[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3600-3611]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DISASTER MITIGATION AND COST REDUCTION ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goss). Pursuant to House Resolution 91 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 707.

                              {time}  1055


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 707) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to authorize a program for predisaster 
mitigation, to streamline the administration of disaster relief, to 
control the Federal costs of disaster assistance, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Hefley in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  The bill addresses two separate needs: increasing the predisaster 
hazard mitigation activities, as well as reducing the costs of 
providing post-disaster assistance. It establishes a federally funded 
predisaster hazard mitigation program, and it authorizes $105 million 
over 2 years for helping fund a cost-effective hazard mitigation 
activity.
  In addition, the bill increases the authorization for post-disaster 
mitigation funding by 33 percent. It also adopts measures that would 
modify and streamline the current post-disaster assistance program with 
the intention of reducing Federal disaster assistance costs without 
adversely affecting disaster victims.
  There are two primary ways to reduce the costs of a natural disaster. 
One is to take measures that reduce our Nation's vulnerability to 
hazards, and the other is to make current disaster programs more 
efficient. The bill does both.
  This legislation is sponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle 
and is supported by groups such as the American Red Cross, the National 
League of Cities, the National Emergency Management Association and the 
Association of State Floodplain Managers.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Chairman Fowler) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), 
subcommittee ranking minority member, for their work on this 
legislation, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). I also want to thank 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking minority member of 
the full committee, for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, one final point, I want to emphasize my strong support 
for the outstanding job that FEMA is doing. Years ago, FEMA itself was 
a disaster in many respects. But under the leadership of James Lee Witt 
and others at FEMA, they are actually, in my judgment, doing an 
outstanding job; and I think the American people should know that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) will control the time allotted to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking Democrat on this 
side. And if we left the Social Security issue up to the gentleman from 
Minnesota and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), we would 
have less arguments and more results.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 707, the 
Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 1999. I greatly 
appreciate the initiative that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) has demonstrated in moving this bill so quickly 
through subcommittee, full committee, and to the floor.
  I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, as well as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the ranking member on that 
subcommittee. This bill was heard in their subcommittee in the last 
Congress. The bill has been reshaped and heard in a new subcommittee in 
this Congress, and I again commend the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Chairman Fowler) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), ranking 
member, for their strong commitment to moving the legislation forward 
and doing so very quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two main elements that we are dealing with in 
this legislation: a predisaster mitigation program and streamlining of 
existing disaster assistance programs under the Stafford Act.
  I think this legislation has great potential to improve Federal, 
local and State government response to disasters, reduce the cost of 
those responses and do a better job for the victims of disasters.
  The cost of the Federal, State, and local response to disaster has 
been going up incrementally and, in the last few years, almost 
explosively with the number of disasters and the greater intensity of 
disasters that we are seeing.

                              {time}  1100

  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) said at one 
time, FEMA's response to these tragedies was in itself a disaster. As 
chair of the oversight committee in the mid 1980s, I held hearings on 
the terrible response of FEMA and of a plan, then, that would have 
shifted unacceptable cost levels on local government as a result of 
disasters.
  Together with our colleagues on the Republican side, we stopped that 
plan and reshaped the whole Federal Disaster Assistance Program, which 
has continued to be managed in an increasingly better fashion.
  But in 1989, outlays, principally as a result of Hurricane Hugo were 
$1.2 billion for disaster relief. That was a milestone. That was the 
first time the Federal Government had paid out for a single tragedy 
over $1 billion.
  Well, not this year, but in succeeding years, we have been in excess 
of a $1 billion every year outlay for disasters. In 1994, it hit $5.4 
billion for one year. Last year, it dropped a little bit to $2 billion. 
But still, those are extremely high numbers.
  When we take a careful look at the circumstances, the geography, the 
local conditions, we find recurring patterns. A very significant 
portion of what we are paying for disaster relief is for people, 
properties that have sustained prior losses that have not taken action 
to protect themselves against these acts of nature.
  What this bill does is it moves us in the direction of not continuing 
to pay over and over again for the same losses to the same people in 
the same geographic areas for which we have previously paid for losses.
  We should not continue to shower Federal dollars and local and State 
dollars on people who insist on remaining in harm's way without taking 
preventative measures. An old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure, applies to this kind of Federal program as well.
  Experience under section 404 of the Stafford Act provides for 
postdisaster mitigation, and it clearly shows that mitigation is an 
effective way to limit future damages; that is, postdisaster, after 
tragedy has struck, take some actions to protect yourself against the 
next one.
  It is a good initiative. We are strengthening that response in this 
legislation. But it is not enough. We need to go further, as we learned 
from the

[[Page 3601]]

history of these various kinds of tragedies and disasters that strike 
various parts of our country.
  The predisaster mitigation program focuses on local government 
initiatives, private sector participation, and leveraging of private 
sector participation. After all, we continue to reimburse people and 
businesses who are in harm's way, and private sector should be a part 
of the advance protection.
  The expectation is, and I say expectation because I do not want to 
overstate the potential, the expectation is that these initiatives, 
predisaster actions, involving private sector, leveraging private 
sector resources will enhance State mitigation plans that should be 
developed in coordination and consultation with local governments and 
with FEMA.
  We are hopeful that this new program is going to make a very useful 
and significant contribution to control disaster losses before disaster 
strikes, so that when one is and this region is struck, it will be 
better prepared to withstand and will have lower losses.
  Now there is a pilot project that, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) said, was developed under the leadership of Director 
Witt at FEMA, called Project Impact. It has been widely praised by 
local communities. Community focus, bottoms up planning, local 
involvement, all of which are good initiatives. Let us hope this 
becomes a pattern, a model, a good starting point for this new 
predisaster initiative we are authorizing in this legislation.
  But I emphasize from my previous experience in holding extensive 
hearings on disaster mitigation, it will require extensive 
intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. It is going to have to 
start from the local level.
  The Federal Government is not going to come in and do it for them. 
They have got to do it. They have got to then coordinate with State and 
with FEMA well in advance of disasters and make some very tough 
decisions such as local zoning to keep people out of harm's way. If 
they do not do it, they should not expect to be compensated for their 
failure to keep themselves out of harm's way.
  We will have to undertake extensive oversight of this Project Impact 
and of these future plans to see that they really are focused on what 
we intend them to do. At stake are people's lives, people's well-being, 
the integrity of communities, but also at stake are billions of dollars 
of Federal funds that are going to be called upon to reimburse local 
government and make them whole after disaster has struck.
  We are off to a good start. I think this is a very good move forward. 
I also think, at the same time, it is going to require intense 
vigilance on the part of our committee and on the part of FEMA to make 
sure that it does work. It is in the right direction. I commend the 
chairman for moving this legislation. We are all going to have to make 
an extra effort to make it work.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Emergency Management.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), my good friend, the subcommittee ranking member, minority 
member, for his work on this legislation. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking minority member of the full 
committee, for their support and their help to me as well.
  H.R. 707 would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to provide authorization for a predisaster 
mitigation program, and it would implement several cost saving 
measures.
  This legislation is substantially similar to legislation that was 
reported out of the full committee in the last Congress. I want to 
commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for their efforts in developing that 
bill, and they are cosponsors of this bill.
  This is a product of three hearings that were held during the last 
Congress by the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, and it 
reflects the careful work of State and local emergency managers and 
other State and local government officials.
  H.R. 707 focuses on two important issues. First, mitigation 
activities are not set out as a high priority in the current Stafford 
Act. This needs to change. H.R. 707 will, for the first time, authorize 
Federal funding for cost effective predisaster mitigation projects. The 
appropriators have funded an unauthorized program for the last 3 fiscal 
years.
  Second, the cost of natural disasters has been increasing to the 
point where Congress must take a hard look at measures that control 
cost while still providing that critical assistance that is needed by 
victims of disasters.
  H.R. 707 would adopt various streamlining and cost-cutting measures, 
many of which were proposed by the administration. The committee 
anticipates this bill will save $109 million over the first 5 years and 
even more in the long run.
  In addition, the bill provides specific criteria and structure to a 
FEMA program that currently has no such criteria or structure.
  Finally, the bill will require FEMA to give greater authority and 
control to State and local governments over the administration of the 
mitigation and disaster assistance programs.
  Last year, the State of Florida, my State endured one of the most 
tragic natural disasters, wildfires. When the smoke had cleared and all 
of the fires were out, over half a million acres had been burned. Three 
hundred homes were damaged or completely destroyed, and numerous 
businesses were significantly damaged or closed.
  My district suffered some of the heaviest damage with the entire 
county of Flagler being evacuated for safety precautions. With over 
2,000 wildfires burning statewide, every county in Florida felt the 
impact.
  I just want to give you a brief story about these fires, an example 
here. One of my constituents, Greg Westin, a resident of Flagler 
County, and a deputy sheriff, lost his home in the wildfires. In early 
July, Deputy Westin left his home for work at 7 a.m. to assist county 
officials and fire fighters with the ongoing fires.
  Throughout the day, Deputy Westin stayed in close contact with his 
wife and two children to give them updates on the fires. Then 
eventually he had to tell his own family to evacuate. But Deputy Westin 
did not just give up. He continued to fight the fires on the opposite 
side of the county. In fact, he was working side by side with fire 
fighters in the southern part of Flagler County when his own home 
caught fire and burned to the ground.
  Among the homes he was trying to save was a fellow employee of the 
sheriff's department. This was the kind of commitment and sacrifice 
that was demonstrated during those fires last summer. I applaud Deputy 
Westin's efforts. But more than that, I want to help him and all of the 
other people who respond to these emergencies.
  I believe that an emphasis on mitigation could have spared the State 
and my District from some of this devastation.
  A recent report that was issued by our Governor's Wildfire Response 
and Mitigation Review Committee states that, if Florida does not take 
the necessary preventative efforts to ensure wildfire safety, the 
devastation experienced during the wildfires of 1998 will not only be 
repeated, but will also increase in severity.
  Florida has already taken important steps in the wake of these 
wildfires to prepare itself for future disasters and is using methods 
like control burns of underbrush to prevent a similar disaster.
  I just want to point out that this legislation will help alleviate 
the pain and suffering and property damage, not only of Floridians, but 
also of all Americans. It also has that added benefit of reducing our 
Federal cost.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume

