[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 3 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H65-H72]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SANDY RECOVERY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2013
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 219) to improve and streamline disaster assistance for
Hurricane Sandy, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 219
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act of 2013''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Public assistance program alternative procedures.
Sec. 3. Federal assistance to individuals and households.
Sec. 4. Hazard mitigation.
Sec. 5. Dispute resolution pilot program.
Sec. 6. Unified Federal review.
Sec. 7. Simplified procedures.
Sec. 8. Essential assistance.
Sec. 9. Individual assistance factors.
Sec. 10. Tribal requests for a major disaster or emergency declaration
under the Stafford Act.
Sec. 11. Recommendations for reducing costs of future disasters.
SEC. 2. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES.
Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating the second section 425 (relating to
essential service providers) as section 427; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 428. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES.
``(a) Approval of Projects.--The President, acting through
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
may approve projects under the alternative procedures adopted
under this section for any major disaster or emergency
declared on or after the date of enactment of this section.
The Administrator may also apply the alternate procedures
adopted under this section to a major disaster or emergency
declared before enactment of this Act for which construction
has not begun as of the date of enactment of this Act.
``(b) Adoption.--The Administrator, in coordination with
States, tribal and local governments, and owners or operators
of private nonprofit facilities, may adopt alternative
procedures to administer assistance provided under sections
403(a)(3)(A), 406, 407, and 502(a)(5).
``(c) Goals of Procedures.--The alternative procedures
adopted under subsection (a) shall further the goals of--
``(1) reducing the costs to the Federal Government of
providing such assistance;
``(2) increasing flexibility in the administration of such
assistance;
``(3) expediting the provision of such assistance to a
State, tribal or local government, or owner or operator of a
private nonprofit facility; and
``(4) providing financial incentives and disincentives for
a State, tribal or local government, or owner or operator of
a private nonprofit facility for the timely and cost-
effective completion of projects with such assistance.
``(d) Participation.--Participation in the alternative
procedures adopted under this section shall be at the
election of a State, tribal or local government, or owner or
operator of a private nonprofit facility consistent with
procedures determined by the Administrator.
``(e) Minimum Procedures.--The alternative procedures
adopted under this section shall include the following:
``(1) For repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged
facilities under section 406--
``(A) making grants on the basis of fixed estimates, if the
State, tribal or local government, or owner or operator of
the private nonprofit facility agrees to be responsible for
any actual costs that exceed the estimate;
``(B) providing an option for a State, tribal or local
government, or owner or operator of a private nonprofit
facility to elect to receive an in-lieu contribution, without
reduction, on the basis of estimates of--
``(i) the cost of repair, restoration, reconstruction, or
replacement of a public facility owned or controlled by the
State, tribal or local government or owner or operator of a
private nonprofit facility; and
``(ii) management expenses;
``(C) consolidating, to the extent determined appropriate
by the Administrator, the facilities of a State, tribal or
local government, or owner or operator of a private nonprofit
facility as a single project based upon the estimates adopted
under the procedures;
``(D) if the actual costs of a project completed under the
procedures are less than the estimated costs thereof, the
Administrator may permit a grantee or subgrantee to use all
or part of the excess funds for--
``(i) cost-effective activities that reduce the risk of
future damage, hardship, or suffering from a major disaster;
and
``(ii) other activities to improve future Public Assistance
operations or planning;
``(E) in determining eligible costs under section 406, the
Administrator shall make available, at an applicant's request
and
[[Page H66]]
where the Administrator or the certified cost estimate
prepared by the applicant's professionally licensed engineers
has estimated an eligible Federal share for a project of at
least $5,000,000, an independent expert panel to validate the
estimated eligible cost consistent with applicable
regulations and policies implementing this section; and
``(F) in determining eligible costs under section 406, the
Administrator shall, at the applicant's request, consider
properly conducted and certified cost estimates prepared by
professionally licensed engineers (mutually agreed upon by
the Administrator and the applicant), to the extent that such
estimates comply with applicable regulations, policy, and
guidance.
``(2) For debris removal under sections 403(a)(3)(A), 407,
and 502(a)(5)--
``(A) making grants on the basis of fixed estimates to
provide financial incentives and disincentives for the timely
or cost-effective completion if the State, tribal or local
government, or owner or operator of the private nonprofit
facility agrees to be responsible to pay for any actual costs
that exceed the estimate;
``(B) using a sliding scale for determining the Federal
share for removal of debris and wreckage based on the time it
takes to complete debris and wreckage removal;
``(C) allowing use of program income from recycled debris
without offset to the grant amount;
``(D) reimbursing base and overtime wages for employees and
extra hires of a State, tribal or local government, or owner
or operator of a private nonprofit facility performing or
administering debris and wreckage removal;
``(E) providing incentives to a State or tribal or local
government to have a debris management plan approved by the
Administrator and have pre-qualified 1 or more debris and
wreckage removal contractors before the date of declaration
of the major disaster; and
``(F) if the actual costs of projects under subparagraph
(A) are less than the estimated costs of the project, the
Administrator may permit a grantee or subgrantee to use all
or part of the excess funds for--
``(i) debris management planning;
``(ii) acquisition of debris management equipment for
current or future use; and
``(iii) other activities to improve future debris removal
operations, as determined by the Administrator.
``(f) Waiver Authority.--Until such time as the
Administrator promulgates regulations to implement this
section, the Administrator may--
``(1) waive notice and comment rulemaking, if the
Administrator determines the waiver is necessary to
expeditiously implement this section; and
``(2) carry out the alternative procedures under this
section as a pilot program.
``(g) Overtime Payments.--The guidelines for reimbursement
for costs under subsection (e)(2)(D) shall ensure that no
State or local government is denied reimbursement for
overtime payments that are required pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
``(h) Report.--
``(1) In general.--Not earlier than 3 years, and not later
than 5 years, after the date of enactment of this section,
the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report on the alternative procedures for
the repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged
facilities under section 406 authorized under this section.
