[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 11887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             PROJECT IMPACT

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, numerous natural events of the past few 
months, including the earthquake in the State of Washington and 
Tropical Storm Allison of just recent days in Texas and Louisiana, have 
underscored our need for disaster preparedness.
  What we have learned from these events is that we can in fact save 
lives and money by making investments up front to protect our 
communities. What we have learned is that what we do in the beginning 
by hardening the sites, preparing people's responses, moving out of 
harm's way, has an overwhelming payback, a payback not just in money 
but in lives saved and injury and human misery avoided.
  As was pointed out in yesterday's Washington Post, spending money in 
disaster mitigation pays off. It has often been cited that in the great 
flood of 1993, Charles County, Missouri, suffered $26 million in 
damages. However, the same area, after a significant buyout and a 
similar flood 2 years later, caused only $300,000 in damage.
  Our friends at the Federal Emergency Management Agency believe that 
in the past 8 years the buyout programs of the Federal government have 
received a 200 percent rate of return in investment in disaster 
mitigation.
  It is frustrating that, in the wake of these tragedies, the Bush 
administration and its Office of Management and Budget have proposed 
cutting funds for several of these Federal mitigation programs, 
including FEMA's Project Impact.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had significant opportunity to interact with the 
men and women working with Project Impact. This was one of the 
creations of former Director James Lee Witt that has in fact earned him 
international recognition.
  I have seen that, contrary to the administration's assertion that 
Project Impact has not proven effective, I have seen Project Impact 
leverage even a modest Federal investment in my own community to be a 
lynchpin for additional commercial investments, as well as careful 
planning and consideration by local government.
  I had an opportunity last fall to address the Conference of Project 
Impact Volunteers. One of the most important aspects of this program is 
the development of the human infrastructure to aid in disaster 
mitigation. It is hard to imagine a Federal investment doing more than 
to produce these dedicated volunteers making the difference in making 
these programs work.
  Project Impact is not a grant program. It provides seed money to 
build disaster-resistant communities. It is a commonsense approach to 
help communities protect themselves. It offers expertise and technical 
assistance. It puts the latest technology and mitigation practices into 
the hands of local communities, and most important, it brings people 
together to understand how they can solve their own problems.
  Started just 5 years ago with seven pilot projects across the 
country, there are now 2,500 Project Impact business partners, 
including Federal agencies like NASA, that are working in 250 Project 
Impact communities.
  Mr. Speaker, Joe Allbaugh, a longtime friend and Bush appointee, the 
new Director of FEMA, has pointed out that he is deeply impressed by 
the ``swift and tangible results,'' his words, of buy-out programs and 
other efforts to mitigate the cost of disasters before they strike. I 
know from the news accounts that he has taken his budget concerns to 
the bean-counters at OMB who need to understand the potential benefits 
of continuing this program.
  I must commend the Bush administration for understanding the 
potential of using reform in other contexts. I appreciate and applaud 
their putting money in the budget that signifies reform of the National 
Flood Insurance Program.
  The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I for the last 2 years 
have been working to reform the flood insurance program so it is no 
longer subsidizing people to live in areas where it is repeatedly shown 
that it is dangerous and inappropriate.
  I hope the administration will build on this notion of reform that 
they are proposing in flood insurance and carry it over in Project 
Impact. We cannot afford to lose it.

                          ____________________