[[Page 3602]]

to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), a gentleman who has 
much to do with the authorship of this legislation, his fine work with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 707, the 
Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 1999. This bill is a 
result of bipartisan cooperation over two Congresses.
  In particular, I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague 
and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), 
for his work in laying a foundation for this bill in the last Congress 
in a truly bipartisan fashion. That bipartisanship has extended to this 
Congress and the new leadership of the Subcommittee on Oversight, 
Investigations and Emergency Management, the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Fowler), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), ranking 
member.
  This bill demonstrates how we can work together under the leadership 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, to accomplish a common 
goal, improving the health and safety of all of our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, in the years that the disaster relief program was 
within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, we had several opportunities to hear about the Federal 
response to disasters and, more importantly, about the need to do 
something to reduce disaster-related losses in advance of disaster. We 
learned that it is better to be proactive than reactive, and that is 
what this bill is about.
  As has been noted before, James Lee Witt, the director of FEMA, has 
done a truly remarkable job in turning FEMA from one of the most 
criticized agencies in the Federal Government into one of its more 
shining examples of Federal, State, local partnership. No longer does 
the old line ``I'm from the Federal Government, and I'm here to help'' 
elicit laughs, at least not where FEMA is concerned.
  What we are doing today is endorsing Director Witt's concept of 
providing assistance to communities in advance of disaster. We are 
endorsing Project Impact. I am optimistic that the investment we are 
making today will return great dividends in future losses avoided to 
lives, property, and the national economy.
  That is why I am so pleased to cosponsor this bill.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 707 on its 
final passage.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Fowler).
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation 
and Cost Reduction Act. In particular, I would like to stress the 
importance of section 208 to my constituents.
  On the first day of the 106th Congress, also my first day in 
Congress, I introduced a bill that would help provide emergency 
assistance to the dairy farmers in my congressional district. I could 
not be more pleased that the language of that bill has been 
incorporated into H.R. 707.
  Mr. Chairman, the 22nd Congressional District of New York is 
notorious for its harsh winters, but no one could have prepared for the 
January, 1998, ice storm disaster. Below-freezing temperatures, coupled 
with record rainfall combined to coat a region extending from Western 
New York to Maine in solid ice. As you all know, the results of this 
storm were devastating. Seventeen lives were lost, and roughly 1.5 
million people were without electricity, some for more than 3 weeks.
  The hardest hit in the storm were the dairy farmers. The prolonged 
power outage severely jeopardized their livelihood. The production and 
distribution abilities of the dairy community came to a sudden halt. 
Without power, the farmers were unable to store or produce milk 
properly. This resulted in the loss of approximately 14 million pounds 
of milk, taking money right out of the dairy farmers' pockets.
  As a result of the storm, farmers were forced to apply to the Dairy 
Production Disaster Assistance Program. To give my colleagues some 
understanding of the scope of the disaster, 362 farmers, Mr. Chairman, 
applied for assistance and over $600,000 was committed. However, this 
process took incredible time, and some of the farmers still have not 
received their assistance.
  Quite frankly, the response was not fast enough. The problem was that 
the people working in the field lacked the authority to make critical 
decisions. No action was taken until they checked with their 
supervisors. This time-consuming decision-making process must be 
changed.
  Let me give a perfect example. A constituent of mine who helped 
coordinate the disaster relief operations complained about the lack of 
a direct line of communications with officials from FEMA. For instance, 
he told one official over the phone that the farmers were in desperate 
need of generators, yet he had to make several appeals with three 
separate people before the message was heard. It still took over a week 
for the generators to arrive.
  In the meantime, these farm families had no income. Going a week 
without power is a disruption to all of our lives, but to be unable to 
make a living jeopardizes one's entire existence.
  Actually, the first generators to reach the farmers were loaned by 
farmers from other regions of the State. They recognized the severity 
of the situation and acted accordingly. They were able to ship 
generators to the needy farmers in just 2 days.
  Mr. Chairman, this type of relief should not only occur because of 
the generosity and understanding of our neighbors. We must install a 
quicker, more decisive policy for providing immediate assistance to the 
agricultural community.
  My language, included as section 208 of the bill, begins to address 
this problem. It directs FEMA to develop methods and procedures to 
accelerate emergency relief to rural communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the United States does a better job than any 
other country in the world in responding to natural disasters. Yet, in 
the words of Thomas Edison, ``There's always a way to do it better. 
Find it.''
  Simply put, my bill requires the director of FEMA to find a better 
way to help dairy farmers who are hit by a natural disaster. I believe 
this legislation is vital to provide a meaningful long-term benefit to 
the farm families I represent. I commend the gentlewoman from Florida 
for her great work and the members of the committee as well.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) and thank him for his work on 
this bill and some of the interests he brings forward.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member both for that 
courtesy and for his leadership on the committee in bringing this 
legislation forward, and also I wish to thank the chairman and the 
subcommittee chairman for their work.
  A little over a year ago, Maine had suffered one of the worst storms 
of the century. It was the ice storm of the century. Maine residents 
were without power for over 2 weeks, in most cases. We are talking 
about nearly 70 percent of all the Maine households who lost power for 
that period, affecting and impacting over 1.2 million people in the 
State of Maine.
  Lewiston, the second largest city in the State of Maine, suffered 
nearly 100 percent power loss. Farmers and small businesses were 
devastated by the ice storm. That is why I strongly support and worked 
with the committee to make these reforms necessary so that, next time 
around, the only natural disaster occurs is the one we are working to 
clean up, not the one after the government comes in to try to help 
people work on.
  This is a bipartisan bill focusing our attention on the pre- and 
post-disaster mitigation assistance and better preparing our 
communities for the future.

[[Page 3603]]

