[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6081-H6083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MULTI-STATE DISASTER RELIEF ACT
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5825) to review, update, and revise the factors to measure
the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster and to evaluate the
need for assistance to individuals and households.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5825
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 ``Multi-State Disaster Relief
Act''.
SEC. 2. INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE FACTORS.
(a) In General.--In order to provide more objective
criteria for evaluating the need for assistance to
individuals and households and to speed a declaration of a
major disaster or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq.), not later than one year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (referred to in this Act as the
``Administrator''), in cooperation with representatives of
State and local emergency management agencies, shall review,
update, and revise through rulemaking the factors considered
under section 206.48(b) of title 44, Code of Federal
Regulations, to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact
of a disaster.
(b) Consideration of a Contiguous County.--In reviewing,
updating, and revising the factors referenced in subsection
(a) the Administrator shall include as a factor whether a
contiguous county in an adjacent state has been designated in
a major disaster or emergency as a result of the same
incident.
(c) Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's current regulations, policies,
procedures, and practices on--
(1) recommending major disaster or emergency declarations
in order to provide assistance to individuals and households;
and
(2) making post-declaration designations of the need for
assistance to individuals and households in a county that is
contiguous to a State that has received a major disaster or
emergency declaration for the same incident.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5825.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5825, a bill to require the
Federal Emergency Management Agency to review, update, and revise the
factors to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster
and to evaluate the need for assistance to individuals and households,
sponsored by my friend and colleague from Indiana, Congressman Baron
Hill.
Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, the President has the sole discretion to determine when a disaster
is beyond the capability of State and local governments, and therefore,
when FEMA and Federal assistance is needed. In doing so, the President
looks to the administrator of FEMA for a recommendation.
FEMA published regulations more than 10 years ago to explain the
factors it looks to when making a recommendation to the President on
whether to declare a major disaster or emergency to provide assistance
to individuals and households. These regulations are important, as they
provide guidance to the States on when and how to seek Federal
assistance under the Stafford Act, including specific criteria FEMA
considers. Knowing this helps States put together the best information
they can as quickly as possible, and hopefully expedite the process to
get assistance where it is needed.
FEMA has recognized that these regulations need to be improved, and
have been working with the States to do so. However, the process has
been occurring for some time. This legislation would merely put a
reasonable deadline of 1 year on that process. This legislation also
requires that FEMA add to the list of criteria it considers whether an
adjacent community across a State line has received a major disaster or
emergency declaration for the same incident.
{time} 1230
This logical approach recognizes that the impact of disasters do not
stop at the State line. This is something that FEMA should be doing
and, if they are not already doing so, will do so under this
legislation.
I thank my friend, Mr. Hill, for bringing this issue to the attention
of the House and for sponsoring this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5825.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Obviously, we've heard it before. I'm disappointed that, frankly,
none of the bills that we are considering today are from any
Republicans, and I know that's something we need to continue to work
on, but I want to refer to this specific legislation.
It would direct the administrator of FEMA to review and revise the
current the regulations, as we just heard, related to eligibility under
its Individuals and Households Program. Again, specifically, it would
require FEMA to consider whether a county in one State is adjacent to a
State that has been designated in a major disaster or emergency. In
other words, there may be a county in a different State that may be
affected, and that's got to be considered as well because, again, the
impact of disasters are obviously not contained or limited to just
manmade geographic boundaries.
In many cases, the destruction is significant enough that all States
involved are designated in a major disaster emergency, but in some
cases that's not the case. So there could be a State right next door
that has one county that's been significantly hit but the rest of the
State has not, and this would hopefully remedy that, and this would
allow FEMA to look at that and remedy that.
I think this is a commonsense bill. It's also taking place now while
we're already in the hurricane season, so I think it's important that
we're doing this now. For those of us who are living in States that are
too often--more often than we would like, because obviously once is too
often--affected by storms and the like, this could not come soon
enough.
So I want to thank the chairman and thank all of you for bringing
this forward. It's a commonsense piece of legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. First, let me thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee
Chairwoman Norton for working with me on this particular piece of
legislation and for the continuous work on bills aimed at improving our
country's emergency response and preparedness.
[[Page H6082]]
Let me also take the opportunity to thank Congressman Costello for
managing this bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present information
about this bill being considered here today, House Resolution 5825, the
Multi-State Disaster Relief Act. Southern Indiana has been devastated
by seven major natural disasters over the last few years. Yet the one
that stands out and the one that brought the most pain and frustration
to the residents of southern Indiana was the incident that occurred
almost exactly 1 year ago today.
In early August of 2009, a series of severe storms rocked Indiana and
Kentucky and damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes. The State of
Kentucky received a major disaster declaration but Indiana did not from
the same storm. As a result, hundreds of Hoosiers living just a few
miles from their friends and neighbors across the border in neighboring
Kentucky were not eligible to receive Federal grants to repair their
homes even though they were devastated by the same natural disaster.
We can try to be prepared for natural disasters, but these events are
largely beyond our control. However, we do have full control over how
our Federal Government responds and aids individuals following a
disaster. And, in this instance, I believe our government missed the
mark.
This incident exposed a major flaw with the current FEMA disaster
assistance process--the inability to fairly and accurately provide
assistance for natural disasters that strike more than one State.
Currently, FEMA provides disaster assistance on a State-by-State basis.
