Introduction of the Safe Building Codes Act of 2007
INTRODUCTION OF THE SAFE BUILDING CODES ACT OF 2007 -- (Extensions of Remarks - October 22, 2007)
HON. DORIS O. MATSUI
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007
* Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 with my colleague from Florida, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart.
* The purpose for this legislation is to provide incentives for States to adopt higher building code standards, which will ultimately help preserve property, promote public safety and make Americans and America's communities safer.
* This bill's timeliness can be seen in a recent CBS News Poll that revealed 29 percent of Americans knew someone affected by Hurricane Katrina. As reported by CBS News, the comparable statistic from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 was barely half that--16 percent. This report provides a clear metric of the extent that today's Americans know and understand how disaster can hurt a community.
* This report also highlights the clear public merit of the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 which I introduce today. Building codes strengthen and make safe the homes, businesses and places where our citizens work, play and live. They reflect the collective wisdom of design professionals, builders, and public safety officials who have sought to understand and apply the lessons of past tragedies.
* Building codes use a tried and true format to document the reasonable steps that can be taken while new construction is underway to protect our neighbors and their communities from risks that, because they can be foreseen, can and should be minimized. These codes are truly the ``ounce of prevention'' that is worth far more than any after-the-fact pound of cure which must otherwise be borne by people and communities after they've suffered through a tragic loss of life, stability and treasured belongings and memories.
* Where strong building codes are in place and enforced, natural disasters are less likely to be compounded by failures of preparation.
* Today's model building codes govern all aspects of construction and help to protect homes and buildings from disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, flood, fire, ice storms and other natural catastrophes.
* Strong building codes serve as the backbone of a community's preparedness against natural disasters.
* As a Member of Congress my top priority has been public safety since taking office in 2005. My district, Sacramento, CA, is the most at risk river city in the country for catastrophic flooding. The city of Sacramento is located at the confluence of two major rivers, the American and Sacramento.
* To a state like California, where we are experiencing significant population growth, and especially to a growing region such as Sacramento, the building standards we incorporate now will go a long way in providing a stable and safer future for our communities and property owners. Why we need The Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007
* In the aftermath of the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes, studies illustrate that the damages associated with high winds could have been avoided or minimized by statewide adoption of model building codes in the Gulf States.
* What has become increasingly apparent in the wake of Katrina and other natural disasters that have struck our communities in recent years is that the Federal Government and the private sector are paying billions for disaster relief and rebuilding of communities.
* Overwhelming evidence demonstrates the adoption and enforcement of strong statewide building codes greatly reduce disaster-related property damage and personal injuries while providing more efficient economic development and sustainable business operations after an event.
* For example, in January 2006, a Louisiana State University, LSU, Hurricane Center study concluded that an estimated 65 percent reduction in Katrina wind related damage to homes in Louisiana could have been avoided if structures had been built to current model building code standards.
* Despite these benefits, most states have not enacted mandatory statewide building codes and related inspection and enforcement measures for both commercial and residential structures.
* Additionally, where Statewide codes exist, it is not uncommon to allow individual jurisdictions, such as cities of a particular class, or counties, to deviate from the State standards, occasionally resulting in a weakening of the model minimum standards or to opt out of the standards altogether, leaving areas within a State more vulnerable than others.
* As a result, State standards for construction, code-related inspection and enforcement vary widely across the country.
* I am not typically a proponent of a one-size-fits all approach to public policy, but when it comes to public safety I believe it is important to set the standards high and for our communities to meet these standards. What the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 would do
* Under the current authorities in the Stafford Act, mitigation funds are generally available through two programs--the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. My legislation creates incentives within each of these programs for States to adopt and enforce the highest safety standards before disaster strikes.
* After a disaster strikes a community or State and the Federal Government provides disaster relief funding, States with an approved Mitigation Plan are eligible to receive Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding equal to 15 percent of the total Federal disaster relief spending for that event.
* Additionally, a State may elect to prepare a more comprehensive Enhanced Mitigation Plan which would qualify the State for additional mitigation funding up to 20 percent of the amount awarded for grants.
* Regardless of what the State mitigation plan is, under the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 a State would be eligible for an additional 4 percent of Federal disaster relief spending if it has adopted a mandatory Statewide building code and has effective enforcement measures in place.
* However, if a State decides not to adopt a mandatory Statewide building code, it will not be penalized and would still be eligible to obtain a minimum 15 percent of the post-disaster mitigation funding under the HMGP.
* My legislation merely serves as an incentive for States to seek additional funding of 4 percent by adopting a mandatory Statewide building code and implementing effective enforcement measures.
* In addition, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007 will allow, as well as encourage, State, local and tribal governments to use PDM funds to establish building code enforcement programs prior to the occurrence of a disaster, which helps States to begin standardizing construction in previously unregulated areas.
* In my view, this funding is well placed. A little prevention will go a long way and in the case of disaster relief funding it can save the taxpayers billions in recovery funds.
* The benefit of stronger more up-to-date building codes is twofold.
* The first benefit is by encouraging and providing stronger building codes, our buildings are more likely to withstand higher impacts and therefore remain intact if a storm hits a community.
* The second benefit is that if a catastrophe does devastate a community, by enacting these stricter standards recovering communities would be eligible for more Federal funds under my proposed legislation.
* The best case scenario is that a community will never be in a position to need these extra funds. But by enacting stronger building codes and encouraging more community plans we are taking a positive and proactive step in that direction.
* In closing, as we reflect on the tragedy of Katrina and continue to rebuild the Gulf Coast region, we should also be viewing this as a time and an opportunity to rebuild a public policy that will serve the American taxpayer more efficiently as well as protect our communities more effectively.
* I ask my colleagues to support the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2007.
Source