[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 110-117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 SANDY RECOVERY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2013

  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 219) to improve and streamline disaster assistance for 
Hurricane Sandy, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 219

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Sandy 
     Recovery Improvement Act of 2013''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Public assistance program alternative procedures.
Sec. 3. Federal assistance to individuals and households.
Sec. 4. Hazard mitigation.
Sec. 5. Dispute resolution pilot program.
Sec. 6. Unified Federal review.
Sec. 7. Simplified procedures.
Sec. 8. Essential assistance.
Sec. 9. Individual assistance factors.
Sec. 10. Tribal requests for a major disaster or emergency declaration 
              under the Stafford Act.
Sec. 11. Recommendations for reducing costs of future disasters.

     SEC. 2. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES.

       Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second section 425 (relating to 
     essential service providers) as section 427; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 428. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) Approval of Projects.--The President, acting through 
     the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     may approve projects under the alternative procedures adopted 
     under this section for any major disaster or emergency 
     declared on or after the date of enactment of this section. 
     The Administrator may also apply the alternate procedures 
     adopted under this section to a major disaster or emergency 
     declared before enactment of this Act for which construction 
     has not begun as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       ``(b) Adoption.--The Administrator, in coordination with 
     States, tribal and local governments, and owners or operators 
     of private nonprofit facilities, may adopt alternative 
     procedures to administer assistance provided under sections 
     403(a)(3)(A), 406, 407, and 502(a)(5).
       ``(c) Goals of Procedures.--The alternative procedures 
     adopted under subsection (a) shall further the goals of--
       ``(1) reducing the costs to the Federal Government of 
     providing such assistance;
       ``(2) increasing flexibility in the administration of such 
     assistance;
       ``(3) expediting the provision of such assistance to a 
     State, tribal or local government, or owner or operator of a 
     private nonprofit facility; and
       ``(4) providing financial incentives and disincentives for 
     a State, tribal or local government, or owner or operator of 
     a private nonprofit facility for the timely and cost-
     effective completion of projects with such assistance.
       ``(d) Participation.--Participation in the alternative 
     procedures adopted under this section shall be at the 
     election of a State, tribal or local government, or owner or 
     operator of a private nonprofit facility consistent with 
     procedures determined by the Administrator.
       ``(e) Minimum Procedures.--The alternative procedures 
     adopted under this section shall include the following:
       ``(1) For repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged 
     facilities under section 406--
       ``(A) making grants on the basis of fixed estimates, if the 
     State, tribal or local government, or owner or operator of 
     the private nonprofit facility agrees to be responsible for 
     any actual costs that exceed the estimate;
       ``(B) providing an option for a State, tribal or local 
     government, or owner or operator of a private nonprofit 
     facility to elect to receive an in-lieu contribution, without 
     reduction, on the basis of estimates of--
       ``(i) the cost of repair, restoration, reconstruction, or 
     replacement of a public facility owned or controlled by the 
     State, tribal or local government or owner or operator of a 
     private nonprofit facility; and
       ``(ii) management expenses;
       ``(C) consolidating, to the extent determined appropriate 
     by the Administrator, the facilities of a State, tribal or 
     local government, or owner or operator of a private nonprofit 
     facility as a single project based upon the estimates adopted 
     under the procedures;
       ``(D) if the actual costs of a project completed under the 
     procedures are less than the estimated costs thereof, the 
     Administrator may permit a grantee or subgrantee to use all 
     or part of the excess funds for--
       ``(i) cost-effective activities that reduce the risk of 
     future damage, hardship, or suffering from a major disaster; 
     and
       ``(ii) other activities to improve future Public Assistance 
     operations or planning;
       ``(E) in determining eligible costs under section 406, the 
     Administrator shall make available, at an applicant's request 
     and where the Administrator or the certified cost estimate 
     prepared by the applicant's professionally licensed engineers 
     has estimated an eligible Federal share for a project of at 
     least $5,000,000, an independent expert panel to validate the 
     estimated eligible cost consistent with applicable 
     regulations and policies implementing this section; and
       ``(F) in determining eligible costs under section 406, the 
     Administrator shall, at the applicant's request, consider 
     properly conducted and certified cost estimates prepared by 
     professionally licensed engineers (mutually agreed upon by 
     the Administrator and the applicant), to the extent that such 
     estimates comply with applicable regulations, policy, and 
     guidance.
       ``(2) For debris removal under sections 403(a)(3)(A), 407, 
     and 502(a)(5)--
       ``(A) making grants on the basis of fixed estimates to 
     provide financial incentives and disincentives for the timely 
     or cost-effective completion if the State, tribal or local 
     government, or owner or operator of the private nonprofit 
     facility agrees to be responsible to pay for any actual costs 
     that exceed the estimate;
       ``(B) using a sliding scale for determining the Federal 
     share for removal of debris and wreckage based on the time it 
     takes to complete debris and wreckage removal;
       ``(C) allowing use of program income from recycled debris 
     without offset to the grant amount;
       ``(D) reimbursing base and overtime wages for employees and 
     extra hires of a State, tribal or local government, or owner 
     or operator of a private nonprofit facility performing or 
     administering debris and wreckage removal;
       ``(E) providing incentives to a State or tribal or local 
     government to have a debris management plan approved by the 
     Administrator and have pre-qualified 1 or more debris and 
     wreckage removal contractors before the date of declaration 
     of the major disaster; and
       ``(F) if the actual costs of projects under subparagraph 
     (A) are less than the estimated costs of the project, the 
     Administrator may permit a grantee or subgrantee to use all 
     or part of the excess funds for--
       ``(i) debris management planning;
       ``(ii) acquisition of debris management equipment for 
     current or future use; and

[[Page 111]]

       ``(iii) other activities to improve future debris removal 
     operations, as determined by the Administrator.
       ``(f) Waiver Authority.--Until such time as the 
     Administrator promulgates regulations to implement this 
     section, the Administrator may--
       ``(1) waive notice and comment rulemaking, if the 
     Administrator determines the waiver is necessary to 
     expeditiously implement this section; and
       ``(2) carry out the alternative procedures under this 
     section as a pilot program.
       ``(g) Overtime Payments.--The guidelines for reimbursement 
     for costs under subsection (e)(2)(D) shall ensure that no 
     State or local government is denied reimbursement for 
     overtime payments that are required pursuant to the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
       ``(h) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not earlier than 3 years, and not later 
     than 5 years, after the date of enactment of this section, 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security 
     shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the alternative procedures for 
     the repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged 
     facilities under section 406 authorized under this section.
       ``(2) Contents.--The report shall contain an assessment of 
     the effectiveness of the alternative procedures, including--
       ``(A) whether the alternative procedures helped to improve 
     the general speed of disaster recovery;
       ``(B) the accuracy of the estimates relied upon;
       ``(C) whether the financial incentives and disincentives 
     were effective;
       ``(D) whether the alternative procedures were cost 
     effective;
       ``(E) whether the independent expert panel described in 
     subsection (e)(1)(E) was effective; and
       ``(F) recommendations for whether the alternative 
     procedures should be continued and any recommendations for 
     changes to the alternative procedures.''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.

