[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 160 (Monday, October 22, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2195-E2196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INTRODUCTION OF THE SAFE BUILDING CODES ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DORIS O. MATSUI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 22, 2007

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Safe 
Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 with my colleague from Florida, 
Representative Mario Diaz-Balart. 
  The purpose for this legislation is to provide incentives for States 
to adopt higher building code standards, which will ultimately help 
preserve property, promote public safety and make Americans and 
America's communities safer.
  This bill's timeliness can be seen in a recent CBS News Poll that 
revealed 29 percent of Americans knew someone affected by Hurricane 
Katrina. As reported by CBS News, the comparable statistic from 
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 was barely half that--16 percent. This report 
provides a clear metric of the extent that today's Americans know and 
understand how disaster can hurt a community.
  This report also highlights the clear public merit of the Safe 
Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 which I introduce today. Building 
codes strengthen and make safe the homes, businesses and places where 
our citizens work, play and live. They reflect the collective wisdom of 
design professionals, builders, and public safety officials who have 
sought to understand and apply the lessons of past tragedies.
  Building codes use a tried and true format to document the reasonable 
steps that can be taken while new construction is underway to protect 
our neighbors and their communities from risks that, because they can 
be foreseen, can and should be minimized. These codes are truly the 
``ounce of prevention'' that is worth far more than any after-the-fact 
pound of cure which must otherwise be borne by people and communities 
after they've suffered through a tragic loss of life, stability and 
treasured belongings and memories.
  Where strong building codes are in place and enforced, natural 
disasters are less likely to be compounded by failures of preparation.
  Today's model building codes govern all aspects of construction and 
help to protect homes and buildings from disasters such as hurricanes, 
tornadoes, earthquakes, flood, fire, ice storms and other natural 
catastrophes.
  Strong building codes serve as the backbone of a community's 
preparedness against natural disasters.
  As a Member of Congress my top priority has been public safety since 
taking office in 2005. My district, Sacramento, CA, is the most at risk 
river city in the country for catastrophic flooding. The city of 
Sacramento is located at the confluence of two major rivers, the 
American and Sacramento.
  To a state like California, where we are experiencing significant 
population growth, and especially to a growing region such as 
Sacramento, the building standards we incorporate now will go a long 
way in providing a stable and safer future for our communities and 
property owners.


        Why we need The Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007

  In the aftermath of the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes, studies illustrate 
that the damages associated with high winds could have been avoided or 
minimized by statewide adoption of model building codes in the Gulf 
States.
  What has become increasingly apparent in the wake of Katrina and 
other natural disasters that have struck our communities in recent 
years is that the Federal Government and the private sector are paying 
billions for disaster relief and rebuilding of communities.
  Overwhelming evidence demonstrates the adoption and enforcement of 
strong statewide building codes greatly reduce disaster-related 
property damage and personal injuries while providing more efficient 
economic development and sustainable business operations after an 
event.

[[Page E2196]]

  For example, in January 2006, a Louisiana State University, LSU, 
Hurricane Center study concluded that an estimated 65 percent reduction 
in Katrina wind related damage to homes in Louisiana could have been 
avoided if structures had been built to current model building code 
standards.
  Despite these benefits, most states have not enacted mandatory 
statewide building codes and related inspection and enforcement 
measures for both commercial and residential structures.

  Additionally, where Statewide codes exist, it is not uncommon to 
allow individual jurisdictions, such as cities of a particular class, 
or counties, to deviate from the State standards, occasionally 
resulting in a weakening of the model minimum standards or to opt out 
of the standards altogether, leaving areas within a State more 
vulnerable than others.
  As a result, State standards for construction, code-related 
inspection and enforcement vary widely across the country.
  I am not typically a proponent of a one-size-fits all approach to 
public policy, but when it comes to public safety I believe it is 
important to set the standards high and for our communities to meet 
these standards.


       What the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 would do

  Under the current authorities in the Stafford Act, mitigation funds 
are generally available through two programs--the Hazard Mitigation 
Grant Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. My legislation 
creates incentives within each of these programs for States to adopt 
and enforce the highest safety standards before disaster strikes.
  After a disaster strikes a community or State and the Federal 
Government provides disaster relief funding, States with an approved 
Mitigation Plan are eligible to receive Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 
funding equal to 15 percent of the total Federal disaster relief 
spending for that event.
  Additionally, a State may elect to prepare a more comprehensive 
Enhanced Mitigation Plan which would qualify the State for additional 
mitigation funding up to 20 percent of the amount awarded for grants.
  Regardless of what the State mitigation plan is, under the Safe 
Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 a State would be eligible for an 
additional 4 percent of Federal disaster relief spending if it has 
adopted a mandatory Statewide building code and has effective 
enforcement measures in place.
  However, if a State decides not to adopt a mandatory Statewide 
building code, it will not be penalized and would still be eligible to 
obtain a minimum 15 percent of the post-disaster mitigation funding 
under the HMGP.
  My legislation merely serves as an incentive for States to seek 
additional funding of 4 percent by adopting a mandatory Statewide 
building code and implementing effective enforcement measures.
  In addition, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 will allow, 
as well as encourage, State, local and tribal governments to use PDM 
funds to establish building code enforcement programs prior to the 
occurrence of a disaster, which helps States to begin standardizing 
construction in previously unregulated areas.
  In my view, this funding is well placed. A little prevention will go 
a long way and in the case of disaster relief funding it can save the 
taxpayers billions in recovery funds.
  The benefit of stronger more up-to-date building codes is twofold.
  The first benefit is by encouraging and providing stronger building 
codes, our buildings are more likely to withstand higher impacts and 
therefore remain intact if a storm hits a community.
  The second benefit is that if a catastrophe does devastate a 
community, by enacting these stricter standards recovering communities 
would be eligible for more Federal funds under my proposed legislation.
  The best case scenario is that a community will never be in a 
position to need these extra funds. But by enacting stronger building 
codes and encouraging more community plans we are taking a positive and 
proactive step in that direction.
  In closing, as we reflect on the tragedy of Katrina and continue to 
rebuild the Gulf Coast region, we should also be viewing this as a time 
and an opportunity to rebuild a public policy that will serve the 
American taxpayer more efficiently as well as protect our communities 
more effectively.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Safe Building Code Incentive Act 
of 2007.

                          ____________________