``(2) Contents.--The report shall contain an assessment of
the effectiveness of the alternative procedures, including--
``(A) whether the alternative procedures helped to improve
the general speed of disaster recovery;
``(B) the accuracy of the estimates relied upon;
``(C) whether the financial incentives and disincentives
were effective;
``(D) whether the alternative procedures were cost
effective;
``(E) whether the independent expert panel described in
subsection (e)(1)(E) was effective; and
``(F) recommendations for whether the alternative
procedures should be continued and any recommendations for
changes to the alternative procedures.''.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.
Section 408(c)(1)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(1)(B))
is amended--
(1) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses
(iii) and (iv), respectively;
(2) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) Lease and repair of rental units for temporary
housing.--
``(I) In general.--The President, to the extent the
President determines it would be a cost-effective alternative
to other temporary housing options, may--
``(aa) enter into lease agreements with owners of
multifamily rental property located in areas covered by a
major disaster declaration to house individuals and
households eligible for assistance under this section; and
``(bb) make repairs or improvements to properties under
such lease agreements, to the extent necessary to serve as
safe and adequate temporary housing.
``(II) Improvements or repairs.--Under the terms of any
lease agreement for property entered into under this
subsection, the value of the improvements or repairs--
``(aa) shall be deducted from the value of the lease
agreement; and
``(bb) may not exceed the value of the lease agreement.'';
and
(3) in clause (iv) (as so redesignated) by striking
``clause (ii)'' and inserting ``clause (iii)''.
SEC. 4. HAZARD MITIGATION.
(a) Streamlined Procedures; Advance Assistance.--Section
404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) Streamlined Procedures.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of providing assistance
under this section, the President shall ensure that--
``(A) adequate resources are devoted to ensure that
applicable environmental reviews under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and historic preservation
reviews under the National Historic Preservation Act are
completed on an expeditious basis; and
``(B) the shortest existing applicable process under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National
Historic Preservation Act is utilized.
``(2) Authority for other expedited procedures.--The
President may utilize expedited procedures in addition to
those required under paragraph (1) for the purpose of
providing assistance under this section, such as procedures
under the Prototype Programmatic Agreement of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, for the consideration of
multiple structures as a group and for an analysis of the
cost-effectiveness and fulfillment of cost-share requirements
for proposed hazard mitigation measures.
``(e) Advance Assistance.--The President may provide not
more than 25 percent of the amount of the estimated cost of
hazard mitigation measures to a State grantee eligible for a
grant under this section before eligible costs are
incurred.''.
(b) Establishment of Criteria Relating to Administration of
Hazard Mitigation Assistance by States.--Section 404(c)(2) of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(c)(2)) is amended by
inserting after ``applications submitted under paragraph
(1).'' the following: ``Until such time as the Administrator
promulgates regulations to implement this paragraph, the
Administrator may waive notice and comment rulemaking, if the
Administrator determines doing so is necessary to
expeditiously implement this section, and may carry out this
section as a pilot program.''.
(c) Applicability.--The authority under the amendments made
by this section shall apply to--
(1) any major disaster or emergency declared under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) on or after the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(2) a major disaster or emergency declared under that Act
before the date of enactment of this Act for which the period
for processing requests for assistance has not ended as of
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal emergency Management Agency.
(2) Eligible assistance.--The term ``eligible assistance''
means assistance--
(A) under section 403, 406, or 407 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, 5173);
(B) for which the legitimate amount in dispute is not less
than $1,000,000, which sum the Administrator shall adjust
annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for
all Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor;
(C) for which the applicant has a non-Federal share; and
(D) for which the applicant has received a decision on a
first appeal.
(b) Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, and in order to facilitate an
efficient recovery from major disasters, the Administrator
shall establish procedures under which an applicant may
request the use of alternative dispute resolution, including
arbitration by an independent review panel, to resolve
disputes relating to eligible assistance.
(2) Binding effect.--A decision by an independent review
panel under this section shall be binding upon the parties to
the dispute.
(3) Considerations.--The procedures established under this
section shall--
(A) allow a party of a dispute relating to eligible
assistance to request an independent review panel for the
review;
(B) require a party requesting an independent review panel
as described in subparagraph (A) to agree to forgo rights to
any further appeal of the dispute relating to any eligible
assistance;
(C) require that the sponsor of an independent review panel
for any alternative dispute resolution under this section
be--
(i) an individual or entity unaffiliated with the dispute
(which may include a Federal
[[Page H67]]
agency, an administrative law judge, or a reemployed
annuitant who was an employee of the Federal Government)
selected by the Administrator; and
(ii) responsible for identifying and maintaining an
adequate number of independent experts qualified to review
and resolve disputes under this section;
(D) require an independent review panel to--
(i) resolve any remaining disputed issue in accordance with
all applicable laws, regulations, and Agency interpretations
of those laws through its published policies and guidance;
(ii) consider only evidence contained in the administrative
record, as it existed at the time at which the Agency made
its initial decision;
(iii) only set aside a decision of the Agency found to be
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law; and
(iv) in the case of a finding of material fact adverse to
the claimant made on first appeal, only set aside or reverse
such finding if the finding is clearly erroneous.
(E) require an independent review panel to expeditiously
issue a written decision for any alternative dispute
resolution under this section; and
(F) direct that if an independent review panel for any
alternative dispute resolution under this section determines
that the basis upon which a party submits a request for
alternative dispute resolution is frivolous, the independent
review panel shall direct the party to pay the reasonable
costs to the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating to
the review by the independent review panel. Any funds
received by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the
authority of this section shall be deposited to the credit of
the appropriation or appropriations available for the
eligible assistance in dispute on the date on which the funds
are received.
(c) Sunset.--A request for review by an independent review
panel under this section may not be made after December 31,
2015.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the
termination of authority under this section under subsection
(c), the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report
analyzing the effectiveness of the program under this
section.