       Section 408(c)(1)(B) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)(1)(B)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses 
     (iii) and (iv), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) Lease and repair of rental units for temporary 
     housing.--

       ``(I) In general.--The President, to the extent the 
     President determines it would be a cost-effective alternative 
     to other temporary housing options, may--

       ``(aa) enter into lease agreements with owners of 
     multifamily rental property located in areas covered by a 
     major disaster declaration to house individuals and 
     households eligible for assistance under this section; and
       ``(bb) make repairs or improvements to properties under 
     such lease agreements, to the extent necessary to serve as 
     safe and adequate temporary housing.

       ``(II) Improvements or repairs.--Under the terms of any 
     lease agreement for property entered into under this 
     subsection, the value of the improvements or repairs--

       ``(aa) shall be deducted from the value of the lease 
     agreement; and
       ``(bb) may not exceed the value of the lease agreement.''; 
     and
       (3) in clause (iv) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``clause (ii)'' and inserting ``clause (iii)''.

     SEC. 4. HAZARD MITIGATION.

       (a) Streamlined Procedures; Advance Assistance.--Section 
     404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(d) Streamlined Procedures.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of providing assistance 
     under this section, the President shall ensure that--
       ``(A) adequate resources are devoted to ensure that 
     applicable environmental reviews under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and historic preservation 
     reviews under the National Historic Preservation Act are 
     completed on an expeditious basis; and
       ``(B) the shortest existing applicable process under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National 
     Historic Preservation Act is utilized.
       ``(2) Authority for other expedited procedures.--The 
     President may utilize expedited procedures in addition to 
     those required under paragraph (1) for the purpose of 
     providing assistance under this section, such as procedures 
     under the Prototype Programmatic Agreement of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, for the consideration of 
     multiple structures as a group and for an analysis of the 
     cost-effectiveness and fulfillment of cost-share requirements 
     for proposed hazard mitigation measures.
       ``(e) Advance Assistance.--The President may provide not 
     more than 25 percent of the amount of the estimated cost of 
     hazard mitigation measures to a State grantee eligible for a 
     grant under this section before eligible costs are 
     incurred.''.
       (b) Establishment of Criteria Relating to Administration of 
     Hazard Mitigation Assistance by States.--Section 404(c)(2) of 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(c)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``applications submitted under paragraph 
     (1).'' the following: ``Until such time as the Administrator 
     promulgates regulations to implement this paragraph, the 
     Administrator may waive notice and comment rulemaking, if the 
     Administrator determines doing so is necessary to 
     expeditiously implement this section, and may carry out this 
     section as a pilot program.''.
       (c) Applicability.--The authority under the amendments made 
     by this section shall apply to--
       (1) any major disaster or emergency declared under the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) a major disaster or emergency declared under that Act 
     before the date of enactment of this Act for which the period 
     for processing requests for assistance has not ended as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Federal emergency Management Agency.
       (2) Eligible assistance.--The term ``eligible assistance'' 
     means assistance--
       (A) under section 403, 406, or 407 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170b, 5172, 5173);
       (B) for which the legitimate amount in dispute is not less 
     than $1,000,000, which sum the Administrator shall adjust 
     annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for 
     all Urban Consumers published by the Department of Labor;
       (C) for which the applicant has a non-Federal share; and
       (D) for which the applicant has received a decision on a 
     first appeal.
       (b) Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and in order to facilitate an 
     efficient recovery from major disasters, the Administrator 
     shall establish procedures under which an applicant may 
     request the use of alternative dispute resolution, including 
     arbitration by an independent review panel, to resolve 
     disputes relating to eligible assistance.
       (2) Binding effect.--A decision by an independent review 
     panel under this section shall be binding upon the parties to 
     the dispute.
       (3) Considerations.--The procedures established under this 
     section shall--
       (A) allow a party of a dispute relating to eligible 
     assistance to request an independent review panel for the 
     review;
       (B) require a party requesting an independent review panel 
     as described in subparagraph (A) to agree to forgo rights to 
     any further appeal of the dispute relating to any eligible 
     assistance;
       (C) require that the sponsor of an independent review panel 
     for any alternative dispute resolution under this section 
     be--
       (i) an individual or entity unaffiliated with the dispute 
     (which may include a Federal agency, an administrative law 
     judge, or a reemployed annuitant who was an employee of the 
     Federal Government) selected by the Administrator; and
       (ii) responsible for identifying and maintaining an 
     adequate number of independent experts qualified to review 
     and resolve disputes under this section;
       (D) require an independent review panel to--
       (i) resolve any remaining disputed issue in accordance with 
     all applicable laws, regulations, and Agency interpretations 
     of those laws through its published policies and guidance;
       (ii) consider only evidence contained in the administrative 
     record, as it existed at the time at which the Agency made 
     its initial decision;
       (iii) only set aside a decision of the Agency found to be 
     arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 
     not in accordance with law; and
       (iv) in the case of a finding of material fact adverse to 
     the claimant made on first appeal, only set aside or reverse 
     such finding if the finding is clearly erroneous.
       (E) require an independent review panel to expeditiously 
     issue a written decision for any alternative dispute 
     resolution under this section; and
       (F) direct that if an independent review panel for any 
     alternative dispute resolution under this section determines 
     that the basis upon which a party submits a request for 
     alternative dispute resolution is frivolous, the independent 
     review panel shall direct the party to pay the reasonable 
     costs to the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating to 
     the review by the independent review panel. Any funds 
     received by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the 
     authority of this section shall be deposited to the credit of 
     the appropriation or appropriations available for the 
     eligible assistance in dispute on the date on which the funds 
     are received.

