[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.

                          ____________________