Multi-State Disaster Relief Act

First, let me thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairwoman Norton for working with me on this particular piece of legislation and for the continuous work on bills aimed at improving our country's emergency response and preparedness.

Let me also take the opportunity to thank Congressman Costello for managing this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present information about this bill being considered here today, House Resolution 5825, the Multi-State Disaster Relief Act. Southern Indiana has been devastated by seven major natural disasters over the last few years. Yet the one that stands out and the one that brought the most pain and frustration to the residents of southern Indiana was the incident that occurred almost exactly 1 year ago today.

In early August of 2009, a series of severe storms rocked Indiana and Kentucky and damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes. The State of Kentucky received a major disaster declaration but Indiana did not from the same storm. As a result, hundreds of Hoosiers living just a few miles from their friends and neighbors across the border in neighboring Kentucky were not eligible to receive Federal grants to repair their homes even though they were devastated by the same natural disaster.

We can try to be prepared for natural disasters, but these events are largely beyond our control. However, we do have full control over how our Federal Government responds and aids individuals following a disaster. And, in this instance, I believe our government missed the mark.

This incident exposed a major flaw with the current FEMA disaster assistance process--the inability to fairly and accurately provide assistance for natural disasters that strike more than one State. Currently, FEMA provides disaster assistance on a State-by-State basis. So when a disaster strikes, if a Governor believes a disaster is beyond the capability of the State, he or she will make a request to the President to receive a major disaster declaration, and FEMA will make a recommendation to the President about whether a State should receive a declaration and whether individuals in certain counties should be eligible for individual assistance to repair their homes.

When a disaster hits in the middle of a State and the damage is concentrated, the process is straightforward and the victims in the States most significantly affected will usually receive the necessary assistance. Yet, when a disaster crosses over State lines, FEMA treats the instance as two separate cases and requires each State to meet a specific Statewide damage threshold to receive a major disaster declaration. If that threshold is not met and a State is denied a disaster declaration, individuals who were as severely affected as those just across the State line have limited options for recourse and rebuilding.

FEMA considers certain factors when determining whether to recommend that the President declare a major disaster for a State and provide individual assistance. House Resolution 5825 would update and improve the factors FEMA uses to determine whether a State should receive a major disaster declaration.

Specifically, House Resolution 5825 would require FEMA to take into account whether contiguous counties in a neighboring State were designated in a major disaster from the same incident. This means that FEMA would have to look at the damage from a neighboring State and factor this into their decision about whether to provide aid to individuals and issue a major disaster declaration; whereas, now they are not required to take this into account.

The bill would also require FEMA to review, update, and revise the regulation used to measure the severity and impact of a disaster when determining that the individuals should receive assistance within 1 year of the enactment.

Lastly, this bill would require FEMA to issue a report to Congress within 3 months of enactment on their current policies concerning major disaster declarations for individual assistance and their policy on providing aid to individuals in counties contiguous to a State that has received a major disaster declaration.

While this bill, unfortunately, is not retroactive, I believe if this law were in place last year, the result for my constituents in Indiana would have been very much different. This bill is the first step to right a wrong that befell Hoosiers last year when trying to pick up the pieces after a natural disaster while left wondering why their Federal Government was picking favorites.

Storms and natural disasters do not care about State lines when they destroy someone's home or business, and under this bill, when disaster strikes more than one State, FEMA officials would have to look at the impact of the overall storm and not just the impact on that individual State when deciding whether to provide disaster assistance to individuals. I believe this bill will help all Americans receive fair treatment the next time disaster strikes no matter which State they come from.

To the people of southern Indiana, I want to say that the lessons have been learned from last year's tragedy, and we're not going to let those same mistakes be repeated.

Let me also give my thanks to my Republican friends for their bipartisan support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5825, the ``Multi-State Disaster Relief Act''. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) identified this issue after floods struck last August in his district in Indiana, and neighboring counties in Kentucky. I thank Representative Hill for bringing this issue to the attention of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and working with the Committee on a practical solution.

The Stafford Act and our Nation's emergency management system are based on a multi-level system of response at the local, State, and Federal level, as necessary. Local citizens and communities have the primary responsibility for responding to incidents and disasters that strike their communities. When they need additional assistance, they seek that assistance from their State. When the disaster is beyond the capability of the State, the State seeks help from the Federal Government. As a result, the President must look at the impacts on the State in which the disaster took place in determining whether Federal assistance is warranted.