[[Page 112]]

       (c) Sunset.--A request for review by an independent review 
     panel under this section may not be made after December 31, 
     2015.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the 
     termination of authority under this section under subsection 
     (c), the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report 
     analyzing the effectiveness of the program under this 
     section.
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) a determination of the availability of data required to 
     complete the report;
       (B) an assessment of the effectiveness of the program under 
     this section, including an assessment of whether the program 
     expedited or delayed the disaster recovery process;
       (C) an assessment of whether the program increased or 
     decreased costs to administer section 403, 406, or 407 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act;
       (D) an assessment of the procedures and safeguards that the 
     independent review panels established to ensure objectivity 
     and accuracy, and the extent to which they followed those 
     procedures and safeguards;
       (E) a recommendation as to whether any aspect of the 
     program under this section should be made a permanent 
     authority; and
       (F) recommendations for any modifications to the authority 
     or the administration of the authority under this section in 
     order to improve the disaster recovery process.

     SEC. 6. UNIFIED FEDERAL REVIEW.

       Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (as amended by this Act) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 429. UNIFIED FEDERAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, and in consultation with the 
     Council on Environmental Quality and the Advisory Council on 
     Historic Preservation, the President shall establish an 
     expedited and unified interagency review process to ensure 
     compliance with environmental and historic requirements under 
     Federal law relating to disaster recovery projects, in order 
     to expedite the recovery process, consistent with applicable 
     law.
       ``(b) Contents.--The review process established under this 
     section shall include mechanisms to expeditiously address 
     delays that may occur during the recovery from a major 
     disaster and be updated, as appropriate, consistent with 
     applicable law.''.

     SEC. 7. SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES.

       Section 422 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5189) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``If the Federal estimate'' and inserting 
     ``(a) In General.--If the Federal estimate'';
       (2) by inserting ``(or, if the Administrator has 
     established a threshold under subsection (b), the amount 
     established under subsection (b))'' after ``$35,000'' the 
     first place it appears;
       (3) by inserting ``or, if applicable, the amount 
     established under subsection (b),'' after ``$35,000 amount'' 
     the second place it appears; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Threshold.--
       ``(1) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the President, acting through 
     the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     (in this section referred to as the `Administrator'), shall--
       ``(A) complete an analysis to determine whether an increase 
     in the threshold for eligibility under subsection (a) is 
     appropriate, which shall include consideration of cost-
     effectiveness, speed of recovery, capacity of grantees, past 
     performance, and accountability measures; and
       ``(B) submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate a report regarding the analysis conducted under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Amount.--After the Administrator submits the report 
     required under paragraph (1), the President shall direct the 
     Administrator to--
       ``(A) immediately establish a threshold for eligibility 
     under this section in an appropriate amount, without regard 
     to chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code; and
       ``(B) adjust the threshold annually to reflect changes in 
     the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers published by 
     the Department of Labor.
       ``(3) Review.--Not later than 3 years after the date on 
     which the Administrator establishes a threshold under 
     paragraph (2), and every 3 years thereafter, the President, 
     acting through the Administrator, shall review the threshold 
     for eligibility under this section.''.

     SEC. 8. ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Other Needs Assistance.--Section 408(e)(1) of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading by inserting ``child care,'' 
     after ``dental,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``child care,'' after ``dental,''.
       (b) Salaries and Benefits.--Section 403 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Salaries and Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the President declares a major 
     disaster or emergency for an area within the jurisdiction of 
     a State, tribal, or local government, the President may 
     reimburse the State, tribal, or local government for costs 
     relating to--
       ``(A) basic pay and benefits for permanent employees of the 
     State, tribal, or local government conducting emergency 
     protective measures under this section, if--
       ``(i) the work is not typically performed by the employees; 
     and
       ``(ii) the type of work may otherwise be carried out by 
     contract or agreement with private organizations, firms, or 
     individuals.; or
       ``(B) overtime and hazardous duty compensation for 
     permanent employees of the State, tribal, or local government 
     conducting emergency protective measures under this section.
       ``(2) Overtime.--The guidelines for reimbursement for costs 
     under paragraph (1) shall ensure that no State, tribal, or 
     local government is denied reimbursement for overtime 
     payments that are required pursuant to the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
       ``(3) No effect on mutual aid pacts.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall affect the ability of the President to 
     reimburse labor force expenses provided pursuant to an 
     authorized mutual aid pact.''.

     SEC. 9. INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE FACTORS.

       In order to provide more objective criteria for evaluating 
     the need for assistance to individuals, to clarify the 
     threshold for eligibility and to speed a declaration of a 
     major disaster or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 
     et seq.), not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, in cooperation with representatives of 
     State, tribal, and local emergency management agencies, shall 
     review, update, and revise through rulemaking the factors 
     considered under section 206.48 of title 44, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (including section 206.48(b)(2) of such title 
     relating to trauma and the specific conditions or losses that 
     contribute to trauma), to measure the severity, magnitude, 
     and impact of a disaster.

     SEC. 10. TRIBAL REQUESTS FOR A MAJOR DISASTER OR EMERGENCY 
                   DECLARATION UNDER THE STAFFORD ACT.

       (a) Major Disaster Requests.--Section 401 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``All requests for a declaration'' and 
     inserting ``(a) In General.--All requests for a 
     declaration''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Indian Tribal Government Requests.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Chief Executive of an affected 
     Indian tribal government may submit a request for a 
     declaration by the President that a major disaster exists 
     consistent with the requirements of subsection (a).
       ``(2) References.--In implementing assistance authorized by 
     the President under this Act in response to a request of the 
     Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government for a 
     major disaster declaration, any reference in this title or 
     title III (except sections 310 and 326) to a State or the 
     Governor of a State is deemed to refer to an affected Indian 
     tribal government or the Chief Executive of an affected 
     Indian tribal government, as appropriate.
       ``(3) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     prohibit an Indian tribal government from receiving 
     assistance under this title through a declaration made by the 
     President at the request of a State under subsection (a) if 
     the President does not make a declaration under this 
     subsection for the same incident.
       ``(c) Cost Share Adjustments for Indian Tribal 
     Governments.--
       ``(1) In general.--In providing assistance to an Indian 
     tribal government under this title, the President may waive 
     or adjust any payment of a non-Federal contribution with 
     respect to the assistance if--
       ``(A) the President has the authority to waive or adjust 
     the payment under another provision of this title; and
       ``(B) the President determines that the waiver or 
     adjustment is necessary and appropriate.
       ``(2) Criteria for making determinations.--The President 
     shall establish criteria for making determinations under 
     paragraph (1)(B).''.
       (b) Emergency Requests.--Section 501 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5191) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Indian Tribal Government Requests.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Chief Executive of an affected 
     Indian tribal government may

