[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 69 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3710-H3722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 839 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4.
  Will the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  0911


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4) to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for other purposes, with Mr. Johnson of Louisiana 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
April 26, 2018, amendment No. 87 printed in House Report 115-650, 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), had been 
disposed of.


    Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 839, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 4 consisting of amendment Nos. 102, 103, 105, 
106, 109, 111, 113, and 116 printed in part A of House Report 115-650, 
offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania:


        Amendment No. 102 Offered by mr. thompson of california

       Page 270, line 21, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 271, line 2, strike the quotation marks and both 
     periods and insert a semicolon.
       Page 271, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(13) removing standing burned trees; and
       ``(14) replacing water systems that have been burned and 
     have caused contamination.''.


       Amendment No. 103 Offered by mr. keating of massachusetts

       Page 273, line 12, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.

[[Page H3711]]

       Page 273, line 16, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 273, after line 16, insert the following:
       (3) how State, Tribal, and local governments, first 
     responders, utility companies, hospitals, nursing homes, and 
     other long-term care facilities should develop a strategy to 
     coordinate emergency response plans, including the activation 
     of emergency response plans, in anticipation of a major 
     disaster, including severe weather events.


       Amendment No. 105 Offered by mr. meadows of north carolina

       Page 297, line 12, insert ``the Disaster Assistance Working 
     Group of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity 
     and Efficiency,'' after ``Development,''.
       Page 297, line 22, insert ``the Disaster Assistance Working 
     Group of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity 
     and Efficiency,'' after ``Development,''.


         Amendment No. 106 Offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon

       Add at the end of title VI:

     SEC. 637. ELIGIBILITY FOR CODE IMPLEMENTATION AND 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 402 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) provide assistance to State and local governments for 
     building code and floodplain management ordinance 
     administration and enforcement, including inspections for 
     substantial damage compliance.''.


         Amendment No. 109 Offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

       At the end of title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. GAO REPORT ON LONG-TERM RECOVERY EFFORTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 240 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on long-term recovery efforts following 
     Hurricane Andrew, the attacks of September 11, 2001, 
     Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ike, and Hurricane Sandy.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall contain the 
     following:
       (1) Information on defining a long-term recovery, the 
     stages of a long-term recovery, and the transition from 
     Federal Government management of long-term recovery efforts 
     to State and local leadership.
       (2) An assessment of the personnel needed, and the types of 
     expertise or certifications required to accomplish the 
     administration and management of recovery efforts for each of 
     the disasters described in subsection (a).
       (3) An analysis of the success and efficiency of the long-
     term disaster recovery, and best practices learned that may 
     be applied to future long-term disaster recovery plans.
       (4) Recommendations of the Comptroller General for what 
     should be defined as a long-term disaster recovery project 
     using existing authority and responsibility of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to advise and make 
     recommendations to the President regarding Presidential 
     Disaster Declarations.
       (5) Recommendations of FEMA on the capacity and competence 
     of FEMA to manage multiple major Presidential Disaster 
     Declarations simultaneously of the magnitude of 3, 4, or all 
     5 of the disasters described in subsection (a) occurring 
     within weeks of each other.


       Amendment No. 111 Offered by mr. keating of massachusetts

       At the end of title VI (page 322, after line 24), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 637. GUIDANCE AND TRAINING BY FEMA ON COORDINATION OF 
                   EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS.

       (a) Training Requirement.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall provide guidance and 
     training on an annual basis to State, local, and Tribal 
     governments, first responders, and facilities that store 
     hazardous materials on coordination of emergency response 
     plans in the event of a major disaster or emergency, 
     including severe weather events. The guidance and training 
     shall include the following:
       (1) Providing a list of equipment required in the event a 
     hazardous substance is released into the environment.
       (2) Outlining the health risks associated with exposure to 
     hazardous substances to improve treatment response.
       (3) Publishing best practices for mitigating further danger 
     to communities from hazardous substances.
       (b) Implementation.--The requirement of subsection (a) 
     shall be implemented not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.


      Amendment No. 113 Offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania

       Add at the end of the bill the following:

TITLE IX--PREPAREDNESS AND RISK MANAGEMENT FOR EXTREME WEATHER PATTERNS 
                 ASSURING RESILIENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Preparedness and Risk 
     Management for Extreme Weather Patterns Assuring Resilience 
     and Effectiveness Act of 2018'' or the ``PREPARE Act of 
     2018''.

     SEC. 902. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON EXTREME WEATHER RESILIENCE, 
                   PREPAREDNESS, AND RISK IDENTIFICATION AND 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a council 
     to be known as the ``Interagency Council on Extreme Weather 
     Resilience, Preparedness, and Risk Identification and 
     Management''.
       (b) Membership.--The Interagency Council shall be composed 
     of the following:
       (1) Senior officials, to be appointed by the President, 
     including representation from the following:
       (A) The Council on Environmental Quality.
       (B) The Office of Science and Technology Policy.
       (C) The National Security Council.
       (D) The Office of Management and Budget.
       (E) The Department of Transportation.
       (F) The Environmental Protection Agency.
       (G) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
       (H) The Department of Energy.
       (I) The Department of Homeland Security.
       (J) The Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       (K) The Department of Defense.
       (L) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       (M) The Department of Agriculture.
       (N) The Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       (O) The Department of Justice.
       (2) Senior officials, to be appointed by the President, who 
     have relevant policy expertise and policy responsibilities, 
     including in the following areas:
       (A) Economic policy and risk analysis.
       (B) Foreign affairs.
       (C) Defense and intelligence.
       (D) Homeland security.
       (E) Energy.
       (F) Environmental protection.
       (G) Natural resources.
       (H) Coasts, oceans, rivers, and floodplains.
       (I) Agriculture.
       (J) Health.
       (K) Transportation and infrastructure.
       (L) Housing.
       (M) Education.
       (N) Extreme weather data analysis or meteorological 
     science.
       (O) Social science.
       (P) Strategic planning.
       (Q) Urban and land use planning.
       (R) Other areas the President determines appropriate.
       (c) Co-Chairpersons.--
       (1) In general.--The Interagency Council shall be co-
     chaired by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
     Security and the Deputy Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget. The President may appoint one or more additional 
     members as co-chairs, as appropriate.
       (2) Duties.--The co-chairpersons shall--
       (A) oversee the Interagency Council's response to the 
     Government Accountability Office's recommendations under 
     subsection (f)(5);
       (B) use the evaluation framework and performance metrics 
     developed pursuant to subsection (f)(6) to evaluate agency 
     progress in meeting the goals and implementing the priorities 
     described in subsection (f)(1)(A); and
       (C) work to ensure that sufficient resources are available 
     for agencies to--
       (i) meet the goals and implement the priorities described 
     in subsection (f)(1)(A); and
       (ii) implement the recommendations developed under 
     subsection (f)(2).
       (d) Administration.--The co-chairpersons of the Interagency 
     Council (or staff designed by the co-chairpersons) shall 
     provide administrative support and additional resources, as 
     appropriate, to the Interagency Council to the extent 
     permitted by law and within existing appropriations. The 
     Interagency Council co-chairpersons shall determine the 
     amount of funding and personnel necessary for the Interagency 
     Council to carry out its duties and the amount of funding and 
     personnel each agency represented on the Interagency Council 
     should contribute in order for the Interagency Council to 
     carry out such duties. Agencies shall, upon the request of 
     the co-chairpersons of the Interagency Council, make 
     available personnel, administrative support services, and 
     information to the Interagency Council.
       (e) Structure.--
       (1) Steering committee.--The co-chairpersons of the 
     Interagency Council shall designate a subset of members of 
     the Interagency Council to serve on a steering committee. 
     Such steering committee shall assist the Interagency Council 
     in determining its priorities and its strategic direction.
       (2) Working groups.--The co-chairpersons of the Interagency 
     Council and its steering committee may establish working 
     groups as needed.
       (f) Duties of the Interagency Council.--
       (1) Goals and priorities.--
       (A) In general.--The Interagency Council shall establish 
     Governmentwide goals and priorities for extreme weather 
     resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management. In establishing such goals and priorities, the 
     Interagency Council shall consider the National Oil and 
     Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, agency 
     continuity of operations plans, the National Preparedness 
     Goal, the National Preparedness Report, the National Global 
     Change Research Plan, the Mitigation Framework Leadership 
     Group's National Mitigation Investment Strategy (if 
     available), State and

