[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 184 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8914-H8926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                REFORMING DISASTER RECOVERY ACT OF 2019

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 3702) to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development to provide disaster assistance to States, Puerto Rico, 
units of general local government, and Indian tribes under a community 
development block grant disaster recovery program, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3702

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reforming Disaster Recovery 
     Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DISASTER RECOVERY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 123. CDBG-DISASTER RECOVERY ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Authority; Use.--The Secretary may provide assistance 
     under this section to States, including Puerto Rico, units of 
     general local government, and Indian tribes for necessary 
     expenses for activities authorized under this title related 
     to disaster relief, resiliency, long-term recovery, 
     restoration of infrastructure and housing, mitigation, and 
     economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed 
     areas (as such term shall be defined by the Secretary by 
     regulation) resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant 
     to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
       ``(b) Allocation; Coordination.--
       ``(1) Allocation for mitigation.--In determining the amount 
     allocated under this section for any grantee, the Secretary 
     shall include an additional amount for mitigation that is not 
     less than 45 percent of the amount allocated for such grantee 
     for unmet needs.
       ``(2) Deadlines for allocation.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), after the enactment of an Act making funds 
     available for assistance under this section, the Secretary 
     shall allocate for grantees, based on the best available data 
     all funds provided for assistance under this section within 
     60 days of the date of the enactment of such Act.
       ``(3) Inapplicability of deadlines based on insufficient 
     information.--The deadlines under paragraph (2) for 
     allocation of funds shall not apply in the case of funds made 
     available for assistance under this section if Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency has not made sufficient 
     information available to the Secretary regarding relevant 
     unmet recovery needs to make allocations in accordance with 
     such deadlines. The Secretary shall notify the Congress of 
     progress on or delay in receiving the necessary information 
     within 60 days following declaration of such a major disaster 
     and monthly thereafter until all necessary information is 
     received.
       ``(4) Obligation of amounts by the secretary.--Subject to 
     subsection (c)(1), the Secretary shall provide for the 
     disbursement of the amounts allocated for a grantee, but 
     shall require the grantee to be in substantial compliance 
     with the requirements of this section before each such 
     disbursement.
       ``(5) Coordination of disaster benefits and data with other 
     federal agencies.--
       ``(A) Coordination of data.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
     with other agencies to obtain data on recovery needs, 
     including the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency and the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration, and other agencies when necessary regarding 
     disaster benefits.
       ``(B) Coordination with fema.--The Secretary shall share 
     with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency, and make publicly available, all data collected, 
     possessed, or analyzed during the course of a disaster 
     recovery for which assistance is provided under this section 
     including--
       ``(i) all data on damage caused by the disaster;
       ``(ii) information on how any Federal assistance provided 
     in connection with the disaster is expended; and
       ``(iii) information regarding the effect of the disaster on 
     education, transportation capabilities and dependence, 
     housing needs, health care capacity, and displacement of 
     persons.
       ``(C) Requirements regarding eligibility for direct 
     assistance and duplication of benefits.--
       ``(i) Compliance.--Funds made available under this 
     subsection shall be used in accordance with section 312 of 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5155), as amended by section 1210 
     of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (Division D, 
     Public Law 115-254), and such rules as may be prescribed 
     under such section.
       ``(ii) Priority.--Households having the lowest incomes 
     shall be prioritized for assistance under this subsection 
     until all unmet needs are satisfied for families having an 
     income up to 120 percent of the median for the area.
       ``(D) Treatment of duplicative benefits.--In any case in 
     which a grantee provides assistance that duplicates benefits 
     available to a person for the same purpose from another 
     source, the grantee itself shall either (i) be subject to 
     remedies for noncompliance under section 111, or (ii) bear 
     responsibility for absorbing such cost of duplicative 
     benefits and returning an amount equal to any duplicative 
     benefits paid to the grantee's funds available for use under 
     this section or to the Community Development Block Grant 
     Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund under section 124, unless the 
     Secretary issues a public determination by publication in the 
     Federal Register that it is not in the best interest of the 
     Federal Government to pursue such remedies.
       ``(E) Protection of personally identifiable information.--
     In carrying out this paragraph, the Secretary and the grantee 
     shall take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that 
     personally identifiable information regarding recipients of 
     assistance provided from funds made available under this 
     section is not made publicly available by the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development or any agency with which 
     information is shared pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(c) Plan for Use of Assistance.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     allocation pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of all of the funds 
     made available by an appropriations Act for assistance under 
     this section and before the Secretary obligates any of such 
     funds for a grantee, the grantee shall submit a plan to the 
     Secretary for approval detailing the proposed use of all 
     funds, which shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) criteria for eligibility for each proposed use of 
     funds, including eligibility limits on income and geography, 
     and a description of how each proposed use of such funds will 
     comply with all civil rights and fair housing laws and will 
     address unmet needs relating to disaster relief, resiliency, 
     long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and 
     housing, mitigation, and economic revitalization in the most 
     impacted and distressed areas, including assistance to 
     impacted households experiencing homelessness as defined by 
     section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 11302) or at risk of homelessness as defined by 
     section 401 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 11360);
       ``(B) an agreement to share data, disaggregated by the 
     smallest census tract, block group, or block possible for the 
     data set, with Federal agencies and other providers of 
     disaster relief, which shall include information the grantee 
     has regarding the matters described in subsection (b)(4)(B);
       ``(C) identification of officials and offices responsible 
     for administering such funds and processes and procedures for 
     identifying and recovering duplicate benefits; and
       ``(D) a plan for ensuring compliance with the Fair Housing 
     Act, which may include, at the election of the grantee, 
     providing for partnerships with local fair housing 
     organizations and funding set-aside for local fair housing 
     organizations to handle complaints relating to assistance 
     with amounts made available for use under this section.
       ``(2) Approval.--The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     specify criteria for approval of plans under paragraph (1), 
     including approval of substantial amendments to such plans.
       ``(3) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove a plan 
     or substantial amendment to a plan if--
       ``(A) the plan or substantial amendment does not meet the 
     approval criteria;
       ``(B) based on damage and unmet needs assessments of the 
     Secretary and the Federal Emergency Management Administration 
     or such other information as may be available, the plan or 
     amendment does not address equitable allocation of 
     resources--
       ``(i) between infrastructure and housing activities; and
       ``(ii) between homeowners, renters, and persons 
     experiencing homelessness;
       ``(C) the plan or amendment does not provide an adequate 
     plan for ensuring that funding provided under this section is 
     used in compliance with the Fair Housing Act;
       ``(D) the plan or amendment does not prioritize the one-
     for-one replacement, with cost adjustment where appropriate, 
     of damaged dwelling units in public housing, in projects 
     receiving tax credits pursuant to section 42 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, or in projects assisted under section 
     202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), under 
     section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013), under the HOME Investment 
     Partnerships Act (42 U.S.C. 12721 et seq), under the 
     community development block grant program under this title, 
     or by the Housing Trust Fund under section 1338 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 
     4568); or
       ``(E) the plan or amendment does not provide a process to 
     provide applicants--
       ``(i) notice by grantee of applicant's right to appeal any 
     adverse action or inaction;
       ``(ii) right to full discovery of applicant's entire 
     application file; and

[[Page H8915]]