[[Page 113]]

     submit a request for a declaration by the President that an 
     emergency exists consistent with the requirements of 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) References.--In implementing assistance authorized by 
     the President under this title in response to a request of 
     the Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government 
     for an emergency declaration, any reference in this title or 
     title III (except sections 310 and 326) to a State or the 
     Governor of a State is deemed to refer to an affected Indian 
     tribal government or the Chief Executive of an affected 
     Indian tribal government, as appropriate.
       ``(3) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     prohibit an Indian tribal government from receiving 
     assistance under this title through a declaration made by the 
     President at the request of a State under subsection (a) if 
     the President does not make a declaration under this 
     subsection for the same incident.''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7)(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
     ``, that is not an Indian tribal government as defined in 
     paragraph (6); and'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (11), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) Indian tribal government.--The term `Indian tribal 
     government' means the governing body of any Indian or Alaska 
     Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community 
     that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as 
     an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe 
     List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a et seq.).''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Chief executive.--The term `Chief Executive' means 
     the person who is the Chief, Chairman, Governor, President, 
     or similar executive official of an Indian tribal 
     government.''.
       (d) References.--Title I of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding after section 102 the following:

     ``SEC. 103. REFERENCES.

       ``Except as otherwise specifically provided, any reference 
     in this Act to `State and local', `State or local', `State, 
     and local', `State, or local', or `State, local' (including 
     plurals) with respect to governments or officials and any 
     reference to a `local government' in sections 406(d)(3) and 
     417 is deemed to refer also to Indian tribal governments and 
     officials, as appropriate.''.
       (e) Regulations.--
       (1) Issuance.--The President shall issue regulations to 
     carry out the amendments made by this section.
       (2) Factors.--In issuing the regulations, the President 
     shall consider the unique conditions that affect the general 
     welfare of Indian tribal governments.

     SEC. 11. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING COSTS OF FUTURE 
                   DISASTERS.

       (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency shall submit to Congress 
     recommendations for the development of a national strategy 
     for reducing future costs, loss of life, and injuries 
     associated with extreme disaster events in vulnerable areas 
     of the United States.
       (b) National Strategy.--The national strategy should--
       (1) respect the constitutional role and responsibilities of 
     Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector;
       (2) consider the vulnerability of the United States to 
     damage from flooding, severe weather events, and other 
     hazards;
       (3) analyze gaps and duplication of emergency preparedness, 
     response, recovery, and mitigation measures provided by 
     Federal, State, and local entities; and
       (4) include recommendations on how to improve the 
     resiliency of local communities and States for the purpose of 
     lowering future costs of disaster response and recovery.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham) and the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 219.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure for his leadership on this legislation. His 
knowledge and years of experience on these issues have been critical to 
crafting this legislation and bringing it before the House for 
consideration today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Norton, 
Ranking Member Rahall, and former Chairman Mica for all of their work 
and support for these reforms.
  H.R. 219, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, will save money 
and help devastated communities rebuild much faster than under current 
programs. However, in order to help those communities impacted by 
Sandy, the FEMA Administrator has made it very clear that these reforms 
must be signed into law by March 1. Many of these reforms were already 
passed by the House in September as part of H.R. 2903. There is also 
widespread and bipartisan support for these reforms in the Senate. In 
addition, this bill has strong support from key stakeholders and 
experts, representing emergency managers, State and local officials, 
and tribal communities. We know these reforms work. Chairman Shuster 
laid the groundwork in 2006 when his post-Katrina reform act authorized 
FEMA to conduct a number of recovery pilot programs.
  The results are very clear.
  In each case, costs were dramatically reduced, projects were 
completed faster, and their process was much more efficient. For 
example, without making permanent the debris removal pilot program the 
taxpayer could end up paying six times the cost for debris removal, and 
it will take much longer. The individuals and households pilot program 
incorporated in this bill would reduce costs by a similar amount and 
make temporary housing available faster.
  In hearing after hearing before our committee, experts, FEMA, and the 
Office of the Inspector General have all testified communities will be 
rebuilt faster and taxpayers will save hundreds of millions of dollars 
with this bill. We know the current process is broken, and we finally 
know how to fix it, but we have to change the law by March or it will 
be too late to apply those lessons to the Sandy recovery. It has been 
nearly 8 years since Hurricane Katrina, and there are still projects 
that are unresolved. We don't want to have the same mistakes happen 
with Hurricane Sandy. These reforms will help address those programs, 
streamline the process, allow communities to rebuild faster and 
smarter, and save money.
  The provisions of H.R. 219 are proven and commonsense reforms that 
have bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of 
H.R. 219.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank Mr. Shuster, Mr. Rahall, and my good friend Mr. 
Denham for their very important work to bring this matter to the floor 
so soon after the recess. I'm sure everyone appreciates it, and I 
certainly associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Denham. He and I 
worked on the very passages he quoted.
  I, therefore, rise in support of H.R. 219, the Sandy Recovery 
Improvement Act of 2013. This bipartisan measure consists of reforms to 
expedite the recovery process for those communities that received 
disaster declarations for Hurricane Sandy as well as for future 
Presidentially declared disasters. I do believe this may be the first 
time that some of these reforms with any significant event have been 
tested because many of the provisions included in the bill are matters 
that we have long worked for and that were incorporated into similar 
legislation in past Congresses. Several of the provisions will 
streamline the rebuilding process to provide jobs in the region and to 
achieve full recovery. The measure is also supported by the 
International Association of Emergency Managers, the Association of 
State Floodplain Managers, the National League of Cities, and more.
  After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Congress enacted two pilot 
programs: one for debris removal and another allowing FEMA to make 
limited repairs instead of lease payments to provide housing when 
cheaper than using temporary trailers. Both pilot programs

