to FEMA, at which time they are 
routinely approved. However, as a condition of receipt of increased 
funding, states are going to have to do a better job at bridging the 
gap between state and local mitigation plans by developing 
comprehensive mitigation plans so that in the aftermath of a disaster, 
states know what their most vulnerable areas are and can take 
appropriate preventative measures.
  While we are attempting to re-define the way in which we respond to 
natural disaster, we must also look to curb the rising cost of post-
disaster related assistance. The intent of the original Stafford Act 
was to provide federal assistance after States and local communities 
had exhausted all their existing resources. As I said earlier, we have 
lost sight of this intent.
  To meet our cost saving goal, we are making significant changes to 
FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) Program. One of the most significant 
changes in the PA Program focuses on the use of insurance. FEMA is 
currently developing an insurance rule to require States and local 
government to maintain private or self-insurance in order to qualify 
for the PA Program. We applaud their efforts and are providing them 
with with some parameters we expect them to follow in developing any 
insurance rule.

  While FEMA's progress in this area is commendable, it has come at the 
considerable opposition from States and local governments who fear the 
impact of any new insurance regulation. Instead of ignoring the 
concerns of the stakeholders, we have sought to work with them and 
bring their views to the table early in the regulatory process. As FEMA 
continues its work towards an insurance regulation, States and local 
governments are now assured that the final rule will encompass their 
concerns.
  Second, we are providing FEMA with the ability to estimate the cost 
of repairing or rebuilding projects. Under current law, FEMA is 
required to stay in the field and monitor the rebuilding of public 
structures. By requiring FEMA to stay afield for years after the 
disaster, we run up the administrative cost of projects. Allowing them 
to estimate the cost of repairs and close out the project will bring 
immediate assistance to the State or local community and save the 
Federal government money.
  In all, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects our bill to 
save approximately $238 million over five years. I personally feel this 
is an underestimate. CBO, because of budget rules, is unable to take 
into account any savings that occur outside the initial five-year 
window. Yet, CBO says in its analysis that long-term savings are likely 
as a result of the predisaster mitigation measures included in the 
bill. CBO also says it cannot quantify the savings associated with the 
implementation of any future insurance rule. Yet, common sense tells us 
that if public buildings have some level of private insurance, federal 
spending under the Public Assistance Program will be reduced.
  Mr. President, we have spent months working closely with other 
Senators, FEMA, the States, local communities, and other stakeholders 
to produce a bill that gives FEMA the increased ability to respond to 
disasters, while assuring States and local communities that the federal 
government will continue to meet its commitments. Our bill has the 
endorsement of the National League of Cities, the National Emergency 
Managers Association , and FEMA.
  In closing, I want to thank Senators Graham, Smith, and Baucus for 
their help and the leadership they have taken on this important issue. 
I would also like to thank Senators Voinovich, Grassley, DeWine, and 
Bond for their support of this legislation. Without their help, input, 
and insight this legislation would be little more than an idea. I look 
forward to continuing to work with them as this bill moves to 
conference to make this legislation a reality.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
amendments to the Stafford Act in the form of H.R. 707. I would like to 
thank Senators Inhofe and Graham and their staff for all their hard 
work in developing a good bipartisan bill. I am proud the committee I 
chair was able to report a bill to the floor with strong bipartisan 
support. I am also very pleased the version the Senate passed will save 
the taxpayer money both in the short and long term.
  This bill makes great strides to enhance FEMA's ability to better 
serve the public in times of disaster. It will also help local 
communities to better prepare and mitigate potential problems prior to 
a disaster. The mitigation focus in this bill will ensure better 
protection of life and property as well as providing savings to the 
taxpayer.
  The substitute H.R. 707 that has been agreed to by the Senate is 
identical language to that in S. 1691 as amended by the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works with the additional Technical and 
Managers' amendments that were filed. Those who wish to research the 
legislative history of H.R. 707, as passed by the Senate, should refer 
to the legislative history of S. 1691 and the report, number 106-295, 
filed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works on S. 1691.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague 
from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, upon the passage of our legislation to 
reauthorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and to 
create public and private incentives to reduce the cost of future 
disasters.
  On June 1st, we will face the beginning of the 2000 Hurricane season, 
the National Weather Service has predicted that the United States will 
face at least three intense hurricanes during the next six months.
  Coming just eight years after Hurricane Andrew damaged 128,000 homes, 
left approximately 160,000 people homeless, and caused nearly $30 
billion in damage, this forecast reminds us of the inevitability and 
destructive power of Mother Nature. We must prepare for natural 
disasters now in order to minimize their devastating effects.
  It is impossible to prevent violent weather. Our experiences since 
Hurricane Andrew--including the Northridge Earthquake, the Upper 
Midwest Floods, and Hurricanes Fran and Floyd--clearly demonstrate the 
overwhelming losses associated with major weather events.
  However, Congress can reduce these losses by legislating a 
comprehensive, nationwide mitigation strategy. Senator Inofe and I have 
worked closely with our colleagues in the Senate, FEMA, the National 
Emergency Management Association, the National League of Cities, the 
American Red Cross, and numerous other groups to construct a 
comprehensive proposal that will make mitigation--not response and 
recovery--the primary focus of emergency management. In addition, I 
would like to recognize the efforts of Senator Bond, Chairman of FEMA's 
appropriations subcommittee, in working closely with us to pass this 
legislation.
  This legislation amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act by:
  Authorizing programs for pre-disaster emergency preparedness;
  Streamlining the administration of disaster relief;
  Controlling the Federal costs of disaster assistance; and
  Providing real incentives for the development of community-sponsored 
disaster mitigation projects.