       ``(iii) right to appeal to a court of competent 
     jurisdiction in the vicinage of the applicant's residence at 
     the time of the appeal.
       ``(4) Public consultation.-- In developing the plan 
     required under paragraph (1), a grantee shall, at a minimum--
       ``(A) consult with affected residents, stakeholders, local 
     governments, and public housing authorities to assess needs;
       ``(B) publish the plan in accordance with the requirements 
     set forth by the Secretary, including a requirement to 
     prominently post the plan on the website of the grantee for 
     not less than 14 days;
       ``(C) ensure equal access for individuals with disabilities 
     and individuals with limited English proficiency; and
       ``(D) publish the plan in a manner that affords citizens, 
     affected local governments, and other interested parties a 
     reasonable opportunity to examine the contents of the plan 
     and provide feedback.
       ``(5) Resubmission.--The Secretary shall permit a grantee 
     to revise and resubmit a disapproved plan or plan amendment.
       ``(6) Timing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove a plan not later than 60 days after submission of 
     the plan to the Secretary. The Secretary shall immediately 
     notify the applicant of the Secretary's decision.
       ``(B) Disapproval.--If the Secretary disapproves a plan, 
     not later than 15 days after such disapproval the Secretary 
     shall inform the applicant in writing of (A) the reasons for 
     disapproval, and (B) actions that the applicant could take to 
     meet the criteria for approval.
       ``(C) Amendments; resubmission.--The Secretary shall, for a 
     period of not less than 45 days following the date of 
     disapproval, permit amendments to, or the resubmission of, 
     any plan that is disapproved. The Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove a plan amendment not less than 30 days after 
     receipt of such amendments or resubmission.
       ``(D) Grant agreements.--Subject to subsection (b)(3), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that all grant agreements necessary 
     for prompt disbursement of funds allocated to a grantee are 
     executed within 60 days of approval of grantee's plan.
       ``(d) Financial Controls.--
       ``(1) Compliance system.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     maintain a system to ensure that each grantee has and will 
     maintain for the life of the grant--
       ``(A) proficient financial controls and procurement 
     processes;
       ``(B) adequate procedures to ensure that all eligible 
     families and individuals are approved for assistance with 
     amounts made available under this section and that recipients 
     are provided the full amount of assistance for which they are 
     eligible;
       ``(C) adequate procedures to prevent any duplication of 
     benefits, as defined by section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5155), to ensure timely expenditure of funds, and to detect 
     and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds; and
       ``(D) adequate procedures to ensure the grantee will 
     maintain comprehensive and publicly accessible websites that 
     make available information regarding all disaster recovery 
     activities assisted with such funds, which information shall 
     include--
       ``(i) full and unredacted copies of all requests for 
     qualification for assistance or for procurement with such 
     funds, however styled;
       ``(ii) all responses to such requests, subject to 
     redactions necessary to protect personal or proprietary data;
       ``(iii) the identity of any entity that reviews, evaluates, 
     scores, or otherwise influences or determines the disposition 
     of such requests;
       ``(iv) all reports, however styled, containing the 
     reviewing individual or entity's scores, findings, and 
     conclusions regarding such requests; and
       ``(v) any resulting contract, agreement, or other 
     disposition of such requests; except that such procedures 
     shall ensure that personally identifiable information 
     regarding recipients of assistance provided from funds made 
     available under this section shall not be made publicly 
     available.
       ``(2) Evaluation of compliance.--The Secretary shall 
     provide, by regulation or guideline, a method for 
     qualitatively and quantitatively evaluating compliance with 
     the requirements under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Certification.--As a condition of making any grant, 
     the Secretary shall certify in advance that the grantee has 
     in place the processes and procedures required under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Administrative costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State, unit of general local 
     government, or Indian tribe receiving a grant under this 
     section may use not less than 7 percent and not more than 10 
     percent of the amount of grant funds received, or within such 
     other percentage as may be established pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B), for administrative costs and shall document 
     the use of funds for such purpose in accordance with such 
     requirements as the Secretary shall establish.
       ``(B) Discretion to establish sliding scale.--The Secretary 
     may establish a series of percentage limitations on the 
     amount of grant funds received that may be used by a grantee 
     for administrative costs, but only if--
       ``(i) such percentage limitations are based on the amount 
     of grant funds received by a grantee;
       ``(ii) such series provides that the percentage that may be 
     so used is lower for grantees receiving a greater amount of 
     grant funds and such percentage that may be so used is higher 
     for grantees receiving a lesser amount of grant funds; and
       ``(iii) in no case may a grantee so use more than 10 
     percent of grant funds received.
       ``(2) Limitations on use.--Amounts from a grant under this 
     section may not be used for activities--
       ``(A) that are reimbursable, or for which funds are made 
     available, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     including under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act or the National Flood Insurance 
     Program; or
       ``(B) for which funds are made available by the Army Corps 
     of Engineers.
       ``(3) HUD administrative costs.--
       ``(A) Limitation.--Of any funds made available for use 
     under this section by any single appropriations Act, the 
     Secretary may use 1 percent of any such amount exceeding 
     $1,000,000,000 for necessary costs, including information 
     technology costs, of administering and overseeing the 
     obligation and expenditure of amounts made available for use 
     under this section.
       ``(B) Transfer of funds.--Any amounts made available for 
     use in accordance with subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall be transferred to the account for Program 
     Office Salaries and Expenses--Community Planning and 
     Development for the Department;
       ``(ii) shall remain available until expended; and
       ``(iii) may be used for administering any funds 
     appropriated to the Department for any disaster and related 
     purposes in any prior or future Act, notwithstanding the 
     disaster for which such funds were appropriated.
       ``(4) Inspector general.--Of any funds made available for 
     use in accordance with paragraph (3)(A), 15 percent shall be 
     transferred to the Office of the Inspector General for 
     necessary costs of audits, reviews, oversight, evaluation, 
     and investigations relating to amounts made available for use 
     under this section.
       ``(5) Capacity building.--Of any funds made available for 
     use under this section, not more than 0.1 percent or 
     $15,000,000, whichever is less, shall be made available to 
     the Secretary for capacity building and technical assistance, 
     including assistance regarding contracting and procurement 
     processes, to support grantees and subgrantees receiving 
     funds under this section.
       ``(6) Mitigation planning.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--The Secretary shall require each 
     grantee to use a fixed percentage of any grant funds for 
     comprehensive mitigation planning.
       ``(B) Amount.--Such fixed percentage shall not be less than 
     15 percent, except that the Secretary may by regulation 
     establish a lower percentage for grantees receiving a grant 
     exceeding $1,000,000,000.
       ``(C) Coordination.--Each grantee shall ensure that such 
     comprehensive mitigation plans are coordinated and aligned 
     with existing comprehensive, land use, transportation, and 
     economic development plans, and specifically analyze multiple 
     types of hazard exposures and risks. Each grantee shall 
     coordinate and align such mitigation planning with other 
     mitigation projects funded by the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Forest 
     Service, and other agencies as appropriate.
       ``(D) Use of funds.--Such funds may be used for the 
     purchase of data and development or updating of risk mapping 
     for all relevant hazards.
       ``(E) Priority.--Grantees shall prioritize the expenditure 
     of mitigation dollars for programs and projects primarily 
     benefitting persons of low and moderate income with the 
     greatest risk of harm from natural hazards.
       ``(7) Building safety.--
       ``(A) In general.--After consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
     Secretary shall provide that no funds made available under 
     this section shall be used for installation, substantial 
     rehabilitation, reconstruction, or new construction of 
     infrastructure or residential, commercial, or public 
     buildings in hazard-prone areas, unless construction complies 
     with paragraph (8) and with the latest published editions of 
     relevant national consensus-based codes, and specifications 
     and standards referenced therein, except that nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prohibit a grantee from 
     requiring higher standards.
       ``(B) Savings provision.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be construed as a requirement for a grantee to adopt the 
     latest published editions of relevant national consensus-
     based codes, specifications, and standards.
       ``(C) Compliance.--Compliance with this paragraph may be 
     certified by a registered design professional.
       ``(D) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(i) Hazard-prone areas.--The term `hazard-prone areas' 
     means areas identified by the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Administrator, at risk from natural hazards that threaten 
     property damage or health, safety, and welfare, such as 
     floods (including

[[Page H8916]]

     special flood hazard areas), wildfires (including Wildland-
     Urban Interface areas), earthquakes, tornados, and high 
     winds. The Secretary may consider future risks and the 
     likelihood such risks may pose to protecting property and 
     health, safety, and general welfare when making the 
     determination of or modification to hazard-prone areas.
       ``(ii) Latest published editions.--The term `latest 
     published editions' means, with respect to relevant national 
     consensus-based codes, and specifications and standards 
     referenced therein, the two most recent published editions, 
     including, if any, amendments made by State, local, tribal, 
     or territorial governments during the adoption process, that 
     incorporate the latest natural hazard-resistant designs and 
     establish criteria for the design, construction, and 
     maintenance of structures and facilities that may be eligible 
     for assistance under this section for the purposes of 
     protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of a 
     buildings's users against disasters.
       ``(8) Flood risk mitigation.--
       ``(A) Requirements.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall require that any structure that is located in 
     an area having special flood hazards and that is newly 
     constructed, for which substantial damage is repaired, or 
     that is substantially improved, using amounts made available 
     under this section, shall be elevated with the lowest floor, 
     including the basement, at least two feet above the base 
     flood level, except that critical facilities, including 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and other public facilities 
     providing social and economic lifelines, as defined by the 
     Secretary, shall be elevated at least 3 feet above the base 
     flood elevation (or higher if required under paragraph (7)).
       ``(B) Alternative mitigation.--In the case of existing 
     structures consisting of multifamily housing and row houses, 
     the Secretary shall seek consultation with the Administrator 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall provide for 
     alternative forms of mitigation (apart from elevation), and 
     shall exempt from the requirement under subparagraph (A) any 
     such structure that meets the standards for such an 
     alternative form of mitigation.
       ``(C) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     terms `area having special flood hazards', `newly 
     constructed', `substantial damage', `substantial 
     improvement', and `base flood level' have the same meanings 
     as under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et 
     seq.).
       ``(f) Administration.--In administering any amounts made 
     available for assistance under this section, the Secretary--
       ``(1) may not allow a grantee to use any such amounts for 
     any purpose other than the purpose approved by the Secretary 
     in the plan or amended plan submitted under subsection (c)(1) 
     to the Secretary for use of such amounts;
       ``(2) may not permit a grantee to amend a plan to 
     retroactively approve a beneficiary's use of funds for an 
     eligible activity other than an activity for which the funds 
     were originally approved in the plan; and
       ``(3) shall prohibit a grantee from delegating, by contract 
     or otherwise, the responsibility for inherent government 
     functions.
       ``(g) Training for Grant Management for Subgrantees.--The 
     Secretary shall require each grantee to provide ongoing 
     training to all staff and subgrantees.
       ``(h) Procurement Processes and Procedures for Grantees.--
       ``(1) Grantee processes and procedures.--In procuring 
     property or services to be paid for in whole or in part with 
     amounts from a grant under this section, a grantee shall--
       ``(A) follow its own procurement processes and procedures, 
     but only if the Secretary makes a determination that such 
     processes and procedures comply with the requirements under 
     paragraph (2); or
       ``(B) comply with such processes and procedures as the 
     Secretary shall, by regulation, establish for purposes of 
     this section.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The requirements under this paragraph 
     with respect to the procurement processes and procedures of a 
     grantee are that such processes and procedures shall--
       ``(A) provide for full and open competition and require 
     cost or price analysis;
       ``(B) include requirements for procurement policies and 
     procedures for subgrantees;
       ``(C) specify methods of procurement and their 
     applicability, but not allow cost-plus-a-percentage-of cost 
     or percentage-of-construction-cost methods of procurement;
       ``(D) include standards of conduct governing employees 
     engaged in the award or administration of contracts; and
       ``(E) ensure that all purchase orders and contracts include 
     any clauses required by Federal Statute, Executive Order, or 
     implementing regulation.
       ``(3) Noncompliance.--In the case of a grantee for which 
     the Secretary finds pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) that its 
     procurement processes and procedures do not comply with 
     paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) provide the grantee with specific written notice of 
     the elements of noncompliance and the changes necessary to 
     such processes and procedures to provide for compliance;
       ``(B) provide the grantee a reasonable period of time to 
     come into compliance; and
       ``(C) during such period allow the grantee to proceed with 
     procuring property and services paid for in whole or in part 
     with amounts from a grant under this section in compliance 
     with the procurement processes and procedures of the grantee, 
     but only if the Secretary determines that the grantee is 
     making a good faith effort to effectuate compliance with the 
     requirements of paragraph (2).
       ``(i) Treatment of CDBG Allocations.--Amounts made 
     available for use under this section shall not be considered 
     relevant to the non-disaster formula allocations made 
     pursuant to section 106 of this title (42 U.S.C. 5306).
       ``(j) Waivers.--
       ``(1) Authority.--Subject to the other provisions of this 
     section, in administering amounts made available for use 
     under this section, the Secretary may waive, or specify 
     alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or 
     regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with 
     the obligation by the Secretary or the use by the recipient 
     of such funds (except for requirements related to fair 
     housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the 
     environment and except for the requirements of this section), 
     if the Secretary makes a public finding that good cause 
     exists for the waiver or alternative requirement and such 
     waiver or alternative requirement would not be inconsistent 
     with the overall purpose of this title.
       ``(2) Notice and publication.--Any waiver of or alternative 
     requirement pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not take effect 
     before the expiration of the 5-day period beginning upon the 
     publication of notice in the Federal Register of such waiver 
     or alternative requirement.
       ``(3) Low- and moderate-income use.--The requirements in 
     this Act that apply to grants made under section 106 of this 
     title (except those related to the allocation) apply equally 
     to grants under this section unless modified by a waiver or 
     alternative requirement pursuant to paragraph (1). 
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Secretary may not 
     grant a waiver to reduce the percentage of funds that must be 
     used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate 
     income to less than 70 percent, unless the Secretary 
     specifically finds that there is compelling need to further 
     reduce the percentage requirement and that funds are not 
     necessary to address the housing needs of low- and moderate-
     income residents.
       ``(4) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not waive any 
     provision of this section pursuant to the authority under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(k) Environmental Review.--
       ``(1) Adoption.--Notwithstanding subsection (j)(1), 
     recipients of funds provided under this section that use such 
     funds to supplement Federal assistance provided under section 
     402, 403, 404, 406, 407, 408(c)(4), 428, or 502 of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) may adopt, without review or public 
     comment, any environmental review, approval, or permit 
     performed by a Federal agency, and such adoption shall 
     satisfy the responsibilities of the recipient with respect to 
     such environmental review, approval, or permit under section 
     104(g)(1) of this title (42 U.S.C. 5304(g)(1)).
       ``(2) Release of funds.--Notwithstanding section 104(g)(2) 
     of this title (42 U.S.C. 5304(g)(2)), the Secretary may, upon 
     receipt of a request for release of funds and certification, 
     immediately approve the release of funds for an activity or 
     project assisted with amounts made available for use under 
     this section if the recipient has adopted an environmental 
     review, approval or permit under paragraph (1) or the 
     activity or project is categorically excluded from review 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       ``(l) Collection of Information; Audits and Oversight.--
       ``(1) Collection of information.--For each major disaster 
     for which assistance is made available under this section, 
     the Secretary shall collect information from grantees 
     regarding all recovery activities so assisted, including 
     information on applicants and recipients of assistance, and 
     shall make such information available to the public and to 
     the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development on a monthly basis using uniform data collection 
     practices, and shall provide a monthly update to the Congress 
     regarding compliance with this section. Information collected 
     and reported by grantees and the Secretary shall be 
     disaggregated by program, race, income, geography, and all 
     protected classes of individuals under the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Fair Housing Act, the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other civil rights and 
     nondiscrimination protections, with respect to the smallest 
     census tract, block group, or block possible for the data 
     set.
       ``(2) Availability of information.-- In carrying out this 
     paragraph, the Secretary may make full and unredacted 
     information available to academic and research institutions 
     for the purpose of research into the equitable distribution 
     of recovery funds, adherence to civil rights protections, and 
     other areas.
       ``(3) Protection of information.--The Secretary shall take 
     such actions and make such redactions as may be necessary to 
     ensure that personally identifiable information regarding 
     recipients of assistance provided from funds made available 
     under this section shall not made publicly available.
       ``(4) Audits and oversight.--In conducting audits, reviews, 
     oversight, evaluation, and investigations, in addition to 
     activities designed to prevent and detect waste, fraud,