I am in particular support of the pieces that deal with Maine farmers 
and forestry and dairy, who were especially hard hit. There was almost 
a delayed response for getting assistance to our farmers to make sure 
that milk was not lost or spoiled. The generator assistance and others 
moved at a snail's pace.
  Agriculture needs a faster, more efficient system to better aid our 
farmers and our small business people, and that is why this bill calls 
for directing the FEMA director to develop a better agriculture system, 
working with the Department of Agriculture to report back to our 
committee in 180 days to develop a much better, more efficient system.
  So this is a first step. I want to commend the ranking members and 
the chairman of the committee for the work that has gone on and their 
leadership on these issues, and I look forward to working on more and 
more reforms in the future.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), a former member of our committee.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for yielding me this time; 
and I thank him and the subcommittee chairman, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler), for their leadership in getting this bill to the 
floor.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 707. Every time disaster strikes, 
local governments are faced with the critical task of dealing with the 
recovery efforts. California is no stranger to natural disasters. In my 
district alone, we have had a severe earthquake and floods and fires in 
my time here in Congress. Local governments have been forced to bear a 
tremendous fiscal burden resulting from these unfortunate events.
  It is bad enough that homes, buildings and lives are destroyed at the 
hands of nature, but our local government are the means through which 
we can most effectively prepare for and respond to disasters. It is 
imperative that we ease their financial burden and do all we can to 
help them respond to the needs of those people whose lives are 
destroyed after a disaster strikes.
  H.R. 707 does exactly that. Specifically, it authorizes grants to 
help communities mitigate natural disasters and streamlines existing 
disaster relief programs. Additionally, it includes a number of 
provisions that make current disaster programs more efficient.
  More importantly, the bill will now include measures to ensure local 
governments are protected against increased financial burdens. The 
manager's amendment includes my amendment that provides a public 
comment period when new or modified policies are issued. In addition, 
the amendment also prohibits any policy from being applied 
retroactively.
  So I want to extend my deepest thanks to the gentlewoman from Florida 
for allowing this language to be included in her manager's amendment. I 
would also like to acknowledge Marcus Peacock, on the chairman's staff, 
for his dedication to this issue. Finally, I want to thank my 
colleagues on the California delegation for their support on this 
issue, especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Jerry Lewis), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. David Dreier), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Steve Horn), the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke 
Cunningham) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Juanita Millender-
McDonald.
  For these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 707 and urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a young member who had a 
significant role in this, who was able to impress the chairwoman, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), with concerns in his district 
on landslides and is to be given much legislative credit for his 
efforts.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, we have introduced an amendment which has 
been incorporated in the en bloc amendments to which the gentlewoman 
from Florida will be speaking. It has bipartisan support, but I rise 
now to give my colleagues a sense of the rationale and the background 
and the need for it.
  I want to begin by thanking the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the subcommittee chairman, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Fowler); the ranking members, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant); 
as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski); and I particularly want to thank the 
committee staff. When I brought these concerns to the committee, the 
committee staff immediately worked with my office and with FEMA to find 
an appropriate solution. I want to thank Ken Kopocis, Arthur Chan and 
Marcus Peacock.
  Here is the situation we are dealing with. In my district a 
landslide, a slow-moving landslide, has destroyed 137 homes. The 
landslide moves a few inches a day, but over the course of the last 
year people's homes have been moved as much as 200 to 300 feet down a 
hill and completely destroyed. We are speaking today of a bill that is 
designed to reduce the cost of disasters by preventing them, and I 
strongly support that. Clearly, a dollar saved in prevention can save 
us $3 down the road in recovery.
  H.R. 707 reduces the Federal share for alternative projects from 90 
percent to 75 percent. These projects are used when local governments 
decide not to repair, restore or reconstruct public facilities. The 
amendment we have offered today would ensure that communities which are 
unable to rebuild due to unstable soil, such as a landslide, would 
still receive the higher Federal contribution; and there is a good 
reason for it.
  The folks in my district built with good intent and every reason to 
believe their homes would be safe. There had been no landslide there 
before. They could not buy landslide insurance because, as my 
colleagues may know, it is very difficult. So they had every reason to 
believe they would be free from disasters. Actually, some had built 
above a floodplain, saying they did not want to be flooded out. They 
had done the right thing. But here we have this landslide that has 
wiped them out.
  So what we want to do is make sure that in cases where the land is 
unstable, where the local government decides not to rebuild, which I 
think is a prudent decision, we would provide the full support of the 
current law and not penalize folks who, for no fault of their own, had 
their possessions wiped out. Areas like Kelso, Washington, have no 
alternative to an alternative project. So reducing the Federal share in 
these situations would unfairly hurt these residents.
  Included in the manager's amendment is a provision to preserve the 90 
percent funding level for alternative projects where communities decide 
not to rebuild due to soil instability. Frankly, that is a sound 
decision. Not rebuilding where the soil is unstable will prevent 
disaster recurrence in the future. So this bill will not only protect 
my local communities, in the long run it will save us money.
  I would like to thank the committee again, the gentlewoman from 
Florida and the chairman for their support, and I very much appreciate 
this chance to address this important amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Southern Ohio (Mr. Strickland) who has some concerns 
as well.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 707. 
This legislation streamlines the process used by individuals and 
families in applying for disaster assistance through FEMA. H.R. 707 
consolidates two existing programs, the Temporary Housing Assistance 
Program and the Individual and Family Grant Program into one. This 
change will help speed relief to families who are hit hard by a 
disaster.
  Under current law, a family faced with damage due to flooding or 
another natural disaster must first apply for temporary housing 
assistance, a fully Federal program, and for a small business loan. If 
they do not qualify for either of these programs, they are then often 
referred to the State-run Individual and Family Grant Program for

[[Page 3604]]

help. The Individual and Family Grant Program generally assists low-
income families. Because of this two-part approach, families who are 
least capable of shouldering the burden of a disaster often wait the 
longest for relief. Consolidation of the Temporary Housing Assistance 
and Individual and Family Grant Programs will relieve this pressure and 
speed relief to those who need it most.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation also permits 
homeowners to obtain grant funds to replace homes that are damaged in a 
disaster. Under current law, homeowners who sustain minimal damage to 
their homes receive grants of up to $10,000 to restore their home to 
pre-disaster conditions. However, homeowners who sustain substantial 
damage, or whose homes are destroyed, are not eligible for the $10,000 
grant.
  Tragically, the disaster victims who have been shut out of this grant 
program are owners of mobile homes and other less expensive residences, 
the very people who need the grant the most.

                              {time}  1130

  For example, consider this story about a young couple in southern 
Ohio. Their combined income was less than $30,000 when their mobile 
home was destroyed by a flood in March of 1997. Two days after the 
flood hit, a baby was born into their family. They had no home and were 
unable to recover the $10,000 grant that their neighbors, whose homes 
were not destroyed, received. This couple was forced to move in with 
parents in a room, one room in a small home, and they were forced to 
take out a loan to purchase a new mobile home. Ironically, if they had 
owned a more expensive home, they well could have received $10,000 in 
grant funds and been able to return to their homes quickly.
  Last Congress, I introduced H.R. 2257, the Disaster Assistance 
Fairness Act, to correct this inequity. I am pleased that the goals of 
that bill have been met by H.R. 707 today. The citizens of southern 
Ohio, which I represent, have had extensive dealings with FEMA-run 
disaster programs over the last several years. In most instances, FEMA 
employees have performed above and beyond the call of duty. However, 
current law has hampered their ability to respond quickly to some of 
the most difficult disaster cases. The changes envisioned in H.R. 707 
should help restore fairness to the process, and I thank those who are 
responsible for this worthy bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) be permitted to control the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to acknowledge the bipartisanship of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who is without a doubt one of the great 
chairmen in our Congress, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar). The two of them working together have solved a number of 
problems that people thought were not solvable, believe me.
  I also want to pay credit to the new chair, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler), the great job that she has done on this and the 
way she opens up the committee and gives an opportunity for everyone to 
have a say, even the new Members. I want to thank her for accommodating 
the concerns of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) who had 
problems with landslides and was concerned about the legislation. I 
want the Congress to know that not only did she take his issue to 
heart, she made it a part of her manager's amendment, and we want to 
thank her for that.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). They basically were the 
driving force for this in the last Congress when the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) brought it and made it possible. Time ran out in the Senate, 
we were not able to have this bill enacted into law, and here we are 
today.
  I think the bill speaks for itself. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) said sometimes the disaster was 
really after the disaster, with FEMA. The new director, Mr. Witt, I 
believe, has brought a lot of wit and wisdom to this particular agency. 
I think that the gentlewoman's efforts to stabilize cost, cost 
efficiency and to make sure there is enough money in there by the 
nature of her amendment, which she is to be commended for, because this 
side of the aisle also felt that there may have been a little bit too 
drastic of measures in this bill. That has been done.
  I think we have a good bill before us. I think that FEMA becomes 
stronger and better. I think local communities have more of a say and 
there is more help to the average American who suffers from some 
tragedy.
  With that, I am in strong support of this bill.
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise two issues relating to 
the disaster assistance bill we are about to consider. I think that the 
attempt to streamline costs and place higher priority on predisaster 
mitigation are commendable goals. One of the provisions within the bill 
would allow the President to contribute funds to governmental entities 
to repair public facilities, or to private nonprofit facilities that 
are damaged but only if certain stringent conditions are first met by 
the owners of these private facilities. (The Transportation Committee 
amended this provision to essentially eliminate the conditions for the 
recovery of federal funds by these private nonprofit entities.)
  My concern is with the amendment. Specifically, the original terms of 
the Stafford Act already limit the types of nonprofit entities that may 
receive disaster relief to those providing ``essential'' services. 
Again, this is a narrowly defined term. If the amendment is intended to 
get essential services back on line first, and they worry about who 
picks up the tab later, it seems to me that the Stafford Act already 
accomplishes this. Now, we have established essential services and 
critical services without clearly articulating the distinction.
  My second concern, however, is far more serious. And that is that 
there are plenty of private, for-profit entities that provide essential 
services. As the Washington area all too recently experienced with 
PEPCO customers down for more than a week during the cold snap, 
sometimes these are the entities that are hardest hit in emergencies. 
Now, PEPCO is a pretty big company that could probably obtain emergency 
financing from other sources. But the point is that we should not be 
favoring one type of business entity over another with respect to 
disaster relief. The amendment, however, does exactly this.
  I hope we might resolve these issues in conference and yield back he 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  I also want to thank my good friend Subcommittee Ranking Minority 
Member Traficant, for his work on this legislation. I also want to 
thank Chairman Shuster and the Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, Jim Oberstar for their support.
  H.R. 707 would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to provide authorization for a pre-disaster 
mitigation program, and implement several cost saving measures.
  This legislation is substantially similar to legislation reported out 
of full Committee in the last Congress. Congressmen Boehlert and Borski 
are to be commended for their efforts in developing that bill.
  It is the product of three hearings held during the last Congress by 
the Water Resources Subcommittee and reflects the careful work of state 
and local emergency managers, and other state and local government 
officials.
  H.R. 707 focuses on two important issues:
  First, mitigation activities are not set out as high priority in the 
Stafford Act. This needs to change. H.R. 707 will, for the first time, 
authorize federal funding for cost effective predisaster mitigation 
projects. Appropriators have funded an unauthorized program for the 
last three fiscal years.
  Second, the cost of natural disasters has been increasing to the 
point where Congress must take a hard look at measures that control 
costs, while still providing the critical assistance needed by victims 
of disasters.
  H.R. 707 would adopt various streamlining and cost-cutting measures, 
many of which were proposed by the administration.