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) a determination of the availability of data required to
complete the report;
(B) an assessment of the effectiveness of the program under
this section, including an assessment of whether the program
expedited or delayed the disaster recovery process;
(C) an assessment of whether the program increased or
decreased costs to administer section 403, 406, or 407 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act;
(D) an assessment of the procedures and safeguards that the
independent review panels established to ensure objectivity
and accuracy, and the extent to which they followed those
procedures and safeguards;
(E) a recommendation as to whether any aspect of the
program under this section should be made a permanent
authority; and
(F) recommendations for any modifications to the authority
or the administration of the authority under this section in
order to improve the disaster recovery process.
SEC. 6. UNIFIED FEDERAL REVIEW.
Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (as amended by this Act) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 429. UNIFIED FEDERAL REVIEW.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of this section, and in consultation with the
Council on Environmental Quality and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the President shall establish an
expedited and unified interagency review process to ensure
compliance with environmental and historic requirements under
Federal law relating to disaster recovery projects, in order
to expedite the recovery process, consistent with applicable
law.
``(b) Contents.--The review process established under this
section shall include mechanisms to expeditiously address
delays that may occur during the recovery from a major
disaster and be updated, as appropriate, consistent with
applicable law.''.
SEC. 7. SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES.
Section 422 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5189) is amended--
(1) by striking ``If the Federal estimate'' and inserting
``(a) In General.--If the Federal estimate'';
(2) by inserting ``(or, if the Administrator has
established a threshold under subsection (b), the amount
established under subsection (b))'' after ``$35,000'' the
first place it appears;
(3) by inserting ``or, if applicable, the amount
established under subsection (b),'' after ``$35,000 amount''
the second place it appears; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Threshold.--
``(1) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the President, acting through
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(in this section referred to as the `Administrator'), shall--
``(A) complete an analysis to determine whether an increase
in the threshold for eligibility under subsection (a) is
appropriate, which shall include consideration of cost-
effectiveness, speed of recovery, capacity of grantees, past
performance, and accountability measures; and
``(B) 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 regarding the analysis conducted under
subparagraph (A).
``(2) Amount.--After the Administrator submits the report
required under paragraph (1), the President shall direct the
Administrator to--
``(A) immediately establish a threshold for eligibility
under this section in an appropriate amount, without regard
to chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code; and
``(B) adjust the threshold annually to reflect changes in
the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers published by
the Department of Labor.
``(3) Review.--Not later than 3 years after the date on
which the Administrator establishes a threshold under
paragraph (2), and every 3 years thereafter, the President,
acting through the Administrator, shall review the threshold
for eligibility under this section.''.
SEC. 8. ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Other Needs Assistance.--Section 408(e)(1) of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading by inserting ``child care,''
after ``dental,''; and
(2) by inserting ``child care,'' after ``dental,''.
(b) Salaries and Benefits.--Section 403 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5170b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Salaries and Benefits.--
``(1) In general.--If the President declares a major
disaster or emergency for an area within the jurisdiction of
a State, tribal, or local government, the President may
reimburse the State, tribal, or local government for costs
relating to--
``(A) basic pay and benefits for permanent employees of the
State, tribal, or local government conducting emergency
protective measures under this section, if--
``(i) the work is not typically performed by the employees;
and
``(ii) the type of work may otherwise be carried out by
contract or agreement with private organizations, firms, or
individuals.; or
``(B) overtime and hazardous duty compensation for
permanent employees of the State, tribal, or local government
conducting emergency protective measures under this section.
``(2) Overtime.--The guidelines for reimbursement for costs
under paragraph (1) shall ensure that no State, tribal, or
local government is denied reimbursement for overtime
payments that are required pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
``(3) No effect on mutual aid pacts.--Nothing in this
subsection shall affect the ability of the President to
reimburse labor force expenses provided pursuant to an
authorized mutual aid pact.''.
SEC. 9. INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE FACTORS.
In order to provide more objective criteria for evaluating
the need for assistance to individuals, to clarify the
threshold for eligibility 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 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, in cooperation with representatives of
State, tribal, and local emergency management agencies, shall
review, update, and revise through rulemaking the factors
considered under section 206.48 of title 44, Code of Federal
Regulations (including section 206.48(b)(2) of such title
relating to trauma and the specific conditions or losses that
contribute to trauma), to measure the severity, magnitude,
and impact of a disaster.
SEC. 10. TRIBAL REQUESTS FOR A MAJOR DISASTER OR EMERGENCY
DECLARATION UNDER THE STAFFORD ACT.
(a) Major Disaster Requests.--Section 401 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5170) is amended--
(1) by striking ``All requests for a declaration'' and
inserting ``(a) In General.--All requests for a
declaration''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Indian Tribal Government Requests.--
``(1) In general.--The Chief Executive of an affected
Indian tribal government may submit a request for a
declaration by the President that a major disaster exists
consistent with the requirements of subsection (a).
``(2) References.--In implementing assistance authorized by
the President under this Act in response to a request of the
Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government for a
major disaster declaration, any reference in this title or
title III (except sections 310 and 326) to a State or the
Governor
[[Page H68]]
of a State is deemed to refer to an affected Indian tribal
government or the Chief Executive of an affected Indian
tribal government, as appropriate.
``(3) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection shall
prohibit an Indian tribal government from receiving
assistance under this title through a declaration made by the
President at the request of a State under subsection (a) if
the President does not make a declaration under this
subsection for the same incident.
``(c) Cost Share Adjustments for Indian Tribal
Governments.--
``(1) In general.--In providing assistance to an Indian
tribal government under this title, the President may waive
or adjust any payment of a non-Federal contribution with
respect to the assistance if--
``(A) the President has the authority to waive or adjust
the payment under another provision of this title; and
``(B) the President determines that the waiver or
adjustment is necessary and appropriate.
``(2) Criteria for making determinations.--The President
shall establish criteria for making determinations under
paragraph (1)(B).''.