[[Page H8917]]

     and abuse, the Inspector General shall review programs of 
     grantees under this section for providing disaster relief and 
     recovery assistance to ensure such programs fulfill their 
     agreed-upon purposes and serve all eligible applicants for 
     disaster relief or recovery assistance.
       ``(m) Best Practices.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Secretary shall direct the Office 
     Community Planning and Development to collaborate with the 
     Office of Policy Development and Research to identify best 
     practices for grantees on issues including developing the 
     action plan under subsection (c) and substantive amendments, 
     establishing financial controls, building grantee technical 
     and administrative capacity, procurement, compliance with 
     Fair Housing Act statute and regulations, and use of grant 
     funds as local match for other sources of federal funding. 
     The Secretary shall publish a compilation of such identified 
     best practices and share with all relevant grantees to 
     facilitate a more efficient and effective disaster recovery 
     process. The compilation shall include guidelines for housing 
     and economic revitalization programs, including mitigation, 
     with sufficient model language on program design for grantees 
     to incorporate into action plans. The compilation shall 
     include standards for at least form of application, 
     determining unmet need, and income eligibility.
       ``(2) Promulgation.--After publication of the final 
     compilation, the Secretary shall issue either Federal 
     regulations, as part of the final rule for the above 
     authorization or as a separate rule, or a Federal Register 
     notice that establishes the requirements which grantees must 
     follow in order to qualify for expedited review and approval. 
     Such guidance shall establish standard language for inclusion 
     in action plans under subsection (c) and for establishing 
     standardized programs and activities recognized by the 
     Secretary. Use of best practices shall not preclude grantees 
     from standard requirements for public comment, community 
     engagement, and online posting of the action plan. Use of 
     promulgated best practices shall allow for an expedited 
     review process, under which the Secretary will approve or 
     disapprove such programs within 30 days. The Secretary shall 
     publish the draft compilation of best practices on its 
     website and allow the public 60 days to submit comments. The 
     Secretary shall review all public comments and publish a 
     final compilation within one year from the date of enactment. 
     The Secretary may revise the requirements for best practices 
     at any time after a public comment period of at least 60 
     days.
       ``(n) Plan Pre-certification for Units of General Local 
     Government.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a program 
     under this subsection to provide for units of general local 
     government to pre-certify as eligible grantees for assistance 
     under this section. The objective of such program shall be 
     to--
       ``(A) allow grantees that have consistently demonstrated 
     the ability to administer funds responsibly and equitably in 
     similar disasters to utilize in subsequent years plans which 
     are substantially similar to those the Department has 
     previously approved; and
       ``(B) facilitate the re-use of a plan or its substantially 
     similar equivalent by a pre-certified grantee for whom the 
     plan has previously been approved and executed upon.
       ``(2) Requirements.--To be eligible for pre-certification 
     under the program under this subsection a unit of general 
     local government shall--
       ``(A) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
     compliance with the requirements of this section; and
       ``(B) have previously submitted a plan or its substantially 
     similar equivalent and received assistance thereunder as a 
     grantee or subgrantee under this section, or with amounts 
     made available for the Community Development Block Grant--
     Disaster Recovery account, in connection with two or more 
     major disasters declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 
     et seq.).
       ``(3) Approval of plans.--
       ``(A) Expedited approval processes.--The Secretary shall 
     establish and maintain processes for expediting approval of 
     plans for units of general local government that are pre-
     certified under this subsection.
       ``(B) Effect of pre-certification.--Pre-certification 
     pursuant to this subsection shall not--
       ``(i) establish any entitlement to, or priority or 
     preference for, allocation of funds made available under this 
     section; or
       ``(ii) exempt any grantee from complying with any of the 
     requirements under, or established pursuant to, subsection 
     (c) or (d).
       ``(4) Duration.--Pre-certification under this subsection 
     shall be effective for a term of 10 years.
       ``(o) Deposit of Unused Amounts in Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any amounts made available for 
     assistance under this section to grantees remain unexpended 
     upon the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date that the grantee of such amounts notifies 
     the Secretary that the grantee has completed all activities 
     identified in the grantee's plan for use of such amounts that 
     was approved by the Secretary in connection with such grant; 
     or
       ``(B) the expiration of the 6-year period beginning upon 
     the Secretary obligating such amounts to the grantee, as such 
     period may be extended pursuant to paragraph (2);
     the Secretary may, subject to authority provided in advance 
     by appropriations Acts, transfer such unexpended amounts to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into the Community 
     Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund 
     established under section 124, except that the Secretary may, 
     by regulation, permit the grantee to retain amounts needed to 
     close out the grant.
       ``(2) Extension of period for use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--The period under paragraph (1)(B) shall 
     be extended by not more than 4 years if, before the 
     expiration of such 6-year period, the Secretary waives this 
     requirement and submits a written justification for such 
     waiver to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that specifies the period of 
     such extension.
       ``(B) Insular area.--For any amounts made available for 
     assistance under this section to a grantee that is an insular 
     area as specified in section 107(b)(1), the Secretary may 
     extend the waiver period under subparagraph (A) by not more 
     than an additional 4 years, and shall provide additional 
     technical assistance to help increase capacity within the 
     insular area receiving such extension. If the Secretary 
     extends the waiver period pursuant to this subparagraph, the 
     Secretary shall submit a written justification for such 
     extension to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that specifies the period of 
     such extension.
       ``(p) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Grantee.--The term `grantee' means a recipient of 
     funds made available under this section after its enactment.
       ``(2) Substantially similar.--The term `substantially 
     similar' means, with respect to a plan, a plan previously 
     approved by the Department, administered successfully by the 
     grantee, and relating to disasters of the same type.
       ``(3) Other terms.--Within one year of enactment of this 
     section, the Department shall issue rules to define the 
     following terms:
       ``(A) Unmet needs.
       ``(B) Most impacted and distressed.
       ``(C) Substantial compliance.
       ``(D) Full and open competition.
       ``(E) Cost plus a percentage of cost.
       ``(F) Percentage of construction cost.

     ``SEC. 124. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DISASTER 
                   RECOVERY RESERVE FUND.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States an account to be known as the Community 
     Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund (in 
     this section referred to as the `Fund').
       ``(b) Amounts.--The Fund shall consist of any amounts 
     appropriated to or deposited into the Fund, including amounts 
     deposited into the Fund pursuant to section 123(o).
       ``(c) Use.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available, 
     pursuant to the occurrence of a major disaster declared under 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act, only for providing technical assistance and 
     capacity building in connection with section 123 for grantees 
     under such section that have been allocated assistance under 
     such section in connection with such disaster to facilitate 
     planning required under such section and increase capacity to 
     administer assistance provided under such section, including 
     for technical assistance and training building and fire 
     officials, builders, contractors and subcontractors, 
     architects, and other design and construction professionals 
     regarding the latest published editions of national 
     consensus-based codes, specifications, and standards (as such 
     term is defined in secction 123(e)(7)).''.
       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) Proposed rule.--Not later than the expiration of the 6-
     month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     issue proposed rules to carry out sections 123 and 124 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as added by 
     the amendment made by subsection (a) of this section, and 
     shall provide a 90-day period for submission of public 
     comments on such proposed rule.
       (2) Final rule.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-
     month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     issue final regulations to carry out sections 123 and 124 of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as added 
     by the amendment made by subsection (a) of this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman from Missouri opposed to 
the bill?
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the bill. However, this 
is the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee. I am the vice 
ranking member, and I am willing to yield time. I think we will be 
speaking in both opposition and in support of the bill.

