[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6586-6587]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   ADVOCATING A MORE APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN 
                            DISASTER RELIEF

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, you cannot promote livable communities 
without examining the problems associated with our complex set of 
State, local and Federal policies for emergency relief. Many of these 
policies have encouraged people to live and invest in places where 
nature has repeatedly shown they are not welcome.
  The recent increase in the number of natural disasters and the 
associated losses has clearly demonstrated that our protective 
strategies are inherently flawed. We had better figure it out before we 
are overwhelmed by further impacts of global climate change.
  In the last decade alone, we have lost nearly $100 billion and almost 
1,000 lives. Although we have invested tens of billions of dollars in 
dams and levees over the last 40 years, our losses now total almost six 
times the amount lost before we began. Natural forces continue to 
confound our best engineering efforts.
  The average coastline in the United States is due to erode 
approximately 500 feet over the next 60 years, and this figure does not 
take into account any rise in sea level or increased intensity of 
storms due to global warming. Walling off our coastlines is a contest 
we are going to lose.

[[Page 6587]]

  The National Flood Insurance Program is a good idea and an important 
program, but it is not sound because over 8,000 victims of repetitive 
flood loss are not required to either flood-proof their property or 
relocate out of harm's way. The worst example of this absurdity is the 
payment of over $800,000 to the owner of a home in Houston for 16 
losses over 20 years for a home that is appraised at less than 
$115,000.
  Communities on the West Coast should be required to upgrade seismic 
standards in preparation for earthquakes, to place vulnerable coastal 
areas off limits to development, and to carefully evaluate the long-
term effectiveness of beach reconstruction and fortification.

                              {time}  1245

  All of these actions should emphasize appropriate cost-sharing and 
environmental sustainability. If State or local governments have not or 
will not do their job, then Federal support should be phased down.
  Davenport Iowa's mayor Phil Yerington is correct to point out that 
the residents of his city are not the only ones who should be subjected 
to scrutiny. While I appreciate FEMA director Allbaugh's tough 
questions, I am not convinced that flood walls are the only or even the 
best answer. Oftentimes structural solutions may provide local 
protection but only increase flooding problems downstream. Passive 
flood control systems using wetlands and other natural features may 
provide better alternatives.
  But whatever the approach, people need to accept the consequences of 
their location and development decisions. Repetitive flood loss should 
not be the sole responsibility of the Federal government.
  State and local governments should ensure that zoning regulations and 
building codes in storm-prone areas are rigorous enough to limit wind 
and water damage by highly predictable weather patterns.
  I commend the FEMA director for his concerns, and stand ready, along 
with my congressional colleagues, to work with him on these difficult 
issues. Disaster relief should not be lost in the shuffle of must-pass 
emergency legislation. It must receive the scrutiny it deserves.
  We ought to make sure, for example, that Federal tax dollars are not 
used to rebuild environmentally-damaging lagoons of hog waste in flood 
plains. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act was a terrific Reagan-era 
environmental protection embraced by Democrats and Republicans, 
environmentalists and business interests alike. It should be extended 
to all coastal areas.
  Sensitive shorelines should not have private development subsidized 
at the Federal taxpayer expense. Government regulations should be 
making it cheaper and easier for local communities to take the less 
intrusive greener approach to flood control than to use the more 
environmentally-damaging structural approaches.
  Project Impact, which invested small amounts of Federal money to 
develop emergency management partnerships and planning in advance of a 
disaster, should be enhanced, not eliminated, as recommended by the 
Bush administration. It was an ill omen for the administration to 
propose Impact's elimination on the very day of the Seattle earthquake.
  It is time for the administration to align its land use, disaster, 
and infrastructure policies to be supportive these cost-effective, 
visionary approaches. It is time for Congress to step up to be a full 
partner, rather than supporting short-term parochial interests that 
only encourage people to live in harm's way, waste tax dollars, and 
ultimately make the problem worse.
  What better response to this year's Earth Day than a bipartisan 
cooperative approach between the administration and Congress to tackle 
this long-term and growing problem.

                          ____________________