(b) Emergency Requests.--Section 501 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5191) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Indian Tribal Government Requests.--
``(1) In general.--The Chief Executive of an affected
Indian tribal government may submit a request for a
declaration by the President that an emergency exists
consistent with the requirements of subsection (a).
``(2) References.--In implementing assistance authorized by
the President under this title in response to a request of
the Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government
for an emergency declaration, any reference in this title or
title III (except sections 310 and 326) to a State or the
Governor of a State is deemed to refer to an affected Indian
tribal government or the Chief Executive of an affected
Indian tribal government, as appropriate.
``(3) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection shall
prohibit an Indian tribal government from receiving
assistance under this title through a declaration made by the
President at the request of a State under subsection (a) if
the President does not make a declaration under this
subsection for the same incident.''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting
``, that is not an Indian tribal government as defined in
paragraph (6); and'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10) as
paragraphs (7) through (11), respectively;
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) Indian tribal government.--The term `Indian tribal
government' means the governing body of any Indian or Alaska
Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community
that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as
an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe
List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a et seq.).''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Chief executive.--The term `Chief Executive' means
the person who is the Chief, Chairman, Governor, President,
or similar executive official of an Indian tribal
government.''.
(d) References.--Title I of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)
is amended by adding after section 102 the following:
``SEC. 103. REFERENCES.
``Except as otherwise specifically provided, any reference
in this Act to `State and local', `State or local', `State,
and local', `State, or local', or `State, local' (including
plurals) with respect to governments or officials and any
reference to a `local government' in sections 406(d)(3) and
417 is deemed to refer also to Indian tribal governments and
officials, as appropriate.''.
(e) Regulations.--
(1) Issuance.--The President shall issue regulations to
carry out the amendments made by this section.
(2) Factors.--In issuing the regulations, the President
shall consider the unique conditions that affect the general
welfare of Indian tribal governments.
SEC. 11. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING COSTS OF FUTURE
DISASTERS.
(a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall submit to Congress
recommendations for the development of a national strategy
for reducing future costs, loss of life, and injuries
associated with extreme disaster events in vulnerable areas
of the United States.
(b) National Strategy.--The national strategy should--
(1) respect the constitutional role and responsibilities of
Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector;
(2) consider the vulnerability of the United States to
damage from flooding, severe weather events, and other
hazards;
(3) analyze gaps and duplication of emergency preparedness,
response, recovery, and mitigation measures provided by
Federal, State, and local entities; and
(4) include recommendations on how to improve the
resiliency of local communities and States for the purpose of
lowering future costs of disaster response and recovery.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Denham) and the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 219.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank Chairman Shuster of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure for his leadership on this legislation. His
knowledge and years of experience on these issues have been critical to
crafting this legislation and bringing it before the House for
consideration today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Norton,
Ranking Member Rahall, and former Chairman Mica for all of their work
and support for these reforms.
H.R. 219, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, will save money
and help devastated communities rebuild much faster than under current
programs. However, in order to help those communities impacted by
Sandy, the FEMA Administrator has made it very clear that these reforms
must be signed into law by March 1. Many of these reforms were already
passed by the House in September as part of H.R. 2903. There is also
widespread and bipartisan support for these reforms in the Senate. In
addition, this bill has strong support from key stakeholders and
experts, representing emergency managers, State and local officials,
and tribal communities. We know these reforms work. Chairman Shuster
laid the groundwork in 2006 when his post-Katrina reform act authorized
FEMA to conduct a number of recovery pilot programs.
The results are very clear.
In each case, costs were dramatically reduced, projects were
completed faster, and their process was much more efficient. For
example, without making permanent the debris removal pilot program the
taxpayer could end up paying six times the cost for debris removal, and
it will take much longer. The individuals and households pilot program
incorporated in this bill would reduce costs by a similar amount and
make temporary housing available faster.
In hearing after hearing before our committee, experts, FEMA, and the
Office of the Inspector General have all testified communities will be
rebuilt faster and taxpayers will save hundreds of millions of dollars
with this bill. We know the current process is broken, and we finally
know how to fix it, but we have to change the law by March or it will
be too late to apply those lessons to the Sandy recovery. It has been
nearly 8 years since Hurricane Katrina, and there are still projects
that are unresolved. We don't want to have the same mistakes happen
with Hurricane Sandy. These reforms will help address those programs,
streamline the process, allow communities to rebuild faster and
smarter, and save money.
The provisions of H.R. 219 are proven and commonsense reforms that
have bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of
H.R. 219.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank Mr. Shuster, Mr. Rahall, and my good friend Mr.
Denham for their very important work to bring this matter to the floor
so soon after the recess. I'm sure everyone appreciates it, and I
certainly associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Denham. He and I
worked on the very passages he quoted.
I, therefore, rise in support of H.R. 219, the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act of 2013. This bipartisan measure consists of reforms to
expedite the recovery process for those communities that received
disaster declarations for
[[Page H69]]
Hurricane Sandy as well as for future Presidentially declared
disasters. I do believe this may be the first time that some of these
reforms with any significant event have been tested because many of the
provisions included in the bill are matters that we have long worked
for and that were incorporated into similar legislation in past
Congresses. Several of the provisions will streamline the rebuilding
process to provide jobs in the region and to achieve full recovery. The
measure is also supported by the International Association of Emergency
Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the National
League of Cities, and more.
After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Congress enacted two pilot
programs: one for debris removal and another allowing FEMA to make
limited repairs instead of lease payments to provide housing when
cheaper than using temporary trailers. Both pilot programs were
successful and resulted in savings for the Federal Government. Local
governments and emergency management professionals have discussed the
need to make the debris removal program permanent in order to expedite
debris recovery. The housing program will be especially useful in large
urban areas, such as in New York City, where temporary trailers simply
are not an option. This bill would codify both expired pilot programs,
providing additional tools for FEMA to help communities recover.
