Hearing

Witness List:

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the effectiveness of building codes and the federal government’s role in encouraging their use.

Currently, FEMA provides direct funding for building code adoption and enforcement through the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.

After a major disaster, FEMA encourages the adoption and enforcement of consensus-based building codes through the Public Assistance (PA) program. FEMA also considers the extent to which a community has complied with the building code standards set out in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) when making decisions about grant awards.

In short, FEMA spends a lot of taxpayer resources on coercing building code adoption and compliance. This includes releasing the first-ever Building Codes Strategy in 2022, with the objective of “amplifying climate science messaging to increase public demand for building codes and standards.”

I am deeply concerned that under this current administration, FEMA continues to push these types of ideology-based agendas. I believe that building codes should be the purview of state and local governments, which will help ensure that building code enforcement remains economically feasible for communities.

However, recognizing that since Congress has directed FEMA to support building codes as one aspect of pre-disaster mitigation, we should at least make sure that these requirements are practical, cost-effective, and actually make our communities safer.

As it stands, I worry that federal overreach regarding building codes is imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses and property owners. I fear that FEMA is using a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to take into account where different sets of codes that reflect industry standards or respond to local hazards might be better suited to the needs of a community.

I am hoping that our witnesses here today will shed light on the successes and challenges of FEMA’s building code policies, particularly as compared to their experience working with other federal agencies that require code adoption.

I have not seen sufficient data to convince me that requiring the adoption of the latest editions of building codes saves taxpayer dollars. Are the changes between editions significant enough to significantly lower disaster costs and protect life and property? My understanding is many of the changes between code editions has nothing to do with disaster resiliency, but instead are related to things like energy efficiency.

Additionally, FEMA is expending taxpayer dollars and human resources on promoting building codes and standards, at the expense of other mitigation measures. The agency is steadily increasing the number of pre-disaster mitigation awards funded for building code adoption and enforcement. According to the Congressional Research Service, in the first year of BRIC, eight such grants were awarded. By last year, it was 93.

If we are seeing a more than 1,000 percent increase in the number of mitigation grants being directed toward building codes, is the agency truly meeting the Congressional intent of DRRA?

So, what I’d like to know is what your experience has been like from the other side. In your view, has FEMA’s enforcement of building codes made communities safer or has it diverted limited disaster dollars away from higher impact projects?

Has FEMA provided applicants and subapplicants with an appropriate spectrum of building codes to choose from that can ensure flexibility, or are they being overly rigid and prescriptive?

Is the emphasis on building code adoption limiting pre-disaster mitigation dollars from going to the 65 percent of communities in this country that have not yet adopted the latest editions of the building codes?

Federal regulations often pose unnecessary burdens on state and local governments, as well as everyday Americans. My hope is that if our taxpayer dollars are being used to support building codes, then we are seeing a significant return on our investment.