[[Page H3712]]

     local mitigation plans, and all relevant provisions of the 
     Government Accountability Office's High-Risk Series.
       (B) Coordination.--In executing the duties pursuant to this 
     subsection, the Interagency Council shall coordinate with 
     other groups in the Federal Government focused on extreme 
     weather mitigation and recovery (including the Mitigation 
     Framework Leadership Group, the Recovery Support Functions 
     Leaders Group, and the Emergency Support Functions Leaders 
     Group), to avoid duplication among Federal activities to the 
     extent practicable.
       (C) Incorporation into agency activities.--In carrying out 
     subparagraph (A), the Interagency Council shall, in order to 
     ensure that information relating to extreme weather 
     resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management is incorporated into everyday agency activities--
       (i) work with agencies to assist such agencies in 
     considering the goals and priorities described in 
     subparagraph (A) in agency strategic, programmatic, and 
     budget planning;
       (ii) identify details to be included in agency extreme 
     weather plans; and
       (iii) work to identify and communicate localized extreme 
     weather and natural hazard risk to the extent possible using 
     the best available information regarding risk, and encourage 
     the development of thorough, updated maps, models, and tools 
     to measure and evaluate risk.
       (2) Priority interagency federal actions.--The Interagency 
     Council shall develop, recommend, coordinate, and track 
     implementation of priority interagency Federal Government 
     actions related to extreme weather resilience, preparedness, 
     and risk identification and management.
       (3) Support regional, state, and local actions.--The 
     Interagency Council shall support regional, State, and local 
     action to assess extreme weather-related vulnerabilities and 
     cost effectively increase extreme weather resilience, 
     preparedness, and risk identification and management of 
     communities, critical economic sectors, natural and built 
     infrastructure, and natural resources, including by--
       (A) conducting inventories under section 906;
       (B) convening meetings under section 907;
       (C) providing guidance to agencies to produce tools and 
     products that enhance extreme weather resilience planning, 
     risk knowledge, and actions for use in all levels of 
     government, including guidance on how to prioritize funding 
     in order to produce such tools and products; and
       (D) reviewing State and local mitigation plans.
       (4) Meteorological and extreme weather science.--The 
     Interagency Council shall facilitate the integration of 
     meteorological and extreme weather science, in addition to 
     other scientific disciplines such as physical, natural, and 
     social science that the Council determines to be appropriate, 
     in the policies risk evaluation and communication, and 
     planning of agencies and the private sector, including by--
       (A) promoting the development of innovative, actionable, 
     and accessible Federal extreme weather resilience, 
     preparedness, and risk identification and management-related 
     information, data, tools, and examples of successful actions 
     at appropriate scales for decisionmakers; and
       (B) providing such information, data, tools, and examples 
     to the agency or agencies designated under section 904 to 
     include on the website established and maintained or 
     designated pursuant to such section.
       (5) High-risk report recommendations.--The Interagency 
     Council shall assess the specific recommendations relating to 
     extreme weather in all relevant provisions of the Government 
     Accountability Office's High-Risk Series, identify the 
     feasibility of revising Federal programs to implement such 
     recommendations, and develop a plan to address such 
     recommendations when feasible that does not duplicate the 
     National Preparedness Goal.
       (6) Framework and performance metrics.--The Interagency 
     Council shall use existing and emerging science to develop or 
     adopt--
       (A) a framework for evaluating the progress and success of 
     extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and risk 
     identification and management-related efforts that is 
     complementary to and not duplicative of any local or national 
     indicator system developed as part of the National 
     Preparedness Goal; and
       (B) performance metrics that allow tracking of the actions 
     taken and progress made toward meeting the goals and 
     implementing the priorities described in paragraph (1)(A).
       (7) Recommendations for the ceq and omb.--The Interagency 
     Council shall provide to the Council on Environmental 
     Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
     Department of Homeland Security recommendations on how 
     agencies should--
       (A) develop or update agency extreme weather plans;
       (B) remove barriers to State and local extreme weather 
     resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management, in agency regulations, guidance, and policies; 
     and
       (C) avoid duplication among Federal activities to the 
     extent practicable.
       (8) Public input and comment.--The Interagency Council 
     shall solicit and incorporate public input and comment as 
     appropriate into the decisions of the Interagency Council.
       (9) Inventory and meetings.--The Interagency Council shall 
     conduct inventories under section 906 and convene meetings 
     under section 907.
       (10) Definition of extreme weather.--The Interagency 
     Council shall consider and may update, not less frequently 
     than every two years, in consultation with appropriate 
     scientific bodies, the definition of ``extreme weather'' and 
     what other weather events (in addition to those described in 
     section 909(3)) qualify as extreme weather for purposes of 
     this title. The definition of ``extreme weather'' shall be 
     published and updated, as necessary, on the website of the 
     Council and in the Federal Register.
       (11) Other duties.--The Interagency Council shall carry out 
     any other duties the co-chairpersons of the Interagency 
     Council determine appropriate.
       (12) Public information.--The Interagency Council shall--
       (A) make information available online--
       (i) for tracking implementation of agency extreme weather 
     plans and Governmentwide goals and priorities described in 
     paragraph (1)(A);
       (ii) on recommendations relating to extreme weather in all 
     relevant provisions of the Government Accountability Office's 
     High-Risk Series; and
       (iii) on the results of the Council's efforts to identify 
     nationwide and localized risks (including updated mapping 
     efforts); and
       (B) make such High-Risk Series and the reports submitted 
     under paragraph (13) available as the Council determines 
     appropriate.
       (13) Annual report.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter 
     (concurrently with the United States Global Change Research 
     Program Annual Report and the National Preparedness Report), 
     the Interagency Council shall submit to Congress, and make 
     available to the United States Global Change Research Program 
     and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a report that--
       (A) describes how the goals and priorities described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) are being met and implemented using--
       (i) the performance metrics developed under paragraph 
     (6)(B); and
       (ii) information on--

       (I) agency expenditures, broken down by program activity 
     level if practicable, that are directly related to extreme 
     weather resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management, including extreme weather resilience, 
     preparedness, and risk identification and management of 
     Federal facilities; and
       (II) the effectiveness of such expenditures, along with 
     associated financial impacts and community, infrastructure, 
     and environmental benefits, to the extent such data are 
     available;

       (B) provides recommendations to enhance the effectiveness 
     of such implementation and sets benchmarks to meet;
       (C) describes the progress of the regional coordination 
     efforts described in sections 906, 907, and 908; and
       (D) includes a summary of public comments solicited under 
     paragraph (8) and any action the Interagency Council took to 
     respond to such comments.
       (g) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraphs (2) through 
     (12) of subsection (f), the Interagency Council shall consult 
     with agencies, State and local governments, academic and 
     research institutions, and the private and nonprofit sectors.
       (h) OMB Guidance.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, taking into consideration the recommendations 
     provided by the Interagency Council under subsection (f)(7), 
     shall issue guidance to agencies on--
       (1) developing agency extreme weather plans, which shall 
     incorporate existing agency reports, where appropriate, to 
     prevent duplication and reduce overlap; and
       (2) developing agency regulations, guidance, and policies 
     to remove barriers to State and local extreme weather 
     resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management.

     SEC. 903. AGENCY PLANNING FOR EXTREME WEATHER-RELATED RISKS.

       (a) Agency Extreme Weather Resilience, Preparedness, and 
     Risk Identification and Management Plans.--
       (1) Agency submission.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the head of each agency, in coordination with the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to avoid 
     duplication with the National Planning Frameworks, shall 
     submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     and to the Interagency Council a comprehensive plan that 
     integrates consideration of extreme weather into such 
     agency's operations and overall mission objectives 
     (hereinafter referred to as an ``agency extreme weather 
     plan'').
       (2) Hearing.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall convene 
     an interagency budget crosscut and policy hearing to review 
     and integrate all the agency extreme weather plans and to 
     ensure that such extreme weather plans and the activities of 
     agencies align with the goals and priorities established 
     under section 902(f)(1)(A).
       (3) OMB submission.--The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, upon receipt of all agency extreme 
     weather plans in a given year, shall consolidate and submit 
     to Congress such plans.

[[Page H3713]]

       (b) Inclusions.--Each agency extreme weather plan shall 
     include--
       (1) identification and assessment of extreme weather-
     related impacts on, and risks to--
       (A) the agency's ability to accomplish its missions, 
     operations, and programs over time periods to be designated 
     by the Interagency Council; and
       (B) State and local entities;
       (2) identification and assessment of barriers posed by 
     Federal programs the agency administers to State and local 
     extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and risk 
     identification and management efforts;
       (3) a description of programs, policies, and plans the 
     agency has already put in place, as well as additional 
     actions the agency will take, to manage extreme weather risks 
     in the near term and build resilience in the short and long 
     term;
       (4) a description of how the agency will consider the need 
     to improve extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and risk 
     identification and management, including the costs and 
     benefits of such improvement, with respect to agency 
     suppliers, supply chain, real property investments, and 
     capital equipment purchases, including by updating agency 
     policies for leasing, building upgrades, relocation of 
     existing facilities and equipment, and construction of new 
     facilities;
       (5) a description of how the agency will support any 
     ongoing or future public-private partnership to improve 
     extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and risk 
     identification and management, including the cost and 
     benefits of technology and methodology improvements, 
     hardening, or rapid restoration;
       (6) a description of how the agency will contribute to 
     coordinated interagency efforts to support extreme weather 
     resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management at all levels of government, including 
     collaborative work across agencies' regional offices and 
     hubs, and through coordinated development of information, 
     data, and tools, consistent with sections 906, 907, and 908; 
     and
       (7) any other details identified by the Interagency Council 
     under section 902(f)(1)(B)(ii).

