[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 172 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8814-H8817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION ACT OF 2010
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1746) to amend the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize
the predisaster mitigation program of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Predisaster Hazard
Mitigation Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The predisaster hazard mitigation program has been
successful and cost-effective. Funding from the predisaster
hazard mitigation program has successfully reduced loss of
life, personal injuries, damage to and destruction of
property, and disruption of communities from disasters.
(2) The predisaster hazard mitigation program has saved
Federal taxpayers from spending significant sums on disaster
recovery and relief that would have been otherwise incurred
had communities not successfully applied mitigation
techniques.
(3) A 2007 Congressional Budget Office report found that
the predisaster hazard mitigation program reduced losses by
roughly $3 (measured in 2007 dollars) for each dollar
invested in mitigation efforts funded under the predisaster
hazard mitigation program. Moreover, the Congressional Budget
Office found that projects funded under the predisaster
hazard mitigation program could lower the need for post-
disaster assistance from the Federal Government so that the
predisaster hazard mitigation investment by the Federal
Government would actually save taxpayer funds.
(4) A 2005 report by the Multihazard Mitigation Council
showed substantial benefits and cost savings from the hazard
mitigation programs of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency generally. Looking at a range of hazard mitigation
programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
study found that, on average, $1 invested by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in hazard mitigation provided the
Nation with roughly $4 in benefits. Moreover, the report
projected that the mitigation grants awarded between 1993 and
2003 would save more than 220 lives and prevent nearly 4,700
injuries over approximately 50 years.
(5) Given the substantial savings generated from the
predisaster hazard mitigation program in the years following
the provision of assistance under the program, increasing
funds appropriated for the program would be a wise
investment.
SEC. 3. PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION.
(a) Allocation of Funds.--Section 203(f) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5133(f)) is amended to read as follows:
[[Page H8815]]
``(f) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The President shall award financial
assistance under this section on a competitive basis and in
accordance with the criteria in subsection (g).
``(2) Minimum and maximum amounts.--In providing financial
assistance under this section, the President shall ensure
that the amount of financial assistance made available to a
State (including amounts made available to local governments
of the State) for a fiscal year--
``(A) is not less than the lesser of--
``(i) $575,000; or
``(ii) the amount that is equal to 1 percent of the total
funds appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal
year; and
``(B) does not exceed the amount that is equal to 15
percent of the total funds appropriated to carry out this
section for the fiscal year.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 203(m) of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(m)) is amended to read as follows:
``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
``(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
``(3) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''.
(c) Technical Corrections to References.--The Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 602(a) (42 U.S.C. 5195a(a)), by striking
paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
``(7) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.'';
and
(2) by striking ``Director'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Administrator'', except--
(A) in section 622 (42 U.S.C. 5197a)--
(i) in the second and fourth places it appears in
subsection (c); and
(ii) in subsection (d); and
(B) in section 626(b) (42 U.S.C. 5197e(b)).
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.
Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(n) Prohibition on Earmarks.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
`congressionally directed spending' means a statutory
provision or report language included primarily at the
request of a Senator or a Member, Delegate or Resident
Commissioner of the House of Representatives providing,
authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee,
grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an
entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality, or
Congressional district, other than through a statutory or
administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.
``(2) Prohibition.--None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available to carry out this section may be
used for congressionally directed spending.
``(3) Certification to congress.--The Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall submit to Congress
a certification regarding whether all financial assistance
under this section was awarded in accordance with this
section.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
General Leave
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous materials in the Record on the Senate
amendment to H.R. 1746.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to support H.R. 1746, as amended, a bill to reauthorize
the predisaster mitigation program. This program's authorization
expires with the current continuing resolution.
The predisaster mitigation program is authorized by section 203 of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, or
the Stafford Act, and was first authorized by this committee in the
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. My subcommittee held a hearing in
which we received testimony on empirical evidence that show that this
predisaster mitigation program manages to get a substantial return on
this investment, with some estimations as high as a 4-to-1 return to
the national government.
Examples of mitigation activities highlighted at the hearing include
the seismic strengthening of buildings and infrastructure, acquiring
repetitively flooded homes, installing shelters and shatter-resistant
windows in hurricane-prone areas, and the building of ``safe rooms'' in
houses and other buildings to protect from high winds. The subcommittee
came to the conclusion that predisaster mitigation is effective in
accomplishing the goal of reducing the risk of future damage, hardship,
and loss from all hazards, including loss of life.
H.R. 1746 would reauthorize the program for 3 years, make the minimum
$575,000 or 1 percent of the total funds appropriated to carry out this
section for the fiscal year, and codify the competitive aspects of the
program. Senate changes to the bill include an explicit ban on earmarks
or any congressionally directed spending, along with reducing
authorization levels of $250 million annually to $180 million for
fiscal year 2011, and $200 million for fiscal year 2012 and 2013.
