[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14456-14460]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        COMMUNITY BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATION GRANT ACT OF 2008

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 4461) to promote and enhance the operation of local 
building code enforcement administration across the country by 
establishing a competitive Federal matching grant program, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4461

       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 ``Community Building Code 
     Administration Grant Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Grant Authorization.--The Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall provide grants to local building code 
     enforcement departments.
       (b) Competitive Awards.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     under subsection (a) on a competitive basis pursuant to the 
     criteria set forth in section 6, but also taking into 
     consideration the following:
       (1) The financial need of each building code enforcement 
     department.
       (2) The benefit to the local jurisdiction of having an 
     adequately funded building code enforcement department.
       (3) The demonstrated ability of each building code 
     enforcement department to work cooperatively with other local 
     code enforcement offices, health departments, and local 
     prosecutorial agencies.
       (c) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of any grant 
     awarded under this section shall not exceed $1,000,000.

     SEC. 3. REQUIRED ELEMENTS IN GRANT PROPOSALS.

       In order to be eligible for a grant under section 2, a 
     local building code enforcement department shall submit to 
     the Secretary the following:
       (1) A demonstration of the jurisdiction's needs in 
     executing building code enforcement administration.
       (2) A plan for the use of any funds received under this Act 
     that addresses the needs discussed in paragraph (1) and that 
     is consistent with the authorized uses established in section 
     4.

[[Page 14457]]

       (3) A plan for local governmental actions to be taken to 
     establish and sustain local building code enforcement 
     administration functions, without continuing Federal support, 
     at a level at least equivalent to that proposed in the grant 
     application.
       (4) A plan to create and maintain a program of public 
     outreach that includes a regularly updated and readily 
     accessible means of public communication, interaction, and 
     reporting regarding the services and work of the local 
     building code enforcement department to be supported by the 
     grant.
       (5) A plan for ensuring the timely and effective 
     administrative enforcement of building safety and fire 
     prevention violations.

     SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS; MATCHING FUNDS.

       (a) Authorized Uses.--Grants awarded under section 2 may be 
     used by the grant recipient to supplement existing State or 
     local funding for building code enforcement administration. 
     Such funds may be used to increase staffing, provide staff 
     training, increase staff competence and professional 
     qualifications, support individual certification or 
     departmental accreditation, or for capital expenditures 
     specifically dedicated to the administration of the local 
     building code enforcement department.
       (b) Additional Requirement.--Each local building code 
     enforcement department receiving a grant under section 2 
     shall empanel a code administration and enforcement team 
     consisting of at least 1 full-time building code enforcement 
     officer, a city planner, and a health planner or similar 
     officer.
       (c) Matching Funds Required.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this Act, a local building code enforcement department 
     serving an area with a population of--
       (A) over 50,000 shall provide matching, non-Federal funds 
     in an amount equal to not less than 50 percent of the total 
     amount of any grant to be awarded under this Act;
       (B) between 20,001 and 50,000 shall provide matching, non-
     Federal funds in an amount equal to not less than 25 percent 
     of the total amount of any grant to be awarded under this 
     Act; or
       (C) under 20,000 shall provide matching, non-Federal funds 
     in an amount equal to not less than 12.5 percent of the total 
     amount of any grant to be awarded under this Act.
       (2) Economic distress.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may waive the matching fund 
     requirements under paragraph (1), and institute, by 
     regulation, new matching fund requirements based upon the 
     level of economic distress of the local jurisdiction in which 
     the local building code enforcement department seeking such 
     grant is located.
       (B) Content of regulations.--Any regulations instituted 
     under subparagraph (A) shall include--
       (i) a method that allows for a comparison of the degree of 
     economic distress among the local jurisdiction's of grant 
     applicants, as measured by the differences in the extent of 
     growth lag, the extent of poverty, and the adjusted age of 
     housing in such jurisdiction; and
       (ii) any other factor determined to be relevant by the 
     Secretary in assessing the comparative degree of economic 
     distress among such local jurisdictions.
       (d) In-Kind Contributions.--In determining the non-Federal 
     share required to be provided under subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall consider in-kind contributions, not to exceed 
     50 percent of the amount that the department contributes in 
     non-Federal funds.
       (e) Waiver of Matching Requirement.--The Secretary shall 
     waive the matching fund requirements under subsection (c) for 
     any recipient jurisdiction that has legislatively dedicated 
     all building code permitting fees to the conduct of local 
     building code enforcement.