     SEC. 904. WEBSITE.

       (a) In General.--The Interagency Council shall designate an 
     agency or agencies to establish, maintain, or designate a 
     website that provides timely, actionable, and accessible 
     information, data, and tools on current and future risks 
     related to extreme weather, preparedness, resilience, and 
     risk identification and management, to support Federal, 
     regional, State, local, private sector, and other 
     decisionmakers.
       (b) Interagency Progress.--The website described under 
     subsection (a), shall identify interagency progress, and 
     propose the next interagency steps, towards responding to 
     threats posed by extreme weather.
       (c) Best Practices.--The website described under subsection 
     (a) shall provide best practices and examples from Federal, 
     regional, State, and local decisionmakers in the public and 
     private sectors about how to use extreme weather-related 
     information in planning and decisionmaking.
       (d) Interagency Council Information and Tools.--The website 
     described under subsection (a) shall include the information, 
     data, tools, and examples provided by the Interagency Council 
     pursuant to section 902(f)(4).
       (e) Best Available Meteorological Science.--The website 
     described under subsection (a) shall identify best available 
     meteorological science relating to extreme weather 
     resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management.
       (f) Public Outreach and Education.--The Interagency Council 
     shall designate one or more agencies to conduct outreach and 
     educational activities to inform the public and regional, 
     State, and local decisionmakers about the tools and 
     information available on the website described under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 905. PROVIDING ADEQUATE RESOURCES AND SUPPORT.

       The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     ensure that each agency provides adequate resources to the 
     Interagency Council, including administrative services and 
     personnel support, as appropriate--
       (1) for the website described under section 904; and
       (2) to otherwise carry out this title.

     SEC. 906. INVENTORY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Interagency Council, or a working group of such Interagency 
     Council established by the co-chairpersons thereof, shall 
     conduct and publish an inventory of all regional offices, 
     centers, and programs of agencies that are assisting with 
     extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and risk 
     identification and management efforts at the State or local 
     level, including--
       (1) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
     regional programs;
       (2) the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife 
     Service Landscape Conservation Cooperatives;
       (3) the United States Geological Survey's Climate Science 
     Centers;
       (4) the Department of Agriculture's Climate Hubs;
       (5) the regional offices of--
       (A) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (B) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
       (C) the Department of Transportation; and
       (D) the Forest Service;
       (6) the division offices of the Army Corps of Engineers; 
     and
       (7) such other offices, centers, and programs or other 
     agency efforts as determined appropriate by the Interagency 
     Council.
       (b) Assistance Described.--An inventory conducted and 
     published under subsection (a) shall include a description of 
     the assistance each agency office, center, or program is 
     providing to assist with extreme weather resilience, 
     preparedness, and risk identification and management efforts 
     at the State or local level.

     SEC. 907. MEETINGS.

       Not later than 6 months after the publication of each 
     inventory under section 906, the Interagency Council shall 
     convene a meeting of representatives of the offices, centers, 
     and programs included in such inventory and invite other 
     local and regional stakeholders to participate and develop 
     plans to coordinate the efforts of such offices, centers, and 
     programs and facilitate efficient services to stakeholders. 
     At such meetings, such representatives shall--
       (1) share information regarding their office, center, or 
     program's extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and risk 
     identification and management efforts;
       (2) identify opportunities for collaboration and 
     coordination of research agendas, extreme weather assessment 
     activities, vulnerability assessments, data collection and 
     analysis, and planning and implementing extreme weather 
     resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management projects;
       (3) identify extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and 
     risk identification and management information needs, 
     research gaps, and decision support needs that are not met by 
     any of the offices, centers, or programs included in the 
     inventory under section 906 and make available such 
     identification for purposes of information to be submitted to 
     the Interagency Council under section 907;
       (4) identify common and complementary goals for extreme 
     weather resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management within each region to be prioritized for the 
     coming year and beyond;
       (5) identify barriers to regional extreme weather 
     resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management planning and implementation that can be overcome 
     or minimized through Federal action and specific suggestions 
     for improvement;
       (6) evaluate progress and jointly develop a strategy for 
     realizing extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and risk 
     identification and management-related goals, including 
     clearly identified responsibilities by each collaborating 
     regional office, center, or program; and
       (7) share experiences and best practices in stakeholder 
     engagement and communication, decision support, and science-
     practice interactions that support the realization of 
     identified extreme weather resilience, preparedness, and risk 
     identification and management goals.

     SEC. 908. PROGRESS UPDATES.

       Not later than 90 days after each meeting under section 
     907, each agency that participates in such meeting shall 
     submit to the Interagency Council, and make available to the 
     United States Global Change Research Program and the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, information describing progress 
     in regional coordination and collaboration in aligning 
     Federal resilience, preparedness, and risk identification and 
     management efforts at the State and local level, and the 
     benefits of such regional coordination and collaboration.

     SEC. 909. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given the 
     term ``Executive agency'' under section 105 of title 5, but 
     does not include the Government Accountability Office.
       (2) Agency extreme weather plan.--The term ``agency extreme 
     weather plan'' means a plan required under section 903(a).
       (3) Extreme weather.--The term ``extreme weather'' includes 
     observed or anticipated severe and unseasonable atmospheric 
     conditions, including drought, wildfire, heavy precipitation, 
     wave, high water, snowstorm, landslide, mudslide, hurricanes, 
     tornadoes and other windstorms (including derechos), extreme 
     heat, extreme cold, sustained temperatures or precipitation 
     that deviate from historical averages, and any other weather 
     event that the Interagency Council determines qualifies as 
     extreme weather pursuant to section 902(f)(10).
       (4) Interagency council.--The term ``Interagency Council'' 
     means the Interagency Council on Extreme Weather Resilience, 
     Preparedness, and Risk Identification and Management 
     established under section 902(a).
       (5) Mitigation plan.--The term ``mitigation plan'' means 
     the mitigation plan required under section 322 of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5165).
       (6) National global change research plan.--The term 
     ``National Global Change Research Plan'' means the National 
     Global Change Research Plan developed under section 104 of 
     the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2934), or 
     any revision thereof.
       (7) National oil and hazardous substances pollution 
     contingency plan.--The term ``National Oil and Hazardous 
     Substances Pollution Contingency Plan'' means

[[Page H3714]]

     the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
     Contingency Plan described under part 300 of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, or any revision thereof.
       (8) National preparedness goal.--The term ``National 
     Preparedness Goal'' means the national preparedness goal 
     developed under section 643 of the Post-Katrina Emergency 
     Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 743).
       (9) National preparedness report.--The term ``National 
     Preparedness Report'' means the report required by section 
     652(a) of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 
     2006 (6 U.S.C. 752(a); Public Law 109-295).
       (10) Preparedness.--The term ``preparedness'' means actions 
     taken to plan, organize, equip, train, and exercise to build, 
     apply, and sustain the capabilities necessary to prevent, 
     protect against, ameliorate the effects of, respond to, and 
     recover from extreme weather related damages to life, health, 
     property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and national security.
       (11) Resilience.--The term ``resilience'' means the ability 
     to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions 
     and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from 
     disruptions.
       (12) Senior official.--The term ``senior official'' means a 
     Deputy Secretary (or an equivalent officer) of an agency.
       (13) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States, and each 
     federally recognized Indian Tribe.
       (14) United states global change research program.--The 
     term ``United States Global Change Research Program'' means 
     the United States Global Change Research Program established 
     under section 103 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 
     (15 U.S.C. 2933).
       (15) United states global change research program annual 
     report.--The term ``United States Global Change Research 
     Program Annual Report'' means the report required by section 
     102(e)(7) of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15 
     U.S.C. 2932(e)(7)).

     SEC. 910. REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE AGENCY EXTREME WEATHER PLAN 
                   IN AGENCY PERFORMANCE PLAN.

       A description of the most recent agency extreme weather 
     plan, as required under section 903, shall be included in the 
     performance plan of an agency (as defined in section 909) 
     required pursuant to section 1115(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 911. SUNSET AND REPEAL.

       This title ceases to be effective and is repealed on the 
     date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.