[[Page H8918]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Accordingly, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) will control the time in opposition.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), and I ask unanimous consent that she may 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for more than 25 years, the House has failed to formally 
codify the vital disaster recovery program called the Community 
Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery, CDBG-DR, program.
  Today, we in this body have it within our power, through this 
important vote, to at least resolve many of the problems, delays, and 
inefficiencies for disaster victims. H.R. 3702, the Reforming Disaster 
Recovery Act, is a solidly bipartisan solution to the persistent long-
term disaster recovery crisis that directly impacts all of our 
districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my cosponsor, Mrs. Wagner, for her steadfast 
commitment to making meaningful reforms to the delivery of Federal 
disaster recovery resources to those who need it the most.
  Mr. Speaker, I also thank Chairwoman Waters for her tireless 
leadership of the Financial Services Committee. It is due to her 
visionary leadership that our committee has moved so much legislation 
on a bipartisan basis, including this piece of legislation.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McHenry--the bill 
came out of the Financial Services Committee unanimously--Leader Hoyer, 
Leader McCarthy, and Democratic and Republican staff.
  I would like to thank the Office of the Inspector General of Housing 
and Urban Development; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. 
Ben Carson; Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair DeFazio 
and Ranking Member Sam Graves; Appropriations Chair Lowey and Ranking 
Member Kay Granger; and, of course, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, who 
has been a steadfast supporter; Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo; 
Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis; and Harris County Commissioner 
Adrian Garcia.
  H.R. 3702 codifies, for the first time, the requirements and policy 
objectives of the CDBG-DR program. In the wake of increasing threats 
from severe weather events, this is a critical long-term reform for 
Federal public policy on disaster recovery.
  As but one example, Houston had three record-breaking floods in a 3-
year period, the last one being Hurricane Harvey. A major component of 
the Federal response to each of these floods is CDBG-DR, a program 
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the 
past 26 years.
  According to findings by HUD's inspector general, this important 
lifeline to recovery for so many stricken communities needs to be 
amended, not ended. This bears repeating. HUD believes that this 
legislation is going to help mend some of the problems, and HUD does 
not desire to see us end the CDBG-DR program.
  The HUD OIG recommended codification of the CDBG-DR program 
requirements to achieve four essential objectives.
  The first, the creation of a permanent framework for future 
disasters; this bill does that.
  Reduction of the existing volume of Federal Register notices; this 
bill does that.
  Standardization of the rules for all grantees; this bill does that.
  Timely disbursement and closing of grants; this bill does that as 
well.
  The bill incorporates 21st century mitigation resiliency standards 
championed by Majority Leader Hoyer, whom I thank, Mr. Speaker, for his 
thoughtful contributions to the legislation and for his commitment to 
bringing this important measure to the floor today.
  Finally, the bill reflects many hours of constructive input from the 
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as 
Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

         Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
           Representatives,
                                Washington, DC, November 13, 2019.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Waters: I write concerning H.R. 3702, the 
     Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019. There are certain 
     provisions in this legislation that fall within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure (``Committee''). Since a committee report was 
     not filed on this bill this Congress, our sequential referral 
     request will not be adjudicated. However, H.R. 3702 closely 
     resembles H.R. 4557, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 
     2017, introduced in the 115th Congress and for which the 
     Committee did receive a sequential referral.
       According to House Rule X(l)(r), the Committee's 
     jurisdiction includes emergency management, specifically 
     ``Federal management of emergencies and natural disasters.'' 
     As part of this jurisdiction, the Committee has authority 
     over the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (Stafford Act), and activities relating to the full cycle 
     of emergency management--preparing for, protecting against, 
     responding to, recovering from, and mitigating against all 
     hazards--whether natural or man-made. Also falling under the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee are:
       ``Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors'';
       ``Construction or maintenance of roads and post roads'';
       ``Public works for the benefit of navigation, including 
     bridges and dams'';
       ``Roads and the safety thereof'';
       ``Transportation, including . . . transportation 
     infrastructure''; and
       Economic development programs.
       H.R. 3702 authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant-
     Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program, which was first funded 
     in 1993. The authority for the CDBG-DR program has 
     historically been a construct of appropriations bills. This 
     legislation would formally authorize in statute for the first 
     time a disaster program in HUD to provide assistance for 
     ``disaster relief, resiliency, long-term recovery, 
     restoration of infrastructure and housing, mitigation, and 
     economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed 
     areas (as such term shall be defined by the Secretary by 
     regulation) resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant 
     to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act.'' In the past, the CDBG-DR program has only 
     been available for some declared disasters and activated via 
     appropriations bills when disasters have been of such a 
     magnitude that Congress has determined such additional 
     funding may be needed.
       The current Federal authorities for preparing for, 
     responding to, and recovering from disasters were established 
     in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) and 
     subsequently updated by the Stafford Act. Prior to the 
     establishment of FEMA in 1979, such programs and activities 
     were scattered throughout the Federal government. When FEMA 
     was moved into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 
     2002, the authorities and activities of FEMA were dispersed 
     throughout the Department. During these reorganizations, the 
     Committee's jurisdiction flowed with the subject matter of 
     emergency management regardless of where and how such 
     authorities were dispersed. Then, Congress enacted the Post-
     Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (P.L. 109-295) in 
     2006, restoring FEMA and establishing it as the Federal 
     agency with the primary mission ``to reduce the loss of life 
     and property and protect the Nation from all hazards, 
     including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other 
     man-made disasters, by leading and supporting the Nation in a 
     risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of 
     preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and 
     mitigation'' (6 U.S.C. 313).
       Given that the CDBG-DR program could directly impact FEMA's 
     mission and programs, and potentially conflict with FEMA's 
     delivery of disaster assistance and administration of 
     recovery programs, codifying this major disaster assistance 
     program, regardless of what department or agency it is under, 
     should fall within the Committee's jurisdiction over the 
     ``Federal management of emergencies and natural disasters.''
       There are even more potential conflicts impacting the 
     Committee's jurisdiction given the breadth of the projects 
     and activities CDBG-DR can fund. In addition to CDBG-DR funds 
     being used for disaster relief and long-term recovery, they 
     can also be

[[Page H8919]]

     used for the restoration of infrastructure, housing, and 
     economic revitalization. These activities include rebuilding 
     homes, repairing roads and bridges, rebuilding or replacing 
     water and wastewater facilities, repairing public buildings, 
     and economic development. HUD could potentially establish 
     requirements for these activities funded through CDBG-DR that 
     conflict with the requirements and policies the Committee 
     establishes through our water resources and surface 
     transportation bills.
       It is critical to ensure that our Federal emergency 
     management programs are coordinated, accountable, and 
     effective, and that oversight of these programs is clear. 
     Without the lead Committee on Federal emergency management--
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure--
     effectively able to carry out oversight of a disaster 
     program, the potential result is conflicting requirements and 
     guidance issued under different disaster programs with little 
     obligation to coordinate with each other. The result could be 
     new hurdles to recipients of Federal assistance and aid at a 
     time when we've seen a significant increase in disasters 
     impacting so many communities across our Nation. Because of 
     this, I also ask your cooperation in working to ensure that 
     future bills related to CDBG-DR are also referred to the 
     Committee.
       At this time however, in order to expedite floor 
     consideration of H.R. 3702, the Committee agrees to forgo 
     action on the bill. This is conditional on our mutual 
     understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill would 
     not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment 
     of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the 
     subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation 
     that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I also 
     request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this 
     Committee to any conference committee named to consider such 
     provisions.
       Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest on H.R. 3702 into 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure 
     on the House floor. I look forward to working with the 
     Committee on Financial Services as the bill moves through the 
     legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A. DeFazio,
     Chair.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2019.
     Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
     Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to acknowledge your letter 
     dated November 13, 2019, concerning H.R. 3702, the 
     ``Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019.''. Noting that 
     H.R. 3702 differs substantially from H.R. 4557, introduced in 
     the 115th Congress, the Committee on Financial Services 
     confirms our mutual understanding that foregoing action on 
     H.R. 3702 does not prejudice any future jurisdictional claim 
     over the subject matters contained in the bill or similar 
     legislation, nor does it prejudice your committee from 
     seeking the appointment of conferees on the bill or such 
     legislation.
       The Committee on Financial Services further acknowledges 
     your request for appointment of outside conferees from the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for any 
     provisions within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction should 
     this bill or similar language be considered in a conference 
     with the Senate.
       Pursuant to your request, I will ensure that this exchange 
     of letters is included in the Committee report to H.R. 3702 
     and the Congressional Record during Floor consideration of 
     the bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Maxine Waters,
                                                       Chairwoman.

  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 3702, the Reforming Disaster Recovery 
Act.
  It gives me no pleasure to be in opposition to it, but, Mr. Speaker, 
we all come to our conclusions based on the best information we have 
available to us and our personal experience.
  My home State of North Carolina has been victimized by four 
hurricanes in 4 years, and our State and local officials have seen up 
close how the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery 
program administered by HUD works. The answer is, not well at all.
  Instead of fundamentally reforming the way we fund disaster recovery, 
this bill essentially takes a broken process and makes it permanent. 
Simply put, this bill would enshrine into law a regulatory quagmire.
  Since 2017, Congress has appropriated roughly $37 billion to CDBG-DR. 
Unfortunately, HUD's grant compliance and certification process for 
this program are so needlessly complicated that States are forced to 
divert money intended for victims of natural disasters just to navigate 
the program and interact with HUD.
  This is really key: A huge gap between disaster response and long-
term disaster recovery is the result.
  Long waits between disaster relief and long-term recovery efforts 
increase the chance that people will not return to their homes or 
communities or reopen their businesses, the lifeblood of small towns 
and rural communities.
  Under the current framework, the one this bill would codify, disaster 
victims must make a tough choice. Do they wait forever for HUD to begin 
disbursing these funds? Do they abandon their homes and businesses? Do 
they take out a loan they will have to pay back? Or do they begin the 
rebuilding process on their own, forsaking help from the Federal 
Government that their neighbors who wait to begin the rebuilding 
process will eventually get?
  Mr. Speaker, victims should not have to make this choice. There 
should be continuity between the immediate recovery resources that come 
from FEMA and long-term recovery funds that help rebuild communities.
  Delays caused by the current framework--the months-long Federal 
Register notice process, the onerous grant program requirements, the 
additional authorities this bill gives the Secretary of HUD to reject 
grantees' action plans--ensure that there will be a long wait between 
immediate disaster relief and long-term recovery.
  Should we accept this fundamentally broken process as the best? The 
answer, of course, is we shouldn't. Instead, let's work together to 
fundamentally fix how we get funds to our communities and families in 
need. Let's work to ensure taxpayer dollars are going where they are 
needed most and in a timely manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
legislation and working to overhaul our disaster relief efforts in a 
commonsense way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
H.R. 3702, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act, which I introduced with 
Congressman Al Green.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank 
Congressman Green and the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, and so many 
others who have been great partners in this endeavor--again, unanimous 
votes out of the Financial Services Committee in both the 115th and the 
116th Congresses. I appreciate their willingness to make sure that 
disaster relief is being spent on the most vulnerable victims of 
natural disasters.
  When natural disasters strike, the Federal Government plays a 
critical role in delivering emergency aid. Taxpayer dollars spent on 
disaster relief must be allocated wisely and efficiently. Every 
disaster relief dollar diverted to an ineffective or wasteful use is a 
dollar that is not going to help people in need.
  Last Congress, the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations began a bipartisan effort to improve the Community 
Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program. Today's legislation 
is a product of that strong bipartisan work.
  The Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program helps 
communities start the recovery process and assists neighborhoods with 
limited resources in rebuilding critical infrastructure after a 
catastrophic event.

