Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 3702, the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act.

It gives me no pleasure to be in opposition to it, but, Mr. Speaker, we all come to our conclusions based on the best information we have available to us and our personal experience.

My home State of North Carolina has been victimized by four hurricanes in 4 years, and our State and local officials have seen up close how the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program administered by HUD works. The answer is, not well at all.

Instead of fundamentally reforming the way we fund disaster recovery, this bill essentially takes a broken process and makes it permanent. Simply put, this bill would enshrine into law a regulatory quagmire.

Since 2017, Congress has appropriated roughly $37 billion to CDBG-DR. Unfortunately, HUD's grant compliance and certification process for this program are so needlessly complicated that States are forced to divert money intended for victims of natural disasters just to navigate the program and interact with HUD.

This is really key: A huge gap between disaster response and long- term disaster recovery is the result.

Long waits between disaster relief and long-term recovery efforts increase the chance that people will not return to their homes or communities or reopen their businesses, the lifeblood of small towns and rural communities.

Under the current framework, the one this bill would codify, disaster victims must make a tough choice. Do they wait forever for HUD to begin disbursing these funds? Do they abandon their homes and businesses? Do they take out a loan they will have to pay back? Or do they begin the rebuilding process on their own, forsaking help from the Federal Government that their neighbors who wait to begin the rebuilding process will eventually get?

Mr. Speaker, victims should not have to make this choice. There should be continuity between the immediate recovery resources that come from FEMA and long-term recovery funds that help rebuild communities.

Delays caused by the current framework--the months-long Federal Register notice process, the onerous grant program requirements, the additional authorities this bill gives the Secretary of HUD to reject grantees' action plans--ensure that there will be a long wait between immediate disaster relief and long-term recovery.

Should we accept this fundamentally broken process as the best? The answer, of course, is we shouldn't. Instead, let's work together to fundamentally fix how we get funds to our communities and families in need. Let's work to ensure taxpayer dollars are going where they are needed most and in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation and working to overhaul our disaster relief efforts in a commonsense way.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the arguments. I have listened to my good friend, Mr. Price from North Carolina. Obviously, he and I share the same home State. And I think you just have to say that we all want the same thing. We just have a different idea of how to get there.

Personally, when I look at the fact that Hurricane Matthew occurred in 2016, Congress appropriated billions of dollars, and only a fraction of that here in 2019--almost 2020, by the way--only a fraction of that has gotten back to the victims. That is totally unacceptable.

We have Hurricane Florence which hit in 2018. Congress immediately passed a disaster supplemental bill that, again, includes billions for CDBG-DR. Have we seen anything? Not one bit. Not one dollar.

So why do we want to codify something that has been such an adamant, complete total failure? It is kind of like taking a clunker and repainting it and saying: Hey, here is the new car. It is going to work even better than ever.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we scrap this vehicle and go a different route.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source