This measure would also authorize FEMA to use fixed grants based on
cost estimates at the request of the local community--another favorite
we have been pressing for years. Although Congress authorized FEMA to
use cost estimating 12 years ago, which is the way the insurance
industry does it, for example, FEMA has not done so. The new
authorization includes incentives for the local communities to use cost
estimating by allowing them to rebuild according to today's needs and
by eliminating long delays in the recovery process caused by cost
disputes. Moreover, this provision explicitly authorizes FEMA and the
applicant to mutually agree on a professionally licensed expert to
prepare a cost estimate to be relied upon by FEMA instead of using an
adversarial process in which both hire their own cost estimators, paid
for by the Federal Government, and then get into a dispute as to which
one is the best to use. This process alone will eliminate one of the
most inefficient uses of Federal funds I have ever heard of in which
FEMA pays for the State's experts to submit competing estimates of the
costs of repair to the government's experts. No more of that. No more
waste from that.
Finally, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held an
oversight hearing last month on the preparedness, response to, and
recovery from Hurricane Sandy. At that hearing, I questioned FEMA
Administrator Fugate about the need to expedite the dispute resolution
process. I am pleased to state that this bill includes a 3-year dispute
resolution pilot program for FEMA to draft procedures in order to
expedite project closure and to decrease recovery costs caused by
project delays.
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1710
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, the new chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Denham) for his leadership and for sponsoring this important
legislation.
We are proud to have strong bipartisan support. Thanks go to Member
Rahall and Ms. Holmes Norton for her support on this and working
closely with us. In fact, the gentlelady from Washington, D.C., and I
worked very closely 8 years ago on many of these reforms that we're
going to expand from pilot projects.
I would also like to acknowledge my predecessor and friend, our
former chairman, Mr. Mica, who's been a leader on these issues, and
also to thank Mr. Palazzo from Mississippi, who offered important
suggestions to improve this legislation.
I'm proud to be a cosponsor. These bipartisan Federal Emergency
Management Agency and disaster recovery improvements will speed up and
streamline Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts. And they will also,
importantly, reduce costs.
We worked to target improvements that will specifically help
communities in the immediate aftermath of Sandy. These are critical,
bipartisan reforms supported by FEMA and key experts and stakeholders.
We understand from FEMA Administrator Fugate that these reforms must be
enacted by March 1 to help the recovery from Hurricane Sandy.
I have worked on these issues since serving as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Emergency Management, as I mentioned, with the
gentlelady from Washington, 8 years ago. At that time, I witnessed the
devastation following Hurricane Katrina. We saw how our emergency
management capability broke down, and significant reforms were needed.
We crafted legislation to put FEMA back together again within the
Department of Homeland Security, reformed and strengthened our response
capability and created pilot programs to test out innovative ways to
improve our recovery process.
While we have made significant improvements in disaster preparedness
and response since Katrina, there is so much red tape in the recovery
programs that rebuilding takes several years longer than it should. The
longer communities take to rebuild, the higher the economic losses to
those communities and the more it costs the taxpayers.
The pilot programs we created after Katrina laid the foundation for
many of these reforms. From the debris removal and public assistance
pilot program to the individual and household pilot programs, the
savings were significant, and in some cases up to six times less
expensive. And these pilot programs did not just save money, but they
actually got things done faster.
The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act builds on the important work we
started after Hurricane Katrina. Specifically, the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act will: streamline environmental review procedures; allow
greater flexibility to reduce rebuilding time and lower costs; reduce
debris removal costs; provide flexibility and less expensive housing
costs; and call for recommendations for reducing costs for future
disasters.
As the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I
look forward to working on a FEMA reauthorization bill in the future
and moving other important FEMA reforms later in Congress.
However, today I know FEMA needs these reforms, and so I urge all my
colleagues to support this in order for us to save hundreds of millions
of dollars in Sandy recovery.
Ms. NORTON. First, let me say I appreciate the gentleman's remarks
and comparing what we are going through here to what we all went
through. He and I were both on the committee after Hurricane Katrina. I
can tell you, we never expected to see anything like it, particularly
in this part of the country. I certainly agree that this is the time to
finally get these reforms done. This is the time to get it done, when
we've got a huge Katrina-like event and we've got everybody's attention
and we're going to save millions upon millions of dollars. I thank the
gentleman.
I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the District, and I
commend the work of my colleagues on this bill. It has some good
features and should help smooth the way for recovery from Hurricane
Sandy.
The delay in getting this bill and, more importantly, the delay in
getting the supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Sandy to the
floor has only compounded problems for Sandy's victims in New Jersey
and elsewhere. And I wish that this bill had included language removing
a real impediment faced by our towns.
I'm told that the appropriators, in the legislation coming to the
floor tomorrow, are showing unusual respect for House rules and won't
use their supplemental appropriations bill to change legislation but
only to appropriate funds, so that the standard 65/35 Army Corps of
Engineers formula will
[[Page H70]]
not be changed. In other words, towns must put up 35 percent of the
project cost for the Corps of Engineers to make the repairs that they
would make. The construction costs are high. Many towns in my State
will not be able to come up with the 35 percent cost share match for a
multimillion dollar construction project. But the appropriators aren't
authorizers, they say. Well, what we have before us now is coming from
the authorizing committee. They could have fixed this, and I wish this
bill had been brought up in such a way that we could fix this match, as
the President had asked in his request for the emergency funds.
This bill should streamline the process, but we should have a 90/10
match so that these towns that are strapped for funds because of the
damage of Hurricane Sandy and because they've exceeded their borrowing
limits would be able to come up with a smaller amount of money so that
the construction by the Corps of Engineers could get underway.
I'm happy to see this streamlined process that will get aid to
individuals and municipalities in the wake of future storms like
Hurricane Sandy. I wish that we could have used this opportunity to fix
the 65/35 match and make it a 90/10 match, as the President had
requested. That certainly would have helped the towns in New Jersey and
Connecticut and New York.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman from New
Jersey that this bill was passed in September by this House and has
been sitting in the Senate since September. Even though the President's
own appointee, Director Fugate, has been asking for this bill, it has
been sitting. So we're looking forward to a bipartisan solution that
gets done before March so we can actually help out the Sandy relief
fund.