                              {time}  1630

  According to numerous IG reports and a hearing that the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee held in 2018, major issues have been 
identified with the CDBG-DR program. Slow reimbursement of disaster-
related funding, delays in funding for our low- to moderate-income 
citizens, and the potential duplication of benefits were just some of 
the identified difficulties.
  While FEMA and other government agencies provide immediate resources 
to victims of disasters, it is HUD that often distributes the most aid 
through the CDBG disaster recovery program. Although HUD has become a 
primary provider of disaster assistance since 1993, this program is not 
codified in statute.
  HUD uses more than 60 Federal Register notices to issue clarifying 
guidance waivers and alternative requirements to oversee at least 113 
active disaster recovery program grants, which

[[Page H8920]]

total--are you ready for this, Mr. Speaker?--more than $47 billion of 
taxpayer money as of last year.
  Codifying the CDBG-DR program would provide a framework for future 
disasters, reduce the overreliance on Federal Register notices for each 
disaster, and speed delivery of disaster assistance to grantees and 
disaster victims.
  The CDBG-DR program must be codified and reformed to increase 
oversight and accountability and ensure that disaster relief dollars go 
directly and expeditiously to those who need them the most. 
Codification provides proper controls that protect against waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  In testimony before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
last Congress, the acting inspector general of HUD noted that $11.5 
billion of CDBG-DR funds appropriated for disasters, going all the way 
back for almost nearly a decade, remain unspent.
  H.R. 3702 sets up a mechanism to recapture future unused CDBG-DR 
funds, an accountability mechanism that we desperately need to put in 
reserves for future disasters. We must do a better job recouping this 
lost money for future disasters. And, most importantly, this will help 
ensure disaster funds are getting to those who need them most when they 
need it.
  H.R. 3702 also helps to eliminate the duplication of benefits that 
can occur in the wake of government response to a natural disaster 
under our current multiagency system. It helps protect taxpayer dollars 
from being improperly allocated, from waste, fraud, and abuse, as was 
laid out by the inspector general.
  It is about time, Mr. Speaker, that Congress makes this disaster 
relief program accountable to the people we serve and to American 
taxpayers in every State.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the honorable majority leader 
of the House.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Green and Mrs. Wagner for their efforts in a 
bipartisan way. I thank the committee for reporting it overwhelmingly--
in fact, I think unanimously--out of committee. And I thank Chairwoman 
Waters of the Financial Services Committee for her leadership in 
advancing this important bill.
  In 2017, damage from natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Harvey, 
Irma, and Maria, cost our country and its territories $300 billion--in 
1 year alone.
  We know that these storms are becoming more frequent and more severe, 
resulting from a change in climate. Sadly, our future will look more 
and more like 2017 as the climate crisis worsens. That is why, after 
visiting Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Florida Keys in 
the fall of 2017, I helped lead a bipartisan effort to ensure that 
Federal disaster relief funding is used to help communities rebuild to 
21st century standards.
  In my view, if we fail to help communities rebuild stronger, they 
will be just as vulnerable to future disasters as they were before. Not 
only is that an unwise path to follow, it is a waste of taxpayer 
dollars. That is why I am glad that this bill includes important 
provisions for climate resilience, hazard mitigation, and helping 
communities rebuild to 21st century standards.
  I am proud to bring this bill to the floor and hope that it will pass 
with broad, bipartisan support. This bill authorizes, for the first 
time, a community development block grant disaster recovery program.
  The program has been in use through appropriations since 1993 to help 
communities affected by natural disasters, but it has never been 
formally authorized. That means that the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development must go through extra hurdles before distributing 
these emergency funds, which can delay assistance getting to the 
communities that need it.
  Mr. Green recognizes that, Mrs. Wagner recognizes that, and, frankly, 
it is the unanimous view of the committee that this was a step to take. 
With this legislation, that process will be streamlined, and we can do 
our part to make the process of rebuilding after a natural disaster 
faster and better.
  I thank the chair and the sponsors of the bill for making commonsense 
changes to help align it with some of the reforms we have made to the 
Stafford Act following the 2017 hurricanes.
  Importantly, the bill conditions the receipt of CDBG disaster funding 
on the adoption of the latest building codes and standards for those 
communities that want to rebuild in hazard zone areas, such as flood 
zones. That will ensure that homes, schools, hospitals, and other 
infrastructure are rebuilt stronger and more resilient, making them 
safer for their occupants and, as I said, protecting taxpayer dollars 
that aren't being used to rebuild these buildings and infrastructure.
  I was pleased that, when we adopted the amendments to the Stafford 
Act, Mr. McCarthy, the then-majority leader, and I were the cosponsors 
of that legislation. I am pleased that Mr. McCarthy and I have worked 
together to try to make this program stronger and better.
  I have talked to my friend Garret Graves, who knows a lot about this 
stuff, and he has a bill himself. I am going to look carefully at that 
bill and try to work with him to make sure that we do, in fact, do what 
I think everybody on this floor wants: make these programs work, not 
only for those who are damaged, not only for the communities that are 
ravaged by natural disasters, but also for the taxpayers.
  None of us want to defend programs that don't work, don't work 
quickly, aren't paid on time or correctly. Nobody wants to defend that. 
But we have worked closely--when I say ``we,'' my office has worked 
closely with the homebuilders to make sure that the homebuilders 
thought this was a program that they could work with. They do.
  So I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, let us not once 
again snatch partisanship from bipartisanship moving progress. So often 
we do that. It is a shame, particularly when a bill is reported out of 
committee unanimously.
  Is this perfect? It may not be perfect. I don't know whether Garret 
Graves' bill is perfect. I know he knows a lot about the subject, and I 
am working to talk to him.
  But let's pass this bill, not necessarily in lieu of other pieces of 
legislation that can improve this process, but pass this bill as a step 
towards progress, a step towards a more rational policy, and a step 
towards making sure that we apply our moneys in a rational, effective 
way for our citizens, for our communities, and for our country.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas, the gentlewoman 
from Missouri, and everybody working on this.
  We have had one of the most intense periods of disasters in American 
history in recent years: Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, and 
Florence pounding Texas, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 
Islands. We have seen impacts in South Carolina and Georgia, as well.
  But there is not another State that has been as disaster-impacted as 
south Louisiana, there is not another State: Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 
Gustav, Ike, Isaac. We have had record-high water in the Mississippi 
River 2011, 2016, 2018, and, this year, 2019. There is not a more 
impacted State, which means there is not a more experienced State in 
terms of dealing with disasters.
  Number one, Mr. Speaker, the committee in this Congress that has 
jurisdiction over disasters is the Transportation Committee, and the 
Transportation Committee had no consideration of this bill whatsoever--
none.
  We made some major reforms just last year in the Disaster Recovery 
Reform Act that made major changes in how we handle disasters.
  You see people out there advocating this legislation who do not 
represent disaster victims, and I don't mean that in a mean way. I am 
just telling you that the folks who have actually dealt with disasters 
understand this is flawed, and let me explain why.

[[Page H8921]]

  In the immediate aftermath of disasters, what happens is the only 
funds that are available are FEMA funds. You have FEMA funds that are 
available for disaster response and direct assistance to individuals.
  So you may be able to get some immediate money, you may be able to 
get some immediate housing assistance, hotels, or other things, just an 
immediate small downpayment, then you get a loan from the SBA, a second 
agency we are bringing into it.
  Maybe then you pursue your FEMA claim through flood insurance with a 
different division of FEMA. And, at some point in the future, you may 
get these funds, maybe--maybe--appropriated by Congress, and this is 
for the long-term recovery.
  Now, let me give you the timeline under this bill.
  They have 60 days to actually allocate the funds, whatever that 
means. The funds that Congress appropriated is based upon an 
allocation.
  You have 90 days to file a plan. You have another 60 days, I believe 
it is, for consideration of the plan after it is submitted, for plan 
approval, and then another 60 days for the grants.
  And then you still have the certification of the State's program. You 
still have the actual hiring of a contractor. You have accepting 
applications, approving applications, and actually giving the grants.
  Mr. Speaker, you are talking about a year after a disaster, at least, 
under this bill.
  Further, in my home State of Louisiana, where we have received $1.7 
billion from a 1,000-year storm in 2017, we ended up having to give a 
contractor $350 million to hand out $1.2 billion. That is, roughly, a 
22 percent administrative cost, money that should be going to disaster 
victims. This doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense.

  One of the reasons I am so frustrated is because we had a bipartisan 
agreement with leadership that this bill was going to move in tandem 
with another bill, voted out of the Transportation Committee 
unanimously in March.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. It passed out of the Transportation 
Committee--I will say it again, the committee with disaster experience, 
with disaster jurisdiction--passed out of that committee unanimously.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we all need to be focused on 
is the disaster victims. That is what we need to be doing. We need to 
be focused on the disaster victims and focused on getting assistance to 
them, not revictimizing the disaster victims through our own government 
inefficiency--and I am concerned that that is exactly what this bill 
does.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me give you a statistic to prove my point.
  We had a hearing a few months ago where we had the Economic 
Development Administration, through the Department of Commerce, come 
testify. They told us in the meeting that, within 1 year, the disaster 
funds that were given to them for disaster recovery activities, within 
1 year, 79 percent of the money was out the door.
  Comparatively--to look at how HUD has handled this program, and this 
bill does nothing to fix it--comparatively, HUD has only given out 79 
percent of the program after 6 years for 50 percent of the grants that 
were issued. They still have money sitting around for Hurricane Sandy.
  This is not helping disaster victims. I urge opposition.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chair of the Appropriations 
Committee Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3702, the Reforming 
Disaster Recovery Act of 2019. I want to thank the bill's bipartisan 
sponsors: Mr. Green, and Mrs. Wagner, and also Chairwoman Waters, and 
Ranking Member McHenry for their leadership.
  I approach this as a Representative of a disaster-prone State. 
Citizens in my State of North Carolina have a special reason to 
appreciate this bill. We have been hit hard by national disasters. 
Hurricanes Matthew and Florence made landfall in 2016 and 2018, just 2 
years apart.
  The storms upended lives, destroyed homes and businesses, and caused 
billions of dollars in damages. Many communities in my State are still 
recovering more than 3 years after these storms.
  As the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 
and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, I have worked 
with colleagues in our delegation, and colleagues from other impacted 
States and territories, to secure tens of billions of dollars for HUD's 
CDBG-DR program. We have worked on this for years. We know the need for 
this legislation.
  These flexible funds help facilitate long-term recovery. They can be 
used to repair and rebuild housing, to improve infrastructure, and to 
revitalize local economies. Unfortunately, Congress has never formally 
authorized this program but this bill fixes that.
  The absence of an authorization has contributed to lengthy delays and 
a complicated patchwork of requirements laid out in numerous Federal 
Register notices that grantees must follow anew every time we have a 
disaster.
  This legislation is overdue. It makes essential reforms to this 
program. Specifically, it eliminates the need to issue those Federal 
Register notices and creates clear statutory deadlines to get the 
funding out the door as expeditiously as possible.
  It ensures that assistance goes to low- and moderate-income people 
who need it the most. It boosts transparency and public input, and it 
requires HUD and grantees to collect and use data to improve program 
outcomes.
  I am especially pleased that the legislation will formally 
incorporate ``mitigation'' funding that we have included in 
appropriations bills after recent disasters. Mitigation dollars will 
allow communities to strengthen resiliency and protect against future 
hazards, which has long been a priority of mine and North Carolina's 
Governor Roy Cooper.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership and for 
working collaboratively and cooperatively with the Appropriations 
Committee to advance this bipartisan legislation.
  I urge all Members to support the bill.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Missouri has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill), one of our senior members of the Financial 
Services Committee who is also the ranking member on the Subcommittee 
on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy.
  Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Wagner and my friend 
Mr. Green from Texas for their work on this legislation. We don't do 
perfect in the House of Representatives. We do the best that we can in 
the House of Representatives.
  We have worked on both sides of the aisle for years to craft 
something that has needed to be dealt with for well over two decades, 
which is to authorize the CDBG program for disasters in the right way. 
I congratulate Mr. Green and Mrs. Wagner for their work.
  As a volunteer after Katrina working in the very poor community of 
Lacombe, Louisiana, rebuilding houses, I saw firsthand the good and bad 
of Federal assistance as it relates to post-hurricane recovery and 
mitigation. And I fully understand why this legislation is so badly 
needed.