         Amendment No. 116 Offered by mrs. comstock of virginia

       Beginning on page 331, strike line 13 and all that follows 
     through page 332, line 1 (and redesignate any subsequent 
     subsections accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I support considering these amendments en 
bloc, all of which have been approved by both the majority and 
minority. These Members put forward thoughtful amendments, and I am 
pleased to be able to support moving them en bloc.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the adoption of the amendments en bloc and 
recommend them to my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of the Jackson 
Lee Amendment to H.R. 4, FAA Reauthorization and Disaster Recovery 
Reform Act, which is included in En Bloc Amendment Number Four.
  I.thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Rules 
for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order.
  I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their 
leadership in bringing the FAA Reauthorization and Disaster Recovery 
Reform Act to the House Floor for consideration.
  I am disappointed that the other Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 4, 
the ``FAA Reauthorization and Disaster Recovery Reform Act that 
addressed disaster recovery reform and offered improvements to 
commercial air transportation, were not made in order.
  I offered Jackson Lee Amendment No. 609 because of my experience with 
Hurricane Harvey.
  Over the years, Members of Congress, develop an extensive network of 
people we work with and those who may have need of legislative 
assistance.
  The storm and the catastrophic flooding that resulted from Hurricane 
Harvey put at risk thousands of people who needed help.
  The 911 emergency call centers serving the disaster area were 
inundated with thousands of calls for rescues.
  I am pleased to say that my office managed dozens of calls, which 
came to me and my staff from Houston residents seeking rescue or 
medical assistance.
  FEMA, the City of Houston and the State of Texas did exceptional work 
in the disaster response for Hurricane Harvey.
  There is no blame or fault, but valuable lessons that can be learned.
  There was no way to pre-prepare for Hurricane Harvey or Maria or Irma 
or any of the other major disaster events in 2017.
  What we can do is learn as much as possible and apply those lessons 
to future disaster response and recovery efforts.
  When there is an event, like Hurricane Harvey there are important and 
valuable lessons that can help us to meet future challenges.
  Harvey's significance is the size of the impact zone and the level of 
flooding experienced.
  The nine-county Houston metro area impacted by Hurricane Harvey 
covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including 
New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut.
  Harris County covers 1,778 square miles, enough space to fit New York 
City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas, with 
room still to spare.
  There was over 41,500 square miles of land mass impacted by Hurricane 
Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area larger than the 
States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and 
Vermont combined.
  Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and 
Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex.
  Harvey dropped 51.88 inches of rain near Cedar Bayou, in the City of 
Houston, and 52 inches in Nederland and nearby Groves Texas making this 
the highest rain totals ever recorded for a single U.S. weather event.
  At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was 
underwater.
  At the peak on August 31, there were 34,575 evacuees in shelters 
across Texas.
  Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. 
in our nation's history.
  Hurricane Harvey damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were 
destroyed.
  On April 17, 2018, 2,585 families are still in hotel rooms in hotels 
because of Hurricane Harvey.
  Thousands of others with severe damage to their homes continue to 
live with family or friends.
  889,425 people have registered for assistance with the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  There are families including small children and the elderly living in 
mold infested or gutted-out homes.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment made in order for consideration of H.R. 4, 
provides for a GAO report 240 days following enactment on long-term 
recovery efforts following Hurricane Andrew, September 11, 2001, 
Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ike, and Hurricane Sandy to better inform 
the Congress when catastrophic events occur that may require long-term 
recovery planning.
  My amendment is the first step to determine how best to stress test 
FEMA for capacity and competence to respond to several major disaster 
at the same time.
  Disasters like Harvey, Maria, Jose, Sandy, Ike, and September 11, 
2018 are exemplars of the most challenging and catastrophic events in 
our nation's modern history.
  These disasters will or have taken years to recovery from, which 
classifies them as long term recovery events.
  We need to learn from our past to better secure our future should our 
nation face similar challenges.
  This Jackson Lee Amendment would ensure that we learn and benefit 
from these tragic events so that we might be better prepared for future 
challenges.
  The amendment will provide GAO report that will: define a federal 
disaster long-term recovery, define the stages of a long-term recovery, 
and report on the competence and capacity of FEMA to manage 2 or more 
major disasters of the magnitude exemplified--simultaneously.
  Further, the GAO will report on lessons that may be applied to future 
long-term disaster recovery efforts.
  The GAO will also report on what existing authority granted to FEMA 
to advise and make recommendations to the President regarding 
Presidential Disaster Declarations which may be instructive regarding a 
Presidential long-term recovery disaster declaration.
  Another Jackson Lee Amendment to the Disaster Recovery Reform 
component of the bill, but which was not made in order would have made 
permanent the FEMA Office of Response and Recovery, which currently 
exists but is not codified by law.
  In 2017, starting on August 25, when Hurricane Harvey struck Texas, 
on September 6,

[[Page H3715]]

when Hurricane Irma lashed the U.S. Virgin Islands, on September 9, 
when Hurricane Jose smashed into Puerto Rico, and Hurricane Irma moved 
over the Florida Keys, and on September 20, when Hurricane Maria took 
aim at Puerto Rico; FEMA had to respond to each disaster and engage in 
sustained recovery efforts that will in the cases of Texas and Puerto 
Rico last for years.
  Hurricane Harvey broke a rainfall record for a single tropical storm 
with more than 4 feet of rain.
  Puerto Rico is still mired in attempting to recover from the longest 
blackout in U.S. history after Hurricane Maria struck many months ago.
  More than 1,000 are estimated to have died in Puerto Rico due to 
Hurricane Maria and its aftermath.
  Following the hurricanes came California's most destructive and 
largest wildfire season ever.
  The Tubbs Fire in Northern California killed 22 people and damaged 
more than 5,600 structures.
  Last year was also the third-hottest year on record.
  San Francisco reported its highest temperature ever, 106 degrees 
Fahrenheit, while other parts of the country set records for high-
temperature streaks.
  For states like Arizona and South Carolina, 2017 was the warmest year 
ever.
  14 places across Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas reported record-
high water levels during floods in April and May.
  In 2017, requests for federal disaster aid jumped tenfold compared to 
2016, with 4.7 million people registering with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency.
  Last year will go down in the record books for many reasons, 
destructive hurricanes, wildfires, mudslides, and droughts struck 
leaving death and destruction.
  Every place in this nation has one or more vulnerability to floods, 
damaging storms, wildfires, earthquakes, volcanic activity, or earth 
movement--such as mudslides.
  FEMA is the nation's premier organization that must respond to 
catastrophes at a moment's notice.
  This Jackson Lee Amendment will allow Congress to develop better 
situational awareness on FEMA's role in disaster response especially 
when there may be multiple disasters putting demand on limited agency 
resources that require long-term recovery planning.
  Thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment and I ask for 
bipartisan support for this Jackson Lee Amendment included in En Bloc 
Four.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my 
amendment which helps to ensure that communities ravaged by wildfires, 
including the recent October fires, get the help they need to recover.
  Last year, we saw the worst fire season in California history. The 
October fires alone included 21 major fires that were fought by 11,000 
firefighters burning nearly 245,000 acres. Those fires forced 100,000 
people to evacuate and destroyed 8,900 homes and structures. 
Tragically, 44 people lost their lives.
  The City of Santa Rosa is located in my district and was hit 
especially hard by the October fires with over 3,000 homes and 
businesses destroyed. In the Fountaingrove neighborhood, north of 
downtown, the contamination in the water system that resulted directly 
from the fire melting the plastic water lines and appurtenances 
servicing 350 homes, must be replaced due to ongoing contamination of 
benzene, a toxic organic chemical.
  As our communities move forward on the long road to recovery, we are 
finding that the needs of suburban and urban communities impacted by 
devastating wildfires don't always fit neatly into some of FEMA's 
current rules and regulations, which seem geared towards hurricane and 
flooding response and mitigation.
  Issues as simple as whether or not FEMA should cover the costs of 
removing standing burned trees or replacing water systems, like the one 
in Fountaingrove that was contaminated as a result of the October 
fires, are not so simple.
  My amendment provides FEMA with the capability and authority to 
mitigate these issues by explicitly stating that FEMA hazard mitigation 
funding can be used to remove standing, burned trees and replacing 
water systems damaged and/or contaminated by wildfires.
  I appreciate House leadership working with my office to include this 
amendment in the en bloc so that we advance this issue and I look 
forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that my district's 
fire recovery needs are being met.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


          Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 104 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 294, strike lines 5 through 8, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 618. RIGHT OF ARBITRATION.

