[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 30 (Thursday, March 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2067-S2068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FEMA'S PROJECT IMPACT II

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to again address the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, Project Impact Program. The 
President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal stated that the Project 
Impact disaster preparedness campaign ``has not proven effective.'' I 
am looking into the issue of effectiveness.
  A White House spokesperson, recently citing a FEMA Inspector General 
report, said that 64 percent of the money awarded by Project Impact had 
not been spent by communities 2 years after receiving it. This 
statement is a bit misleading. True, nearly 2 years after they were 
designated as Project Impact partners, seven pilot communities had not 
spent 64 percent of their grant funds. But the report also goes into 
detail as to why this was the situation. In many cases, while FEMA 
funds came quickly, communities needed additional time to mobilize and 
begin their mitigation programs. These communities were not fully 
prepared, administratively or programmatically, to accept the grants. 
Some communities had identified and scheduled multiple mitigation 
projects, only to realize later that they did not have the

[[Page S2068]]

staff or resources to carry out more than one project at a time.
  While FEMA agreed that communities should spend their grants in a 
more timely manner, FEMA was concerned about taking steps that would 
undermine the planning process at local levels by placing more focus on 
expenditures, or infringe upon local budget cycles and negate community 
efforts to obtain additional funding. In response to these concerns, 
FEMA now requires communities to align Project Impact funding with 
local projects initiated within 18 months of funding. The Inspector 
General concurred with FEMA's action.
  To deal with management issues, the Inspector General recommended 
that FEMA provide technical assistance to new communities on federal 
grant management. In response, FEMA has expanded opportunities for 
technical assistance through availability of regional staff, the 
Project Impact ``How-To-Get-Started'' course, and FEMA's Web site. The 
Inspector General also recommended improved accounting and reporting by 
the communities and FEMA to keep records current and accessible. FEMA 
agreed, implemented new procedures, and the Inspector General was 
satisfied with their response. Here is a successful example of the 
Federal Government returning money and power to local governments.
  The IG report recognizes the significant amount of effort already 
performed by communities and the active involvement with communities 
that FEMA spends before mitigation projects are accepted and approved. 
It also recognizes that attitudinal and behavioral changes are 
occurring in communities through collaboration and increasing public 
awareness and education about disaster mitigation efforts. It states 
that while the benefits derived from such efforts can not be 
quantified, they are very important to a community that hopes to 
sustain disaster preparedness measures, long after the initial seed 
money is gone.
  Perhaps these very important, but inherently unquantifiable 
activities are what the President's spokesman is referring to when he 
suggests programs such as ``scout camps, training Boy Scouts in 
Delaware, sponsoring a safety fair and those kinds of things'' were not 
worthwhile and demonstrated that the program was ineffective?
  Which scout activities should not have been sponsored? The community 
service project in Pascagoula, MI in which local Boy Scouts were 
instrumental in developing a database of all commercial and residential 
structures in the 100-year floodplain? Or the Boy Scouts in Eden, NY 
who helped clean up debris in creeks that are prone to flooding as part 
of the community flood mitigation plan? Or the Ouachita Parish, LA Girl 
Scouts who sponsored a disaster safety fair. Perhaps the Boy Scouts in 
Culebra, PR, who performed an intensive door-to-door mitigation-
oriented public awareness campaign, did not deserve training?
  The last recommendation in the report was for FEMA to realign 
resources to better manage the growing number of Project Impact 
communities. FEMA responded by creating a new position in each region 
to augment Project Impact staffing needs to deal with the growing 
number of Project Impact communities and business partners due to the 
program's popularity and success.
  Project Impact is not perfect. Certainly there are areas that could 
be improved and ways in which it could be made more efficient. FEMA's 
Inspector General identified several such areas. Through communication 
and cooperation, FEMA is addressing these issues. In no part of the 
report does the Inspector General suggest that the program be canceled. 
On the contrary, many of its recommendations are to help FEMA deal with 
how the program is growing so that it can continue its successes and 
improve upon its accomplishments.
  The 50th State is vulnerable to a host of natural disasters, and 
Hawaii's state and local officials know that disaster mitigation is the 
best way to lessen the impact of catastrophic damage and loss of life. 
I was interested that when asked about the proposed elimination of 
Project Impact, the Honorable Harry Kim, mayor of the County of Hawaii 
and formerly the county's director of civil defense for 24 years, said, 
``If it were not for mitigation efforts, we would never stay ahead of 
the game. I hope those in authority will talk to local officials 
because I would be surprised if anyone would support eliminating 
Project Impact. The growing pains of any project should not be the 
cause of cancellation.'' I agree with Mayor Kim. I urge the President 
to take another look at Project Impact, which is the only federal 
program that requires heavy community involvement to meet FEMA's goal 
of reducing the loss of life and property by protecting the nation from 
all types of hazards.

                          ____________________