This legislation has been endorsed by the National Association of
Counties, International Association of Emergency Managers, the
Association of State Floodplain Managers, the National Emergency
Management Association, the National Association of Flood and
Stormwater Management Agencies, and the American Public Works
Association. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has
requested a reauthorization of the predisaster mitigation program.
This program has consistently shown to provide an excellent return on
investment, and I ask Members of the House to support the bill that
protects both lives and property.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
This bill reauthorizes the predisaster mitigation program for the
next 3 years, as the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., has just
stated. I'm pleased to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, along with
Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Chairwoman Norton, who is
on the committee that I am the ranking member of.
The predisaster mitigation program was created by the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 as a pilot program to study the effects and the
effectiveness of mitigation for those grants given to communities
before a disaster may strike. Prior to creation of the predisaster
mitigation program, hazard mitigation primarily occurred after disaster
through FEMA'S Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
We know that every disaster costs us a lot of money--and, obviously,
more than money. In many times, even human life. It damages homes,
businesses, and infrastructure. And, again, potentially loss of life.
Mitigation measures have been shown, Madam Speaker, to be very
effective in mitigating the damage that occurs during a storm, and
frankly, also in saving lives, which is, we would all agree, even more
important. In fact, the investments that we make in mitigation actually
saves taxpayer dollars. I think that deserves being repeated: It
actually saves the taxpayer money.
Both the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, and the National
Institute of Building Sciences have determined that for every dollar
invested in mitigation, $3 are actually saved in actual future losses.
In addition, H.R. 1746, as amended, includes a clear prohibition on
earmarks.
Now, the bottom line is, mitigation works. It's been proven to work.
It saves lives, it limits future damages, and reduces Federal disaster
costs. In other words, it saves the taxpayer money.
{time} 1210
The predisaster mitigation program is an effective program that
advances these goals that I just mentioned. So I support the passage of
this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Madam Speaker, I would at this time, since I don't believe there are
any further speakers, just mention two things.
First, I want to once again thank Chairwoman Norton. It has been a
privilege, an honor and a pleasure to be her ranking member. She has
really, really been a great champion on issues of disaster mitigation.
While she represents Washington, DC, except for that big snowstorm, it
is an area you would hope would have no hurricanes or earthquakes. She
has been a huge champion. She has visited areas. She has gone down to
south Florida and has
[[Page H8816]]
visited the hurricane center and has held hearings down there. So she
has been a great champion.
I would just tell you, on a personal note, that she has been
wonderful to work with. I didn't know we were going to be on the floor
together again, Madam Speaker, but as I said the last time, I will no
longer be on the T&I Committee. I will now go to the Appropriations
Committee. I would be remiss if I didn't mention, though, what a
privilege it has been to work with my chairwoman.
Also, one of the true gentlemen in this process and one of the people
I have grown to respect and admire is the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Oberstar, a person who has served this country with
dignity, with honor and with great integrity, and who has been
exceedingly fair. I can tell you that there have been not a couple of
occasions, but many occasions, that I've gone to him because I've seen
things that, well, frankly, I didn't like, most of which were driven by
just passions.
I would go to him and say, Mr. Chairman, this is what's going on.
Frankly, you could see it in his face. He just did not tolerate
anything that he believed was not fair on his committee.
Again, he is a public servant, one who has served this country and
who has shown all of us, whether we agree with him or disagree with
him--and I've had multiple disagreements with him--what public service
is all about. So I just wanted to make sure that I put that in the
record.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida. His kind and
gentle words are typical of the way he has operated on the committee--
always in the most collegial fashion when he talks about the District
of Columbia and its not experiencing what, for example, his own
district does in Florida.
I can only say we empathize with you in Florida and all over the
country. We are all Americans; and every time that we sat together in
hearings, we were, of course, cognizant of the fact that we were
dealing with issues that affected the entire country.
It has been a great pleasure to work with the ranking member. We
worked together on each and every bill. I cannot think of a single bill
on which we found a disagreement, where we had something that we wanted
to change and where we didn't discuss it or staff didn't discuss it.
I know Mr. Oberstar would very much appreciate your remarks as well.
He is a one-of-a-kind chairman who had been here as a staff member with
enormous influence, and then he became a chairman with outsized
influence as well.
I understand that my good friend Mr. Diaz-Balart thinks he has found
sunnier shores on another committee, but I want him to know that I
don't think he will ever have a better relationship with another Member
on this side of the aisle. In the relationship that he and I have
formed, it has come to be, indeed, a friendship.
So I say to him, Until we meet again, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
I want to simply emphasize, in closing, the little bit of money for
which there is a great return for 3 years. The Federal Government spent
a token amount, $500 million; but according to the CBO, the reduction
in future losses associated with that small $500 million is $1.6
billion in present value. No wonder this bill passed in the other body.
I urge my colleagues to approve this bill as well.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Senate amendment to H.R. 1746, the ``Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Act
of 2010''. H.R. 1746, as amended, reauthorizes the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and
helps communities across the Nation protect against natural disasters
and other hazards. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica),
Ranking Member of the Committee, and the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart), the Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, respectively,
for their bipartisan efforts on this bill.