       Section 423 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5189a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Right of Arbitration.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding this section, an 
     applicant for assistance under this title may request 
     arbitration to dispute the eligibility for assistance or 
     repayment of assistance provided for a project of more than 
     $100,000 for any disaster that occurred after January 1, 
     2016. Such arbitration shall be conducted de novo by the 
     Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the decision of such 
     Board shall be binding.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--To participate in arbitration under 
     this subsection, an applicant--
       ``(A) shall submit the dispute to the arbitration process 
     established under the authority granted under section 601 of 
     Public Law 111-5; and
       ``(B) may submit a request for arbitration in lieu of an 
     appeal under subsection (a) at any time before the 
     Administrator of FEMA has issued a final agency 
     determination.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of disasters, 
billions and billions of dollars in claims are often worked out between 
local governments, State governments, and FEMA.
  In many cases, because disasters are inherently unpredictable, 
volatile, and folks are doing what they need to do to help their 
communities recover and address these urgent needs, in some cases, not 
every i is dotted, not every t is crossed. These minor issues often 
become obstacles to these communities being reimbursed and their 
ability to recover.
  FEMA has an appeals process, Mr. Chairman. In that appeals process, 
you basically have FEMA reviewing FEMA. I don't think that that is the 
appropriate approach.
  Section 618 of the underlying bill has an arbitration process, but 
that arbitration process has other Homeland Security officials 
reviewing the work of Homeland Security.
  There was a better model that was used after the 2005 disasters 
whereby an outside board that exists, the Civilian Board of Contract 
Appeals, which is an independent body, was brought in to help review 
some of these appeals that local and State governments brought forth to 
the Corps of Engineers.

                              {time}  0915

  It was a better approach. It provided for more thorough evaluation 
and, again, the independence of having an outside entity review this. 
Our amendment simply improves upon the existing arbitration process in 
section 618 of the bill.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this 
legislation. I think it is very important, and I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Obviously, the gentleman has had significant experience with these 
problems in his part of the world that I think are somewhat unique, and 
I can also understand we want to expedite the review of people's 
claims. The major concerns we have are, one, that it appears, under the 
wording, that there would be no timeframe. So 20, 30 years after a 
disaster, someone could come in and file for arbitration. And secondly, 
by lowering the cost to any project that is $100,000, we have no idea 
what the scope of that would be or how many appeals that might 
generate. But I think the general idea about using the Civilian Board 
of Contract Appeals does have merit to expedite citizens' claims 
against the government agency.

[[Page H3716]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I would 
like to thank the committee also for including the PREPARE Act in the 
en bloc package. I would also like to thank Congressman Lance for being 
my partner on the PREPARE Act for the past two Congresses and 
Congressmen Webster, Sanford, and Meadows for being cosponsors and 
supporters of my amendment, the PREPARE Act. I would also like to thank 
the over 50 outside organizations, companies, and think tanks that have 
supported the PREPARE Act. Finally, I thank Chairman Shuster and 
Congressman Gowdy for passing the PREPARE Act out of the T&I and OGR 
committees, respectively.
  Extreme weather is expensive. Last year the public and private sector 
saw a combined $300 billion in damages from major extreme weather 
events. Congress had to spend an extra $120 billion in disaster 
supplemental appropriations so we could get our disaster-ravaged 
communities back on their feet. And from our infrastructure to our 
defense, our public buildings to our supply chains, the Federal 
Government itself has an enormous amount of assets that are vulnerable 
to extreme weather events.
  I have been working for 5 years to build upon commonsense GAO 
recommendations to help our Federal Government and our Nation better 
prepare for extreme weather events. This amendment will save lives and 
will save money by helping get our government coordinated, improve 
planning, and facilitate a better working relationship with State and 
local officials.
  We know extreme weather events are happening more frequently, and 
they are causing more damage. We owe our citizens better planning, 
better engagement, and a better response. In passing the PREPARE Act, 
the House of Representatives is taking a responsible, important step in 
that direction.
  I thank the gentleman again for including this amendment in the en 
bloc package.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I just want to make note that I do appreciate my friend from Oregon's 
comments, and I appreciate his sensitivity to timelines. But that is 
what this amendment addresses: timelines. In many cases, our local 
government simply cannot continue to carry these debts and not get 
reimbursed.
  In regard to the amount of money, perhaps $100,000 is not a lot of 
money to the city of Portland, but I am going to guess to the city of 
Coos Bay it may be important.
  In regard to the details of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I am from 
Louisiana. If the gentleman from Oregon can help us make this even 
better, then I would be happy to work with him on that. But I think 
this is very, very important. Access to due process is important. The 
existing process does not allow supplemental material to be considered 
to respond to concerns that were raised by agency officials. This is a 
good model. It has proven effective in the past, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I will say to the gentleman that my staff tells me they did contact 
his staff, they did express concerns. They said: Thank you for your 
concerns. And then, next thing we knew, the amendments were filed. And 
then she still said: We'd be happy to work with you. And we get no 
response.
  I think there may be kind of a staff issue going on here. Again, I 
have some concerns about, particularly, the unlimited time to apply and 
other details, perhaps.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 107 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 107 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. REIMBURSEMENT.

       The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shall 
     retroactively reimburse State and local units of government 
     (for a period of 3 years after the declaration of a major 
     disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170)) upon 
     determination that a locally-implemented housing solution, 
     implemented by State or local units of government, costs 50 
     percent of comparable FEMA solution or whatever the locally-
     implemented solution costs, whichever is lower.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, once again, is 
a bipartisan amendment. My good friends Congressman Cedric Richmond, 
Congressman Gene Green, Congressman Ralph Abraham, Congressman Clay 
Higgins, and Congressman Brian Babin are all supporters of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Following our August 
2016 floods in south Louisiana, FEMA came in and provided housing 
solutions. The solutions included the utilization of trailers. Because 
FEMA needs an acronym for everything, they were called MHUs, mobile 
housing units. When you added up the cost to purchase, transport, 
store, and set up these things, FEMA was in the hole anywhere from 
$120,000 to $170,000 per pop.
  Mr. Chairman, you could buy these same units right there in the 
vicinity of the flood from local trailer dealers for anywhere from 
$28,000 to I think the highest cost we saw was about $40,000, including 
setup. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, Mr. Chairman, to realize 
that you could get it faster and you are helping to revive the local 
economy by using local solutions, as opposed to the case when FEMA is 
doing this, when it took months and months and months to give people 
even a single housing option in some cases.
  So what this amendment does is it simply says that, if a local 
entity, a local government entity, if a State entity, can provide a 
housing solution for 50 percent of the cost, or less, as compared to 
the alternative that FEMA provides, then they can be reimbursed. Mr. 
Chairman, this is faster. It saves taxpayer dollars. It stops this 
fleecing of American taxpayers that is occurring in the aftermath of 
disasters.
  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, in Livingston Parish, Sheriff Jason Ard: 
his deputies were flooded. Literally, families didn't have anywhere to 
go. They had looting in the parish. The sheriff stepped up, established 
mobile housing units, trailers, for his deputies to live in so they 
didn't have to worry about their families anymore, so they could get 
back to doing what they were supposed to be doing: enforcing law in 
these destroyed communities. And FEMA is rejecting them.
  We have tried to work through the administrative process. I will say 
it again: the only way they are reimbursed is if the cost of their 
solution was 50 percent or less than that of the Federal Government 
alternative, in regard to the mobile housing units.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, as I look at the drafting--and, again, my staff says they did 
reach out to your staff--I am confused when you get to the 50 percent 
part, whether it would have to be exactly 50 percent or otherwise. I 
agree, and I think that it would be good to push for more flexibility.
  For instance, I have a manufacturer of yurts in my district which are 
used in many places around the world as temporary housing. The military 
uses them, and others. I was approached by someone representing Airbnb 
about vacant houses they had, vacation homes in Puerto Rico, that could 
have been

[[Page H3717]]

used when they were saying there was absolutely no housing for any 
emergency workers anywhere. And certainly there could be lower cost 
alternatives.
  I still remember when FEMA, I think it was under the Bush 
administration, bought a bunch of trailers that couldn't be used 
because they had some of that crappy Chinese formaldehyde-exuding 
wallboard in them, and they were not habitable. We are still importing 
that junk from China, by the way. So I agree they could be much more 
flexible.
  I think this amendment, again, as written, is problematic, but I 
certainly agree with the intent of the amendment to look at other lower 
cost alternatives. However, they should meet at least some minimal 
standards for sanitary facilities and other things. So I, again, have 
concerns about the drafting.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member and the manager of this fourth en bloc and rise to support the 
Jackson Lee amendment that has been included in the en bloc 
legislation. And I am thankful to Mr. DeFazio and the chairman for 
that.
  My amendment, made in order, deals with a GAO report of 240 days 
following any disaster, a long-term recovery efforts plan. These 
disasters are examples of the most challenging and catastrophic events 
in our Nation.
  And I am reminded of August 2018 in Houston, Texas. Hurricane Harvey 
has been defined as the singular most catastrophic incident and natural 
disaster in the continental United States. We are still suffering. 
People are still in hotels, still without their homes. So to the list 
of long-term recovery experiences, this GAO study would have us learn a 
lot. We need to learn from our past to do better to secure our future.
  This GAO report would define the Federal disaster long-term recovery, 
define the stages of a long-term recovery, and report on the competence 
and capacity of FEMA to manage two or more disasters of the magnitude 
that happened at the same time.
  I do want to take note of the fact that my amendment that did not 
authorize the FEMA Office of Response and Recovery was not made in 
order. I look forward to introducing legislation that would respond to 
that.
  I am also concerned that two amendments dealing with the endangered 
species the Rules Committee did not make in order. In this time, I 
believe it is time to stand up to protect our endangered species. One 
of my amendments had to do with trophy products coming across 
on international airways; and the other was, as airports are built--and 
many are built in wetlands--for those who are building those airports 
to collaborate with a number of agencies to address the question of 
protecting the endangered species.