I would just like to point to a couple quick facts. The New Orleans
Youth Study Center project, as an example, as you'll see from this
chart, Katrina was in 2005. Here's what the Governor's office has put
together. This one project isn't going to be done until 2016. After 182
meetings and 7 years of bureaucratic red tape, this one project won't
be done until 2016; and that's if all goes well, that's when Louisiana
hopes to finish this. That's 11 years after Hurricane Katrina. The
single biggest factor in cost increases is time, and these delays will
almost double the project from $15 million to $28 million. FEMA has
spent almost $5 million on a temporary facility alone.
There are literally thousands of projects like this across the gulf
coast, and there will be thousands more of budget-busting projects in
New York and New Jersey if we don't get these reforms signed into law.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. I want to thank Chairman Shuster,
Congressman Denham, and the entire Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for their work to bring this very important piece of disaster
relief reform legislation to the floor this week.
Last Tuesday, I had the opportunity to travel to the hardest hit
areas of New York and New Jersey to see firsthand the damage caused by
Hurricane Sandy. It immediately reminded me of the devastation we in
Mississippi experienced after Hurricane Katrina just 7 years ago. When
you look at the response to hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina and
other superstorms that have hit in recent years, there is no doubt in
my mind that we have a broken system.
Last week, I took a vote against propping up a bankrupt and broken
system without any serious reforms, and today, I proudly stand before
this body to advocate for some commonsense reforms on how we administer
disaster relief.
The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 scheduled for
consideration today is the first step in a much longer process of
reforming our disaster relief system. Improving resiliency, increasing
mitigation efforts, and changing the way we pay for disaster relief
will be key to this discussion.
I'm especially grateful for the committee's work in adding my
language to this bill which will require FEMA to develop
recommendations to Congress for a national strategy to reduce future
costs and loss of life associated with these extreme weather events.
Make no mistake, the Northeast needs our help now in ensuring the
victims of Sandy receive the relief they so desperately require and
need, and I want to encourage my colleagues to join me in support of
both today's bill and the remaining Sandy relief measures we will take
up this week. But I also believe there's no better time to address the
very real needs of our broken disaster relief system. We must not only
build back, we must build forward. That's why I'm proud to support this
legislation to improve and streamline disaster relief in our country.
{time} 1720
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say that I'm pleased to see that the gentleman from
Mississippi has done what we have always done when any part of our
country faced a disaster, we all closed in, and we really closed in
like nothing you've ever seen with Mississippi and Louisiana, and
nobody from the east coast rose to have any problem with moving in.
The reforms this bill now contains, the reforms of Chairman Denham
and me, and before Chairman Denham came to the Congress, reforms that
had been in our bill for some time; and it is true that these have not
come out, and we have got a lever now to get them out. And when we get
them out, they're going to help Mississippi and Louisiana, and they
have more of this than the east coast has ever had. And it's going to
help all the unforeseen places that now we are seeing experience
precisely what only certain parts of the country before had had to
endure.
I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank very much the gentlelady from
the District of Columbia for her clarification; and I, frankly, thank
you for having the wisdom in months and years back to have these
corrections and these improvements in FEMA, and I know they welcome it.
I am a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and served as
the ranking member on Transportation Security, but know firsthand, as
the committee that shares jurisdiction over FEMA, firsthand, in living
color, the catastrophe and tragedy of Hurricane Katrina; both in my
visits and almost living in New Orleans, as many of our Members did,
and then in welcoming over a quarter of a million-plus of New
Orleanians into Houston, Texas, being there inside the Astrodome, and
seeing eons and eons and layers of beds of people who are Americans and
who were Americans who, one could not call them broken, those
survivors, if you will, from Hurricane Katrina were not broken. They
were people who had worked and had homes and paid taxes.
And so today, Madam Speaker, those who are survivors of Hurricane
Sandy are not broken. They are not the cornerstone of the fault of
bureaucracy or misuse. They are, in fact, survivors. They are Americans
who need our help.
And I'd like to add to this discussion, certainly. I join and want to
comment on one or two of the changes here. In particular, the
individual assistance factors, I think, will be very helpful to
expedite the declaration process for individuals.
I'm very grateful that one of the changes they made, thank goodness,
and this is what happened to our seniors, fixing their homes instead of
putting them in FEMA trailers. What a celebration.
How many had to stay in FEMA trailers down in the gulf forever and
ever and ever while they watched their homes deteriorate because a few
simple repairs could not be made. That is a much-needed step.
But I join my colleague from New Jersey and say, how can people who
are broken and who are in need come up with 35 percent? And I hope that
this will be one that is reconsidered.
Let me quickly suggest that I am in support of the $5.4 billion for
FEMA disaster relief. I'm in support for the $5.4 billion for the
Department of Transportation. Anybody who's been on the east coast and
seen the transportation corridor and the congestion
[[Page H71]]
and the synergism between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Connecticut and
New York realizes that this is crucial.
The $3.9 billion for community block grant, I am told that there are
Hurricane Sandy islanders, people on Staten Island, people on Coney
Island, who are living in New York downtown hotels. I'm sure in a
better day they would enjoy living in high-rise, high-class hotels; but
they are people that want to go back to their home, and I'm delighted
that we'll have that.
And then I want to support the additional amendment that calls for,
the gentleman from New Jersey, $33 billion unfettered dollars that will
help additional resources.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. NORTON. I yield the gentlewoman 30 more seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I believe that we should have done this last week.
But I know that my colleagues will be reading the Constitution
tomorrow, so let me read from article I, section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for
the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
My God, my God, can we provide for the general welfare of those
Hurricane Sandy survivors who are not victims but have lost loved ones
and, in fact, are the second most-costly hurricane in America's
history, Katrina, Sandy, and Hurricane Ike.
