[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.

                          ____________________