     SEC. 5. RATING AND RANKING OF APPLICATIONS.

       Eligible applications will be rated and ranked according to 
     the criteria described in section 6. All complete 
     applications will be compared to one another and points 
     assigned on a continuum within each criteria with the maximum 
     points awarded to the application that best meets the 
     criteria.

     SEC. 6. CRITERIA.

       (a) Need and Community Benefit From Code Enforcement Grant 
     Funds.--The degree to which the application demonstrates the 
     intent and means to ensure cooperative and effective working 
     relationships between local building code enforcement 
     officials and other local agencies, as well as a community-
     oriented approach to building code enforcement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Description                                            Maximum Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed description of the capital expenditures to be acquired with    0-10
 grant funds and a demonstration that the items' costs are reasonable.
The jurisdiction's need for the capital expenditure and how the grant     0-10
 funds will fulfill this need.
The joint benefits provided by the proposed expenditure for the           0-5
 following groups or activities. Provide a brief explanation of the
 benefit. (1 point will be awarded for each response, 5 points maximum).
 1. Code enforcement program.
 2. Community or jurisdiction.
 3. Interdisciplinary code enforcement team.
 4. Housing preservation, rehabilitation programs, or neighborhood
 improvement programs.
 5. Special needs groups (disabled, elderly or low or very-low income,
 etc.).
Does the proposed capital expenditure provide a cost savings benefit to   0-5
 the jurisdiction? Provide a brief explanation of the cost savings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Current Code Enforcement and Housing Conservation 
     Plan.--Has the local legislative body in which the applicant 
     resides adopted a ``plan'' which addresses residential 
     structure conservation and building code enforcement? From 
     the following list, select 1 description that best reflects 
     such jurisdiction's ``plan'' for building code enforcement 
     activities. Points will be awarded as follows:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Description                                            Maximum Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plan provides for proactive code enforcement (not just responding to  10
 complaints), an interdisciplinary approach, and includes funding
 options for repairs and rehabilitation.
The plan only provides for proactive code enforcement (not just           8
 responding to complaints) and calls for an interdisciplinary approach
 and does not address funding options for repairs and rehabilitation.
The plan provides for some type of proactive code enforcement (other      6
 than just responding to complaints) but doesn't address coordinated
 interdisciplinary activities with other local public agencies or
 funding options.
The plan provides for only reactive code enforcement.                     4
The plan only refers to a need to preserve and/or improve existing        2
 housing stock, without any code enforcement program.
No existing plan.                                                         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (c) Community-Oriented or Interdisciplinary Code 
     Enforcement.--The degree to which the application 
     demonstrates the intent and means to ensure cooperative and 
     effective working relationships between building code 
     enforcement officials and other local agencies, as well as a 
     community-oriented approach to code enforcement.