[[Page 114]]

were successful and resulted in savings for the Federal Government. 
Local governments and emergency management professionals have discussed 
the need to make the debris removal program permanent in order to 
expedite debris recovery. The housing program will be especially useful 
in large urban areas, such as in New York City, where temporary 
trailers simply are not an option. This bill would codify both expired 
pilot programs, providing additional tools for FEMA to help communities 
recover.
  This measure would also authorize FEMA to use fixed grants based on 
cost estimates at the request of the local community--another favorite 
we have been pressing for years. Although Congress authorized FEMA to 
use cost estimating 12 years ago, which is the way the insurance 
industry does it, for example, FEMA has not done so. The new 
authorization includes incentives for the local communities to use cost 
estimating by allowing them to rebuild according to today's needs and 
by eliminating long delays in the recovery process caused by cost 
disputes. Moreover, this provision explicitly authorizes FEMA and the 
applicant to mutually agree on a professionally licensed expert to 
prepare a cost estimate to be relied upon by FEMA instead of using an 
adversarial process in which both hire their own cost estimators, paid 
for by the Federal Government, and then get into a dispute as to which 
one is the best to use. This process alone will eliminate one of the 
most inefficient uses of Federal funds I have ever heard of in which 
FEMA pays for the State's experts to submit competing estimates of the 
costs of repair to the government's experts. No more of that. No more 
waste from that.
  Finally, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held an 
oversight hearing last month on the preparedness, response to, and 
recovery from Hurricane Sandy. At that hearing, I questioned FEMA 
Administrator Fugate about the need to expedite the dispute resolution 
process. I am pleased to state that this bill includes a 3-year dispute 
resolution pilot program for FEMA to draft procedures in order to 
expedite project closure and to decrease recovery costs caused by 
project delays.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, the new chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Shuster.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Denham) for his leadership and for sponsoring this important 
legislation.
  We are proud to have strong bipartisan support. Thanks go to Member 
Rahall and Ms. Holmes Norton for her support on this and working 
closely with us. In fact, the gentlelady from Washington, D.C., and I 
worked very closely 8 years ago on many of these reforms that we're 
going to expand from pilot projects.
  I would also like to acknowledge my predecessor and friend, our 
former chairman, Mr. Mica, who's been a leader on these issues, and 
also to thank Mr. Palazzo from Mississippi, who offered important 
suggestions to improve this legislation.
  I'm proud to be a cosponsor. These bipartisan Federal Emergency 
Management Agency and disaster recovery improvements will speed up and 
streamline Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts. And they will also, 
importantly, reduce costs.
  We worked to target improvements that will specifically help 
communities in the immediate aftermath of Sandy. These are critical, 
bipartisan reforms supported by FEMA and key experts and stakeholders. 
We understand from FEMA Administrator Fugate that these reforms must be 
enacted by March 1 to help the recovery from Hurricane Sandy.
  I have worked on these issues since serving as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Emergency Management, as I mentioned, with the 
gentlelady from Washington, 8 years ago. At that time, I witnessed the 
devastation following Hurricane Katrina. We saw how our emergency 
management capability broke down, and significant reforms were needed. 
We crafted legislation to put FEMA back together again within the 
Department of Homeland Security, reformed and strengthened our response 
capability and created pilot programs to test out innovative ways to 
improve our recovery process.
  While we have made significant improvements in disaster preparedness 
and response since Katrina, there is so much red tape in the recovery 
programs that rebuilding takes several years longer than it should. The 
longer communities take to rebuild, the higher the economic losses to 
those communities and the more it costs the taxpayers.
  The pilot programs we created after Katrina laid the foundation for 
many of these reforms. From the debris removal and public assistance 
pilot program to the individual and household pilot programs, the 
savings were significant, and in some cases up to six times less 
expensive. And these pilot programs did not just save money, but they 
actually got things done faster.
  The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act builds on the important work we 
started after Hurricane Katrina. Specifically, the Sandy Recovery 
Improvement Act will: streamline environmental review procedures; allow 
greater flexibility to reduce rebuilding time and lower costs; reduce 
debris removal costs; provide flexibility and less expensive housing 
costs; and call for recommendations for reducing costs for future 
disasters.
  As the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I 
look forward to working on a FEMA reauthorization bill in the future 
and moving other important FEMA reforms later in Congress.
  However, today I know FEMA needs these reforms, and so I urge all my 
colleagues to support this in order for us to save hundreds of millions 
of dollars in Sandy recovery.
  Ms. NORTON. First, let me say I appreciate the gentleman's remarks 
and comparing what we are going through here to what we all went 
through. He and I were both on the committee after Hurricane Katrina. I 
can tell you, we never expected to see anything like it, particularly 
in this part of the country. I certainly agree that this is the time to 
finally get these reforms done. This is the time to get it done, when 
we've got a huge Katrina-like event and we've got everybody's attention 
and we're going to save millions upon millions of dollars. I thank the 
gentleman.
  I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the District, and I 
commend the work of my colleagues on this bill. It has some good 
features and should help smooth the way for recovery from Hurricane 
Sandy.
  The delay in getting this bill and, more importantly, the delay in 
getting the supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Sandy to the 
floor has only compounded problems for Sandy's victims in New Jersey 
and elsewhere. And I wish that this bill had included language removing 
a real impediment faced by our towns.
  I'm told that the appropriators, in the legislation coming to the 
floor tomorrow, are showing unusual respect for House rules and won't 
use their supplemental appropriations bill to change legislation but 
only to appropriate funds, so that the standard 65/35 Army Corps of 
Engineers formula will not be changed. In other words, towns must put 
up 35 percent of the project cost for the Corps of Engineers to make 
the repairs that they would make. The construction costs are high. Many 
towns in my State will not be able to come up with the 35 percent cost 
share match for a multimillion dollar construction project. But the 
appropriators aren't authorizers, they say. Well, what we have before 
us now is coming from the authorizing committee. They could have fixed 
this, and I wish this bill had been brought up in such a way that we 
could fix this match, as the President had asked in his request for the 
emergency funds.