The PDM program provides technical and financial assistance to State
and local governments to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage to
property caused by natural disasters. Examples of mitigation activities
include: seismic retrofitting of buildings to strengthen the buildings
in case of an earthquake; acquiring repetitively flooded homes;
installing shutters and shatter-resistant windows in hurricane-prone
areas; and building ``safe rooms'' in houses and buildings to protect
people from high winds.
Consideration of this bill today is crucial, as the PDM program is
set to sunset with the expiration of the current continuing resolution.
Therefore, Congress must take quick action to continue this vital
program.
H.R. 1746, as amended, reauthorizes the PDM program for three years,
at a level of $180 million for fiscal year 2011, and $200 million for
each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The bill increases the minimum
amount that each state receives under the program from $500,000 to
$575,000, and codifies the competitive selection process of the
program, as currently administered by FEMA.
In 1988, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
authorized FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This effective
program provides grants to communities to mitigate hazards, but only
provides grants to ``build better'' after a disaster. At the time, no
program existed to help communities mitigate risks from all hazards
before disaster strikes.
In the 1990s, under the leadership of FEMA Administrator James Lee
Witt, FEMA developed a PDM pilot program known as ``Project Impact'',
which was a predecessor program to the current PDM program. Congress
appropriated funds for Project Impact in each of fiscal years 1997
through 2001.
The PDM program reduces the risk of natural hazards, which is where
the preponderance of risk is in our country. While it is prudent to
prepare for the possibility of terrorist attacks, the occurrence of
natural disasters of all types and sizes is a known certainty. The
flooding that is currently occurring in California, and the tornadoes
that struck in my home state of Minnesota this summer, particularly in
Wadena in my district, are examples of the tragic, real impact of
natural disasters that occur in our nation every year.
Mitigation saves money. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) and National Institute of Building Sciences show that for every
dollar invested in PDM projects, future losses are reduced by three to
four dollars. In 2005, the Multihazard Mitigation Council, an advisory
body of the National Institute of Building Sciences, found ``that a
dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4.'' Further,
the Multihazard Mitigation Council found that flood mitigation measures
yield even greater savings. According to a September 2007 CBO report on
the reduction in Federal disaster assistance that is likely to result
from the PDM program, ``on average, future losses are reduced by about
$3 (measured in discounted present value) for each $1 spent on those
projects, including both federal and nonfederal spending.''
While empirical data is critical, perhaps more telling are real-life
mitigation ``success stories''. For instance, Seattle, Washington used
Project Impact PDM grants to fortify buildings. Immediately after the
Nisqually Earthquake struck Seattle on February 28, 2001, Seattle Mayor
Paul Schell and other public officials cited those PDM grants as one of
the primary reasons that lives and property were saved during the
earthquake. Ironically, the Mayor's statements came on the same day
that the President George W. Bush Administration claimed that the
Project Impact PDM pilot program should be defunded because it was not
effective.
Another example of the effectiveness of mitigation comes from my
district. On July 4, 1999, a derecho, also known as a blow down, struck
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and downed millions of trees.
This created a huge fire hazard. As a result, FEMA mitigation funds
were given to residents to install outdoor sprinkler systems to protect
against wild fire. Unfortunately, in 2007, the Ham Lake Fire struck the
area. Those structures that had sprinkler systems were protected from
the fire. Since that time, communities in that area have sought and
have been awarded more than $3 million of PDM funds to help protect
other structures from this continuing risk of fire.
Mitigation is an investment. It is an investment that not only
benefits the Federal Government, but State and local governments as
well. Projects funded by the PDM program reduce the damage that would
be paid for by the Federal Government for a major disaster under the
Stafford Act. However, mitigation also reduces the risks from smaller,
more frequent events that State and local governments face every day.
The PDM program takes citizens out of harm's way, by elevating a
house or making sure a hospital can survive a hurricane or earthquake.
In doing so, it allows first responders to focus on what is
unpredictable in a disaster rather than on what is foreseeable and
predictable.
[[Page H8817]]
H.R. 1746, as amended, eliminates the existing sunset in the program.
As the evidence clearly shows, this program works well and is cost
effective. It should no longer be treated as a pilot program with a
sunset. Rather, State and local governments should have the certainty
of knowing this program will be available in the future to enable them
to focus their efforts on critical, long-term mitigation planning.
The Obama administration has specifically requested that Congress
reauthorize the PDM program and this legislation has been endorsed by
the National Association of Counties, International Association of
Emergency Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the
National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of
Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, and the American Public Works
Association.
This bill passed the House more than a year and a half ago with
overwhelming bipartisan support. The legislation passed the other body
last night by unanimous consent. I would like to thank Senator Joseph
Lieberman and Senator Susan M. Collins for their persistent efforts to
clear this legislation through the other body.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1746, as amended,
the ``Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Act of 2010''.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
1746.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________