[[Page 3605]]

  The Committee anticipates this bill will save $109 million over the 
first five years and even more in the long run.
  In addition, the bill provides specific criteria and structure to a 
FEMA program that currently has no such criteria or structure.
  Finally, the bill will require FEMA to give greater authority and 
control to state and local governments over the administration of the 
mitigation and disaster assistance programs.
  Last year, the state of Florida endured one of the most tragic 
natural disasters--wildfires. When the smoke had cleared and all the 
fires were out, over a half million acres had been burned, 300 homes 
were damaged or completely destroyed, and numerous businesses were 
significantly damaged or closed.
  My district suffered some of the heaviest damage, with the entire 
county of Flagler being evacuated for safety precautions. With over 
2,000 wildfires burning statewide, every county felt the impact.
  Let me give you just a brief story about one of my constituents Greg 
Weston, a resident of Flagler County and a Deputy Sheriff who lost his 
home in the wildfires. In early July, Deputy Weston left his home for 
work at 7:00 a.m. to assist county officials and firefighters with the 
ongoing fires. Throughout the day Deputy Weston stayed in close contact 
with his wife and two children to give them updates on the fires and 
then eventually told his family to evacuate. But Deputy Weston did not 
just give up.
  He continued to fight fires on the opposite side of the county. In 
fact, he was working side-by-side with firefighters in the southern 
part of Flagler when his own home caught fire and burned to the ground. 
Among the homes he was trying to save was a fellow employee at the 
Sheriff's Department.
  This was the kind of commitment and sacrifice that was demonstrated 
during last summer. I applaud Deputy Weston's efforts, but more than 
that, I want to help him and all the other people who respond to 
emergencies.
  I believe that an emphasis on mitigation could have spared the state, 
and my district, from some of this devastation.
  A recent report issued by our Governor's Wildfire Response and 
Mitigation Review Committee states that if Florida does not take the 
necessary preventive efforts to ensure wildfire safety, the devastation 
experienced during the wildland fires of 1998 will not only be 
repeated, but will also increase in severity.
  Florida has already taken important steps in the wake of the 
wildfires to prepare itself for future disasters and is using methods 
like controlled burns of underbrush to prevent a similar disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will help alleviate the pain and 
suffering and property damage of not only Floridians, but also all 
Americans.
  It also had the added benefit of reducing federal cost.
  I urge support of this important legislation.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 707, the 
Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 1999.
  Florida occupies a unique position in our nation's landscape. 
Unfortunately, natural disasters often threaten my state's magnificent 
environment. In the past year alone, Florida has been devastated by 
floods, fires, and tornadoes.
  Nationwide, the cost of responding to such catastrophes has 
skyrocketed over the past decade. According to the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, twenty-five major weather-related incidents 
occurred from 1988 through 1997, resulting in total damages of 
approximately $140 billion.
  The most costly insured catastrophe in U.S. history was Hurricane 
Andrew, which hit South Florida in August 1992. It caused more than $25 
billion in damages and resulted in fifty-eight deaths. In the aftermath 
of this hurricane, many insurance companies no longer provide coverage 
in Florida. As a result, my constituents are concerned about the 
availability and affordability of residential property insurance.
  I have cosponsored legislation to guarantee that homeowners have 
access to affordable disaster insurance. I have been working with the 
Florida delegation to enact this important measure.
  Prevention is critical to reducing the economic costs and loss of 
life when severe weather strikes. To that end, I held a workshop in my 
district last year on Project Impact, an initiative sponsored by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Project Impact helps 
communities prepare for natural disasters by establishing a partnership 
between citizens, businesses and government. It also encourages 
communities to act now to reduce the threat of future calamities.
  Congress must take a more pro-active approach to disaster mitigation. 
H.R. 707, sponsored by Congresswoman Fowler and Congressman Traficant, 
achieves this goal. Through this bill, states will be able to 
accurately assess the risks of natural disasters and reduce the 
resulting damages. I commend my colleagues for working on a bipartisan 
basis to develop this common-sense measure.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 707 represents a critical step forward in disaster 
mitigation efforts. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chair 
and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, and the Chair and 
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee on Transportation & 
Infrastructure for their attentiveness to the needs and concerns of 
California's municipal and county governments by including ``Due 
Process'' language in the Committee's Manager's Amendment. This 
language has the bi-partisan support of the California Delegation, the 
California State Association of Counties, and the California League of 
Cities.
  The fiscal burden that California's county and municipal governments 
have had to bear as a result of natural disasters has grown 
dramatically over the last few years. The increased number and 
magnitude of natural disasters is one of the major factors contributing 
to this fiscal burden. While the Federal government plays a key role in 
disaster recovery, it is state and local governments that are 
ultimately charged with responding to the immediate needs of citizens 
and businesses in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Since state and 
local governments must carry this burden, they should have a voice in 
the rulemaking process.
  FEMA often provides for public participation in the rulemaking 
process regarding its programs and functions, including matters that 
relate to public property, even though notices and public comment for 
rulemaking were not required by law. That such due process measures are 
not required by law is a mistake that can have major financial 
repercussions. The result of failing to require public due process, 
including the proper notification of policy modifications, has 
obviously had an overwhelming fiscal impact on California's state and 
local governments. In the aftermath of the 1995 winter storms, 
California's localities were not informed of FEMA's 1996 flood control 
policy which listed the federal agencies responsible for funding flood 
control projects. As a result of this failure to disseminate vital 
information, California local governments were denied millions of 
dollars in funding from federal agencies for damaged incurred during 
the 1995 winter storms.
  As the former Mayor Pro-tempore of the City of Carson and the former 
Chair of the California Assembly's Committee on Insurance, I am all too 
familiar with these problems and understand the need for due process 
requirements and public comment in the rulemaking process. The language 
included in this Manager's Amendment requires FEMA to provide public 
comment before adopting any new or modified policy that would have a 
``nontrivial'' impact on the amount of disaster assistance that may be 
provided to a state and local government. The language further 
prohibits FEMA from adopting any new or modified policy that would 
retroactively reduce the amount of assistance provided to state and 
local governments in the wake of a natural disaster.
  Again, I would like to thank my California Colleagues, 
Representatives Steve Horn, Ellen Tauscher, Buck McKeon, Bob Filner, 
Jerry Lewis, Gary Miller, Steve Kuykendall, and John Doolittle for 
their work together to protect the interests of the State of 
California. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for responding to our 
concerns on this issue.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule by title, and each 
title shall be considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and

[[Page 3606]]

may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic 
device on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote 
by electronic device without intervening business, provided that the 
time for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of 
questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       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 ``Disaster Mitigation and Cost 
     Reduction Act of 1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  Without objection, the remainder of the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute will be printed in the Record and open to 
amendment at any point.
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND 
                   EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision of 
     law, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

                 TITLE I--PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) greater emphasis needs to be placed on identifying and 
     assessing the risks to State and local communities and 
     implementing adequate measures to reduce losses from natural 
     disasters and to ensure that critical facilities and public 
     infrastructure will continue to function after a disaster;
       (2) expenditures for post-disaster assistance are 
     increasing without commensurate reduction in the likelihood 
     of future losses from such natural disasters;
       (3) a high priority in the expenditure of Federal funds 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act should be to implement predisaster activities 
     at the local level; and
       (4) with a unified effort of economic incentives, awareness 
     and education, technical assistance, and demonstrated Federal 
     support, States and local communities will be able to 
     increase their capabilities to form effective community-based 
     partnerships for mitigation purposes, implement effective 
     natural disaster mitigation measures that reduce the risk of 
     future damage, hardship, and suffering, ensure continued 
     functioning of critical facilities and public infrastructure, 
     leverage additional non-Federal resources into meeting 
     disaster resistance goals, and make commitments to long-term 
     mitigation efforts in new and existing structures.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title to establish 
     a predisaster hazard mitigation program that--
       (1) reduces the loss of life and property, human suffering, 
     economic disruption, and disaster assistance costs resulting 
     from natural hazards; and
       (2) provides a source of predisaster hazard mitigation 
     funding that will assist States and local governments in 
     implementing effective mitigation measures that are designed 
     to ensure the continued functioning of critical facilities 
     and public infrastructure after a natural disaster.