[[Page 115]]

  This bill should streamline the process, but we should have a 90/10 
match so that these towns that are strapped for funds because of the 
damage of Hurricane Sandy and because they've exceeded their borrowing 
limits would be able to come up with a smaller amount of money so that 
the construction by the Corps of Engineers could get underway.
  I'm happy to see this streamlined process that will get aid to 
individuals and municipalities in the wake of future storms like 
Hurricane Sandy. I wish that we could have used this opportunity to fix 
the 65/35 match and make it a 90/10 match, as the President had 
requested. That certainly would have helped the towns in New Jersey and 
Connecticut and New York.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman from New 
Jersey that this bill was passed in September by this House and has 
been sitting in the Senate since September. Even though the President's 
own appointee, Director Fugate, has been asking for this bill, it has 
been sitting. So we're looking forward to a bipartisan solution that 
gets done before March so we can actually help out the Sandy relief 
fund.
  I would just like to point to a couple quick facts. The New Orleans 
Youth Study Center project, as an example, as you'll see from this 
chart, Katrina was in 2005. Here's what the Governor's office has put 
together. This one project isn't going to be done until 2016. After 182 
meetings and 7 years of bureaucratic red tape, this one project won't 
be done until 2016; and that's if all goes well, that's when Louisiana 
hopes to finish this. That's 11 years after Hurricane Katrina. The 
single biggest factor in cost increases is time, and these delays will 
almost double the project from $15 million to $28 million. FEMA has 
spent almost $5 million on a temporary facility alone.
  There are literally thousands of projects like this across the gulf 
coast, and there will be thousands more of budget-busting projects in 
New York and New Jersey if we don't get these reforms signed into law.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Sandy 
Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, 
Congressman Denham, and the entire Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for their work to bring this very important piece of disaster 
relief reform legislation to the floor this week.
  Last Tuesday, I had the opportunity to travel to the hardest hit 
areas of New York and New Jersey to see firsthand the damage caused by 
Hurricane Sandy. It immediately reminded me of the devastation we in 
Mississippi experienced after Hurricane Katrina just 7 years ago. When 
you look at the response to hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina and 
other superstorms that have hit in recent years, there is no doubt in 
my mind that we have a broken system.
  Last week, I took a vote against propping up a bankrupt and broken 
system without any serious reforms, and today, I proudly stand before 
this body to advocate for some commonsense reforms on how we administer 
disaster relief.
  The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 scheduled for 
consideration today is the first step in a much longer process of 
reforming our disaster relief system. Improving resiliency, increasing 
mitigation efforts, and changing the way we pay for disaster relief 
will be key to this discussion.
  I'm especially grateful for the committee's work in adding my 
language to this bill which will require FEMA to develop 
recommendations to Congress for a national strategy to reduce future 
costs and loss of life associated with these extreme weather events. 
Make no mistake, the Northeast needs our help now in ensuring the 
victims of Sandy receive the relief they so desperately require and 
need, and I want to encourage my colleagues to join me in support of 
both today's bill and the remaining Sandy relief measures we will take 
up this week. But I also believe there's no better time to address the 
very real needs of our broken disaster relief system. We must not only 
build back, we must build forward. That's why I'm proud to support this 
legislation to improve and streamline disaster relief in our country.

                              {time}  1720

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to say that I'm pleased to see that the gentleman from 
Mississippi has done what we have always done when any part of our 
country faced a disaster, we all closed in, and we really closed in 
like nothing you've ever seen with Mississippi and Louisiana, and 
nobody from the east coast rose to have any problem with moving in.
  The reforms this bill now contains, the reforms of Chairman Denham 
and me, and before Chairman Denham came to the Congress, reforms that 
had been in our bill for some time; and it is true that these have not 
come out, and we have got a lever now to get them out. And when we get 
them out, they're going to help Mississippi and Louisiana, and they 
have more of this than the east coast has ever had. And it's going to 
help all the unforeseen places that now we are seeing experience 
precisely what only certain parts of the country before had had to 
endure.
  I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank very much the gentlelady from 
the District of Columbia for her clarification; and I, frankly, thank 
you for having the wisdom in months and years back to have these 
corrections and these improvements in FEMA, and I know they welcome it.
  I am a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and served as 
the ranking member on Transportation Security, but know firsthand, as 
the committee that shares jurisdiction over FEMA, firsthand, in living 
color, the catastrophe and tragedy of Hurricane Katrina; both in my 
visits and almost living in New Orleans, as many of our Members did, 
and then in welcoming over a quarter of a million-plus of New 
Orleanians into Houston, Texas, being there inside the Astrodome, and 
seeing eons and eons and layers of beds of people who are Americans and 
who were Americans who, one could not call them broken, those 
survivors, if you will, from Hurricane Katrina were not broken. They 
were people who had worked and had homes and paid taxes.
  And so today, Madam Speaker, those who are survivors of Hurricane 
Sandy are not broken. They are not the cornerstone of the fault of 
bureaucracy or misuse. They are, in fact, survivors. They are Americans 
who need our help.
  And I'd like to add to this discussion, certainly. I join and want to 
comment on one or two of the changes here. In particular, the 
individual assistance factors, I think, will be very helpful to 
expedite the declaration process for individuals.
  I'm very grateful that one of the changes they made, thank goodness, 
and this is what happened to our seniors, fixing their homes instead of 
putting them in FEMA trailers. What a celebration.
  How many had to stay in FEMA trailers down in the gulf forever and 
ever and ever while they watched their homes deteriorate because a few 
simple repairs could not be made. That is a much-needed step.
  But I join my colleague from New Jersey and say, how can people who 
are broken and who are in need come up with 35 percent? And I hope that 
this will be one that is reconsidered.
  Let me quickly suggest that I am in support of the $5.4 billion for 
FEMA disaster relief. I'm in support for the $5.4 billion for the 
Department of Transportation. Anybody who's been on the east coast and 
seen the transportation corridor and the congestion and the synergism 
between New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New York realizes 
that this is crucial.
  The $3.9 billion for community block grant, I am told that there are 
Hurricane Sandy islanders, people on Staten Island, people on Coney 
Island, who are

[[Page 116]]

living in New York downtown hotels. I'm sure in a better day they would 
enjoy living in high-rise, high-class hotels; but they are people that 
want to go back to their home, and I'm delighted that we'll have that.
  And then I want to support the additional amendment that calls for, 
the gentleman from New Jersey, $33 billion unfettered dollars that will 
help additional resources.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. NORTON. I yield the gentlewoman 30 more seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I believe that we should have done this last week. 
But I know that my colleagues will be reading the Constitution 
tomorrow, so let me read from article I, section 8:

