[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.
____________________