[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 151 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6507-H6508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         HOW BIG IS YOUR FEMA?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Mitt Romney weathered a storm of 
criticism late in the campaign after Hurricane Sandy for his earlier 
comments about privatizing FEMA and turning responsibility back to 
State and local governments. But during an era of fiscal restraint and 
global warming, it's high time that we start this conversation in 
earnest. How big do

[[Page H6508]]

you want your FEMA to be, how generous your disaster relief payments, 
and how much do you want to pay?
  In today's New York Times op-ed section, there is an article that 
points out the potential liability for flood insurance alone is $1.25 
trillion, second only to the liability for Social Security. Right now, 
we have arguably the worst of both worlds. The Federal Government 
responds to disaster, usually paying too much for the wrong people to 
do the wrong things. We provide Federal money to put people back in 
harm's way and sometimes provide infrastructure to make future, risky 
development worse. We often take remedial action like fortifying 
beaches, a temporary solution that can actually accelerate erosion 
elsewhere, shift storm damage down the coast to another spot or more 
serious flooding down river. By giving the illusion of protection, more 
people locate in dangerous areas, and the vicious cycle is repeated 
with untold damage to families, with loss of life, loss of property, 
disruption of business.
  Perhaps we'd be better off if we began with a serious conversation 
about what people expect from FEMA and heavily subsidized flood 
insurance.
  What if the balance of responsibility between individuals, local, 
State, and Federal governments were analyzed?
  What if we required individual property owners to assume more of the 
cost of disaster mitigation and recovery by paying the full cost of 
their flood insurance premiums and having recovery benefits provided on 
a declining scale after repetitive incidents?
  What if local developers were required to insure their buildings 
withstood the cost of certain foreseeable disaster events? Would they 
be less likely to pressure local governments to approve risky 
development proposals?
  If individual homeowners absorbed more of their cost with slightly 
higher home prices, would it make it less likely that they're going to 
be buying homes in dangerous locations?
  Shouldn't local governments be required to have stronger zoning and 
building codes to make loss less likely and recovery less expensive? 
What if these local governments were put on notice that when they 
invest in infrastructure, that the Federal disaster relief is only 
going to cover a portion of the loss and that portion will decline with 
increasing frequency of events?
  While there appears to be little appetite for overall Federal 
control, there ought to be even less appetite for the Federal 
Government to pay for the failure of local control to plan, zone, 
enact, and enforce strong code provisions and consumer protection. The 
notion that this is all going to be a one-way street for the Federal 
taxpayer to pay for repetitive disaster costs is something that needs 
to be challenged and rejected out of hand.
  Make no mistake; I think it would be foolish to privatize FEMA 
because there is a need for Federal response to true disasters. That's 
precisely the time that the local economy and taxpayer are least able 
to pay the full cost of recovery. They need money, personnel, and 
assistance, but that doesn't mean a permanent entitlement to risky 
behavior. The Federal Government should deal with what is truly 
catastrophic and with the humanitarian costs. Families obviously should 
not be left destitute, hungry, and homeless in the aftermath of natural 
disaster. There is, however, no reason that we encourage the repetition 
of these terrible events.
  In a time of fiscal stress and budgetary realignment, we should 
include government disaster spending, liability and development policy 
as we address the fiscal cliff. Done right, this will not only save 
money, but countless lives, as well.

                          ____________________