       The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, 
     duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for 
     the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

  My God, my God, can we provide for the general welfare of those 
Hurricane Sandy survivors who are not victims but have lost loved ones 
and, in fact, are the second most-costly hurricane in America's 
history, Katrina, Sandy, and Hurricane Ike.
  I speak from what I know. I beg of this Congress to vote for the New 
Jersey amendment for $33 billion and, as well, the others; and let us 
be able to look back on their needs and go back to the table to help 
them if they are in need. The Constitution asks us to do that.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 219, ``the Sandy Recovery 
Improvement Act of 2013,'' this bill is designed to speed up disaster 
relief granted through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
it amends Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to Expedite hazard mitigation projects by 
streamlining the environmental review and requires the President to 
establish an expedited review for environmental and historic 
requirements for rebuilding damage infrastructure. Further, the Sandy 
Recovery Improvement Act will give local governments' greater 
flexibility to consolidate or rebuild facilities by allowing FEMA to 
issue fixed price grants on the basis of damaged estimates instead of a 
traditional entitlement guarantee to cover all cost increases over 
time.
  Last month, the Administration requested $60.4 billion in federal aid 
to provide financial assistance to homeowners and businesses affected 
by Hurricane Sandy.
  In the 112th Congress, on December 28, 2012, the Senate passed a $61 
billion comprehensive aid package for the victims and communities by a 
vote of 62-32.
  I am pleased that this body was able to pass H.R. 41, $9.7 billion 
bill which temporarily increased the borrowing authority of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for carrying out the National Flood 
Insurance Program.
  Now that the President has signed H.R. 41, victims of Superstorm 
Sandy are finally able to receive some much-needed relief from the 
federal government.
  However, the relief that H.R. 41 granted was limited in scope and 
insufficient to address the entirety of the situation faced by 
residents of the affected areas. The House must finish the job. Again 
the measure before us today does not appropriate additional funds, but 
it does attempt to address the backlog. This bill would:
  Cut debris removal costs dramatically by utilizing reforms from a 
successful 2006 Debris Removal Pilot program that enable operations to 
be conducted in a more cost-effective manner and incentivize the 
completion of projects on-time and under budget.
  Save money, as demonstrated by a 2006 pilot program, by authorizing 
FEMA to make limited repairs to existing housing structures when those 
repairs cost less than a lease payment for traditional FEMA trailers.
  Adjudicate claim disputes quicker and avoid cost overruns, the bill 
establishes a limited dispute resolution pilot.
  Require FEMA to review and update factors for individual assistance 
disaster declarations to make them less subjective. Provides for 
disaster declarations for tribal communities.
  Direct FEMA to submit recommendations to Congress for the development 
of national strategy to reduce future costs, loss of life, and injuries 
associated with extreme disaster events.
  Since this historic storm devastated the east coast in late October, 
the people impacted by the storm, particularly those in the Tri-State 
area of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, have been waiting 
patiently for the federal government to act as they continue to engage 
in efforts to rebuild their communities.
  However, the time for patience has long since expired, and these 
Americans can no longer wait for Congress to act to provide 
comprehensive relief.
  For families without a home, and for businesses without a storefront 
or customers, this situation has been an ongoing nightmare. These 
families and businesses have been waiting for Congress to join them in 
their struggle to pick up the pieces and put their communities back 
together.
  The proposal before us is our opportunity to step up and help to 
restore these suffering communities; that is the role of the federal 
government.
  Every state in this country is, at any given moment in time, at risk 
for experiencing a devastating and costly natural or manmade disaster. 
When state and local governments face overwhelming challenges that are 
too big and too expensive to ever hope to resolve in isolation, the 
federal government should be there to quickly assist them in their 
recovery. That is what makes us strong as a nation; that we can come 
together when necessary to prevent the pieces of our country from 
crumbling individually.


        PREVIOUS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO DISASTER RELIEF

  As the Representative for the 18th District in Texas, I have 
firsthand experience with the massive and protracted destruction that 
storms like this can cause both to property and, more importantly, to 
the lives of citizens who are left to rebuild their lives and restore 
all that they have lost.
  After the initial disaster response and search and rescue phases, we 
must begin to rebuild, a process that calls for a long-term commitment 
from officials in state, local, and federal government.
  We can all recall Hurricane Ike in 2008, which heavily impacted many 
constituents in my district. At least 74 people lost their lives in the 
State of Texas, with 28 in Harris County and 17 in Galveston. Over 
200,000 homes in the Houston-Galveston region were left damaged or 
destroyed as a result of Ike.
  Congress appropriated $3 billion to Texas to help finance the 
infrastructure and housing recovery, which included individual and 
household assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, public 
assistance grants to state and local government and non-profit 
organizations to pay for debris removal, emergency protective measures 
and road repairs, and low-interest disaster loans provided by the Small 
Business Administration.
  My visits to the affected areas fundamentally evidenced the need for 
long-term recovery and to get people back on their feet. My 
constituents and others in the affected areas needed and greatly 
appreciated the federal assistance they received, and so now that 
Americans in other parts of our nation need our help, we must move in a 
bipartisan fashion to provide it.


                    EXTENT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY SANDY

  As a nation, we continue to mourn the loss of at least 132 people in 
the United States due to Superstorm Sandy (60 in New York, 48 New York 
City; 34 in New Jersey; 16 in Pennsylvania, 7 in West Virginia). Many 
more were lost to Sandy in the Carribbean.
  As devastating as Hurricane Ike was, the damage to property it caused 
(an estimated $29.5 billion) the costs associated with Superstorm Sandy 
are expected to be significantly higher. While we do not yet know the 
final numbers, the total amount of property damage resulting from 
Superstorm Sandy exceeds $62 billion.
  In terms of dollars of property destruction, this ranks Superstorm 
Sandy second only to Hurricane Katrina ($128 billion, adjusted for 
inflation) (note: Hurricane Ike ranks 3rd).
  Most gas stations in New York City and New Jersey were closed because 
of power shortages and depleted fuel supplies. Long lines formed at gas 
stations that were expected to be open.
  Food, shelter and clothing are basic necessities, and right now far 
too many people are without access to them during these holidays and in 
brutally cold weather. With more cold weather in sight, things are not 
going to get any easier for residents of those communities.
  Economic conditions in many affected communities are stagnant; 
stalled because the federal government has yet to provide funding. It 
took 10 days for Congress to approve roughly $50 billion in aid for 
Katrina, but Congress has yet to provide a comprehensive aid package 
for those affected by Sandy for more than two months.


