Seven months ago, James Lee Witt, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, flew to Deerfield Beach, Fla., to preach the gospel of disaster preparation. "We're here to plan for a disaster that's coming," Witt warned local businesspeople during a breakfast speech.
The director used the sunny retirement spot to kick off FEMA's lastest attempt to avoid tragedy before it occurs and to reduce federal costs along the way. Witt was in Deerfield Beach, on the southeastern coast near Boca Raton, to make the city one of seven "project impact" communities that are working with FEMA to try to "change the way America prevents and prepares for disasters."
At the time, FEMA thought hurricanes and flooding would put Florida back on its disaster map. But, underscoring how hard it is for the government to "plan" for emergencies, wildfires--more than 2,000 of them--turned out to be the culprit this summer, claiming more than 300 homes and half a million acres.
"The fires in Florida are very unusual," Witt said in an interview. But disaster planning turns out to be helpful for fire or water, he said, noting that it was hurricane evacuation preparations that helped empty three Florida counties of residents when the fire risks mounted.
The damage costs in the Sunshine State are approaching $300 million, and the firefighting costs are about $117 million. Uncle Sam's portion of the bill so far is $57 million, according to FEMA. And 1998's hurricane season--predicted to be menacing--has just begun.
The whims of nature--torrential rains, droughts, freezes, flooding, hurricanes, fires and earthquakes--have made Witt a busy man since he left his emergency-response job in Arkansas to follow Bill Clinton to Washington. Twenty-one of the 24 largest insured weather-related disasters in the country's history took place in the past 10 years. In the decade before 1989, FEMA's disaster relief cost $4 billion. Since 1989, it has cost $21 billion.
Global warming and its related weather effects mean there will be more disaster emergencies, not fewer, in the years ahead, according to scientists. And the mounting costs for taxpayers when the federal government gets involved cannot be ignored. That's why the White House and some members of Congress have been suggesting for years that disaster planning should have as much to do with responsible budgeting as it does with preventing property damage and loss of life.
"We cannot predict the exact time and nature of a disaster, but it is quite probable that they will occur, and Congress should make an attempt to anticipate, plan and pay for these emergencies--within existing budget limits," Rep. Michael N. Castle, R-Del., said at a House hearing on proposed budget process reforms.
Congress does plan for emergencies through the annual appropriations process, but lawmakers have preferred to react to natural disasters as needed, through supplemental spending bills that frequently bundle the costs of multiple "emergency" needs. Of all designated emergency spending since fiscal 1991, 93.5 per cent has been appropriated on a supplemental basis, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
And because emergency spending under the 1990 budget enforcement law does not have to be offset with companion cuts elsewhere, lawmakers can't resist adding ornaments to the "Christmas tree." The supplemental bills either increase the federal deficit or take away from any surplus, which is why GOP deficit hawks began screaming in 1994 for offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget.
The idea for a new way of disaster budgeting came after a series of nearly back-to-back and increasingly expensive calamities: Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki ($3 billion in supplemental spending in fiscal 1992); the Midwest floods ($5.7 billion in 1993); the Northridge (Calif.) earthquake ($4.7 billion in 1994); and flooding in the Dakotas and Minnesota ($5.6 billion in total relief in 1997).
Witt is fond of reminding Congress that in 1992, the 10-year-average obligational level for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund was $320 million. It is now $2.4 billion. The annual totals are modest as a share of discretionary spending, but the political symbolism of the disaster add-ons is huge.
Witt insists the government could save billions on disasters if it had money that was appropriated up-front to spend on techniques and technology that save lives and lower the cost of property restoration. "The important thing we have to focus on is, we don't have to continue to spend this kind of money on disaster assistance if we spent more on prevention," Witt said.
The best budgetary fix would be a straight annual appropriation of FEMA's annual average spending, $2.4 billion, Witt said. But he's not holding his breath.
"The real problem with the current setup is, it provides a perverse incentive for Congress and the President not to take preventative action," said Stanley E. Collender, a budget consultant with Fleishman-Hillard Inc. He used the example of paying for a satellite that might predict hurricanes and lead to effective evacuations. Such spending would have to fit within the mandated caps that enforce budgetary discipline. The ounce of prevention might mean a fiscal pinch, but responding to a disaster emergency, which is not defined in law, is almost open-ended.
In his most recent budget, President Clinton asked for $308 million for FEMA disaster relief and sought the creation of a $2.4 billion "contingent emergency fund" that he could tap when necessary, but which would be offset when it was used. The President also sought $50 million for Witt's "project impact" and other mitigation programs at FEMA.
Clinton first proposed a disaster fund in his 1998 budget, when he sought $5.8 billion as a reserve to cover costs to FEMA and other federal emergency response agencies. Clinton's disaster reserve fund would have done away with the need for most supplemental legislation, would have given him broad discretion over a large pot of available funding, and still wouldn't have counted against the caps. The Republican majority, not surprisingly, ignored the proposal.
But in the House, budgeteers from both parties are rethinking how to treat disasters, and a reserve account is one idea in play. A seven-member bipartisan task force on budget process reform expects to send a bill to the Budget Committee next week that will be marked up at the end of July. Castle is touting the inclusion of a disaster reserve fund as a part of the bill, and chairman John R. Kasich, R-Ohio, has been enthusiastic.
Castle, a former governor of Delaware, wants the reserve fund to replace most supplemental bills and to improve accountability. "I've never thought the process of handling those requests is very good," he said. "You may rest assured that when you're a governor or a local official presenting emergency costs, you're going to throw everything and the kitchen sink into that claim." The politics of disaster response means lawmakers and Presidents alike err on the side of generosity, he said.
Appropriators hate the reserve fund idea, however, because it reduces their clout. And some Republicans are wary of giving a Democratic President control over a multibillion-dollar "slush" fund.
Clinton has tried to make the most of the budgetary freedom embodied in "emergency" spending, and has been just as generous in declaring major disasters eligible for federal assistance as was President Bush (about 72 per cent of requests from states are granted).
In vote-rich states, such as Florida and California, Clinton has been particularly attentive. He was in Florida to commend firefighters on July 9, and while Clinton was away in China, Vice President Al Gore assumed the honors in announcing, on July 2, federal aid to New Hampshire, home of the first presidential primary. "Politics never enters into it," Witt said, laughing.
The FEMA director said he likes the idea of a disaster reserve fund, although he confessed he had not discussed it in detail with the White House. "I think Congress is trying to come up with a way to fund disasters without hurting existing programs," he said. "The dollars are limited, and they're trying to be good stewards of the money. But it's not going to be simple."
NEXT STORY: IRS reform bill nears Senate passage