[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 193 (Wednesday, November 3, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H6136-H6138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               HAZARD ELIGIBILITY AND LOCAL PROJECTS ACT

  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1917) to modify eligibility requirements for certain hazard 
mitigation assistance programs, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1917

       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 ``Hazard Eligibility and Local 
     Projects Act''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION OF ACQUISITION OR 
                   RELOCATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Eligibility for Assistance for Initiated Projects.--

[[Page H6137]]

       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an entity seeking assistance under a hazard mitigation 
     assistance program shall be eligible to receive such 
     assistance for a covered project if the entity--
       (A) complies with all other eligibility requirements of the 
     hazard mitigation assistance program for acquisition or 
     relocation projects, including extinguishing all incompatible 
     encumbrances; and
       (B) complies with all Federal requirements for the project.
       (2) Costs incurred.--An entity seeking assistance under a 
     hazard mitigation assistance program shall be responsible for 
     any project costs incurred by the entity for a covered 
     project if the covered project is not awarded, or is 
     determined to be ineligible for, assistance.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Covered project.--The term ``covered project'' means--
       (A) an acquisition or relocation project for which an 
     entity began implementation prior to grant award under a 
     hazard mitigation assistance program; and
       (B) a project for which an entity initiated planning or 
     construction before or after requesting assistance for the 
     project under a hazard mitigation assistance program 
     qualifying for a categorical exemption under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act.
       (2) Hazard mitigation assistance program.--The term 
     ``hazard mitigation assistance program'' means--
       (A) the predisaster hazard mitigation grant program 
     authorized under section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5133);
       (B) the hazard mitigation grant program authorized under 
     section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c); and
       (C) the flood mitigation assistance program authorized 
     under section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c).
       (c) Applicability.--This section shall apply to funds 
     appropriated on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Pappas) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include any extraneous material on H.R. 1917.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1917, introduced and 
championed by Representative Fletcher. The Hazard Eligibility and Local 
Projects, or HELP Act, is designed to cut through red tape to unlock 
Federal assistance to State and local governments to complete some of 
the most basic mitigation projects more efficiently, such as buyouts of 
flood-prone properties. It represents a change to the current law's 
one-size-fits-all approach to reviewing projects that frequently delays 
mitigation work which will be welcome news to communities across my 
State in New Hampshire, and across our country as we deal with more 
frequent severe weather events that may require a Federal response.
  The National Institute of Building Sciences has conducted significant 
analysis on the return on investment to taxpayers for investments in 
mitigation. Congress, under both Democratic and Republican majorities, 
has seen fit to bolster investments in mitigation to drive down future 
disaster response and recovery costs.
  Just last week, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
marked up the Resilient AMERICA Act which would align the calculation 
used to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency's pre-disaster 
mitigation program with the agency's post-disaster mitigation program.
  FEMA's longest-running mitigation program, the Hazard Mitigation 
Grant Program, or HMGP, began in 1989 and provides assistance after a 
disaster has struck. While there have been more than $5.2 billion 
obligated to HMGP projects, more than $1 billion in HMGP dollars have 
gone unobligated and will return to FEMA.
  This bill will help disaster-impacted communities complete the land 
acquisition and simple construction projects that would otherwise be 
categorically exempt from a NEPA review, streamlining the process with 
FEMA. I want to commend Congresswoman Fletcher for her efforts to help 
disaster-vulnerable communities quicken the pace of recoveries and 
mitigate against future events.
  I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve 
the balance of my time.

         Committtee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
           Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 2021.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Waters: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1917, the Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects Act. I 
     appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this 
     legislation.
       I acknowledge that by foregoing formal consideration on 
     H.R. 1917, the Committee on Financial Services does not waive 
     any future jurisdictional claims to provisions in this or 
     similar legislation, and that your Committee will be 
     consulted and involved on any matters in your Committee's 
     jurisdiction should this legislation move forward. In 
     addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I 
     would support your effort to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving provisions within this legislation on 
     which the Committee on Financial Services has a valid 
     jurisdictional claim.
       I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation, 
     and I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in 
     the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 
     1917.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A. DeFazio,
     Chair.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 2021.
     Hon. Peter DeFazio,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 1917, the 
     ``Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects Act.'' In order to 
     permit H.R. 1917 to proceed expeditiously to the House Floor, 
     I agree to forgo formal consideration of the bill.
       The Committee on Financial Services takes this action to 
     forego formal consideration of H.R. 1917 in light of our 
     mutual understanding that, by foregoing formal consideration 
     of H.R. 1917 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction 
     over the subject matter contained in this or similar 
     legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately 
     consulted and involved as this or similar legislation moves 
     forward with regard to any matters in the Committee's 
     jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves the right to seek 
     appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any 
     House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation 
     that involves the Committee's jurisdiction and request your 
     support for any such request.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding, and I would ask that a copy of 
     our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the 
     Congressional Record during Floor consideration of H.R. 1917.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Maxine Waters,
                                                       Chairwoman.