     SEC. 102. STATE MITIGATION PROGRAM.

       Section 201(c) (42 U.S.C. 5131(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) set forth, with the ongoing cooperation of local 
     governments and consistent with section 409, a comprehensive 
     and detailed State program for mitigating against emergencies 
     and major disasters, including provisions for prioritizing 
     mitigation measures.''.

     SEC. 103. DISASTER ASSISTANCE PLANS.

       Section 201(d) (42 U.S.C. 5131(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Grants for Disaster Assistance and Hazard 
     Identification.--The President is authorized to make grants 
     for--
       ``(1) not to exceed 50 percent of the cost of improving, 
     maintaining, and updating State disaster assistance plans 
     including, consistent with section 409, evaluation of natural 
     hazards and development of the programs and actions required 
     to mitigate such hazards; and
       ``(2) the development and application of improved 
     floodplain mapping technologies that can be used by Federal, 
     State, and local governments and that the President 
     determines will likely result in substantial savings over 
     current floodplain mapping methods.''.

     SEC. 104. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.

       Title II (42 U.S.C. 5131-5132) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 203. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.

       ``(a) General Authority.--The President may establish a 
     program to provide financial assistance to States and local 
     governments for the purpose of undertaking predisaster hazard 
     mitigation activities that are cost effective and 
     substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, or 
     suffering from a major disaster.
       ``(b) Purpose of Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     State or local government that receives financial assistance 
     under this section shall use the assistance for funding 
     activities that are cost effective and substantially reduce 
     the risk of future damage, hardship, or suffering from a 
     major disaster.
       ``(2) Dissemination.--The State or local government may use 
     not more than 10 percent of financial assistance it receives 
     under this section in a fiscal year for funding activities to 
     disseminate information regarding cost effective mitigation 
     technologies (such as preferred construction practices and 
     materials), including establishing and maintaining centers 
     for protection against natural disasters to carry out such 
     dissemination.
       ``(c) Allocation of Funds.--The amount of financial 
     assistance to be made available to a State, including amounts 
     made available to local governments of such State, under this 
     section in a fiscal year shall--
       ``(1) not be less than the lesser of $500,000 or 1.0 
     percent of the total funds appropriated to carry out this 
     section for such fiscal year; but
       ``(2) not exceed 15 percent of such total funds.
       ``(d) Criteria.--Subject to the limitations of subsections 
     (c) and (e), in determining whether to provide assistance to 
     a State or local government under this section and the amount 
     of such assistance, the President shall consider the 
     following criteria:
       ``(1) The clear identification of prioritized cost-
     effective mitigation activities that produce meaningful and 
     definable outcomes.
       ``(2) If the State has submitted a mitigation program in 
     cooperation with local governments under section 201(c), the 
     degree to which the activities identified in paragraph (1) 
     are consistent with the State mitigation program.
       ``(3) The extent to which assistance will fund activities 
     that mitigate hazards evaluated under section 409.
       ``(4) The opportunity to fund activities that maximize net 
     benefits to society.
       ``(5) The ability of the State or local government to fund 
     mitigation activities.
       ``(6) The extent to which assistance will fund mitigation 
     activities in small impoverished communities.
       ``(7) The level of interest by the private sector to enter 
     into a partnership to promote mitigation.
       ``(8) Such other criteria as the President establishes in 
     consultation with State and local governments.
       ``(e) State Nominations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Governor of each State may recommend 
     to the President not less than 5 local governments to receive 
     assistance under this section. The recommendations shall be 
     submitted to the President not later than October 1, 1999, 
     and each October 1st thereafter or such later date in the 
     year as the President may establish. In making such 
     recommendations, the Governors shall consider the criteria 
     identified in subsection (d).
       ``(2) Use.--
       ``(A) General rule.--In providing assistance to local 
     governments under this section, the President shall select 
     from local governments recommended by the Governors under 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Waiver.--Upon request of a local government, the 
     President may waive the limitation in subparagraph (A) if the 
     President determines that extraordinary circumstances justify 
     the waiver and that granting the waiver will further the 
     purpose of this section.
       ``(3) Effect of failure to nominate.--If a Governor of a 
     State fails to submit recommendations under this subsection 
     in a timely manner, the President may select, subject to the 
     criteria in subsection (d), any local governments of the 
     State to receive assistance under this section.
       ``(f) Small Impoverished Communities.--For the purpose of 
     this section, the term `small impoverished communities' means 
     communities of 3,000 or fewer individuals that are 
     economically disadvantaged, as determined by the State in 
     which the community is located and based on criteria 
     established by the President.
       ``(g) Federal Share.--Financial assistance provided under 
     this section may contribute up to 75 percent of the total 
     cost of mitigation activities approved by the President; 
     except that the President may contribute up to 90 percent of 
     the total cost of mitigation activities in small impoverished 
     communities.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1999 and $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(i) Authorization of Section 404 Funds.--Effective 
     October 1, 2000, in addition to amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (h) from only appropriations enacted after October 
     1, 2000, the President may use, to carry out this section, 
     funds that are appropriated to carry out section 404 for 
     post-disaster mitigation activities that have not been 
     obligated within 30 months of the disaster declaration upon 
     which the funding availability is based.
       ``(j) Report on Federal and State Administration.--Not 
     later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the 
     Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 1999, the 
     President, in consultation with State and local governments, 
     shall transmit to Congress a report evaluating efforts to 
     implement this section and recommending a process for 
     transferring greater

[[Page 3607]]

     authority and responsibility for administering the assistance 
     program authorized by this section to capable States.''.

     SEC. 105. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

       The President shall establish an interagency task force for 
     the purpose of coordinating the implementation of the 
     predisaster hazard mitigation program authorized by section 
     203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act. The Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall chair such task force.

     SEC. 106. MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION FOR MITIGATION COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 404(a) (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``15 percent'' and inserting ``20 
     percent''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to major disasters declared under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief Act and Emergency Assistance Act 
     after January 1, 1997.

     SEC. 107. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       The heading for title II is amended to read as follows:

     ``TITLE II--DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND MITIGATION ASSISTANCE''.

               TITLE II--STREAMLINING AND COST REDUCTION

     SEC. 201. MANAGEMENT COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Title III (42 U.S.C. 5141-5164) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 322. MANAGEMENT COSTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (including any administrative rule or guidance), the 
     President shall establish by rule management cost rates for 
     grantees and subgrantees. Such rates shall be used to 
     determine contributions under this Act for management costs.
       ``(b) Management Costs Defined.--Management costs include 
     indirect costs, administrative expenses, associated expenses, 
     and any other expenses not directly chargeable to a specific 
     project under a major disaster, emergency, or emergency 
     preparedness activity or measure. Such costs include the 
     necessary costs of requesting, obtaining, and administering 
     Federal assistance and costs incurred by a State for 
     preparation of damage survey reports, final inspection 
     reports, project applications, final audits, and related 
     field inspections by State employees, including overtime pay 
     and per diem and travel expenses of such employees, but not 
     including pay for regular time of such employees.
       ``(c) Review.--The President shall review the management 
     cost rates established under subsection (a) not later than 3 
     years after the date of establishment of such rates and 
     periodically thereafter.''.
       (b) Applicability.--Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as added by 
     subsection (a) of this section) shall apply as follows:
       (1) Subsections (a) and (b) of such section 322 shall apply 
     to major disasters declared under such Act on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act. Until the date on which the 
     President establishes the management cost rates under such 
     subsection, section 406(f) shall be used for establishing 
     such rates.
       (2) Subsection (c) of such section 322 shall apply to major 
     disasters declared under such Act on or after the date on 
     which the President establishes such rates under subsection 
     (a) of such section 322.

     SEC. 202. ASSISTANCE TO REPAIR, RESTORE, RECONSTRUCT, OR 
                   REPLACE DAMAGED FACILITIES.