  We live on this Earth with the wonderment of this Earth, and those 
include our wonderful animals, many of them endangered. And I believe 
the episode with Cecil the lion recognizes that we must protect our 
endangered species. I would hope going forward I would have the 
opportunity, at some time, to debate on the floor of the House the 
value of protecting our endangered species.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentlewoman from 
Texas would be supportive of this, representing many of the flood 
victims from Hurricane Harvey. It is important to keep in mind, Mr. 
Chairman, that, in many cases, these flood victims don't have other 
options. So you may have a trailer from your local trailer dealership; 
you may have a tent. In many cases, that is very attractive compared to 
being homeless.
  I would love to work with the gentleman from Oregon and see if we can 
work together to perfect this amendment to address any concerns that he 
may have. In regard to the Chinese formaldehyde, I agree with you. If 
we can get good old American formaldehyde in our trailers, let's do 
that. I am kidding.
  But I urge adoption of the amendment. I think this is very important. 
We should be commending leaders like Sheriff Ard for stepping up and 
providing efficient solutions for disaster survivors.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman. Just on the issue of 
the formaldehyde: we have laws and standards in this country still, 
despite Mr. Pruitt, that regulate the amount of formaldehyde that can 
be put into plywood. I have many people in my district who make plywood 
without using formaldehyde glues, and the Chinese put in massive 
amounts of formaldehyde glue, do not meet our standards, but we don't 
enforce or prohibit the importation, though we are about to file a case 
on that issue to prohibit them poisoning the American people. So that 
is another subject for another day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0930

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 108 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 108 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__ FLOOD INSURANCE.

       Section 406(d)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(d)(1)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``This section 
     shall not apply to more than one building of a multi-
     structure educational, law enforcement, correctional, fire, 
     or medical campus, effective January 1, 2016.''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to state, 
in response to the formaldehyde issue, let me be very clear, 
formaldehyde was a major issue after Hurricane Katrina in the trailers. 
We certainly learned from that, and we absolutely don't need anyone 
exposed to it.
  So I absolutely agree with the gentleman on that. But I think there 
have been better standards, and certainly lessons learned, from what we 
experienced with Hurricane Katrina when folks were in these trailers 
for long periods of time, and they weren't designed for that purpose, 
so I do agree with the gentleman there.
  But on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, this is, once 
again, a bipartisan amendment. We have the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Richmond), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Al Green), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), and other 
cosponsors, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), all supporting this 
amendment because it is common sense and it responds to true on-the-
ground problems that were seen in the aftermath of disasters.
  What happens is the current law in the Stafford Act says that any 
time you have a flood, if you have a facility like a school, that FEMA 
may deduct $500,000 from the recovery for rebuilding that school. Well, 
what FEMA has done is they have taken the law that Congress established 
where it said ``per facility,'' and they have taken it and they have 
abused it. They have now determined that a facility is an individual 
building.
  So, Mr. Chairman, you may have a classroom building, you may have a 
cafeteria, you may have another classroom building, you may have a 
gymnasium, you may have a storage room, you may have a concession 
stand--in that case, FEMA is applying $500,000 to each individual 
building. Now, what adds insult to injury or makes this situation 
untenable is the fact that these schools generate the revenue 
oftentimes from property taxes in the destroyed community. So they are 
losing property taxes, FEMA is hitting them with bills, in some cases, 
in Ascension, Livingston, and East Baton Rouge Parishes, that are tens 
of millions of dollars each. What this does is it victimizes the 
survivors' children. So the kids

[[Page H3718]]

can't get back in schools because the schools can't afford to 
reestablish their facilities.
  So, look, bottom line is, this is all about preserving congressional 
intent. Congress spoke on this. FEMA has trashed the interpretation, 
and this is all about preserving congressional intent and getting our 
kids back in schools to where they can have the education or 
opportunities that they need to have, and they should no longer be 
further victimized by FEMA's flawed interpretation of the law.
  I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have to say, I have read the amendment, 
and I can't quite follow it, my staff can't quite follow it, the 
gentleman's staff couldn't quite explain it. The gentleman has 
explained it in a way that this language may or may not reflect.
  FEMA has said they don't understand it. They may well be doing 
something regarding public facilities that is not following the intent 
of the law, but again, I am not certain about this as the solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, once again, I am more than 
happy to work with my friend from Oregon to address any concerns that 
he may have to ensure that we have the best solution on this moving 
forward.
  I will tell you that Republicans and Democrats in Florida, in Texas, 
in Puerto Rico, in the Virgin Islands, all across these disaster areas 
that we have experienced in the last 2 years are running into this 
exact same problem.
  And let me just reiterate, Mr. Chairman, what this interpretation, 
this flawed interpretation is doing. It is putting an unaffordable bill 
before a community that has been destroyed, and it is only victimizing 
children because they can't get back in their schools, they can't 
resume their education. It is disrupting the resumption of their normal 
lives and just further affecting them, and delaying restoration and 
recovery of these communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mr. Babin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 110 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CERTAIN RECOUPMENT PROHIBITED.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall deem any 
     covered disaster assistance to have been properly procured, 
     provided, and utilized, and shall restore any funding of 
     covered disaster assistance previously provided but 
     subsequently withdrawn or deobligated.
       (b) Covered Disaster Assistance Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``covered disaster assistance'' means assistance--
       (1) provided to a local government pursuant to section 403, 
     406, or 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, or 5173); 
     and
       (2) with respect to which, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Homeland Security has determined, after an 
     audit, that--
       (A) the Federal Emergency Management Agency deployed to the 
     local government a Technical Assistance Contractor to review 
     field operations, provide eligibility advice, and assist with 
     day-to-day decisions;
       (B) the Technical Assistance Contractor provided inaccurate 
     information to the local government; and
       (C) the local government relied on the inaccurate 
     information to determine that relevant contracts were 
     eligible, reasonable, and reimbursable.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Babin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has bipartisan support, the 
support of my colleagues from Louisiana, who have also been hit hard by 
hurricanes, Mr. Richmond and Mr. Graves, and I am from Texas.
  Your word is your bond in the State of Texas, and I would hope that 
everyone here in Congress or across this great country would want to 
say the same thing about their own State. Credibility, trust, and 
keeping your promise is always important, but especially in times of 
disaster and crisis. And when Federal agencies like FEMA are called in 
to help communities ravaged by a natural disaster, we should expect 
nothing less.
  Anyone who has ever experienced a federally declared disaster knows 
that after ensuring the immediate health and safety needs of those who 
are affected, the top priority is to get the hazardous and dangerous 
storm damage cleaned up.
  As long as tree limbs, trash, and other debris remain in the streets, 
things cannot get back to normal, and they are a health and safety 
hazard. Kids cannot go back to schools, restaurants and shops can't 
open for business, the economy is at a standstill. And so when a FEMA 
employee, like a technical assistance contractor, or TAC, lays out a 
path for a mayor, a county judge, a county commissioner, or any other 
State or local official to get the federally funded debris removal 
process under way, they can and should be counted on to honor their 
commitment and their responsibility.
  My amendment will ensure that that will be the case by holding FEMA 
accountable to the promises made and the contracts authorized by its 
own employees. Under my amendment, if a local government entity can 
show and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General can 
certify that a local government was acting at the direction and the 
consultation of a FEMA technical assistance contractor regarding 
disaster relief efforts, government bureaucrats here in Washington 
cannot simply change their minds a few years down the road and decide 
to foot the locals with the bill.
  So while this amendment is certainly about fairness, equity, and 
certainty for local governments, it is also about accountability for 
Federal officials. FEMA officials will know that the advice and the 
recommendations that they offer actually matter. Local officials will 
rest assured knowing that the contracts and work that they are doing is 
valid and reimbursable. This means getting disaster-damaged 
municipalities up and running sooner, shortening the timeframe that 
their citizens and businesses need Federal assistance, and save 
taxpayer money.
  I urge all of my colleagues to help ensure that our government can be 
trusted to do what they say it will by supporting this bipartisan 
amendment and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Amodei). The gentleman from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have in my district office something 
called the ``casework staff.'' We do have disasters in Oregon, 
particularly floods. And we have had instances, apparently like the one 
that this legislation is trying to address, where we have gotten these 
improper decisions reversed and my communities reimbursed, handled by 
my casework staff.
  Here, we are going to legislate. Now, apparently, there was a problem 
in the gentleman's district. Too bad his casework staff didn't take 
care of it. But the way this is written, here is the language: 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, FEMA shall deem any 
covered disaster assistance to have been properly procured, provided, 
and utilized, and shall restore any funding of covered disaster 
assistance previously provided but subsequently withdrawn or 
deobligated.''
  It isn't specific to the gentleman's problem. This would be any 
community, anybody anywhere who might have legitimately misspent some 
disaster assistance, gets it back. This is so global. We might as well 
just not have a process to review disaster assistance and see whether 
it was properly spent, because this says, if you have got it and you 
spent it, that is all proper. I mean, it is deemed--deemed that every 
expenditure is legitimate, even if the money was diverted somehow.