However, disasters don't always stay neatly within the lines we have drawn, and the impact of a particular event often crosses State lines. When disaster strikes, first responders, emergency managers, volunteers, and others respond, regardless of county or State lines. In my home State of Minnesota, there are neighboring jurisdictions separated by a river. In many places, that river is the State boundary, but in reality, it is one community that encompasses both sides of the river. In 1997, in the western part of Minnesota along the Red River, devastating floods struck both Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota.

In my own district, we have seen this happen as well. In 1992, a gas leak from a derailed railroad tank resulted in the evacuation of more than 50,000 people from the Twin Ports of Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin--communities separated by the St. Louis River. Hundreds of first responders provided assistance, including members of the National Guard and Army Reserve. While at least two dozen people from both States were hospitalized, we were fortunate that the cloud quickly dissipated and Federal assistance was not necessary.

It is only logical that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the President, in making a determination whether to declare a disaster and provide assistance to individuals and households, consider both immediate local impacts and the impacts in neighboring communities, even if they are in another State. When a disaster also affects a neighboring county across a State line, this legislation directs FEMA to consider this fact when the agency recommends to the President whether or not to declare a disaster.

The Committee understands that FEMA is currently working with State and local emergency managers on revamping the criteria the agency uses regarding whether to recommend that the President declare a major disaster or emergency in order to provide assistance to individuals and households. FEMA has been working on these changes for some time. This legislation is not intended to impede that process. This legislation merely puts a reasonable deadline on the process and requires that one common-sense criteria be incorporated.

This legislation is supported by the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), which represents our Nation's county, local, and tribal emergency managers, who serve in the communities that would benefit most from this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5825.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5825) to review, update, and revise the factors to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster and to evaluate the need for assistance to individuals and households.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5825.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5825, a bill to require the Federal Emergency Management Agency to review, update, and revise the factors to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster and to evaluate the need for assistance to individuals and households, sponsored by my friend and colleague from Indiana, Congressman Baron Hill.

Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the President has the sole discretion to determine when a disaster is beyond the capability of State and local governments, and therefore, when FEMA and Federal assistance is needed. In doing so, the President looks to the administrator of FEMA for a recommendation.

FEMA published regulations more than 10 years ago to explain the factors it looks to when making a recommendation to the President on whether to declare a major disaster or emergency to provide assistance to individuals and households. These regulations are important, as they provide guidance to the States on when and how to seek Federal assistance under the Stafford Act, including specific criteria FEMA considers. Knowing this helps States put together the best information they can as quickly as possible, and hopefully expedite the process to get assistance where it is needed.

FEMA has recognized that these regulations need to be improved, and have been working with the States to do so. However, the process has been occurring for some time. This legislation would merely put a reasonable deadline of 1 year on that process. This legislation also requires that FEMA add to the list of criteria it considers whether an adjacent community across a State line has received a major disaster or emergency declaration for the same incident.

This logical approach recognizes that the impact of disasters do not stop at the State line. This is something that FEMA should be doing and, if they are not already doing so, will do so under this legislation.

I thank my friend, Mr. Hill, for bringing this issue to the attention of the House and for sponsoring this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5825.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Obviously, we've heard it before. I'm disappointed that, frankly, none of the bills that we are considering today are from any Republicans, and I know that's something we need to continue to work on, but I want to refer to this specific legislation.

It would direct the administrator of FEMA to review and revise the current the regulations, as we just heard, related to eligibility under its Individuals and Households Program. Again, specifically, it would require FEMA to consider whether a county in one State is adjacent to a State that has been designated in a major disaster or emergency. In other words, there may be a county in a different State that may be affected, and that's got to be considered as well because, again, the impact of disasters are obviously not contained or limited to just manmade geographic boundaries.

In many cases, the destruction is significant enough that all States involved are designated in a major disaster emergency, but in some cases that's not the case. So there could be a State right next door that has one county that's been significantly hit but the rest of the State has not, and this would hopefully remedy that, and this would allow FEMA to look at that and remedy that.

I think this is a commonsense bill. It's also taking place now while we're already in the hurricane season, so I think it's important that we're doing this now. For those of us who are living in States that are too often--more often than we would like, because obviously once is too often--affected by storms and the like, this could not come soon enough.

So I want to thank the chairman and thank all of you for bringing this forward. It's a commonsense piece of legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, this is a commonsense bill. As the ranking member of the subcommittee that deals with emergency management and other issues, it would have been nice to have this go through the committee process through regular order. It didn't. It came straight to the floor. But it is a good bill. It's a very good bill. It's a commonsense bill and obviously I do support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.