       (a) Contributions.--Section 406(a) (42 U.S.C. 5172(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The President may make contributions--
       ``(A) to a State or local government for the repair, 
     restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public 
     facility which is damaged or destroyed by a major disaster 
     and for associated expenses incurred by such government; and
       ``(B) subject to paragraph (2), to a person who owns or 
     operates a private nonprofit facility damaged or destroyed by 
     a major disaster for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, 
     or replacement of such facility and for associated expenses 
     incurred by such person.
       ``(2) Conditions for assistance to private nonprofit 
     facilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President may make contributions to 
     a private nonprofit facility under paragraph (1)(B) only if--
       ``(i) the facility provides critical services (as defined 
     by the President) in the event of a major disaster; or
       ``(ii)(I) the owner or operator of the facility has applied 
     for a disaster loan under section 7(b) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)); and
       ``(II) has been determined to be ineligible for such a 
     loan; or
       ``(III) has obtained such a loan in the maximum amount for 
     which the Small Business Administration determines the 
     facility is eligible.
       ``(B) Critical services defined.--In this paragraph, the 
     term `critical services' includes, but is not limited to, 
     power, water, sewer, wastewater treatment, communications, 
     and emergency medical care.''.
       (b) Minimum Federal Share.--Section 406(b) (42 U.S.C. 
     5172(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Minimum Federal Share.--The Federal share of 
     assistance under this section shall be not less than 75 
     percent of the eligible cost of repair, restoration, 
     reconstruction, or replacement carried out under this 
     section.''.
       (c) Large In-Lieu Contributions.--Section 406(c) (42 U.S.C. 
     5172(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Large In-Lieu Contributions.--
       ``(1) For public facilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--In any case in which a State or local 
     government determines that the public welfare would not be 
     best served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
     replacing any public facility owned or controlled by such 
     State or local government, the State or local government may 
     elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under subsection 
     (a)(1)(A), a contribution of 75 percent of the Federal share 
     of the Federal estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, 
     reconstructing, or replacing such facility and of management 
     expenses.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--Funds contributed to a State or local 
     government under this paragraph may be used to repair, 
     restore, or expand other selected public facilities, to 
     construct new facilities, or to fund hazard mitigation 
     measures which the State or local government determines to be 
     necessary to meet a need for governmental services and 
     functions in the area affected by the major disaster.
       ``(2) For private nonprofit facilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--In any case where a person who owns or 
     operates a private nonprofit facility determines that the 
     public welfare would not be best served by repairing, 
     restoring, reconstructing, or replacing such facility, such 
     person may elect to receive, in lieu of a contribution under 
     subsection (a)(1)(B), a contribution of 75 percent of the 
     Federal share of the Federal estimate of the cost of 
     repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing such 
     facility and of management expenses.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--Funds contributed to a person under 
     this paragraph may be used to repair, restore, or expand 
     other selected private nonprofit facilities owned or operated 
     by the person, to construct new private nonprofit facilities 
     to be owned or operated by the person, or to fund hazard 
     mitigation measures that the person determines to be 
     necessary to meet a need for its services and functions in 
     the area affected by the major disaster.
       ``(3) Modification of federal share.--The President shall 
     modify the Federal share of the cost estimate provided in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) if the President determines an 
     alternative cost share will likely reduce the total amount of 
     Federal assistance provided under this section. The Federal 
     cost share for purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not 
     exceed 90 percent and shall not be less than 50 percent.''.
       (d) Eligible Cost.--
       (1) In general.--Section 406(e) (42 U.S.C. 5172(e)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Eligible Cost.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, 
     or replacing a public facility or private nonprofit facility 
     on the basis of the design of such facility as it existed 
     immediately before the major disaster and in conformity with 
     current applicable codes, specifications, and standards 
     (including floodplain management and hazard mitigation 
     criteria required by the President or by the Coastal Barrier 
     Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)) shall be treated as 
     the eligible cost of such repair, restoration, 
     reconstruction, or replacement. Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     President shall use the cost estimation procedures developed 
     under paragraph (3) to make the estimate under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(2) Modification of eligible cost.--In the event the 
     actual cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
     replacing a facility under this section is more than 120 
     percent or less than 80 percent of the cost estimated under 
     paragraph (1), the President may determine that the eligible 
     cost be the actual cost of such repair, restoration, 
     reconstruction, or replacement. The government or person 
     receiving assistance under this section shall reimburse the 
     President for the portion of such assistance that exceeds the 
     eligible cost of such repair, restoration, reconstruction, or 
     replacement.
       ``(3) Use of surplus funds.--In the event the actual cost 
     of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing a 
     facility under this section is less than 100 percent but not 
     less than 80 percent of the cost estimated under paragraph 
     (1), the government or person receiving assistance under this 
     section shall use any surplus funds to perform activities 
     that are cost-effective and reduce the risk of future damage, 
     hardship, or suffering from a major disaster.
       ``(4) Expert panel.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of the Disaster Mitigation and Cost 
     Reduction Act of 1999, the President, acting through the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall 
     establish an expert panel, including representatives from the 
     construction industry, to develop procedures for estimating 
     the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or 
     replacing a facility consistent with industry practices.
       ``(5) Special rule.--In any case in which the facility 
     being repaired, restored, reconstructed, or replaced under 
     this section was under construction on the date of the major 
     disaster, the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, 
     or replacing such facility shall include, for purposes of 
     this section, only those costs which, under the contract for 
     such construction, are the owner's responsibility and not the 
     contractor's responsibility.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     shall only apply to

[[Page 3608]]

     funds appropriated after the date of enactment of this Act; 
     except that paragraph (1) of section 406(e) of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as 
     amended by paragraph (1) of this subsection) shall take 
     effect on the date that the procedures developed under 
     paragraph (3) of such section take effect.
       (e) Associated Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Section 406 (42 U.S.C. 4172) is amended by 
     striking subsection (f).
       (2) Other eligible costs.--Section 406(e) (42 U.S.C. 
     5172(e)), as amended by subsection (d) of this section, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Other eligible costs.--For purposes of this section, 
     other eligible costs include the following:
       ``(A) Costs of national guard.--The cost of mobilizing and 
     employing the National Guard for performance of eligible 
     work.
       ``(B) Costs of prison labor.--The costs of using prison 
     labor to perform eligible work, including wages actually 
     paid, transportation to a worksite, and extraordinary costs 
     of guards, food, and lodging.
       ``(C) Other labor costs.--Base and overtime wages for an 
     applicant's employees and extra hires performing eligible 
     work plus fringe benefits on such wages to the extent that 
     such benefits were being paid before the disaster.''.
       (3) Effective date.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall take 
     effect on the date on which the President establishes 
     management cost rates under section 322(a) of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (as 
     added by section 201(a) of this Act). The amendment made by 
     paragraph (1) shall only apply to disasters declared by the 
     President under such Act after the date on which the 
     President establishes such cost rates.

     SEC. 203. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 408 (42 U.S.C. 5174) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 408. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.

