Proposal by Democrats Would Replace Federal Disaster Relief

Three senior Democrats proposed Friday to end the billions of dollars in federal disaster relief paid to states each year when earthquakes, floods, drought and fire wreak havoc.

Under their plan, the current federal disaster program would be replaced by a voluntary state insurance program, which could cost tens of billions of dollars a year in premiums in states like California and Florida.

Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who voted against the proposed balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, said the budget measure now moving through Congress would require radical actions such as this.

“The existing mechanism is pretty close to being broke. I think this is certainly one of the first things that has to go on the block,” he told a news conference.

Washington could save an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion a year if the program were folded, said sponsors Obey, Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.). Federal disaster aid cost nearly $45 billion from fiscal 1991 to 1994, they said.

Two-thirds of recent aid went to Florida to pay for damage from Hurricane Andrew in 1991 and to California to pay for a series of disasters including the 1994 Northridge earthquake and the recent flooding problems.

With a jab at California Gov. Pete Wilson, Durbin said it was “a little hard to swallow” Wilson’s quest for more disaster aid to pay for the flood damage at the same time he was offering a state tax cut.

Obey echoed this sentiment. “Frankly, I think a lot of us are getting tired of some governors coming to Washington with their hands out,” Obey said.

“An example is California. The governor has been no slouch in asking for federal money and yet his state still has not paid their own local share required for previous disasters,” about $90 million.

Durbin and Obey noted that some areas seem more disaster prone but do not take responsible steps to prevent damage through strict zoning on coastal areas and in earthquake zones.

“Millions of people choose to live in coastal areas and in earthquake zones because of other compensating attributes of those areas. I don’t see why taxpayers in the rest of the country have to subsidize that decision,” Obey said.