I speak from what I know. I beg of this Congress to vote for the New
Jersey amendment for $33 billion and, as well, the others; and let us
be able to look back on their needs and go back to the table to help
them if they are in need. The Constitution asks us to do that.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 219, ``the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act of 2013,'' this bill is designed to speed up disaster
relief granted through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
it amends Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act to Expedite hazard mitigation projects by
streamlining the environmental review and requires the President to
establish an expedited review for environmental and historic
requirements for rebuilding damage infrastructure. Further, the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act will give local governments' greater
flexibility to consolidate or rebuild facilities by allowing FEMA to
issue fixed price grants on the basis of damaged estimates instead of a
traditional entitlement guarantee to cover all cost increases over
time.
Last month, the Administration requested $60.4 billion in federal aid
to provide financial assistance to homeowners and businesses affected
by Hurricane Sandy.
In the 112th Congress, on December 28, 2012, the Senate passed a $61
billion comprehensive aid package for the victims and communities by a
vote of 62-32.
I am pleased that this body was able to pass H.R. 41, $9.7 billion
bill which temporarily increased the borrowing authority of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for carrying out the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Now that the President has signed H.R. 41, victims of Superstorm
Sandy are finally able to receive some much-needed relief from the
federal government.
However, the relief that H.R. 41 granted was limited in scope and
insufficient to address the entirety of the situation faced by
residents of the affected areas. The House must finish the job. Again
the measure before us today does not appropriate additional funds, but
it does attempt to address the backlog. This bill would:
Cut debris removal costs dramatically by utilizing reforms from a
successful 2006 Debris Removal Pilot program that enable operations to
be conducted in a more cost-effective manner and incentivize the
completion of projects on-time and under budget.
Save money, as demonstrated by a 2006 pilot program, by authorizing
FEMA to make limited repairs to existing housing structures when those
repairs cost less than a lease payment for traditional FEMA trailers.
Adjudicate claim disputes quicker and avoid cost overruns, the bill
establishes a limited dispute resolution pilot.
Require FEMA to review and update factors for individual assistance
disaster declarations to make them less subjective. Provides for
disaster declarations for tribal communities.
Direct FEMA to submit recommendations to Congress for the development
of national strategy to reduce future costs, loss of life, and injuries
associated with extreme disaster events.
Since this historic storm devastated the east coast in late October,
the people impacted by the storm, particularly those in the Tri-State
area of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, have been waiting
patiently for the federal government to act as they continue to engage
in efforts to rebuild their communities.
However, the time for patience has long since expired, and these
Americans can no longer wait for Congress to act to provide
comprehensive relief.
For families without a home, and for businesses without a storefront
or customers, this situation has been an ongoing nightmare. These
families and businesses have been waiting for Congress to join them in
their struggle to pick up the pieces and put their communities back
together.
The proposal before us is our opportunity to step up and help to
restore these suffering communities; that is the role of the federal
government.
Every state in this country is, at any given moment in time, at risk
for experiencing a devastating and costly natural or manmade disaster.
When state and local governments face overwhelming challenges that are
too big and too expensive to ever hope to resolve in isolation, the
federal government should be there to quickly assist them in their
recovery. That is what makes us strong as a nation; that we can come
together when necessary to prevent the pieces of our country from
crumbling individually.
PREVIOUS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO DISASTER RELIEF
As the Representative for the 18th District in Texas, I have
firsthand experience with the massive and protracted destruction that
storms like this can cause both to property and, more importantly, to
the lives of citizens who are left to rebuild their lives and restore
all that they have lost.
After the initial disaster response and search and rescue phases, we
must begin to rebuild, a process that calls for a long-term commitment
from officials in state, local, and federal government.
We can all recall Hurricane Ike in 2008, which heavily impacted many
constituents in my district. At least 74 people lost their lives in the
State of Texas, with 28 in Harris County and 17 in Galveston. Over
200,000 homes in the Houston-Galveston region were left damaged or
destroyed as a result of Ike.
Congress appropriated $3 billion to Texas to help finance the
infrastructure and housing recovery, which included individual and
household assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, public
assistance grants to state and local government and non-profit
organizations to pay for debris removal, emergency protective measures
and road repairs, and low-interest disaster loans provided by the Small
Business Administration.
My visits to the affected areas fundamentally evidenced the need for
long-term recovery and to get people back on their feet. My
constituents and others in the affected areas needed and greatly
appreciated the federal assistance they received, and so now that
Americans in other parts of our nation need our help, we must move in a
bipartisan fashion to provide it.
EXTENT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY SANDY
As a nation, we continue to mourn the loss of at least 132 people in
the United States due to Superstorm Sandy (60 in New York, 48 New York
City; 34 in New Jersey; 16 in Pennsylvania, 7 in West Virginia). Many
more were lost to Sandy in the Carribbean.
As devastating as Hurricane Ike was, the damage to property it caused
(an estimated $29.5 billion) the costs associated with Superstorm Sandy
are expected to be significantly higher. While we do not yet know the
final numbers, the total amount of property damage resulting from
Superstorm Sandy exceeds $62 billion.
In terms of dollars of property destruction, this ranks Superstorm
Sandy second only to Hurricane Katrina ($128 billion, adjusted for
inflation) (note: Hurricane Ike ranks 3rd).
Most gas stations in New York City and New Jersey were closed because
of power shortages and depleted fuel supplies. Long lines formed at gas
stations that were expected to be open.
Food, shelter and clothing are basic necessities, and right now far
too many people are without access to them during these holidays and in
brutally cold weather. With more cold weather in sight, things are not
going to get any easier for residents of those communities.
Economic conditions in many affected communities are stagnant;
stalled because the federal government has yet to provide funding. It
took 10 days for Congress to approve roughly $50 billion in aid for
Katrina, but Congress has yet to provide a comprehensive aid package
for those affected by Sandy for more than two months.