       ``(a) General Authority.--Subject to the requirements of 
     this section, the President, in consultation with the 
     Governor of the affected State, may provide financial 
     assistance, and, if necessary, direct services, to disaster 
     victims who as a direct result of a major disaster have 
     necessary expenses and serious needs where such victims are 
     unable to meet such expenses or needs through other means.
       ``(b) Housing Assistance.--
       ``(1) Eligibility.--The President may provide financial or 
     other assistance under this section to individuals and 
     families to respond to the disaster-related housing needs of 
     those who are displaced from their predisaster primary 
     residences or whose predisaster primary residences are 
     rendered uninhabitable as a result of damage caused by a 
     major disaster.
       ``(2) Determination of appropriate types of assistance.--
     The President shall determine appropriate types of housing 
     assistance to be provided to disaster victims under this 
     section based upon considerations of cost effectiveness, 
     convenience to disaster victims, and such other factors as 
     the President may consider appropriate. One or more types of 
     housing assistance may be made available, based on the 
     suitability and availability of the types of assistance, to 
     meet the needs of disaster victims in the particular disaster 
     situation.
       ``(c) Types of Housing Assistance.--
       ``(1) Temporary housing.--
       ``(A) Financial assistance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The President may provide financial 
     assistance under this section to individuals or households to 
     rent alternate housing accommodations, existing rental units, 
     manufactured housing, recreational vehicles, or other readily 
     fabricated dwellings.
       ``(ii) Amount.--The amount of assistance under clause (i) 
     shall be based on the fair market rent for the accommodation 
     being furnished plus the cost of any transportation, utility 
     hookups, or unit installation not being directly provided by 
     the President.
       ``(B) Direct assistance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The President may also directly provide 
     under this section housing units, acquired by purchase or 
     lease, to individuals or households who, because of a lack of 
     available housing resources, would be unable to make use of 
     the assistance provided under subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Period of assistance.--The President may not provide 
     direct assistance under clause (i) with respect to a major 
     disaster after the expiration of the 18-month period 
     beginning on the date of the declaration of the major 
     disaster by the President, except that the President may 
     extend such period if the President determines that due to 
     extraordinary circumstances an extension would be in the 
     public interest.
       ``(iii) Collection of rental charges.--After the expiration 
     of the 18-month period referred to in clause (ii), the 
     President may charge fair market rent for the accommodation 
     being provided.
       ``(2) Repairs.--The President may provide financial 
     assistance for the repair of owner-occupied private 
     residences, utilities, and residential infrastructure (such 
     as private access routes) damaged by a major disaster to a 
     habitable or functioning condition. A recipient of assistance 
     provided under this paragraph need not show that the 
     assistance can be met through other means, except insurance 
     proceeds, if the assistance is used for emergency repairs to 
     make a private residence habitable and does not exceed $5,000 
     (based on fiscal year 1998 constant dollars).
       ``(3) Replacement.--The President may provide financial 
     assistance for the replacement of owner-occupied private 
     residences damaged by a major disaster. Assistance provided 
     under this paragraph shall not exceed $10,000 (based on 
     fiscal year 1998 constant dollars). The President may not 
     waive any provision of Federal law requiring the purchase of 
     flood insurance as a condition for the receipt of Federal 
     disaster assistance with respect to assistance provided under 
     this paragraph.
       ``(4) Permanent housing construction.--The President may 
     provide financial assistance or direct assistance under this 
     section to individuals or households to construct permanent 
     housing in insular areas outside the continental United 
     States and other remote locations in cases in which--
       ``(A) no alternative housing resources are available; and
       ``(B) the types of temporary housing assistance described 
     in paragraph (1) are unavailable, infeasible, or not cost 
     effective.
       ``(d) Terms and Conditions Relating to Housing 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) Sites.--Any readily fabricated dwelling provided 
     under this section shall, whenever possible, be located on a 
     site complete with utilities, and shall be provided by the 
     State or local government, by the owner of the site, or by 
     the occupant who was displaced by the major disaster. Readily 
     fabricated dwellings may be located on sites provided by the 
     President if the President determines that such sites would 
     be more economical or accessible.
       ``(2) Disposal of units.--
       ``(A) Sale to occupants.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a temporary housing unit purchased under this section by 
     the President for the purposes of housing disaster victims 
     may be sold directly to the individual or household who is 
     occupying the unit if the individual or household needs 
     permanent housing.
       ``(ii) Sales price.--Sales of temporary housing units under 
     clause (i) shall be accomplished at prices that are fair and 
     equitable.
       ``(iii) Deposit of proceeds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the proceeds of a sale under clause (i) 
     shall be deposited into the appropriate Disaster Relief Fund 
     account.
       ``(iv) Use of gsa services.--The President may use the 
     services of the General Services Administration to accomplish 
     a sale under clause (i).
       ``(B) Other methods of disposal.--
       ``(i) Sale.--If not disposed of under subparagraph (A), a 
     temporary housing unit purchased by the President for the 
     purposes of housing disaster victims may be resold.
       ``(ii) Disposal to governments and voluntary 
     organizations.--A temporary housing unit described in clause 
     (i) may also be sold, transferred, donated, or otherwise made 
     available directly to a State or other governmental entity or 
     to a voluntary organization for the sole purpose of providing 
     temporary housing to disaster victims in major disasters and 
     emergencies if, as a condition of such sale, transfer, or 
     donation, the State, other governmental agency, or voluntary 
     organization agrees to comply with the nondiscrimination 
     provisions of section 308 and to obtain and maintain hazard 
     and flood insurance on the housing unit.
       ``(e) Financial Assistance To Address Other Needs.--
       ``(1) Medical, dental, and funeral expenses.--The 
     President, in consultation with the Governor of the affected 
     State, may provide financial assistance under this section to 
     an individual or household adversely affected by a major 
     disaster to meet disaster-related medical, dental, and 
     funeral expenses.
       ``(2) Personal property, transportation, and other 
     expenses.--The President, in consultation with the Governor 
     of the affected State, may provide financial assistance under 
     this section to an individual or household described in 
     paragraph (1) to address personal property, transportation, 
     and other necessary expenses or serious needs resulting from 
     the major disaster.
       ``(f) State Role.--The President shall provide for the 
     substantial and ongoing involvement of the affected State in 
     administering the assistance under this section.
       ``(g) Maximum Amount of Assistance.--No individual or 
     household shall receive financial assistance greater than 
     $25,000 under this section with respect to a single major 
     disaster. Such limit shall be adjusted annually to reflect 
     changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers 
     published by the Department of Labor.
       ``(h) Issuance of Regulations.--The President shall issue 
     rules and regulations to carry out the program, including 
     criteria, standards, and procedures for determining 
     eligibility for assistance.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 502(a)(6) (42 U.S.C. 
     5192(a)(6)) is amended by striking ``temporary housing''.
       (c) Elimination of Individual and Family Grant Programs.--
     Title IV (42 U.S.C. 5170-5189a) is amended by striking 
     section 411 (42 U.S.C. 5178).
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the 545th day following the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 204. REPEALS.

       (a) Community Disaster Loans.--Section 417 (42 U.S.C. 5184) 
     is repealed.
       (b) Simplified Procedure.--Section 422 (42 U.S.C. 5189) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 205. STATE ADMINISTRATION OF HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM.

       Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

[[Page 3609]]

       ``(c) Program Administration by States.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State desiring to administer the 
     hazard mitigation assistance program established by this 
     section with respect to hazard mitigation assistance in the 
     State may submit to the President an application for the 
     delegation of such authority.
       ``(2) Criteria.--The President, in consultation with States 
     and local governments, shall establish criteria for the 
     approval of applications submitted under paragraph (1). The 
     criteria shall include, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(A) The demonstrated ability of the State to manage the 
     grant program under this section.
       ``(B) Submission of the plan required under section 201(c).
       ``(C) A demonstrated commitment to mitigation activities.
       ``(3) Approval.--The President shall approve an application 
     submitted under paragraph (1) that meets the criteria 
     established under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Withdrawal of approval.--If, after approving an 
     application of a State submitted under paragraph (1), the 
     President determines that the State is not administering the 
     hazard mitigation assistance program established by this 
     section in a manner satisfactory to the President, the 
     President shall withdraw such approval.
       ``(5) Audits.--The President shall provide for periodic 
     audits of the hazard mitigation assistance programs 
     administered by States under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 206. STATE ADMINISTRATION OF DAMAGED FACILITIES PROGRAM.

       (a) Pilot Program.--In cooperation with States and local 
     governments and in coordination with efforts to streamline 
     the delivery of disaster relief assistance, the President 
     shall conduct a pilot program for the purpose of determining 
     the desirability of State administration of parts of the 
     assistance program established by section 406 of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5172).
       (b) State Participation.--
       (1) Criteria.--The President may establish criteria in 
     order to ensure the appropriate implementation of the pilot 
     program under subsection (a).
       (2) Minimum number of states.--The President shall conduct 
     the pilot program under subsection (a) in at least 2 States.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to 
     Congress a report describing the results of the pilot program 
     conducted under subsection (a), including identifying any 
     administrative or financial benefits. Such report shall also 
     include recommendations on the conditions, if any, under 
     which States should be allowed the option to administer parts 
     of the assistance program under section 406 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5172).

     SEC. 207. STUDY REGARDING COST REDUCTION.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct a study to estimate the reduction in Federal disaster 
     assistance that has resulted and is likely to result from the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 208. REPORT ON ASSISTANCE TO RURAL COMMUNITIES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report on methods 
     and procedures that the Director recommends to accelerate the 
     provision of Federal disaster assistance under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) to rural communities.

     SEC. 209. STUDY REGARDING INSURANCE FOR PUBLIC 
                   INFRASTRUCTURE.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     a study to determine the current and future expected 
     availability of disaster insurance for public infrastructure 
     eligible for assistance under section 406 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170).

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. TECHNICAL CORRECTION OF SHORT TITLE.

       The first section (42 U.S.C. 5121 note) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This Act may be cited as the `Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act'.''.

     SEC. 302. DEFINITION OF STATE.

       Section 102 (42 U.S.C. 5122) is amended in each of 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) by striking ``the Northern'' and all 
     that follows through ``Pacific Islands'' and inserting ``and 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.

     SEC. 303. FIRE SUPPRESSION GRANTS.