[[Page H3719]]

  So, again, I am not certain who the other side is using for drafting 
assistance, but I recommend leg counsel.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon's 
opinion, but, remember that this is an inspector general's. They have 
to pass on this. This is not just a mistake. All the T's were crossed. 
All the I's were dotted. The Babin amendment protects our communities 
because it requires FEMA to keep its word.
  Under current practice, a local community can follow all of the FEMA 
rules and restore your community after a disaster, but then, years 
later, FEMA can come back and say: Oops, we know we told you to do it 
that way and we personally approved and reimbursed you for every bill 
that you sent to FEMA; oh, but we did it wrong. We know that you did 
exactly what we told you to do; however, we should have told you 
something differently. Please pay us $3 million.
  I think that this is not just pertinent to District 36 in the State 
of Texas that was hit by a hurricane years ago. This is pertinent to 
every district across this country that will be suffering from a 
disaster sooner or later.
  Anyone who has a FEMA disaster this year or next, will no doubt be 
here on the floor in the future to offer this very same amendment. 
Please join me today in passing our amendment, and let's make FEMA keep 
its word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 112 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 112 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 451.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have offered this amendment whenever 
the opportunity presents itself because it tests whether there is any 
program in the Federal budget that Congress can bear to cut.
  Essential Air Service is perhaps the least essential program in the 
entire government. It is a direct subsidy paid to airline companies to 
fly empty and near empty planes from small airports to regional hubs 
nearby. There was supposed to be a temporary program to allow local 
communities and airports to readjust to airline deregulation in 1978. 
Instead, it has grown to include 173 communities and a program that has 
doubled in cost in the last decade.
  I want to emphasize, this program has nothing to do with emergency 
medical evacuations. It solely subsidizes regular scheduled commercial 
service that is so seldom used that it cannot support itself.
  And why can't it support itself? In many cases, the small airports in 
the program are less than an hour's drive from regional airports. 
Essential Air Service flights are flown out of Merced Airport near my 
district in the Sierra Nevada of California; yet, Merced is less than 
an hour's drive from Fresno Regional Airport, offering regular 
scheduled commercial air service.
  Subsidized service is available from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, just 31 
miles from Harrisburg International Airport. Subsidized flights from 
Pueblo, Colorado, are just a 45-minute drive from Colorado Springs 
Regional Airport, and I could go on and on.
  There are supposed to be subsidy caps of $200 per passenger and a 
minimum of 10 passengers per day, and yet, every request to waive these 
requirements has been granted--every one--for passenger subsidies that 
can go as high as nearly $1,000 per passenger. Now, by comparison, you 
can charter a small plane for around $150 to $200 an hour.

                              {time}  0945

  Over the next 5 years, this program will cost taxpayers nearly $1 
billion in direct appropriations, which this amendment would cease. The 
program also gets another $100 million a year from overflight fees that 
would otherwise be available to fund high priorities in the aviation 
system, like 21st century air traffic control technology.
  The argument for abolishing this program is simple: if a route cannot 
generate enough passengers to support its costs, that means that 
passengers themselves are telling us that it is not worth the money to 
them.
  Perhaps we should listen.
  Our country is drowning in debt. It now costs us $475 billion a year 
just to pay interest costs on the $21 trillion that we have already 
borrowed. Debt and taxes are driven by one thing: spending.
  In the last 10 years, inflation and population combined have grown 26 
percent. Revenues have more than kept pace, growing 29 percent in the 
same period; but spending has grown 46 percent, and it has doubled 
under this program. If we don't get control of spending soon, our 
Nation could enter a debt spiral that threatens our very future; and 
the Orwellian-named Essential Air Service is a prime example of 
nonessential programs that we just can't afford.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman pointed out, Essential 
Air Service, to ensure that all Americans have access to something that 
is critical to economic development and, basically, livability for many 
smaller isolated communities, is paid for out of the trust fund. The 
trust fund is composed of fees paid by the airlines, by passengers, and 
by foreign airlines overflying the United States of America.
  This doesn't add to the debt, unlike this tax bill we passed. I know 
that the six largest banks in America saw a $4 billion windfall in tax 
cuts in one-quarter. It is projected they will have a $20 billion 
windfall by the end of the year.
  We are going to borrow $20 billion to give to profitable banks, 
including Wells Fargo, that just paid a $1 billion fine. Now they are 
getting the money back because we gave them a tax break.
  But he is concerned about the debt and the deficit, so we have got to 
screw the small communities in America and take away their air service. 
I think there are better ways to deal with our debt and deficit, and 
this doesn't add to it because it is paid for out of the trust fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's attempts and work to try 
to decrease the deficits and the debt in this country, but Essential 
Air Service is just that. He named a few communities, and they are 
close to--I guess I can't make a great argument about those, but there 
are places like Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, 
or Iowa. These folks are living miles and miles, hours and hours away--
several hours, in many cases--from the nearest airport. As Mr. DeFazio 
pointed out, this connects those communities for economic development.
  The other thing, he makes a point, as a conservative, when you pay 
user fees into a trust fund and it goes to that intended purpose--in 
this case, a small piece of that goes to Essential Air Service--that is 
what we should be doing in America: people that use something are 
contributing to that service or whatever that government agency is 
providing them.
  Again, under the bill, in 2012, we put reforms in to reform Essential 
Air Service; and, this bill, the underlying bill, directs the GAO to 
study and find out the effects of those reforms.
  So, again, while I support and applaud the gentleman's efforts to 
help get the debt under control, this is not the place to start.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment.

[[Page H3720]]

  

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  I am acutely attuned to concerns about fiscal responsibility. While 
Congress has struggled with fiscal concerns, the consistent attacks on 
the critical EAS program demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the 
realities of life across rural America.
  Supporters of this amendment claim that, in many cases, an 
alternative airport is a short drive away. This incorrectly assumes 
that point-to-point miles on a map are the same as road miles.
  The truth is that EAS is a vital economic engine that remains just as 
important today as when it was created. It supports economic 
development in small and rural communities by connecting businesses to 
larger markets.
  Page, Arizona, in my district, is just one example of the need for 
this type of critical infrastructure. The challenges are real, but so 
is the promise in Page. Taking away vital EAS dollars at a time when 
Page and places like it all over the country are trying to attract 
business and capital would be devastating and undermine the critical 
work being done.
  Let's work to support these communities, not exasperate the stark 
economic disparities in rural America. Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues to reject this shortsighted amendment.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, three points:
  First, these amendments don't cut the fee support, only the $1 
billion in direct taxpayer subsidies that would be paid into this 
program over the next 5 years. Under the so-called reforms referenced 
by the chairman, this program has doubled in cost over the past 
decade, and all Americans do not benefit from this program.

  Let's take the remote communities, like those in Alaska. This program 
subsidizes 61 small communities in a State with 259 airports. That 
means there are roughly 200 airports and 350 local communities in 
Alaska, alone, that seem to do just fine without Essential Air Service.
  If Alaska or any State believes that air service should be subsidized 
within their State, they certainly have the ability to do it 
themselves. So do individual towns. The States choose not to pay for 
the service; the local communities choose not to pay for the service; 
and, most importantly, the passengers, themselves, choose not to pay 
the actual cost of the service. Perhaps as we approach $1 trillion 
annual deficit, we should consider choosing not to pay for it either.
  We hear that it helps prop up small airports and small airlines that 
service them. Well, sure, if you hand somebody wads of cash, that 
person does very well. The problem is that the people you took that 
cash from do very poorly to exactly the same extent.
  A $275 million program out of a $4 trillion Federal budget seems like 
a drop in the bucket, and I agree we are not going to balance a $1 
trillion annual deficit just by cutting programs like this. But if we 
can't cut a 40-year-old temporary program that has doubled in cost over 
the last 10 years--this is the kindest and easiest cut of all--then I 
fear that we will never summon the courage to get our budget back to 
balance before we bankrupt our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking 
member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  We have been down this road before, and yet, again, we are witnessing 
attempts to remove rural America's connectivity to the national air 
transportation system. Those who would look to scrap the Essential Air 
Service program often fail to acknowledge reforms that have been put in 
place to modernize and streamline the program. This reauthorization 
does the same.
  Mr. Chairman, for too long, rural America has received the scraps of 
our suburban and urban counterparts. Last year, the Airport Improvement 
Program, another program, not the Essential Air Service, issued more 
than $264 million in grants to 95 airports in 31 States.
  Among them, $2 million was issued for Sacramento International 
Airport in Sacramento, California, to purchase five zero-emission 
electric shuttle buses to take passengers between the airport parking 
lots and the terminal buildings. Mr. Chairman, these types of projects 
are nice, but the fact is that $2 million is about equal to the amount 
a small rural airport requires for commercial service for 2 years.
  Let's get serious here. Striking the Essential Air Service program is 
bad for rural America. It is time to stop the witch hunt on rural 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 114 Offered by Mr. Duncan of Tennessee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 114 
printed in part A of House Report 115-650.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 267, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NATIONAL HIRING STANDARD OF CARE.