  In 2013, the inspector general found that $700 million in CDBG 
disaster money following Hurricane Katrina had gone missing and was 
unaccounted for. In March of this year, the GAO issued a report 
entitled, ``Better Monitoring of Block Grant Funds Is Needed.''
  That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker, and that is the 
leadership that we have gotten from Mrs. Wagner and Mr. Green, to bring 
accountability to an incredibly important program

[[Page H8922]]

that helps people in need after our worst moments in American history.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her work, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the arguments. I have listened to my 
good friend, Mr. Price from North Carolina. Obviously, he and I share 
the same home State. And I think you just have to say that we all want 
the same thing. We just have a different idea of how to get there.
  Personally, when I look at the fact that Hurricane Matthew occurred 
in 2016, Congress appropriated billions of dollars, and only a fraction 
of that here in 2019--almost 2020, by the way--only a fraction of that 
has gotten back to the victims. That is totally unacceptable.
  We have Hurricane Florence which hit in 2018. Congress immediately 
passed a disaster supplemental bill that, again, includes billions for 
CDBG-DR. Have we seen anything? Not one bit. Not one dollar.
  So why do we want to codify something that has been such an adamant, 
complete total failure? It is kind of like taking a clunker and 
repainting it and saying: Hey, here is the new car. It is going to work 
even better than ever.
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we scrap this vehicle and go a different 
route. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry? Is the gentleman 
ready to close? I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, point of inquiry, please, how much 
time does the gentleman from North Carolina have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, at the end of 
the day, what we need to be doing is we need to be looking at this 
through the eyes of the disaster victims. We need to be looking at this 
through their eyes.
  Having a bill that codifies under law, locks in that you are talking 
about 270 days, not from the aftermath of a disaster, but 270 days from 
when the funds are actually appropriated by the Congress, which could 
be a year later. It could be 2 years later. That doesn't make sense.
  There is no connectivity between a FEMA hotel program or mobile home 
program and getting money in the bank to actually help disaster 
victims. The bill says that the funds have to be spent in 6 years.
  Mr. Speaker, how about if we subject Members of Congress to being 
homeless for 6 years? How about if we make them be homeless for 270 
days? How about we make them homeless for 27 hours or 270 minutes. I 
don't care. This doesn't make sense. It is an inefficient use of 
taxpayer dollars. The program has proven to be inefficient.
  The agency has proven that they cannot administer this, and it just 
doesn't make sense. We need to continue to look at this through the 
eyes of the disaster victims. Look at the Government Accountability 
Office report that found all sorts of flaws in here, and let's actually 
fix the real problems. I urge opposition to this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from North 
Carolina has expired.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Those who oppose this bill, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act, they 
oppose it because HUD involvement has been involved in disaster 
recovery. Their opposition is so strong that they would allow waste, 
fraud, and abuse to continue to overrun the program instead of 
codifying and reforming it.
  Their opposition is purely philosophical, Mr. Speaker. It is not 
practical. HUD has been charged with administering this program since 
1993 under Democrat and Republican Presidents, under Democrat and 
Republican Speakers. No matter the composition of the House or the 
Senate, this program has continued.
  I have seen no national movement to end this program and bring the 
gentleman's theoretical vision into being. Meanwhile, the program 
continues to generate waste, fraud, and abuse. The gentleman would 
justify this waste and abuse because they believe some day they will 
successfully convince both Chambers in Congress and the President to 
pass legislation that would make FEMA the sole distributor of disaster 
funds.
  The gentlemen have articulated no feasible path toward ending the 
program. The gentlemen have no interest in reforming or fixing the 
program, and they have no jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.
  During the 115th Congress I served as the chair of the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee. I 
worked with committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, a conservative through 
and through, to draft this legislation with my good friend and 
colleague, Mr. Green, and address the flaws in this program.

  We must pass this bill in order to end the waste and abuse, and to 
ensure that funding goes quickly to those who need it, and to recapture 
the unused funds responsibly. I am dismayed that my colleagues in 
opposition will continue to waste taxpayer dollars simply because they 
have an interagency disagreement that falls outside of their 
jurisdiction.
  This legislation places greater accountability and controls on 
taxpayer money spent after disaster through codification, a clawback 
provision, duplication of benefit reforms, minimum procurement 
standards for States, and other very important provisions.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is effective and responsive policy, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for 26 years we have had the circumstances that we are 
trying to correct with this bill. This bill is not perfect, but for 26 
years, it has been an opportunity for those who desire to do otherwise 
to bring the cause before the Congress of the United States of America.
  It is ironic that this cause would be brought to the Congress at the 
time we are about to pass significant legislation that the Governor of 
North Carolina agrees with.
  I have a letter that is signed by many Governors, one of whom is the 
Governor of North Carolina. I won't read it in its entirety, but I do 
think one line is salient and important. It reads: ``We''--all of these 
Governors--``ask that Congress pass it as quickly as possible.'' Pass 
it as quickly as possible.
  They are talking about this bill, the Governor of North Carolina.
  I would also add, Mr. Speaker, that FEMA has indicated on the record 
that it does not desire to have this bill under the jurisdiction of 
FEMA.
  In fact, I have a statement from the associate administrator for 
response and recovery, Mr. Jeff Byard, and it reads: ``I would love to 
work with the committee about expanding our authorities . . .'' he is 
talking about the Financial Services Committee. ``. . . to do a 
different means of housing, but not to take on other agencies' 
responsibilities or grants.'' He is talking about our agency, HUD. 
They, meaning FEMA, do not want to take on the responsibilities that 
HUD has already within its wheelhouse, as they say.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also add this: The Committee on Financial 
Services is familiar with these kinds of concerns associated with 
disaster relief. We have the Community Development Block Grant program 
under our jurisdiction. We have the National Flood Insurance Program 
under our jurisdiction.

                              {time}  1700

  And as a Member, I would tell you that I was born in Louisiana. I 
know what New Orleans is like. I was there after Katrina. I saw what 
happened, and I also saw thousands of people come to my district in 
Houston, Texas,

[[Page H8923]]

where they were welcomed. They were welcomed, and many of them are 
still in my district in Houston, Texas.
  This is not to say that my colleagues have done anything wrong. I am 
merely indicating that I have some understanding about what is 
happening in Louisiana. But I also know what is happening in Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, in Texas, within a 3-year period, we had billion-dollar 
floods each year. We had Hurricane Harvey, the last, and Hurricane 
Harvey took lives and inundated our city. It was like something we have 
not seen before and, arguably, the country has not seen before, but we 
suffered through it. And we want to make it easier for those persons 
who were victimized, such as the ones who were victimized with Harvey, 
to have a better means by which they can acquire long-term relief.
  FEMA deals with immediate relief, emergency relief. HUD is dealing 
with long-term relief. We are dealing with mitigation. Mitigation can 
take years to accomplish because some of the structures that have to be 
rebuilt can be rebuilt in no short order. It takes time. It takes 
plans. You have to involve various agencies to rebuild these 
structures. We are talking about long-term relief. That is what this 
bill provides.
  This bill also is about the business of making sure--and I must 
commend Mr. Hoyer for this--that that mitigation relief that the 
Governors that I spoke of wanted is contained in the bill. The 
Governors called to our attention the need for mitigation relief, as 
did the builders. And Mr. Hoyer, working with the builders, crafted the 
mitigation language that is going to make a difference in the future.
  It is not a perfect bill. We will not have a perfect bill in this 
House--unless everybody agrees with me, and that is not likely to 
happen. It is a good bill and all of my friends on the other side are 
good people, every one of them. I have an inordinate amount of respect 
for them, and I support their efforts to do more in the area with FEMA, 
but I do not support efforts to remove this program from HUD.
  HUD has had it for 26 years--hasn't been perfect--but we are trying 
to perfect some of the issues associated with mitigation, some of the 
issues associated with disaster relief. And we are doing a fairly good 
job with this bill--not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill.
  And I would hope that my colleagues--understanding that over the last 
26 years, we haven't had a FEMA bill brought to the floor and passed, 
and we now have the opportunity to pass this HUD bill, my hope is that 
we will get it passed. My belief is this is the right bill for the 
right time. It not only makes sense, it makes dollars and cents. It 
will save money and it will save some lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just mention a few more entities, if I may, with 
reference to endorsement: the National Housing Resource Center; the 
National Fair Housing Alliance; the National Low Income Housing 
Coalition; Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition; and, of course, we have 
the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force. Also, 
Disaster Law Project; Enterprise Community Partners; Fair Share Housing 
Center; and we have the Hispanic Federation. Also, Local Initiatives 
Support Coalition; National Association of Councils on Developmental 
Disabilities; National Coalition for Healthy Housing; National 
Community Development Association; National Law Center on Homelessness 
and Poverty; Paralyzed Veterans of America; and Texas Low Income 
Housing Information Service. And many more.
  Mr. Speaker, as I bring this to closure, I include in the Record a 
letter from the Governors as it relates to this legislation.