       Section 420 (42 U.S.C. 5187) is amended by inserting ``and 
     local government'' after ``State''.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Fowler

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Fowler:
       Page 15, after line 12, insert the following:
       ``(B) Areas with unstable soil.--In any case in which a 
     State or local government determines that the public welfare 
     would not be best served by repairing, restoring, 
     reconstructing, or replacing any public facility owned or 
     controlled by such State or local government because soil 
     instability in the disaster area makes such repair, 
     restoration, reconstruction, or replacement infeasible, the 
     State or local government may elect to receive, in lieu of a 
     contribution under subsection (a)(1)(A), a contribution of 90 
     percent of the Federal share of the Federal estimate of the 
     cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing 
     such facility and of management expenses.
       Page 15, line 13, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       Page 21, at the end of line 16, insert the following:
     Under the preceding sentence, a victim shall not be denied 
     assistance under subsections (c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4), 
     solely on the basis that the victim has not applied for or 
     received any loan or other financial assistance from the 
     Small Business Administration or any other Federal agency.
       Page 33, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 210. PUBLIC COMMENT REQUIREMENT.

       Title III (42 U.S.C. 5141-5164) (as amended by section 201 
     of this Act) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 323. PUBLIC COMMENT REQUIREMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall provide an opportunity for public 
     comment before adopting any new or modified policy that would 
     have a meaningful impact on the amount of disaster assistance 
     that may be provided to a State or local government by the 
     President under this Act.
       ``(b) Retroactive Application of Policies.--The Director 
     may not adopt any new or modified policy that would 
     retroactively reduce the amount of assistance provided to a 
     State or local government under this Act.''.

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment encompasses three separate 
changes to title II of the bill. These changes reflect our desire to 
cut costs in the disaster program in a fair and compassionate way. 
First, the amendment recognizes that in some very limited 
circumstances, the reduced so-called in-lieu contribution proposed in 
section 202 of the bill will cause undue hardship to some communities. 
This occurs in areas where mud slides make the prospect of rebuilding 
any facility on a site unwise. In such situations, taking an in-lieu 
contribution is the only option really available. The amendment would 
continue to use the previous 90 percent level of funding for these 
special situations.
  Second, it has been brought to our attention that the provision in 
the bill conditioning housing assistance on applying to the Small 
Business Administration for a loan does very little to cut disaster 
assistance cost but may well pose a difficult burden on disaster 
victims. The amendment, therefore, would remove the SBA loan 
requirement as a condition of housing assistance. I am all for saving 
money, but in this case we would be saving very little while placing a 
relatively high burden on disaster victims.
  Finally, my amendment would require FEMA to provide public comment on 
new or modified policies that may result in a meaningful change in the 
amount of assistance a State or local community may receive. Changes in 
the conditions of assistance are extremely important to local 
communities. It seems only fair that such changes be made with the 
opportunity for adequate public involvement.
  I would like to recognize the diligent efforts of the bipartisan 
group of Members, particularly those from California, that brought this 
amendment to our attention. In conclusion, this amendment puts the 
final touches on an excellent bill. The amendment does not 
significantly reduce the substantial cost savings provided by the bill 
but recognizes that in reducing the burden on the taxpayer, we need 
also remember the critical needs of disaster victims.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
want to again compliment the gentlewoman for her excellent work.
  I would just like to go over a few issues that I think are important. 
The first thing I think is very important, the amendment would maintain 
the Federal in-lieu contributions for alternate projects at 90 percent 
where soil instability in a disaster area makes the repair, 
restoration, reconstruction or

[[Page 3610]]

replacement of public facilities infeasible. The bill before us would 
have reduced that Federal contribution to 75 percent. I believe that 
the gentlewoman should again be commended, because this is an important 
issue and that she took into consideration the concern of the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird), who happens to be a Democrat from the 
State of Washington, and I think that speaks for the bipartisanship, 
and I thank her.
  Second of all, the amendment would exclude disaster victims needing 
FEMA assistance for temporary housing, replacement of their homes, and 
construction of houses from the requirement of first obtaining an SBA 
loan. As the gentlewoman from Florida had stated, that speaks for 
itself in its importance in the amendment there as well. But I want to 
state on the record that I am opposed to placing any additional burden 
on victims who are made homeless by a disaster by requiring them to 
jump through hoops, in some cases obtain an SBA loan first, before they 
can obtain financial or direct housing assistance from FEMA in the 
aftermath of a disaster that almost destroyed their family, in some 
cases has.
  Finally, the amendment requires FEMA to provide an opportunity for 
public comment before adopting or modifying an agency policy that would 
have a meaningful impact on the amount of disaster assistance to State 
or local governments. This is wise. The gentlewoman is to be commended 
for it. We on this side support this amendment 100 percent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. Traficant. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 304. BUY AMERICAN.

       (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds authorized 
     to be appropriated pursuant to this Act or any amendment made 
     by this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity, 
     in expending the funds, complies with the Buy American Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       (b) Debarment of Persons Convicted of Fraudulent Use of 
     ``Made in America'' Labels.--
       (1) In general.--If the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency determines that a person has been convicted 
     of intentionally affixing a label bearing a ``Made in 
     America'' inscription to any product sold in or shipped to 
     the United States that is not made in America, the Director 
     shall determine, not later than 90 days after determining 
     that the person has been so convicted, whether the person 
     should be debarred from contracting under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
       (2) Debar defined.--In this section, the term ``debar'' has 
     the meaning given that term by section 2393(c) of title 10, 
     United States Code.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this has been language that I have 
offered to many bills. It deals with the aspect of where Federal 
dollars are spent, to incorporate into that logic the Buy American laws 
that exist. I have talked about Buy American here for years, but I was 
not really the first to do it and one of the strong leaders of Buy 
American is the ranking Democrat on this committee, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) who was responsible for most of the Buy 
American language in our surface transportation program which is a 
multibillion-dollar procurement program.
  I think it is very important where we expend any dollars that we 
comport and conform to within the law to the Buy American law and its 
policies. In addition, my amendment states, do not participate in any 
of our programs under this bill by providing a product that is 
purported to be made in America but has on it affixed a fraudulent 
``made in America'' label.
  I think these small but little commonsense initiatives serve more 
maybe as a reminder to keep people's eyes on the prize of wherever 
possible, shop for and buy an American product but under Buy American 
law to conform to that law and do not violate it.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, we support this amendment and have no 
objection to it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio who has throughout his service in the Congress 
made a point of reminding us on every piece of legislation that comes 
to the House floor wherever there is procurement that this procurement 
should be cloaked in the Buy America label. American dollars are being 
used, taxpayer dollars are being used on Federal projects, on Federal 
programs, and he is right to remind this body time and again that those 
dollars must be used to purchase American products in the service of 
this country. Other countries do that. Other countries realize that 
charity begins at home, that a strong economy begins at home, and we 
must do the same.
  The gentleman is right, I was successful in 1982 in the Surface 
Transportation Assistance Act in getting a very strong Buy America 
provision on steel used in our Federal highway program. In the next 6 
years under TEA 21, that will mean that 18 million tons of American 
steel will go into our Federal aid highway and bridge program. We have 
Buy America provisions that apply to the Corps of Engineers, that apply 
to the Federal transit system.
  Years ago when I chaired the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over 
this legislation now, we held extensive hearings, Mr. Gingrich and I, 
the ranking member on the Republican side at the time, we found 
widespread abuses in the Federal transit program on the Buy America 
program. We worked vigorously to assure that the law would be carried 
out.
  Here in the disaster assistance program, there is a wide array of 
products used to help victims of disaster become whole again, 
communities as well as individuals, grand facilities, dams, levees, 
roads, bridges as well as individual homes and small businesses.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Chairman, there is a wide array of product used to make those 
communities, make those structures, whole again. They ought to be 
American goods.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is right to offer this 
amendment, but now that we have reestablished our Subcommittee on 
Oversight in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I 
appeal to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) to maintain 
vigilance. Once this legislation is enacted, let us take a careful look 
at how it is applied in future disasters where the Federal Government 
comes in to help out local communities. Look over their shoulder. Make 
sure they are carrying out this law. It is all too easy to avoid.
  But, Mr. Chairman, avoidance will be difficult if this committee 
maintains vigilance, as I am sure it will, under the gentlewoman's 
leadership.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nethercutt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hefley, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 707) to 
amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act to authorize a program for predisaster mitigation, to streamline 
the administration of disaster relief, to control the Federal costs of 
disaster assistance, and for

[[Page 3611]]

other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 91, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415, 
nays 2, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               YEAS--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--2

     Paul
     Stump
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Capps
     Chenoweth
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Granger
     Holt
     Kennedy
     McCollum
     Mollohan
     Rangel
     Sanchez
     Scarborough
     Stark

                              {time}  1210

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, March 4, 1999, I was 
unavoidably detained while chairing a hearing on privacy in the hands 
of Federal regulators in the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law in the House Judiciary Committee and missed a 
recorded vote on H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction 
Act of 1999. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 
No. 33, to agree to H.R. 707.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 33 on March 4, 
1999, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye.''
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 33, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________