CONCLUSION
We need to restore a sense of calm and stability in the lives of
people affected by Superstorm Sandy. We need to ensure that small
businesses in the affected areas are able to rebound as expeditiously
as possible so that they can get the local economies moving again.
[[Page H72]]
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act will
speed up recovery efforts and reduce costs. I want to just touch on one
important piece of this legislation. It will allow greater flexibility
to reduce rebuilding time and lower costs. This gives the local
governments greater flexibility to consolidate or rebuild facilities by
allowing FEMA to issue fixed grants on the basis of damage estimates,
instead of a traditional reimbursement program.
Why that's important--in my area, in the Central Valley of
California, we had huge flooding; and as any emergency, you're not
prepared. You didn't anticipate it, especially where we have such a
huge shortage of water in the Central Valley.
When the flooding hit, there was a lot of miscommunication and
misunderstanding among local, State and Federal Government, who pays
for what, a lot of delays and waiting. With these cost estimates up
front, we basically just say spend the money on those estimates, and
the FEMA money is there immediately.
So we not only help to reduce costs; but most importantly, when
you've got a devastated community, what you need is speed of recovery.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. I want to agree with the chairman of the subcommittee
about cost estimates and how it saves money and how it is one of the
many lessons learned that I think will be acted out in this bill.
Madam Speaker, this bill is a downpayment. We all understand this. We
understand that the devastation done in four States, I believe it is,
was of a magnitude of what we experienced for the first time at the
gulf coast.
We are going to come around, and we're going to do what we're
supposed to do at times like this. But when we have a major event like
this, it does not pay to simply go along doing things the way we have
always done them.
This is when things get corrected. This bill is a good step toward
correcting what our committee and our subcommittee have tried to do for
years now. I appreciate all the effort of my friends and colleagues on
the other side and, of course, Mr. Rahall and our friends who have
also, in a bipartisan fashion, pushed for these changes and now have an
opportunity to see how they work in a laboratory that is a very big one
indeed, one far larger than we expected, but one from which we will
also learn what is yet still to be learned about these major disasters.
Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am pleased to yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, just in closing, I want to talk about one
final example, and it deals with the debris removal. Our bill dealing
with debris removal will change, literally saving hundreds of millions
of dollars.
Without the change in law, FEMA was able to get a 30-day pilot
program. This is with Sandy, had a 30-day pilot program, where in New
Jersey, utilizing the pilot program, they removed debris for $19 per
cubic yard. In Long Island, using the Army Corps of Engineers, it was
$129 per yard. That is a huge significant savings, one that, in the
debris removal part of this, the 30-day pilot, it's time for it to move
along and become part of law. We need to do this now.
This bill has broad support from a number of different areas,
including the National League of Cities, the United States Conference
of Mayors, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the
International Association of Emergency Managers, the Disaster Recovery
Contractors Association, the National Association of Counties, the
United South and Eastern Tribes Incorporation, just to name a few.
With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask for a favorable vote, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 219, the
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. This bipartisan bill would
improve how the Federal Government helps state, tribal and local
communities respond to and recover from disasters by expediting the
delivery of Federal assistance. The provisions will have an immediate
impact in helping to expedite recovery in those areas that suffered
damage from Hurricane Sandy and will help all communities that may
experience future disasters.
We must continue to improve our disaster response programs to ensure
that timely assistance is provided to individuals in need. At my
request, this bill would require, within one year, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to review and update its criteria
for issuing Individual Assistance, in order to clarify the eligibility
requirements, expedite the Federal government's decision-making
process, and minimize bureaucratic delays.
Last year, the State of West Virginia received four Presidential
disaster declarations, the last two in response to Hurricane Sandy and
Derecho Storms. In both cases, West Virginians had to endure extended
and widespread power outages, lasting weeks in some cases, as well as
physical damage to their homes and businesses. The emotional trauma was
severe with some areas were literally cut off from basic necessities
like food, water, and medicine. These disasters proved costly and
expensive and dwarfed the limited means of individuals, many of them
seniors on fixed incomes who have been pummeled by multiple storms, to
absorb uninsured costs on their own.
In both cases, FEMA denied my State's initial request for Individual
Assistance, forcing the State to redo its damage assessments and appeal
FEMA's decision. FEMA later reversed itself and awarded Individual
Assistance to some, but not all, of the requesting West Virginia
counties in regard to the Derecho Storm; so far, the appeal related to
Sandy is still pending.
These delays leave uninsured disaster victims in limbo for weeks,
unable to begin home repairs because they do not know what costs are
reimbursable. State emergency officials need better guidance from FEMA
about eligibility criteria for Individual Assistance, so that these
delays can be avoided. Similarly, the criteria must be flexible enough
to ensure that the Individual Assistance program accomplishes what it
was created to do, which is to make financial assistance for uninsured
losses available to families and individuals unable to recover on their
own.
Another important provision of this bill is one that recognizes
tribal sovereignty by authorizing all federally recognized Indian
tribes to directly request that the President declare a disaster or
emergency. This provision is based on a bill, H.R. 1953, that I
introduced last Congress after consulting with Indian country and
Indian organizations. It would treat all federally recognized Indian
tribes as the sovereign governments that they are and creates a
mechanism that affords all tribes the option to request a disaster
declaration when a State in which they are located fails to do so.
This important measure is necessary because current law limits FEMA's
ability to work directly with all Indian tribes when major disasters or
emergency situations occurred. This language would improve federal
emergency response and recovery efforts on Indian reservations and
would amend the Stafford Act to align with the Federal Government's
trust responsibilities. For more than a decade, tribal governments have
sought this authorization to work directly with FEMA on emergency and
disaster declarations from the President. My bill, and this provision,
is supported by Indian Country and the Administration without
qualification.
I appreciate the manner in which this bipartisan bill was developed
and look forward to working with my Republican colleagues on other
issues in a similar manner.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 219.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________