                                                  October 9, 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Majority 
     Leader McConnell, and Minority Leader Schumer: Our states are 
     full of determined, tough people. For generations, our 
     families have weathered brutal hurricanes, killer tornadoes, 
     sustained flooding, and devastating forest fires. But recent 
     history tells us there's a new normal when it comes to these 
     natural disasters and if we don't rise to the challenge, they 
     will get the best of us.
       As these natural disasters continue to increase in 
     frequency and devastation, we appreciate relief and recovery 
     assistance from the federal government. However, there are 
     critical reforms needed to ensure long-term disaster recovery 
     programs function more efficiently.
       Right now, long-term federal disaster recovery assistance, 
     in the form of Community Development Block Grant--Disaster 
     Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding controlled by the U.S. Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), gets passed by 
     Congress and announced with great fanfare, but affected 
     states are left to wait months--sometimes years--before HUD 
     publishes the Federal Register. A Federal Register is only 
     the first required step in a lengthy and bureaucratic 
     approval process setting out how that money can be put into 
     action.
       CDBG-DR funds are routinely appropriated after natural 
     disasters, but the program is unauthorized, meaning states 
     must wait for new Federal Register guidelines after each 
     round of funding is announced. There are currently over 60 
     Federal Register Notices on record for CDBG-DR, with grantees 
     facing variable, overlapping and even contradictory details.
       Many of us have met with the President, administration 
     officials, and our Congressional representatives to push for 
     changes. We need Congress to require HUD to publish program 
     requirements in the Federal Register within a much shorter 
     timeframe. Better yet, Congress could get the money to the 
     people who need it even faster by formally authorizing the 
     CDBG-DR program so that Federal Register instructions can be 
     significantly standardized and expedited. Bipartisan 
     legislation to do this has been introduced in both the House 
     and the Senate, with a clear intent to balance speed-to-need 
     and accountability for public resources. We ask that Congress 
     pass it as quickly as possible.
       Another critical reform would create a universal 
     application for disaster survivors that would be shared among 
     FEMA, HUD and the Small Business Administration so people 
     busy with recovery only need to fill out one application. 
     Combining this with seamless interagency data sharing would 
     enable significantly better communication and coordination, 
     as well as faster disbursement of funds and improved 
     oversight and accountability.
       We must all keep fighting for survivors recovering from 
     these disasters, working to rebuild their lives and protect 
     themselves from the next catastrophe. We owe it to them to 
     deliver on our mission for stronger, smarter, more resilient 
     communities.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Roy Cooper,
       State of North Carolina.
     Governor JB Pritzker,
       State of Illinois.
     Governor Mike Parson,
        State of Missouri.
     Governor Tony Evers,
        State of Wisconsin.
     Governor Kay Ivey,
       State of Alabama.
     Governor Eric Holcomb,
        State of Indiana.
     Governor Ralph Northam,
        State of Virginia.

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, with this said, I thank my 
colleagues again. I consider them all honorable people, and I beg that 
my colleagues would support this legislation that is 26 years in the 
making. If it fails, I know not when we will stand in this position 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am providing this statement to explain the 
Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019 (H.R. 3702), as ordered 
reported to the House of Representatives by the Committee on Financial 
Services, along with additional amendments made since committee 
consideration:

       The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), administered 
     by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is 
     the federal government's largest and most widely available 
     source of financial assistance for state and local 
     government-directed neighborhood revitalization, housing 
     rehabilitation, and economic development activities. One of 
     the national objectives of the CDBG program allows 
     communities and states to use program funds to address 
     serious and immediate public health and safety threats. 
     Accordingly, Congress has used the CDBG program's framework 
     to provide additional assistance (CDBG-DR) for state and 
     local recovery activities in the wake of presidentially-
     declared disasters. In response to a disaster, Congress must 
     pass each supplemental CDBG-DR appropriation on a case-by-
     case basis. To date, Congress has appropriated $87 billion in 
     CDBG-DR assistance.
       CDBG-DR grants are generally governed by the underlying 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, (42 U.S. 5301 
     et. seq) (``CDBG statute'') and rules and the relevant 
     supplemental appropriation act. A supplemental appropriation 
     act providing disaster

[[Page H8924]]

     assistance typically identifies the amount appropriated, the 
     period covered, the eligible uses of funds (to the extent 
     that they are different from the underlying CDBG statute and 
     rules), and the certifications required for assistance. For 
     each supplemental appropriation, HUD publishes a 
     corresponding Federal Register notice establishing the 
     allocation of funds to eligible grantees and describing the 
     rules, statutes, waivers, and alternative requirements that 
     apply to allocations under the notice.
       In July 2018, the HUD Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG) 
     found that HUD's use of multiple Federal Register notices to 
     administer CDBG-DR assistance created challenges for 
     grantees. Specifically, HUD OIG found, among other 
     challenges, that grantees had to navigate confusing and 
     sometimes duplicative requirements contained in multiple 
     notices. HUD OIG recommended that HUD codify the CD BG-DR 
     program to: (1) establish a permanent framework for future 
     disasters; (2) reduce the existing volume of Federal Register 
     notices; (3) provide a standardized set of rules for all 
     grantees; and (4) ensure that grants are closed in a timely 
     manner. Further, the GAO has found that historically, 
     disaster relief has been inequitably distributed among people 
     of different races and ethnicities, economic classes, and 
     homeownership status. As a result, some of the largest HUD 
     fair housing settlements have come after major disasters, as 
     states and localities receiving disaster recovery grants 
     often did not serve affected families equitably.
       H.R. 3702 adopts the HUD OIG recommendations by permanently 
     authorizing the CDBG-DR program, as well as addressing 
     concerns that have been raised about the administration of 
     the program. Among other requirements, the bill would mandate 
     that: (1) HUD allocate CDBG-DR funds within 60 days of a 
     Congressional appropriation; (2) HUD coordinate with FEMA, 
     and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to better improve 
     data sharing; and (3) any CDBG-DR funded new construction, 
     repair, or rehabilitation utilize minimum federal standards 
     for flood risk mitigation and storm water protection as well 
     as utilizing the latest national consensus-based building 
     codes and standards for construction in hazard-prone areas. 
     Additionally, H.R. 3702 would allow cities and counties with 
     well-developed disaster relief resources to become 
     precertified to receive funding more quickly and establish a 
     reserve fund to be used to provide technical assistance and 
     capacity building to help communities develop their action 
     plans. The bill would also require HUD develop best practices 
     that communities can use for disaster recovery.
       The act includes two sections:
       Section 1 states that the title of the bill is the 
     Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019.
       Section 2 is entitled the. ``Community Development Block 
     Grant Disaster Recovery Program.'' This section amends Title 
     I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) by adding a new sections 123 and 124 to 
     permanently authorize the CDBG-DR program and establish a 
     CDBG-DR reserve fund.
       The new section 123 is entitled ``CD BG-Disaster Recovery 
     Assistance.'' Subsection (a) of the new section 123 
     authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     (HUD) to provide Community Development Block Grant-Disaster 
     Recovery (CDBG-DR) assistances to States, including Puerto 
     Rico, units of general local government, and Indian tribes 
     for necessary expenses for authorized activities related to 
     disaster relief, resiliency, long-term recovery, restoration 
     of infrastructure and housing mitigation, and economic 
     revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas 
     affected by Presidentially-declared disasters.
       Subsection (b) of the new section 123 provides that when 
     allocating funding, the Secretary of HUD is required to 
     include an additional amount of funding for mitigation that 
     is not less than 45 percent of the amount allocated to a 
     grantee for unmet needs. The Secretary of HUD must allocate 
     funds to grantees within 60 days of the date of enactment of 
     an Act making funds available for disaster assistance. The 
     deadline for allocation of CD BG-DR funds shall not apply if 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not made 
     sufficient information available to the Secretary of HUD 
     regarding relevant unmet recovery needs to make allocations 
     in accordance with the deadline. The Secretary of HUD must 
     notify Congress of progress on or delay in receiving the 
     necessary information within 60 days following the 
     declaration of a major disaster and monthly thereafter until 
     all necessary information is received. The Secretary of HUD 
     is required to disburse funding allocated to a grantee, but 
     only if the grantee is in substantial compliance with the 
     requirements of this section.
       The new subsection (b) also requires the Secretary of HUD 
     to coordinate with other agencies, including FEMA, and the 
     SBA, to obtain data on recovery needs when necessary 
     regarding disaster benefits, and share with FEMA and make 
     publicly available, all data collected, possessed, or 
     analyzed during the course of a disaster recovery for which 
     assistance was provided.
       This new subsection (b) also requires that funds made 
     available must be used in accordance with section 312 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act, as amended by section 1210 of the Disaster Recovery 
     Reform Act of 2018 (Division D, Public Law 115-254), and such 
     rules as may be prescribed. Households having the lowest 
     incomes must be prioritized for assistance under this section 
     until all unmet needs are satisfied for families having an 
     income of up to 120 percent of the median for the area. In 
     any case in which a CDBG-DR grantee provides assistance that 
     duplicates benefits, the new subsection (b) requires that the 
     grantees bear responsibility for absorbing such cost of any 
     duplicative assistance and return that amount to the 
     grantee's account or be subject to remedies for noncompliance 
     under Section 111 of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary 
     of HUD shall protect personally identifiable information.
       Subsection (c) of the new section 123 provides that no 
     later than 90 days after the allocation of funds, the grantee 
     must submit a plan to the Secretary of HUD for approval 
     detailing the proposed use of all funds, which shall include 
     how the funds will be used to address disaster relief, 
     identification of officials administering the disaster funds, 
     an agreement to share data with Federal agencies, and a plan 
     for ensuring compliance with the Fair Housing Act. The new 
     subsection (c) also requires the Secretary of HUD to specify 
     criteria for approval of a grantee's disaster assistance 
     plan, including approval of substantial amendments to the 
     plan. The Secretary of HUD shall disapprove a plan if (1) the 
     Secretary determines that the plan does not meet the approval 
     criteria, (2) the Secretary determines that the plan does not 
     provide equitable allocation of resources between 
     infrastructure and housing projects or between homeowners, 
     rents and persons experiencing homelessness, (3) the 
     Secretary determines that the plan does not provide a 
     credible plan for ensuring compliance with the Fair Housing 
     Act, (4) the Secretary determines that the plan does not 
     prioritize the one-for-one replacement of damaged federally 
     subsidized affordable housing, or (5) the Secretary 
     determines the plan does not provide applicants for 
     assistance notice by the grantee of the applicant's right to 
     appeal any adverse action or inaction.
       In developing the action plan, the new subsection (c) 
     provides that grantees, at a minimum, must (1) consult with 
     affected stakeholders, including residents, local 
     governments, and public housing authorities, to assess needs, 
     (2) publish the plan, including online for at least 14 days, 
     (3) ensure equal access to individuals with disabilities or 
     with limited English proficiency, and (4) publish the plan in 
     a way that allows stakeholders a reasonable opportunity to 
     review and provide feedback on the plan. In the event of a 
     disapproved plan, the Secretary of HUD shall permit a grantee 
     to revise and resubmit its plan. The Secretary of HUD shall 
     approve or disapprove a plan within 60 days of the plan being 
     submitted. If a plan is disapproved, within 15 days after the 
     disapproval, the Secretary shall inform the applicant of the 
     reasons for disapproval and the actions the applicant could 
     take to meet the criteria for approval. Applicants have 45 
     days following the date of the disapproval to submit 
     amendments or resubmit the action plan to the Secretary of 
     HUD. The Secretary of HUD has 30 days to approve or 
     disapprove the plan amendment or resubmission. The Secretary 
     of HUD shall ensure that all grant agreements are executed 
     within 60 days of approval of the grantee's plan.
       Subsection (d) of the new section 123 requires the 
     Secretary of HUD to develop and maintain a system to ensure 
     that each grantee has an approved process for financial 
     controls and procurement, and adequate procedures to ensure 
     all eligible families and individuals are approved for and 
     provided assistance, as well as to prevent duplication of 
     benefits and detect waste, fraud and abuse, and to maintain 
     publicly accessible websites that make available information 
     regarding all disaster recovery activities. The Secretary 
     must provide, by regulation or guideline, a method for 
     qualitatively and quantitively evaluating compliance. As a 
     condition of making any grant, the Secretary of HUD shall 
     certify in advance that the grantee has the proper financial 
     processes and procedures in place.
       Subsection (e)(I) of the new section 123 provides that a 
     grantee may not use less than seven percent but no more than 
     10 percent of its grant funds for administrative fees. The 
     Secretary of HUD may establish a series of percentage 
     limitations on a grantee's administrative fees, but only if 
     such limitations are based on the amount of grant funds 
     received, such series limitation is lower for grantees 
     receiving a greater amount of grant funds and higher for 
     grantees receiving a lesser amount of grant funds, and in no 
     case may a grantee use more than 10 percent of grant funds 
     for administrative fees. Subsection (e)(2) provides that 
     amounts under this section may not be used for activities 
     reimbursable by FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers.
       The new subsection (e)(3) also provides that the Secretary 
     of HUD may use one percent of CD BG-DR appropriated amounts 
     exceeding $1 billion for administrative costs, of which, 
     under new subsection (e)(4), 15 percent of that amount shall 
     be transferred to the HUD IG for audits, reviews, oversight, 
     evaluation, and investigations relating to amounts made 
     available for use under this section. The new subsection 
     (e)(5) authorizes the lesser of 0.1 percent or $15 million 
     for capacity building and technical assistance.
       This new subsection (e)(6) provides that each grantee shall 
     use not less than 15 percent of funds for comprehensive 
     mitigation