  Mr. GUEST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1917, the Hazard 
Eligibility and Local Projects Act.
  This bipartisan legislation will let communities recover from 
disasters more efficiently, and even more importantly, better prepare 
these communities for the next disaster.
  H.R. 1917 provides assistance for certain mitigation projects that 
began before the grant was applied for. Last Congress, the House also 
worked in a bipartisan manner to pass this very practical bill under 
suspension of the rules. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to bring my bill, H.R. 
1917, the Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects, or HELP Act, to the 
floor today, and I thank Congressman Pappas, and I thank my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle on the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for agreeing to move this bill forward. I am so proud of the 
HELP Act and all that it represents. It is bipartisan, commonsense, 
meaningful legislation, that was born out of a real partnership with 
local officials in my district in

[[Page H6138]]

Houston that will benefit all Americans.
  As many in this body will recall, Hurricane Harvey hit my district in 
Houston and the entire Texas Gulf Coast in August of 2017, causing 
great devastation, dropping nearly 60 inches of rain, claiming 68 
lives, and causing an estimated $125 billion in damages. It was the 
second-most expensive hurricane in the United States' history. Members 
of this body responded to Harvey's devastation with the speed and 
purpose we needed for our recovery, passing three supplemental 
appropriations bills, sending billions of dollars in aid to Texas 
through different programs. But our recovery was and still is slow, 
slower than many expected, and slower than any can afford.
  Before I was sworn into Congress, I met with our local officials at 
home to talk about the impediments to our recovery. How could we speed 
it up? Where was recovery delayed? What could the Federal Government 
do? And one impediment that had significant impact on our recovery was 
the process for the award of mitigation project funding from FEMA.
  Here is why. As Mr. Pappas noted, section 404 of the Stafford Act 
provides that FEMA may grant up to 75 percent of funds for cost-
effective mitigation projects through the Hazard Mitigation Grant 
Program, HMGP. When States or municipalities apply through the HMGP 
program, projects, regardless of size or scope, require a comprehensive 
review to make sure all requirements of NEPA or other statutory 
requirements are met.
  Importantly, these hazard mitigation grants do not allow for the 
reimbursement of costs incurred before a grant is approved. As a 
result, many areas recovering from disaster must wait for the FEMA 
review before purchasing land or starting construction on a project 
designed to mitigate damage. This FEMA review can go on for months or 
years at a critical time for decisionmaking and recovering.
  In the case of natural disasters, local governments need to move 
quickly on projects like land acquisition; for example, buying land or 
buying out homes that have been damaged or other land acquisition 
projects. In Houston, this was true for us when we were looking to buy 
a golf course to create additional stormwater detention. The chief 
recovery officer for the city of Houston has told us that FEMA's pre-
award cost policy--that is, not allowing reimbursement of costs 
incurred before grant approval--is a limiting factor in recovery, 
especially in cases of land acquisition.
  Homeowners simply cannot afford to wait the months or years to make 
decisions about whether to repair their homes or participate in a 
buyout. The result is not only inefficiency, but real hardship.
  For example, Harris County Flood Control District received $25 
million from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to conduct buyouts to 
reduce flood damages in areas located deep in the floodplain where 
structural projects to reduce flooding aren't cost-effective. But that 
was nearly a year after Harvey. It took a year because of the review 
period required at FEMA for all HMGP applications. Most homeowners 
simply don't have the luxury of waiting a year or more to begin repairs 
or decide what to do.
  So the quicker local governments are able to move, the more people 
they can help and the more resources they can leverage. Having a one-
size-fits-all approach to reviewing projects through the HMGP is not 
efficient or effective. It needlessly delays critical mitigation work.
  That is where the idea for the HELP Act came from. The HELP Act will 
allow land acquisition projects and simple construction projects that 
do not require an environmental impact statement under NEPA to commence 
immediately without the risk of losing potential Federal funds. This 
will allow State and local governments to respond more quickly to the 
needs of their communities and to plan disaster mitigation more 
efficiently and effectively by removing unnecessary delays and 
streamlining FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. It is simple, it 
is straightforward, and it is needed.
  At home, I continue to hear a consistent concern that these Federal 
disaster recovery projects move at a very slow pace. This bill 
addresses that and will be a real improvement for communities across 
the country.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. McCaul, for working with me 
on this bill. Disaster mitigation is not and should never be a partisan 
issue. There remains much work to do to prepare for future storms that 
we know will come, but I am hopeful that the HELP Act will aid State 
and local governments when they do.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation and help our families, businesses, and communities recover 
from disasters.
  Mr. GUEST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time as I 
have no additional speakers.
  In closing, H.R. 1917 benefits our communities by allowing them to be 
eligible for Federal disaster mitigation assistance for projects 
started prior to their request for assistance. I believe that this bill 
is a good bill, and I urge support of this bipartisan legislation. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Fletcher 
again for her leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to pass 
this commonsense piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1917.
  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. ROSENDALE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion 
are postponed.

                          ____________________