[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 135 (Tuesday, October 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10436-S10437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             GAO REPORT: FEMA'S HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Federal Government's 
commitment to disaster mitigation and helping communities minimize the 
impact of natural and man-made hazards. Currently, the Senate is locked 
in a debate on how to help State and local officials prevent, prepare 
for, and respond to acts of terrorism. Homeland security will benefit 
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's, FEMA, years of 
experience because disaster mitigation and terrorism preparedness have 
the same goal, helping people prepare for the worst.
  FEMA's two multi-hazard mitigation programs, the post-disaster Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program, HMGP, and the pre-disaster Project Impact 
program, are aimed at helping States and communities identify and 
address natural hazard risks they deem most significant.
  In March 2001 the administration proposed the elimination of all pre-
disaster mitigation funding because Project Impact was ``ineffective.'' 
After learning that there had been no formal review of the 
effectiveness of this or any multi-hazard mitigation program, I 
requested that GAO review FEMA's disaster mitigation efforts. I am 
happy to announce the release of this comprehensive and timely report.

[[Page S10437]]

  The parameters of this study have changed in the past year. In the 
aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the subsequent and 
prudent focus on homeland security, the Nation began noticing the 
relationship of pre-disaster mitigation programs to proposed new 
preparedness efforts for homeland security. I asked GAO to expand its 
study to include an assessment of how the increased emphasis on 
preventing and preparing for terrorism events is affecting natural 
hazard mitigation.
  In March 2002 the administration proposed to change fundamentally 
FEMA's disaster mitigation strategy again by eliminating the HMGP. 
Currently, HMGP funding is issued to States after a presidentially 
declared disaster as a percentage of total Federal assistance, a 
process deemed ineffective and not cost-efficient by the 
administration. The administration instead is seeking to fund all 
mitigation through an expanded Project Impact-like program on a 
nationally competitive grant basis. The administration believes that 
such a program will ensure that mitigation funding remains stable from 
year to year and that the most cost-beneficial projects receive 
funding. At that time, I asked GAO to include this latest proposal.
  GAO interviewed hazard mitigation officials from 24 states to get 
their perspectives on current FEMA programs and the administration's 
proposals. The States range from large population States, such as 
Florida and Illinois, to smaller States, such as Nebraska and Utah. GAO 
purposely selected both small and large States, containing urban and 
rural communities, that have received both small and large amounts of 
mitigation funding. Despite geographic differences, emergency 
management officials view FEMA's mitigation programs as successful and 
effective.
  Emergency management officials described how, in addition to 
traditional ``brick and mortar'' programs, such as retrofitting 
buildings and relocating properties, mitigation effects can be 
intangible. Mitigation includes outreach activities, such as increasing 
public awareness and support for mitigation, building public-private 
partnerships to pool mitigation resources, and ever-important planning 
and risk assessment.
  We must listen to these officials, the end-users of mitigation 
programs, when determining program success or failure. These dedicated 
men and women have many concerns over the administration's proposal. 
They worry that FEMA will lose the window of opportunity that exists 
after a disaster strikes if HMGP funds are not included in Federal 
assistance. This is when public and community interest in mitigating 
against future disasters is highest. They worry that a competitive 
grant system might exclude some States entirely from mitigation 
funding.
  GAO also interviewed FEMA officials. FEMA headquarters and regional 
office personnel identified several challenges in implementing a 
national competitive grant program. Chief among them is establishing a 
process for comparing the costs and benefits of projects. Emergency 
managers around the country share FEMA's concerns that the outreach and 
planning activities they feel are so important will be curtailed 
because of the difficulty associated with assigning cost-benefit to 
such programs. This issue will have ramifications in homeland security 
when the new Department of Homeland Security is told to determine the 
cost-benefit of terrorism preparedness efforts.
  I was heartened to learn that FEMA is working to ensure and 
strengthen natural hazard mitigation, response, and recovery efforts 
while attending to homeland security needs. FEMA officials are 
identifying and correcting redundancies in reporting, planning, 
training, and other activities across mitigation and preparedness 
programs. FEMA mitigation experts are working to identify terrorism 
mitigation activities that are also ``all hazard'' and address natural 
hazard mitigation priorities.
  The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, passed by Congress 2 years ago, 
emphasized involvement by all States, funding for planning activities, 
and increased post-disaster mitigation funding for States willing to 
undertake enhanced mitigation efforts. FEMA has taken our directive to 
heart and is implementing multi-hazard mitigation programs in 
coordination and cooperation with State and local officials. While a 
focus on obtaining the most cost-effective program is well intended, I 
share the concerns of the emergency management community and FEMA 
personnel that assigning a dollar amount to the benefit of doing 
mitigation, or the cost of not doing it, is a difficult and ill-defined 
task. I share their doubts that consolidating the HMGP and Project 
Impact programs will make disaster mitigation more effective or 
successful.
  After reviewing the GAO report, FEMA Director Joseph Allbaugh wrote 
to GAO, `` I appreciate your support of my strongly held belief that 
funding and support of both pre- and post-disaster mitigation programs 
are critical to FEMA's success in leading the nation to reduce disaster 
losses.'' I agree with Director Allbaugh. We must continue to to 
support pre-disaster mitigation as an investment for the future. I 
commend GAO on their insightful report, and I thank JayEtta Hecker and 
her team at GAO for their work.

                          ____________________