[[Page S7300]]

  Mr. President, history has demonstrated that no community in the 
United States is safe from disasters. From tropical weather along the 
Atlantic Coast to devastating floods in the Upper Midwest to 
earthquakes in the Pacific Rim, all Americans have suffered as a result 
of Mother Nature's fury.
  She will strike again. But we can avoid some of the excessive human 
and financial costs of the past by applying both what we have learned 
about disaster preparedness and by implementing new technologies that 
are available to mitigate against loss.
  Florida has been a leader in incorporating the principles and 
practice of hazard mitigation into the mainstream of community 
preparedness. We have developed and implemented mitigation projects 
using funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Flood 
Mitigation Assistance Program, FEMA's Project Impact, and many other 
public-private partnerships.
  All Americans play a role in reducing the risks associated with 
natural and technological hazards. Engineers, hospital administrators, 
business leaders, regional planners, emergency managers and volunteers 
each contribute to community-wide mitigation efforts.
  A successful mitigation project may be as basic as the Miami Wind 
Shutter program. The installation of shutters is a cost-effective 
mitigation measure that has proven effective in protecting buildings 
from hurricane force winds, and in the process, minimizing direct and 
indirect losses to vulnerable facilities. These shutters significantly 
increase strength and provide increased protection of life and 
property.
  For example, Hurricane Andrew did $17 million worth of damage to 
three hospitals in Miami. These facilities included Baptist, Miami 
South, and Mercy Hospitals. Through the Hazard Mitigation Grant 
Program, these hospitals were retrofitted with wind shutters. Six years 
after Hurricane Georges brushed against South Florida, this mitigation 
project paid real dividends. Mercy Hospital estimated that the $2 
million investment in their shutters protected their $230 million 
medical complex. In addition, the track of this storm motivated 
evacuees to leave more vulnerable areas of South Florida to seek 
shelter. The protective shutters allowed this hospital to be used as a 
safe haven for 200 pregnant mothers, prevented the need to evacuate 
critical patients, and helped the staff's families to secure shelter 
during the response effort.
  In July of 1994, Tropical Storm Alberto's impact on the Florida 
Panhandle triggered more than $500 million in federal disaster 
assistance. State and local officials concluded that the most direct 
solution to the problem of repetitive flooding was to remove or 
demolish the structures at risk. A Community Development Block Grant of 
$27.5 million was used to assist local governments in acquiring 388 
extremely vulnerable properties.
  The success of this effort was evident when the same area experienced 
flooding again in the spring of 1998. Although both floods were of 
comparable severity, the damages from the second disaster were 
significantly lower in the communities that acquired the flood prone 
properties. In summary, this mitigation project reduced the 
communities' vulnerability to loss.
  Today, we will reinforce the working partnership between the federal 
government, the states, local communities and the private sector. In 
mitigating the devastating effects of natural disasters, it is also 
imperative that we control the cost of disaster relief. Our legislation 
will help both of these efforts. I thank my colleagues for their 
support of this initiative.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act, and more importantly--
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  When I was elected to the Senate more than a year ago, I didn't think 
I would be faced with such an enormous challenge my first year in 
office--helping my state rebuild from the one of the worst hurricanes 
in our history. On September 16, Hurricane Floyd pounded eastern North 
Carolina. Sixty-six counties, more than 70 percent of the state--were 
declared federal disaster areas. Fifty-seven people were killed, and 
more than 60,000 homes were affected.
  I've come to the floor many times and praised the courage and the 
strength of eastern North Carolinians. Through this disaster, I have 
met some of the most spirited and strong people. And I have also met 
some of the most knowledgeable and caring federal workers--the men and 
women of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Whether it was 
Director James Lee Witt, who visited my office many times to keep me 
up-to-date on the federal response, or any of the field representatives 
who explained the programs available to the victims, FEMA helped North 
Carolina begin the long recovery process. And today, ten months after 
the storm hit, FEMA is still helping us coordinate the federal and 
state recovery efforts. It's been said before--and I now know first-
hand--that Director Witt turned FEMA from a disaster of an agency into 
a disaster response team.
  The measure we pass today will help make simple changes to ensure 
this agency continues to offer first-rate response. Most importantly, 
the bill before us would increase the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 
cap from 15 percent to 20 percent. We can't stop a hurricane, tornado 
or earthquake, but we can take concrete steps to mitigate damage. 
Increasing the amount States are allowed to spend on mitigation will 
give those governments the necessary resources to move those people out 
of harm's way. That means less future damage and less costly disasters.
  H.R. 707 also authorizes Project Impact. New Hanover County, in my 
state, was one of the first seven pilot Project Impact communities. 
Project Impact is FEMA's predisaster mitigation program that works 
directly with communities across the country to help them become more 
disaster-resistant. In New Hanover County, residents are determined to 
build better, stronger and smarter in order to prevent damage from the 
inevitable late-summer hurricanes. The University of North Carolina at 
Wilmington is also involved in the effort to mitigate disasters. That's 
the great thing about the Project Impact communities--they are using 
all available agencies and organizations to ensure safe and smart 
development. We should officially recognize these communities efforts 
and encourage the same work in other disaster prone areas.
   Finally, in my State we know how the Federal government's disaster 
response programs work--and sometimes don't work--together. This bill 
takes steps to streamline the programs and to better coordinate between 
different agencies. Portions of this bill would make life a bit simpler 
for our outstanding emergency management agency in North Carolina. 
Whether it's streamlining management costs or making infrastructure 
repairs simpler, this bill makes much-needed improvements in the 
system.
  Mr. President, there is no area of the country untouched by natural 
disasters. Whether it's my state battered by hurricanes; California 
plagued by earthquakes; the Midwest hit by floods; or the states in 
``tornado alley;'' we all know the sudden devastation Mother Nature can 
bring. And we all know we can count on FEMA at a time when the states 
we represent are most vulnerable, when our people hurt the most. Now 
its time for Congress to support this bill and to ensure FEMA can 
continue the first-rate response we so depend on.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished 
Subcommittee Chairman in a colloquy.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CRAPO. I want to express my appreciation for the Senator's 
efforts, and those of the Committee Chairman, Senator Smith, and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Senator Graham in working with Senator 
Baucus and me to reaffirm the eligibility of Private Non-Profit (PNP) 
irrigation companies for FEMA reimbursement of their facilities in the 
aftermath of disasters. As he knows, a pending FEMA policy would 
unfairly single out irrigators among PNPs as ineligible for FEMA 
assistance. Language in the legislation would ensure that PNP 
irrigators receive the same treatment as other PNPs in the event of a 
disaster.
  This matter is of critical importance to PNP irrigation companies 
throughout the West. Generally taking on the responsibilities of water 
utilities elsewhere, irrigation companies provide a

