A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.
The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.
In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.
“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”
The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).
In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.
“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.
But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing “gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”
The letter goes on to ask FEMA to explain which statutory authority the agency relied on to require states to consider climate change, whether or not the agency still agrees with its 2012 statement that hurricanes follow a cycle of increased and decreased activity over decades and how much it will cost states to comply with the new requirement.
In a January White House blog post about a new flood standard for federal investments, Fugate and then-presidential adviser John Podesta (who has since joined the Hillary Clinton camp) recognized the effects of climate change.
“Effects of climate change will make extreme weather events more frequent and more severe,” they wrote. “And the climate is changing — earlier this month, NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally, meaning that 14 of the 15 hottest years in recorded history have happened this century.”
FEMA’s new requirements will take effect March 6, 2016.
Then there is ObamaCare or lack thereof:
ObamaCare extortion? Why Fla. Gov. Rick Scott is suing the Obama administration
Governor Rick Scott joins us. Governor, thanks for going On the Record tonight and we want to hear more about why you are suing the administration.
RICK SCOTT, FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Kimberly, it’s outrageous. The federal government started a program in our state in 2006. It’s called the low income pool. It’s for low income families. Now, what they are saying is they are not going to keep that program going unless the state expands ObamaCare. So this first off is horrible.
GUILFOYLE: It sounds like extortion.
SCOTT: Absolutely. It’s – first off, you think about the families at our state that are relying on this. Second, Justice Roberts said, The NFIB versus Sebelius, that it’s not lawful for the federal government, for the Obama administration, to use coercion tactics, basically held a gun to our head, if we don’t expand ObamaCare. They say they can’t do that. So – and by the way they are not cutting our federal taxes in doing this. They did not say, “Oh, we will cut your federal taxes because we are going to cut out your program.” So our taxpayers are still paying for the federal government.
GUILFOYLE: Right.
SCOTT: But they are going to cut out a program and try to hold a gun to our head.
GUILFOYLE: All right. So when are you going to file this lawsuit?
SCOTT: We’re working with our attorney general, Pam Bondi. We have a great attorney general in our state.
GUILFOYLE: Yes. That’s my friend.
SCOTT: We’ll work with them to make sure – yes. She is a good friends of yours. And we’re working with her to do this in the right manner. But we’re going –I’m going to stand up for every citizen in our state. One, the citizens that have a program that they are relying on, those that can’t afford their own health care, that’s one. Then two, the rest of our citizens that are saying, “You know, we are paying our federal taxes and we are not going to let the federal government tell us how to run our state.” That’s outrageous. It’s not what the Supreme Court allows. And so we’re going to stand up for all 20 million people in our state.
GUILFOYLE: Well, I think, you know, with Pam Bondi filing this and you on top of it, this is really a compelling issue. There are serious constitutional implications as a former prosecutor myself. It seems that you are on some serious strong ground with the president, with the comments from the chief justice that this should not be allowed and it should be precedent setting for other states if they are compelled in this way, forced against their will to expand and feed the behemoth that has become ObamaCare.
SCOTT: Absolutely. But don’t they care about the low income families that they have already created a program for in our state?
GUILFOYLE: Sure.
SCOTT: And doesn’t everybody now understand that this is an administration that’s going to use coercion tactic and when it’s appropriate they’ll cut back funding if you don’t do another program they want.
GUILFOYLE: Right. The penalty. Yes.
(Crosstalk)
SCOTT: That’s not the way the federal government is supposed to work. Absolutely. It’s not the way we expect our federal government. We’re supposed to be able to run our state.
GUILFOYLE: Well, it’s a shakedown to the states. If you don’t do what we say….
SCOTT: Absolutely.
GUILFOYLE: . …because we’re gig bigger than you, and we’re going to bully you and we’re going to force you and penalize you and it’s really just hurting the lower income families by doing this.
SCOTT: Absolutely. One, they don’t care about the low income families because they are willing to walk away from a program. And then, two, they are using bully — this is a Sopranos. They are using bullying tactics to attack our state. It’s wrong. It’s outrageous just that they’re doing this.
GUILFOYLE: Well — but you’re standing up for all Floridians. So I think that’s fantastic. And you know, this is so important we get the message out there and that we learn about these issues because it’s going to be facing the other states as well. Governor, such a pleasure. Thank you for coming on here tonight.
SCOTT: Nice talking to you, Kimberly.
GUILFOYLE: All right.
SCOTT: Have a great evening.