                               CONCLUSION

  We need to restore a sense of calm and stability in the lives of 
people affected by Superstorm Sandy. We need to ensure that small 
businesses in the affected areas are able to rebound as expeditiously 
as possible

[[Page 117]]

so that they can get the local economies moving again.
  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act will 
speed up recovery efforts and reduce costs. I want to just touch on one 
important piece of this legislation. It will allow greater flexibility 
to reduce rebuilding time and lower costs. This gives the local 
governments greater flexibility to consolidate or rebuild facilities by 
allowing FEMA to issue fixed grants on the basis of damage estimates, 
instead of a traditional reimbursement program.
  Why that's important--in my area, in the Central Valley of 
California, we had huge flooding; and as any emergency, you're not 
prepared. You didn't anticipate it, especially where we have such a 
huge shortage of water in the Central Valley.
  When the flooding hit, there was a lot of miscommunication and 
misunderstanding among local, State and Federal Government, who pays 
for what, a lot of delays and waiting. With these cost estimates up 
front, we basically just say spend the money on those estimates, and 
the FEMA money is there immediately.
  So we not only help to reduce costs; but most importantly, when 
you've got a devastated community, what you need is speed of recovery.
  Ireserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. I want to agree with the chairman of the subcommittee 
about cost estimates and how it saves money and how it is one of the 
many lessons learned that I think will be acted out in this bill.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is a downpayment. We all understand this. We 
understand that the devastation done in four States, I believe it is, 
was of a magnitude of what we experienced for the first time at the 
gulf coast.
  We are going to come around, and we're going to do what we're 
supposed to do at times like this. But when we have a major event like 
this, it does not pay to simply go along doing things the way we have 
always done them.
  This is when things get corrected. This bill is a good step toward 
correcting what our committee and our subcommittee have tried to do for 
years now. I appreciate all the effort of my friends and colleagues on 
the other side and, of course, Mr. Rahall and our friends who have 
also, in a bipartisan fashion, pushed for these changes and now have an 
opportunity to see how they work in a laboratory that is a very big one 
indeed, one far larger than we expected, but one from which we will 
also learn what is yet still to be learned about these major disasters.
  Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am pleased to yield 
back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, just in closing, I want to talk about one 
final example, and it deals with the debris removal. Our bill dealing 
with debris removal will change, literally saving hundreds of millions 
of dollars.
  Without the change in law, FEMA was able to get a 30-day pilot 
program. This is with Sandy, had a 30-day pilot program, where in New 
Jersey, utilizing the pilot program, they removed debris for $19 per 
cubic yard. In Long Island, using the Army Corps of Engineers, it was 
$129 per yard. That is a huge significant savings, one that, in the 
debris removal part of this, the 30-day pilot, it's time for it to move 
along and become part of law. We need to do this now.
  This bill has broad support from a number of different areas, 
including the National League of Cities, the United States Conference 
of Mayors, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the 
International Association of Emergency Managers, the Disaster Recovery 
Contractors Association, the National Association of Counties, the 
United South and Eastern Tribes Incorporation, just to name a few.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would ask for a favorable vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 219, the 
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. This bipartisan bill would 
improve how the Federal Government helps state, tribal and local 
communities respond to and recover from disasters by expediting the 
delivery of Federal assistance. The provisions will have an immediate 
impact in helping to expedite recovery in those areas that suffered 
damage from Hurricane Sandy and will help all communities that may 
experience future disasters.
  We must continue to improve our disaster response programs to ensure 
that timely assistance is provided to individuals in need. At my 
request, this bill would require, within one year, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to review and update its criteria 
for issuing Individual Assistance, in order to clarify the eligibility 
requirements, expedite the Federal government's decision-making 
process, and minimize bureaucratic delays.
  Last year, the State of West Virginia received four Presidential 
disaster declarations, the last two in response to Hurricane Sandy and 
Derecho Storms. In both cases, West Virginians had to endure extended 
and widespread power outages, lasting weeks in some cases, as well as 
physical damage to their homes and businesses. The emotional trauma was 
severe with some areas were literally cut off from basic necessities 
like food, water, and medicine. These disasters proved costly and 
expensive and dwarfed the limited means of individuals, many of them 
seniors on fixed incomes who have been pummeled by multiple storms, to 
absorb uninsured costs on their own.
  In both cases, FEMA denied my State's initial request for Individual 
Assistance, forcing the State to redo its damage assessments and appeal 
FEMA's decision. FEMA later reversed itself and awarded Individual 
Assistance to some, but not all, of the requesting West Virginia 
counties in regard to the Derecho Storm; so far, the appeal related to 
Sandy is still pending.
  These delays leave uninsured disaster victims in limbo for weeks, 
unable to begin home repairs because they do not know what costs are 
reimbursable. State emergency officials need better guidance from FEMA 
about eligibility criteria for Individual Assistance, so that these 
delays can be avoided. Similarly, the criteria must be flexible enough 
to ensure that the Individual Assistance program accomplishes what it 
was created to do, which is to make financial assistance for uninsured 
losses available to families and individuals unable to recover on their 
own.
  Another important provision of this bill is one that recognizes 
tribal sovereignty by authorizing all federally recognized Indian 
tribes to directly request that the President declare a disaster or 
emergency. This provision is based on a bill, H.R. 1953, that I 
introduced last Congress after consulting with Indian country and 
Indian organizations. It would treat all federally recognized Indian 
tribes as the sovereign governments that they are and creates a 
mechanism that affords all tribes the option to request a disaster 
declaration when a State in which they are located fails to do so.
  This important measure is necessary because current law limits FEMA's 
ability to work directly with all Indian tribes when major disasters or 
emergency situations occurred. This language would improve federal 
emergency response and recovery efforts on Indian reservations and 
would amend the Stafford Act to align with the Federal Government's 
trust responsibilities. For more than a decade, tribal governments have 
sought this authorization to work directly with FEMA on emergency and 
disaster declarations from the President. My bill, and this provision, 
is supported by Indian Country and the Administration without 
qualification.
  I appreciate the manner in which this bipartisan bill was developed 
and look forward to working with my Republican colleagues on other 
issues in a similar manner.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 219.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________