       (a) In General.--An entity hiring a federally licensed 
     motor carrier shall be deemed to have made the selection of 
     the motor carrier in a reasonable and prudent manner if 
     before tendering a shipment, but not more than 45 days before 
     the pickup of the shipment by the hired motor carrier, that 
     entity verified that the motor carrier, at the time of such 
     verification--
       (1) is registered with and authorized by the Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration to operate as a motor carrier 
     or household goods motor carrier, if applicable;
       (2) has the minimum insurance coverage required by Federal 
     law; and
       (3)(A) before the safety fitness determination regulations 
     are issued, does not have an unsatisfactory safety fitness 
     determination issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration in force at the time of such verification; or
       (B) beginning on the date that revised safety fitness 
     determination regulations are implemented, does not have a 
     safety fitness rating issued by the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration under such regulations that would place 
     a motor carrier out-of-service.
       (b) Guidelines.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     implementation of the safety fitness determination referenced 
     in subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall issue guidelines 
     that specifically outline how a motor carrier's operating 
     authority and registration number could be revoked and 
     subsequently placing them out-of-service.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 839, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple 
amendment to establish a national standard of care for hiring freight 
shippers. This is purely and simply about highway safety, and 
everything carried on planes, of course, goes to and from on our 
highways.
  Currently, there is no law that requires freight brokers or others to 
have any sort of standard when hiring a carrier for a shipment. Under 
this amendment, a broker or other entity would be deemed to have acted 
in a reasonable and prudent manner if they made sure the carrier met 
these three requirements:
  One, authorization to operate by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration;
  Two, the minimum insurance coverage required by Federal law; and
  Three, that the carrier had no current Federal unsatisfactory safety 
fitness determination.
  This amendment does not prohibit or limit in any way any type of 
lawsuit, and, in fact, a lawyer could show that a broker or a company 
had acted in an

[[Page H3721]]

unreasonable manner if they did not comply with this hiring standard. 
This amendment would actually help trial lawyers by giving them 
stronger grounds to sue brokers who did not comply with this standard 
and tried to get cheaper rates by using unsafe or uninsured carriers.
  This amendment would also make it less likely that a person or a 
company that hired a safe, legal motor carrier would be held liable for 
an accident that happened through no fault of their own.
  This amendment also will help make it far less likely that 
unregistered, uninsured, unsafe freight carriers get any business in 
this country in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here, and the problem 
actually is the Department of Transportation. They launched a new 
carrier monitoring system known as CSA to make data available, but they 
have yet to establish a test and apply that data.
  So even though the data is available, the Republicans have adopted 
amendments--other Republicans who are here today--that prohibit DOT 
from finalizing a safety fitness determination rule. So there is data 
out there, but there is no bright line test.
  The best relief that we could provide would be to force DOT, in the 
very near future, to issue a safety fitness ruling as soon as possible 
and also raise the minimum insurance requirement--$750,000, it has been 
that since 1980. It doesn't cover much in a truck accident.
  We want to have people be able to get legal recourse and 
compensation, but we also don't want to give the brokers an impossible 
task, which is what they have now: How do they choose someone who meets 
the safety fitness requirements that the administration has yet to 
promulgate and Congress is preventing them from promulgating?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, on June 1, 2011, Sal and Helen Sparich were sitting in 
traffic in Tamaqua in northeastern Pennsylvania when, suddenly, without 
warning, a loaded tractor-trailer rammed into them from behind, cutting 
their car in half, killing Helen instantly and debilitating and giving 
horrible, severe, grievous injuries to Sal Sparich. He ended up 
spending the next 15 months in the hospital, and then he died. He left 
$1 million in medical bills, which Medicare had to pay for.
  What we know about this accident is that the driver of the tractor-
trailer had a horrible driving record. The company, the fly-by-night 
independent contractor trucking company that he worked for, had an 
insanely bad safety record, and it was one that anybody could have 
discovered by going on the safety website because there were flashing 
yellow icons next to the name of that company.

                              {time}  1000

  But the broker and the shipper in this case didn't care, Mr. Chair. 
They didn't check. They can't care about the safety record, about the 
driving record. The only thing they checked was who had the lowest 
price. The only thing they cared about was who had the lowest price.
  Mr. Chair, we Americans care about personal responsibility and 
accountability. It is something we teach our children.
  This is an amendment that would take away accountability and 
responsibility for the brokers and shippers.
  This is a longstanding, time-honored part of American law that 
brokers and shippers are responsible and accountable for picking safe 
companies and safe drivers.
  This amendment would take that away, it would make American roadways 
much more dangerous because of this exact type of situation.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, Americans really shouldn't care that much 
about this Duncan amendment if they don't go on the highway; but if you 
go on the highway, like hundreds of millions of Americans do, you 
better watch out, because this amendment makes it far more likely that 
there will be reckless and negligent truckers on the road and that you 
won't be able to sue for your damages if they smash up your car.
  Take the shocking case of a 19-year-old man whose car was totaled by 
a truck driver who was high on crystal meth. He was left injured and 
blinded for the rest of his life.
  Now, the truck company never drug tested or road tested its 
employees, but that didn't stop the shipper from hiring that trucking 
company to do business with.
  Now, the Duncan amendment would reward the shipper by immunizing it 
from any liability for hiring a low-road trucker that doesn't drug test 
its employees, or even knowingly hires employees who are high on 
crystal meth or who have a drug problem.
  This would give the shippers even greater incentive to hire reckless 
and negligent truckers, making our roads and highways all the more 
dangerous.
  In ``Born to Run'', Bruce Springsteen talks about cars that are 
suicide machines and a deathtrap.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment would make that vision of our highways the 
law.
  There is no way that the American people support excusing shippers 
from liability for their decision to hire low-road truckers, low-road 
trucking companies that do not drug test or do background screening on 
their employees.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman 
of the committee.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. It does remove the 
confusion with the industry stakeholders, but the hysteria that the 
other side is proclaiming, that roadways are going to become a 
slaughterhouse because if this goes away or it is clarified, truckers 
are just going to be out there running into people left or right, I 
mean, it is ridiculous.
  It is not a good business model for any company to want to have an 
incentive, which the other side has, I think, said, to hire unsafe 
drivers. That is not a good business model. In fact, you will go out of 
business, most likely, if you go out there and hire drivers who are bad 
drivers, dangerous drivers. The facts don't bear that out.
  Of the auto accidents that include trucks in it, over 75 percent of 
them are not the trucker's fault, it is the person in the car's fault.
  Truckers are professionals, and to have impugned this whole class of 
people, this whole group of people that go out on these roadways and 
work hard every day and try to do it as safely as they can, is just 
plain wrong.
  Again, as I said, truckers are professionals. Seventy-five percent of 
those accidents that truckers are involved in, it is not their fault.
  We continue to hype up and to put these things out there for, again, 
another class of worker out there, and that is the trial lawyers. They 
make millions and millions of dollars going out there and suing these 
people that, again, do their best every day to try to be safe on the 
roadways.
  So, again, this is a sensible amendment, this clarifies it, and it 
helps to make our roadways safer, not more dangerous.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I thank the gentleman again for 
yielding.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chair, I will simply say this: neither 
of the cases cited by the opposition would be stopped under this 
amendment. In fact, this amendment would make it more likely that 
freight brokers would be required to hire safe, insured carriers for 
their shipments, so it would make the highways safer.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment. It is an amendment about 
fairness and justice, because all lawyers--I was a plaintiff's lawyer 
before I came to Congress, and I have supported

[[Page H3722]]

the trial lawyers in every way possible in my 30 years here, but I can 
tell you, no lawyers want people sued who have done nothing whatsoever 
wrong in a case.
  Mr. Chair, I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bacon). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 115 will not be offered.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Duncan of Tennessee) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bacon, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4) 
to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________