[[Page 14458]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Description                                            Maximum Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identify current or proposed interdisciplinary code enforcement programs  0-10
 or activities and the team members (example: code enforcement, police,
 local prosecutors, health department, building and planning, fire,
 etc.). Provide a description of the team's code enforcement and
 coordination procedures, activities and services provided. If the
 current programs or resources are limited in scope, explain how receipt
 of the grant will be used to improve the program.
Identify current or proposed community-oriented code enforcement          0-10
 programs, activities or services. (Examples: community clean-ups,
 Neighborhood Watch programs, community meetings, door-to-door code
 enforcement knock and talks, etc.). If the current programs or
 resources are limited in scope, explain how receipt of the grant will
 be used to improve the program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (d) Proactive Code Enforcement Activities.--The 
     effectiveness of the proposed or existing proactive 
     activities and programs operated by any existing building 
     code enforcement program. Describe such activities or 
     programs, include any of the following:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Description                                            Maximum Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encourages repairs and preservation, rather than demolition or            0-5
 abandonment, of substandard residences.
Abatement of (a) lead hazards and lead-based paints, (b) toxic molds and  0-5
 dampness, and (c) displacement or relocation of residents.
Community clean-up campaigns. This may include recycling dates, free or   0-5
 reduced disposal rates at dumpsite, public clean-up days that encourage
 removal of unwanted or excess debris by making available extra trash
 pick-ups, dumpsites or trash/recycling containers on specific dates to
 dispose of household debris, inoperable vehicles, tires, toxic
 materials, etc.
Resource or referral programs for Federal, State, local, and private      0-5
 funds and other resources available in your jurisdiction that can
 assist with housing rehabilitation and repairs to rectify code
 violations.
Public education programs on housing issues. These could include          0-5
 community housing meetings dealing with homeownership, tenant/landlord
 issues, housing code enforcement, school age children's programs with
 coloring books or handouts, housing safety pamphlets, etc.
Programs that encourage community involvement with groups; such as        0-5
 schools, church non-profits, community service groups, utility
 companies, local stores, housing agency banks, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (e) Capacity To Financially and Technically Support 
     Proposed Capital Expenditures.--The degree to which the 
     application demonstrates the jurisdiction's financial and 
     technical capacity to properly use and successfully support 
     the proposed capital expenditure during the term of the 
     grant.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Description                                            Maximum Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anticipated ongoing program funding for the duration of the grant     0-5
 program is adequate to financially support the use of the grant-
 financed equipment. Include details of funding and technical support
 sources for the capital expenditure (examples: insurance, paper,
 maintenance, training, supplies, personnel, monthly billing costs,
 etc.).
The jurisdiction has the technical capabilities to use and support        0-5
 equipment (examples: adequately trained staff or resources to provide
 training to operate technical equipment, local service provider for
 cell phones or 2-way radios, trained personnel to operate equipment,
 etc.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SEC. 7. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Grant recipients shall--
       (1) be obligated to fully account and report for the use of 
     all grants funds; and
       (2) provide a report to the Secretary on the effectiveness 
     of the program undertaken by the grantee and any other 
     criteria requested by the Secretary for the purpose of 
     indicating the effectiveness of, and ideas for, refinement of 
     the grant program.
       (b) Report.--The report required under subsection (a)(2) 
     shall include a discussion of--
       (1) the specific capabilities and functions in local 
     building code enforcement administration that were addressed 
     using funds received under this Act;
       (2) the lessons learned in carrying out the plans supported 
     by the grant; and
       (3) the manner in which the programs supported by the grant 
     are to be maintained by the grantee.
       (c) Content of Reports.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) require each recipient of a grant under ths Act to file 
     interim and final reports under subsection (b) to ensure that 
     grant funds are being used as intended and to measure the 
     effectiveness and benefits of the grant program; and
       (2) develop and maintain a means whereby the public can 
     access such reports, at no cost, via the Internet.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Building code enforcement department.--The term 
     ``building code enforcement department'' means the building 
     code inspection or enforcement agency of a local 
     jurisdiction.
       (2) Jurisdiction.--The term ``jurisdiction'' means a city, 
     county, parish, city and county authority, or city and parish 
     authority having local authority to enforce building codes 
     and regulations and collect fees for building permits.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to carry out the 
     provisions of this Act.
       (b) Reservation.--From the amount made available under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may reserve not more than 5 
     percent for administrative costs.
       (c) Availability.--Any funds appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 14459]]


  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today I ask for the House support in passing H.R. 4461, the Community 
Building Codes and Administration Grant Act.
  This legislation, which was approved by voice vote in the Financial 
Services Committee and enjoys bipartisan support in the House, will 
provide Federal assistance to the development of local building codes.
  Responsible building is essential to reduce vulnerability to future 
hazards. According to a study conducted in 2005 by the National 
Institute of Building Sciences, for every dollar spent on mitigation at 
the Federal level, the American taxpayer saves approximately $4 in 
disaster assistance.
  State and local building codes assure that new homes comply with 
safety standards. Acquiring the skills and knowledge to become a code 
inspector is a time-consuming process, though. And paying for personnel 
to conduct inspections and enforce codes that are on the books consumes 
scarce financial resources at the local level. While there are no 
dedicated Federal funds for building code administration, Community 
Development Block Grant funds have been used for this purpose in the 
past along with administrative allowances from FEMA's three mitigation 
programs: Hazard Mitigation, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, and Flood 
Mitigation. But competition for these funds is intense, and 
infrastructure projects typically receive preference over building code 
enforcement.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, States must fund these activities 
without Federal assistance, relying often on building permit fees and 
sometimes general funding to operate offices that are overworked and 
understaffed. This means that codes on the books cannot be enforced, 
leaving communities more vulnerable and driving up insurance premiums 
in those areas.
  To address this issue, H.R. 4461 establishes a competitive national 
program that provides awards to local governments for building code 
administration and enforcement. The Community Building Code 
Administration Grant Program will not infringe upon local and State 
authority to enact and enforce building codes. It simply provides 
sorely-needed funding for them to do so.
  Specifically, the bill includes a 5-year sunset on the program, 
authorizes $100 million over that period to execute it, caps awards at 
$1 million per recipient, requires recipients to match a portion of 
funds received, and outlines eligible uses of funds and selection 
criteria with preference offered to governments in financial distress.