So when a disaster strikes, if a Governor believes a disaster is beyond
the capability of the State, he or she will make a request to the
President to receive a major disaster declaration, and FEMA will make a
recommendation to the President about whether a State should receive a
declaration and whether individuals in certain counties should be
eligible for individual assistance to repair their homes.
When a disaster hits in the middle of a State and the damage is
concentrated, the process is straightforward and the victims in the
States most significantly affected will usually receive the necessary
assistance. Yet, when a disaster crosses over State lines, FEMA treats
the instance as two separate cases and requires each State to meet a
specific Statewide damage threshold to receive a major disaster
declaration. If that threshold is not met and a State is denied a
disaster declaration, individuals who were as severely affected as
those just across the State line have limited options for recourse and
rebuilding.
FEMA considers certain factors when determining whether to recommend
that the President declare a major disaster for a State and provide
individual assistance. House Resolution 5825 would update and improve
the factors FEMA uses to determine whether a State should receive a
major disaster declaration.
Specifically, House Resolution 5825 would require FEMA to take into
account whether contiguous counties in a neighboring State were
designated in a major disaster from the same incident. This means that
FEMA would have to look at the damage from a neighboring State and
factor this into their decision about whether to provide aid to
individuals and issue a major disaster declaration; whereas, now they
are not required to take this into account.
The bill would also require FEMA to review, update, and revise the
regulation used to measure the severity and impact of a disaster when
determining that the individuals should receive assistance within 1
year of the enactment.
Lastly, this bill would require FEMA to issue a report to Congress
within 3 months of enactment on their current policies concerning major
disaster declarations for individual assistance and their policy on
providing aid to individuals in counties contiguous to a State that has
received a major disaster declaration.
While this bill, unfortunately, is not retroactive, I believe if this
law were in place last year, the result for my constituents in Indiana
would have been very much different. This bill is the first step to
right a wrong that befell Hoosiers last year when trying to pick up the
pieces after a natural disaster while left wondering why their Federal
Government was picking favorites.
Storms and natural disasters do not care about State lines when they
destroy someone's home or business, and under this bill, when disaster
strikes more than one State, FEMA officials would have to look at the
impact of the overall storm and not just the impact on that individual
State when deciding whether to provide disaster assistance to
individuals. I believe this bill will help all Americans receive fair
treatment the next time disaster strikes no matter which State they
come from.
To the people of southern Indiana, I want to say that the lessons
have been learned from last year's tragedy, and we're not going to let
those same mistakes be repeated.
Let me also give my thanks to my Republican friends for their
bipartisan support of this bill.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this is a
commonsense bill. As the ranking member of the subcommittee that deals
with emergency management and other issues, it would have been nice to
have this go through the committee process through regular order. It
didn't. It came straight to the floor. But it is a good bill. It's a
very good bill. It's a commonsense bill and obviously I do support it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5825, the
``Multi-State Disaster Relief Act''. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hill) identified this issue after floods struck last August in his
district in Indiana, and neighboring counties in Kentucky. I thank
Representative Hill for bringing this issue to the attention of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and working with the
Committee on a practical solution.
The Stafford Act and our Nation's emergency management system are
based on a multi-level system of response at the local, State, and
Federal level, as necessary. Local citizens and communities have the
primary responsibility for responding to incidents and disasters that
strike their communities. When they need additional assistance, they
seek that assistance from their State. When the disaster is beyond the
capability of the State, the State seeks help from the Federal
Government. As a result, the President must look at the impacts on the
State in which the disaster took place in determining whether Federal
assistance is warranted.
However, disasters don't always stay neatly within the lines we have
drawn, and the impact of a particular event often crosses State lines.
When disaster strikes, first responders, emergency managers,
volunteers, and others respond, regardless of county or State lines. In
my home State of Minnesota, there are neighboring jurisdictions
separated by a river. In many places, that river is the State boundary,
but in reality, it is one community that encompasses both sides of the
river. In 1997, in the western part of Minnesota along the Red River,
devastating floods struck both Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East
Grand Forks, Minnesota.
In my own district, we have seen this happen as well. In 1992, a gas
leak from a derailed railroad tank resulted in the evacuation of more
than 50,000 people from the Twin Ports of Duluth, Minnesota, and
Superior, Wisconsin--communities separated by the St. Louis River.
Hundreds of first responders provided assistance, including members of
the National Guard and Army Reserve. While at least two dozen people
from both States were hospitalized, we were fortunate that the cloud
quickly dissipated and Federal assistance was not necessary.
It is only logical that the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and the President, in making a determination whether to declare
a disaster and provide assistance to individuals and households,
consider both immediate local impacts and the impacts in neighboring
communities, even if they are in another State. When a disaster also
affects a neighboring county across a State line, this legislation
directs FEMA to consider this fact when the agency recommends to the
President whether or not to declare a disaster.
The Committee understands that FEMA is currently working with State
and local emergency managers on revamping the criteria the agency uses
regarding whether to recommend that the President declare a major
disaster or emergency in order to provide assistance to individuals and
households. FEMA has been working on these changes for some time. This
legislation is not intended to impede that process. This legislation
merely puts a reasonable deadline on the process and requires that one
common-sense criteria be incorporated.
This legislation is supported by the International Association of
Emergency Managers (IAEM), which represents our Nation's county, local,
and tribal emergency managers, who serve in the communities that would
benefit most from this legislation.
[[Page H6083]]
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5825.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5825.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________