[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 199 (Wednesday, December 21, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H9936-H9937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HAZARD ELIGIBILITY AND LOCAL PROJECTS ACT
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur
in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1917) to modify eligibility
requirements for certain hazard mitigation assistance programs, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
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 AND
DEMOLITION ASSISTANCE PROJECTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(2) Covered project.--The term ``covered project'' means a
project that--
(A) is an acquisition and demolition project for which an
entity began implementation, including planning or
construction, before or after requesting assistance for the
project under a hazard mitigation assistance program; and
(B) qualifies for a categorical exclusion under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.).
(3) Hazard mitigation assistance program.--The term
``hazard mitigation assistance program'' means--
(A) any 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).
(b) Eligibility for Assistance for Covered Projects.--
(1) In general.--An entity seeking assistance under a
hazard mitigation assistance program may be eligible to
receive that assistance for a covered project if--
(A) the entity--
(i) complies with all other eligibility requirements of the
hazard mitigation assistance program for acquisition or
demolition projects, including extinguishing all incompatible
encumbrances; and
(ii) complies with all Federal requirements for the covered
project; and
(B) the Administrator determines that the covered project--
(i) qualifies for a categorical exclusion under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.);
(ii) is compliant with applicable floodplain management and
protection of wetland regulations and criteria; and
(iii) does not require consultation under any other
environmental or historic preservation law or regulation or
involve any extraordinary circumstances.
(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.
(c) Applicability.--This Act shall apply to covered
projects started on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 3 years,
the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on use of
the authority under this Act, including--
(1) how many applicants used the authority;
(2) how many applicants using the authority successfully
obtained a grant;
(3) how many applicants were not able to successfully
obtain a grant;
(4) the reasons applicants were not able to obtain a grant;
and
(5) the extent to which applicants using the authority were
able to comply with all necessary Federal environmental,
historic preservation, and other related laws and
regulations.
(e) Termination.--The authority provided under this Act
shall cease to be effective on the date that is 3 years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Malinowski) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 1917, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1917. This bipartisan bill,
sponsored by Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher, makes it easier for
municipalities to access Federal funds to protect people and property
from disasters, like the major floods that have hit my State of New
Jersey and other States across the country.
For every one taxpayer dollar invested in mitigation, up to $13 are
saved. The vast majority of FEMA's mitigation investments are made via
the Agency's longest running mitigation grant program, the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program, or HMGP, which began in 1989.
Since then, more than $5 billion have been obligated to HMGP
projects, but due to various issues, including lack of capacity and
burdensome red tape, more than $1 billion of these funds have gone
unobligated.
Mr. Speaker, $1 billion in unspent hazard mitigation funds translates
to a minimum of $4 billion in unrealized disaster recovery savings in
the communities that were unable to advance these mitigation projects.
This bill begins to cut the red tape and make it easier for
communities to start their projects early while still taking advantage
of the HMGP grants to complete their hazard mitigation projects that
involve acquisitions.
In short, H.R. 1917 helps communities access funding to complete
mitigation projects that will save lives, property, and taxpayer
dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 1917, the Hazard Eligibility and Local
Projects Act.
As the gentleman from New Jersey just stated, this is a critical
bill. It has already passed the House once. It passed out of the
Transportation Committee by voice vote.
[[Page H9937]]
I want to explain the scenario. In recent years, this Congress has
provided record funding for mitigation projects, whether it be through
the Corps of Engineers, the BRIC program through FEMA, or the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program that is based upon a formula of previous years
disasters.
What this legislation does is it really is a technical fix. In many
cases, Mr. Speaker, it can take FEMA not weeks or months to approve a
mitigation project, but years. It can take years. In many cases, Mr.
Speaker, these projects are absolutely critical projects; they have
great urgency behind them.
We must have a project development and delivery process that reflects
the urgency of the projects. This bill helps to fix that.
What it does is it doesn't necessarily wait on Federal approval to
allow for a project to be reimbursed to be an eligible project. I want
to be clear, Mr. Speaker. This doesn't change the rules of eligibility.
Meaning a county, a parish, a borough, a State could not move forward
on a project doing something that ultimately is not approved and then
get reimbursed. So the criteria for qualifying projects remains intact.
This simply says if a parish, a county, a borough, or a State moves
out on a mitigation project before approval from FEMA, they are not
prevented or deemed ineligible from ultimately getting reimbursed under
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
I thank Mrs. Fletcher for her work on this. This is the second time
the House has voted on this legislation. The first time the bill passed
the House, I think it was 409-16. I am going to say it again, Mr.
Speaker: 409-16.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation clearly enjoys broad bipartisan
support. The Senate did make two small changes that we fully support.
It does put a 3-year sunset on the bill. Secondly, it does require a
report back to Congress to show the performance of the program and
whether or not it should be renewed.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 1917, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I continue
to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
Miss GONZALEZ-COLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Senate amendment to H.R. 1917, the Hazard Eligibility and Local
Projects Act, introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher
from Texas, and which I am a proud cosponsor.
The reason for that is that this bipartisan bill supports our
communities with their preparation and response efforts to any
disasters. Specifically, it will make them eligible for certain Federal
disaster mitigation assistance for projects that began prior to
submitting a request for assistance.
The Senate amendment builds on this sound work by including a 3-year
sunset clause that will allow Congress to assess the use of this
authority and flexibility moving forward.
We need to support our constituents in their efforts to safeguard our
communities against any disasters. In my district, Puerto Rico, and in
several others across the country, we know all too well the impact
certain disasters may have on our health, economy, and of course,
everyday life.
This bill will support mitigation and related initiatives prior to
the disaster taking place. As such, it reduces the need for post-
disaster response funding and ensures the continuity of mitigation work
once it has started.
Timely mitigation measures create and promote resiliency and lead to
a faster recovery. As a cosponsor of H.R. 1917, I urge my colleagues to
support this bill, as amended.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, again, this legislation is designed to address specific
problems we have seen, bureaucracy and inefficiency. As the gentlewoman
from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon) just noted, this has impacts on
communities that have experienced multiple disasters like in Puerto
Rico, where they have had some profound impacts from hurricanes. We
don't need to have the Federal Government revictimizing our citizens by
creating bureaucratic steps.
As the gentleman from New Jersey stated in his opening, we have seen
over and over again, we are making proactive investments in mitigation
which results in significant savings. Studies show the number could be
anywhere from $3 to I have seen studies approaching $20 in savings.
This allows for those projects to move forward.
Again, this bill cuts through the bureaucracy and red tape. I urge
adoption of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am proud to stand with the 409. It is nice when we can pass
important legislation with such a large majority, and I sometimes
wonder about the 16. I don't know quite what is going on over there,
but maybe the gentleman can tell me afterwards.
In closing, the Stafford Act entitles disaster-impacted States to
HMGP grants after the disaster so that they can learn from the damage
and protect their communities in the future.
The ability to complete post-disaster mitigation projects should be
accessible to communities in a much more timely manner. H.R. 1917 does
that. It will empower States to cut through the red tape and complete
acquisition projects much more quickly and with fewer burdens.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, 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 Jersey (Mr. Malinowski) that the House suspend the
rules and concur in the Senate amendment to 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. 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.
____________________