                              {time}  1315

  Additionally, each grant proposal must contain a plan for local 
governmental actions to be taken to establish and sustain local 
building code enforcement administration functions, without continuing 
Federal support, at a level at least equivalent to that proposed in the 
grant application.
  This legislation will help ensure the safety of buildings across the 
country and ultimately will reduce the cost to the American taxpayers 
after a disaster. I look forward to passage of this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time and I want to thank also my 
colleague from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4461, the 
Community Building Code Administration Act, authored by the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Moore). Under current law, there are no dedicated 
Federal funds for building code administration. Funds from development 
or hazard mitigation programs have been used for this purpose in the 
past. The competition for these funds is intense, and infrastructure 
projects generally receive preference over building code enforcement. 
States and local jurisdictions fund local building code enforcement 
departments without Federal assistance.
  The legislation offered by Mr. Moore requires the Secretary of HUD to 
award grants on a competitive basis and with Federal matching funds to 
qualified local building code enforcement departments. The grants can 
be used to increase staffing, provide staff training, increase staff 
competence and professional qualifications, support individual 
certification or departmental accreditation, or for capital 
expenditures specifically dedicated to department administration.
  Both State and local governments that have responsibilities for 
administering laws and regulations addressing building safety and fire 
prevention would be eligible for Community Building Code Administration 
Grants. The bill authorizes $100 million over 5 years. Any grants 
awarded under this bill would be capped at $1 million.
  I would like to note that HUD has expressed some reservations 
regarding this legislation because currently CDBG funds can be used for 
this exact same purpose. The Department has concerns whether or not it 
is necessary to dedicate another $100 million for this purpose when it 
is already an eligible activity under CDBG.
  I would like to thank Mr. Moore for offering this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
Res. 4461 to promote and enhance the operation of local building code 
enforcement administration across the country by establishing a 
competitive Federal matching grant program. I would first like to thank 
my distinguished colleague, Representative Dennis Moore of Kansas, for 
introducing this important legislation. This legislation will provide 
grants to qualified local building code enforcement departments to 
increase in the quality and availability of service provided by the 
departments. These grants will be provided by the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development on a competitive basis provided that the 
potential grantees can demonstrate need and develop plans for the use 
of the funds, local governmental actions, public outreach, and 
enforcement.
  In disasters all around the country, studies have shown that a 
significant portion of the damages could have been prevented by 
rigorous enforcement of building codes. In studies of the damaged 
caused by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, researchers found that a quarter of 
the storm's damages could be attributed to a combination of shoddy 
workmanship and a lack of enforcement of the building code. The 
California Seismic Safety Commission's investigation into the damage 
caused during the 1995 Northridge earthquake in southern California 
found that much of the damage could have been avoided if building codes 
had been enforced. We cannot allow the same tragedies to occur time and 
again. About 2 million homes are at risk from coastal storms, 10 
million from flooding, 25 million from wind hazards, and 50 million 
from earthquakes. So much of the damage caused by these disasters is 
preventable; we just have to provide resources to local authorities to 
take the appropriate steps.
  By passing this bill, we are sending a message that this is not 
right. It is not right that a home or a school full of children is 
destroyed because builders used inferior concrete to save money. We 
cannot afford to be lax when the safety of all American citizens is at 
stake. The injury or death of a single person in a preventable accident 
cannot be tolerated.
  In this bill, the funds granted to local building code enforcement 
administrations would be used to increase staffing, provide staff 
training, increase staff competence and professional qualifications, 
support individual certification or departmental accreditation, or for 
capital expenditures specifically dedicated to the administration of 
the local building code enforcement department. We can ensure through 
the screening process that the funds go to communities that both need 
them and have plans to use them. Departments that receive funds under 
this program will be required to match a certain percentage based on 
population unless the department can show significant economic distress 
in the area they serve. Furthermore, this bill increases the 
departments' accountability. Grant recipients are obligated to fully 
account and report for the use of all grants funds and provide a report 
to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development on the effectiveness 
of the program.
  This bill will serve to increase the safety of all Americans and the 
confidence they have in the structure of the buildings they use 
everyday, from their place of employment to the schools where their 
children learn to the homes they sleep in at night. By spending now, we 
will reap the benefits for years to come.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 14460]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4461, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________