Washington, D.C.—The following are opening remarks from Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Rick Larsen (D-WA) and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Dina Titus (D-NV) during today’s hearing titled, “Examining the Role and Effectiveness of Building Codes in Mitigating Against Disasters.”
Video of Larsen’s and Titus’ opening statements are here and here.
More information on the hearing can be found here.
Ranking Member Larsen:
Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Perry and Subcommittee Ranking Member Titus, for calling today’s hearing on the effectiveness of building codes in mitigating against disasters.
Before we delve into the topic of building codes, I want to recognize FEMA’s current funding crisis. For the second year in a row, FEMA is currently operating in Immediate Needs Funding.
For a month, FEMA has been forced to pause all funding for recovery and mitigation projects. There are currently over 2,687 projects on hold. Five of those are in my district.
This slows recovery and hurts communities in their time of need. It is especially dangerous that Congress has allowed this to happen at the height of disaster season.
Last fall, the Biden Administration submitted a $9 billion disaster supplemental to Congress.
I am pleased that the Continuing Resolution the House will vote on later today includes some money for the Disaster Relief Fund.
However, I am disappointed that it does not include any of the funding included in the President’s disaster supplemental request.
Without that funding, communities like Maui will still be denied the resources they desperately need, and FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund will likely run out of money before the start of the next fiscal year.
Congress should approve the President’s request for supplemental disaster assistance funding before the end of this Congress.
Today, we are focused on reducing the impacts of disaster through mitigation. Since 1980, the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety reports the United States has sustained over $2.7 trillion in losses due to natural disasters.
As these disasters grow in intensity and frequency, the adoption and enforcement of hazard resistant building codes is essential to preventing future funding shortfalls at FEMA. There’s a connection.
Investment in hazard resistant codes is a scientifically proven way to save money and protect communities.
According to FEMA, the adoption and implementation of resilient codes is the most effective mitigation measure a community can take.
FEMA has reported that nationwide adoption of modern codes would result in $600 billion of savings from disaster impact by 2060. The National Institute of Building Sciences found that hazard-resistant codes save the taxpayer $11 for every $1 invested.
The implementation of stronger codes helps local governments and homeowners alike since they reduce insurance premiums and post-disaster financial exposure.
A recent study by CoreLogic and the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety found that modern codes reduce the likelihood of mortgage default following extreme weather by about 50 percent.
Unfortunately, FEMA reports that 65 percent of counties, cities and towns across the U.S. have not adopted modern building codes.
If we want to support mitigation efforts that offer the greatest return on investment, it is common sense to provide communities with the resources they need to adopt the latest codes.
Funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation programs, including BRIC and the Safeguarding Tomorrow Loan Fund, is making it possible for communities without hazard-resistant codes to catch up.
Last year, FEMA allocated an additional $2 million for each state and territory and up to $25 million for Tribal governments for building code improvements.
This funding reflected policy that bipartisan members of this Committee have long advocated for.
I hope the Agency will again include building code funding in the upcoming BRIC notice of funding opportunity.
Thank you all for being here. I look forward to your testimony.
Ranking Member Titus:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witness for joining us today to discuss FEMA’s implementation of building codes across its programs in order to help communities prepare for and recover from disasters.
Even before FEMA’s creation, building codes have played a role in disaster assistance and recovery, beginning with the 1974 Disaster Relief Act, which gave the President authority to provide funding to state and local governments to help repair or reconstruct buildings damaged by a major disaster, in conformity with applicable codes and standards.
Following the creation of FEMA in 1979 and the signing of the Stafford Act in 1988, this practice continued for disaster response. The signing of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018 marked a greater emphasis on building codes when it comes hazard mitigation.
In this regard, the DRRA directed FEMA to create the pre-disaster mitigation program now known as BRIC and consider 11 different criteria when awarding pre-disaster mitigation funds including the extent in which applicants have adopted and enforced the latest building codes.
The incentives and funding provided by DRRA are critical since 35 states have not adopted modern building codes, creating a public safety hazard and unnecessarily increasing the costs of disaster recovery. Additionally, the national Institute of Building Sciences found that designing new buildings that exceed the 2015 International Residential Code and International Building Code would result in, 87,000 new, long-term jobs.
Since the DRRA was enacted, FEMA has adopted a wide range of building code requirements across its disaster response programs. Codes from two organizations here today, the ICC and IAPMO, are referenced in the current programs which is particularly helpful for Nevada as IAPMO plumbing and mechanical codes form the basis of our state’s regulations. And I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize the role the Nevada plumbing, heating and cooling industry played during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure the efficient use of our water supply and to protect the safety of our hospitality workers.
While FEMA has recently recognized a more diverse set of codes, including those predominantly utilized in Nevada, for disaster response, it is my understanding that more could be done to update education and guidance documents for resilience programs which are essential for helping communities avoid physical and economic losses from future disasters.
As we convene this hearing today, I am interested to learn more from our panel on the limitations to adopting and enforcing hazard resistant codes and limitations that may be placed on states and localities when a more diverse set of codes is not recognized, and the impact this may have on disaster mitigation, costs and local workforces.
I want to be clear—I am not advocating for FEMA to approve any particular building code, but rather for there to be greater consideration of building codes that have a basis in research, expert scrutiny and application to state and local needs.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I yield back.
--30--