S-388-119
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Sponsored by John Cornyn (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to require that predisaster hazard mitigation projects follow the two most recently published editions of relevant building codes and standards. It would also create a temporary pilot program, run by FEMA, that provides grants to states and local governments to help individuals retrofit homes against floods, wind, seismic activity, wildfire, and other hazards, using up to 10% of existing predisaster mitigation funds, prioritized for applicants with demonstrated financial need, and terminating on September 30, 2030.
Who benefits
Homeowners in disaster-prone areas, especially lower-income individuals who qualify for the financial-need priority; state and local emergency management agencies that administer grants; building code organizations whose standards would be referenced in federal programs; construction and retrofitting contractors who may see increased demand for resilience work.
Who is hurt
Other applicants competing for the same predisaster mitigation funding pool, since up to 10% would be redirected to the pilot program; local governments that must administer new grant requirements without additional dedicated staff funding; homeowners in areas where consensus-based codes are outdated or unavailable, who may face implementation delays; taxpayers to the extent the program increases federal disaster-related spending.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that requiring the latest two editions of consensus-based building codes ensures federally funded mitigation projects reflect current engineering knowledge, which studies from the National Institute of Building Sciences suggest can yield significant savings in avoided disaster losses for every dollar spent on mitigation. They contend the pilot program targets financial assistance to individuals who otherwise could not afford resilience retrofits like elevating homes or installing hurricane straps, potentially reducing future federal disaster payouts and protecting vulnerable homeowners.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that diverting up to 10% of existing predisaster mitigation funds to a new individual-grant pilot program could reduce funding available for larger community-wide mitigation projects like levees or drainage systems that protect more people per dollar spent. They contend that mandating the newest building code editions may impose compliance costs on communities that have not yet adopted those codes locally, and that a five-year pilot program with a 2030 sunset may not generate enough data to justify permanent expansion before it expires.
Constitutional context
This bill falls under Congress's spending power (Article I, Section 8) to condition federal disaster assistance funds, an area where Congress has broad discretion to attach conditions to grants as long as they are not unduly coercive. It does not raise the war-powers or detention issues typically associated with defense legislation, since it concerns disaster mitigation funding administered by FEMA rather than military authority.
Checks and balances
Congress directs the scope and duration of the program through statute; the FEMA Administrator (executive branch) implements the pilot and reports back to congressional committees, preserving legislative oversight through the mandatory reporting requirement.
Historical precedent
The Stafford Act's existing predisaster hazard mitigation program (established by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000) already funds resilience projects, and this bill builds on that framework by adding a targeted individual-grant pilot component.