[[Page H8925]]

     planning, except that the Secretary may establish a lower 
     percentage for grantees receiving a grant exceeding $1 
     billion. Under the new subsection (e), each grantee must 
     ensure that comprehensive mitigation plans are coordinated 
     and aligned with existing comprehensive, land use, 
     transportation, and economic development plans, and 
     specifically analyze multiple types of hazard exposures and 
     risks. Each grantee must also coordinate and align mitigation 
     planning with other mitigation projects funded by FEMA, the 
     Army Corps of Engineers, the Forest Service, and other 
     relevant agencies. Mitigation planning funds can be used to 
     purchase data and development or updating of risk mapping for 
     all relevant hazards. The new subsection (e)(6) also directs 
     Grantees to prioritize the expenditure of mitigation dollars 
     for programs and projects primarily benefitting low- and 
     moderate-income households with the greatest risk of harm 
     from natural disasters.
       The new subsection (e)(7) provides that after consultation 
     with the FEMA Administrator, the Secretary of HUD shall make 
     no CDBG-DR funds available for the construction, 
     reconstruction, or installation of any infrastructure or 
     residential, commercial or public buildings in hazard-prone 
     areas that does not, at a minimum, comply with the lasts 
     published editions of relevant national consensus-based 
     codes, and specifications and standards referenced therein, 
     except that the new subsection (e) provides that nothing that 
     in the new section 123 prohibits grantees from requiring 
     higher standards. The new subsection (e) provides that 
     compliance with this section may be certified by a registered 
     design professional.
       The new subsection (e)(7) also provides a number of 
     definitions of key terms used. ``Hazard-prone areas'' are 
     defined as areas identified by the Secretary of HUD, in 
     consultation with the FEMA Administrator, at risk from 
     natural hazards that threaten property damage or health, 
     safety, and welfare, such as floods, wildfires, earthquakes, 
     tornados and high winds. The Secretary may consider future 
     risks and the likelihood such risks may pose to protecting 
     property, and health, safety, and general welfare when 
     determining or modifying a hazard-prone area. ``Latest 
     published editions'' is defined, with respect to national 
     consensus-based codes, and specifications and standards 
     referenced therein, the two most recent published editions, 
     including amendments that were adopted by State, local, 
     tribal, or territorial governments to incorporate the latest 
     hazard-resistant designs and establish criteria for the 
     design, construction, and maintenance of structures for the 
     purpose of protecting the health, safety and general welfare 
     of people against disasters.
       The new subsection (e)(8) provides that the Secretary of 
     HUD shall require than any structure that is located in a 
     special flood hazard area, and that is newly constructed or 
     substantially improved using CDBG-DR funds must be elevated 
     with the lowest floor, including the basement, at least two 
     feet above the base flood level, except that critical 
     facilities, including hospitals, nursing homes, and other 
     public facilities providing social and economic lifelines (as 
     defined by the Secretary of HUD), must be elevated 3 feet 
     above the base flood level or higher if required by the 
     previous section. The new subsection (e)(8) also provides 
     that for existing structures consisting of multi-family 
     housing and row houses, the Secretary of HUD shall consult 
     with the FEMA Administrator and provide for alternative forms 
     of mitigation (apart from elevation) and shall exempt flood 
     level requirements for those structures that meet the 
     standards of the alternative form of mitigation.
       Subsection (f) of the new section 123 provides that in 
     administering any CDBG-DR funds, the Secretary of HUD may not 
     allow a grantee to use its funds outside the scope of its 
     original application, may not permit a grantee to amend a 
     plan to retroactively approve a beneficiary's use of funds 
     other than for approved activities, and shall prohibit a 
     grantee from delegating the responsibility for inherent 
     government functions.
       Subsection (g) of the new section 123 provides that the 
     Secretary shall require each grantee to provide ongoing 
     training to its staff and sub-grantees regarding grant 
     management.
       Subsection (h) of the new section 123 provides that in 
     procuring property or services paid for with CDBG-DR funds, a 
     grantee shall follow its own procurement processes and 
     procedures or must comply with such processes or procedures 
     established through regulation by the Secretary of HUD. A 
     grantee's processes and procedures must (1) provide for a 
     full and open competition and require cost or price analysis, 
     (2) include requirements for sub-grantees, (3) specify 
     methods of procurement and their applicability, (4) include 
     standards of conduct for employees, and (5) ensure that all 
     purchase orders and contracts include any clause required by 
     Federal Statute, Executive Order, or implementing regulation. 
     The new subsection (h) provides that if the Secretary of HUD 
     finds that a grantee's procurement processes and procedures 
     do not comply with this section, the Secretary shall provide 
     the grantee with specific written notice of the elements of 
     noncompliance, provide the grantee a reasonable period of 
     time to come into compliance, and allow the grantee to 
     proceed with procuring property and services only if the 
     Secretary determines the grantee is making a good faith 
     effort to effectuate compliance with this section.
       Subsection (i) of the new section 123 provides that funding 
     made available under this section shall not be considered 
     relevant to the non-disaster CDBG formula allocations. Except 
     for those statutes that relate to fair housing, 
     nondiscrimination, labor standards and the environment, 
     subsection (j) of the new section 123 authorizes the 
     Secretary of HUD to waive or specify alternative requirements 
     for any statute or regulation when the Secretary makes a 
     public finding that there is good cause that the waiver or 
     the alternative requirement would be consistent with the 
     overall goal of CDBG-DR. The new subsection (j) provides that 
     any waiver shall not take effect before the expiration of the 
     five-day period beginning upon the publication of notice in 
     the Federal Register of such waiver, and that the Secretary 
     of HUD shall not reduce the percentage of CDBG-DR funds that 
     must be used for activities that benefit persons of low and 
     moderate income to less than 70 percent, unless the Secretary 
     specifies that there is compelling need and that funds are 
     not necessary to address the housing needs of low- and 
     moderate-income residents.
       Subsection (k) of the new section 123 provides that 
     grantees may adopt, without review or public comment, any 
     environment review approved by a Federal agency
       Subsection (l) of the new subsection 123 provides that for 
     each major disaster for which CDBG-DR assistance is made 
     available under this section, the Secretary of HUD shall 
     collect information regarding all recovery efforts and shall 
     make the information available to the public, while ensuring 
     personally identifiable information is not made publicly 
     available. Under this subsection, the Secretary of HUD may 
     make full and unredacted information available to academic 
     and research institutions to study the equitable distribution 
     of recovery funds, adherence to civil right protections, and 
     other areas.
       Subsection (m) of the new subsection 123 provides that the 
     Secretary of HUD shall direct the Office of Community 
     Planning and Development to collaborate with the Office of 
     Policy Development and Research to identify best practices 
     for grantees on issues related to disaster recovery to be 
     published by the Secretary of HUD as a compilation. After 
     disseminating the compilation, the Secretary of HUD must 
     issue regulations that establishes requirements grantees must 
     follow when using best practices to qualify for expedited 
     review and approval. The guidance must establish standard 
     language grantees can include in their action plans and 
     standardized programs and activities based on best practices.
       Subsection (n) of the new section 123 requires the 
     Secretary of HUD to establish a program under this subsection 
     to pre-certify eligible grantees for assistance. To be 
     eligible for precertification, a locality shall demonstrate 
     compliance with the requirement of this section and shall 
     have previously received CDBG-DR assistance in connection 
     with two or more Presidentially-declared disasters. The pre-
     certification shall be effective for a term of 10 years.
       Subsection (o) of the new section 123 requires the 
     Secretary of HUD to recapture any unused CDBG-DR funds if the 
     grantee notifies the Secretary that it has completed all 
     activities provided under the grant or the grantee has not 
     spent all or part of the appropriated funds within 6 years. 
     Under the new subsection (o) the Secretary of HUD may, 
     subject to authority provided in advance by appropriations 
     Act, transfer unused funds to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     for deposit into the Community Development Block Grant 
     Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund established under section 124, 
     except that the Secretary of HUD may permit the grantee to 
     retain amounts needed to close out the grant. Under the new 
     subsection (o), the Secretary of HUD is required to extend 
     the time period by not more than four years if the Secretary 
     of HUD waives the six-year time requirement and submits a 
     written justification to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations. Under the new subsection (o), after the 
     initial extension period, the Secretary may provide an 
     additional extension of no more than four years to insular 
     areas and shall provide additional technical assistance to 
     help increase capacity within the insular area receiving the 
     extension and submit a written justification for the 
     extension to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Subsection (p) of the new section 123 provides a number of 
     definitions applicable to the new section.
       New section 124 is entitled ``Community Development Block 
     Grant Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund.'' This section 
     establishes the Community Development Block Grant Disaster 
     Recovery Reserve Fund, which shall consist of amounts 
     appropriated to the Reserve Fund or recaptured funds as 
     specified under this section. Funds shall be available only 
     for providing technical assistance and capacity building for 
     grantees to facilitate disaster recovery planning and 
     increase capacity to administer assistance.
       New section 124 also provides that the Secretary of HUD 
     shall issue proposed rules to carry out sections 123 and 124 
     within six months of H.R. 3702 being enacted, and issue final 
     regulations within 12 months of H.R. 3702 being enacted.
       H.R. 3702 is an important step in putting forward a 
     framework for HUD to address disasters that affect 
     communities across the United States. I commend 
     Representative Green and Representative Wagner for their

[[Page H8926]]

     dedicated efforts to bring this bill before the House, and I 
     urge all members to support this legislation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 3702, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________