[[Page S7301]]

valuable service to westerners, including the provision of drinking 
water, irrigation support, and other critical facilities. Without these 
services, life in the West could not exist as we know it today.
  At this time, I would ask that we yield to the distinguished Ranking 
Member of the full Committee, Senator Baucus. Senator Baucus?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I want to echo his comments about 
the importance of this provision. PNP irrigators provide a valuable 
service to communities in many western states and their continued fair 
treatment under FEMA policies is the right thing to do. I extend my 
thanks to Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Smith, and Senator Graham in 
working to address this matter, both in Committee and here today.
  As this measure makes its way through the legislative process, I hope 
we can count on the Senator's continued assistance in protecting the 
interests of PNP irrigators. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the Senator bringing this matter to the 
Committee's attention and working with us to come up with a clear 
policy on PNP irrigators. As he knows, during the mark-up in February, 
the Committee adopted the Crapo/Baucus/Bennett amendment to solve this 
situation. However, as we later learned, the amendment was insufficient 
in the eyes of FEMA to resolve this issue. I think that the language 
contained in the legislation unequivocally addresses the issue and 
there can be no ambiguity in the wishes of the Senate concerning FEMA's 
policy affecting private nonproit irrigators in the states. Therefore, 
I reiterate my commitment to enacting legislation that creates equity 
for PNP irrigators in the implementation of FEMA policies.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Senator. I yield back the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3946) was agreed to.
  The bill (H.R. 707), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________