[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13350-13352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2008

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6109) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the pre-disaster hazard 
mitigation program, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6109

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act 
     of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. PRE-DISASTER 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:
       ``(f) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) Base amount.--The amount of financial assistance made 
     available to a State (including amounts made available to 
     local governments of the State) under this section for a 
     fiscal year--
       ``(A) shall be not less than the lesser of--
       ``(i) $575,000; or
       ``(ii) the amount that is equal to 1.0 percent of the total 
     funds appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(B) shall be subject to the criteria specified in 
     subsection (g).
       ``(2) Competitive program.--Other than the amounts 
     described in paragraph (1), financial assistance made 
     available to a State (including amounts made available to 
     local governments of the State) under this section shall be 
     awarded on a competitive basis subject to the criteria in 
     subsection (g).
       ``(3) Maximum amount.--The amount of financial assistance 
     made available to a State (including amounts made available 
     to local governments of the State) for a fiscal year shall 
     not exceed 15 percent of the total amount of funds 
     appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal 
     year.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 203(m) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(m)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011.''.
       (c) References.--Section 203 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 5133) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``PREDISASTER'' and 
     inserting ``PRE-DISASTER'';
       (2) in the subsection heading for subsection (i) by 
     striking ``PREDISASTER'' and inserting ``PRE-DISASTER'';
       (3) by striking ``Predisaster'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Pre-Disaster''; and
       (4) by striking ``predisaster'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``pre-disaster''.


[[Page 13351]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentlewoman from Virginia 
(Mrs. Drake) 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 material on H.R. 6109.
  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.
  Madam Speaker, I rise and ask the House to support H.R. 6109, as 
amended, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008. I want to especially 
thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, and my own 
subcommittee ranking member, Congressman Graves, for their very strong, 
bipartisan support of this essential bill.
  H.R. 6109, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008, reauthorizes the 
Pre-Disaster Mitigation program for 3 years. The bill authorizes grants 
to States awarded on a competitive basis, except that each State, and 
this is important, each State receives a statutory minimum of $557,000 
or 1 percent of the funds appropriated, whichever is less. In this way, 
the bill increases the minimum amount that each State can receive under 
the program from $500,000 to $575,000 and codifies the competitive 
selection process of the program, as currently administered by FEMA. 
The bill authorizes $250 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 
2011 for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program.
  The PDM program was first authorized in the Disaster Mitigation Act 
of 2000. The program, administered by FEMA through its Mitigation 
Division, is authorized under section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which we call the 
Stafford Act, of course. Pursuant to section 203(m) of the Stafford 
Act, the PDM program terminates on September 30 of this year unless 
Congress reauthorizes the program.
  This program provides cost-effective technical and financial 
assistance to State and local governments, which on the basis of a 
study of the effects of this quite new program, we now know reduces 
injuries, loss of life and damage to property caused by natural 
disasters. It provides grants to the States, territories, tribal 
governments and local communities on a competitive basis.
  According to the CBO, on average future losses are reduced by about 
$3 measured in discounted present value for each $1 spent on these 
projects, including both Federal and non-Federal spending.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a program which we have lightly 
authorized. We learned some lessons from Katrina. We have learned 
lessons, I believe, Madam Speaker, this week when entire sections of 
our country are being ravaged by flooding.
  This amount of money we do not pretend will allow pre-disaster 
programs to be undertaken for every event that can be expected. What it 
does do is to draw to the attention of local and State governments to 
what they and what we should be doing to reduce our own liability from 
particularly these natural disasters.
  Whenever a disaster occurs, Madam Speaker, this Congress will do what 
it must do. It will step up and do what we are doing in Louisiana. We 
do not pretend that the worst disaster in recorded United States 
history could have somehow been even perhaps mitigated by these funds, 
but we do believe that Katrina tells the story that every bit of 
mitigation you do, $3 for every $1 invested, says CBO, saves, first of 
all, lives, and then, of course, saves the investment that we ourselves 
will be required to make, and as Americans, we can say will make, in 
the event of a disaster.
  We all owe it to the country and to our local jurisdictions to use 
this money strategically and wisely so that it has the greatest effect, 
given the amount available.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6109, which reauthorizes the 
successful Pre-Disaster Mitigation program for the next 3 years. The 
Pre-Disaster Mitigation program was originally authorized by the 
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 as a pilot program to study the 
effectiveness of mitigation grants given to communities before disaster 
strikes. Prior to the creation of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, 
hazard mitigation primarily occurred after a disaster through FEMA's 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Every disaster costs us in damage to 
homes, businesses and infrastructure, and potentially in the loss of 
lives.
  The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program prevents damage and destruction 
by helping communities to act proactively through projects that reduce 
the cost and limit the adverse impacts of future disasters.
  With FEMA's assistance, local governments identify cost-effective 
mitigation projects, which are awarded on a competitive basis. Since 
its inception, mitigation programs have helped local communities save 
lives and reduce property damage through a wide range of mitigation 
projects, such as home elevations, buyouts, improved shelters and 
warning systems.
  In 2005, the National Institute of Building Sciences issued a study 
that conclusively demonstrated Federal mitigation programs saved the 
Federal Government money. Specifically, the study found that for every 
dollar spent on mitigation, the American taxpayer saves over $3 in 
Federal disaster payments.
  Mitigation projects also are intended to save lives, and this year's 
record tornado season underscores the importance of lifesaving warning 
sirens. Given the tremendous destructive power of tornadoes, you can't 
mitigate against property damage, but you can mitigate the loss of life 
with a warning system. I particularly want to thank Chairwoman Norton 
for including report language clarifying that Congress intended tornado 
warning sirens to be funded in this program.
  At this point I would like to read a paragraph from the committee 
report on this subject:
  ``The Committee notes the clear purpose of the Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation program to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage to 
property from natural disasters and the program's broad statutory 
authority to provide Federal assistance for projects, such as tornado 
warning sirens, which serve this purpose. Given the sudden nature and 
extreme destructive power of tornadoes, the Committee believes warning 
sirens are a cost-effective measure for mitigating injuries and loss of 
life from tornadoes. The Committee believes that Section 203 of the 
Stafford Act clearly authorizes mitigation assistance for tornado 
warning sirens.''
  I believe this language makes it perfectly clear that Congress 
intended tornado warning sirens to be an eligible project under the 
Pre-Disaster Mitigation program and Congress expects the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency to administer the program accordingly.
  In conclusion, mitigation works. It saves lives, limits future 
damage, and reduces Federal disaster costs. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
program is a worthy program, and I look forward to working with 
Chairwoman Norton to reauthorize it this year.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, it is a special pleasure and honor to 
introduce the Chair of the full committee whose knowledge and work long 
before this bill finally came forward in the form of an actual bill has 
been seminal to the act before us today, the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And I want to

[[Page 13352]]

compliment Chairwoman Norton for the splendid work she has done 
chairing the subcommittee, holding hours of hearings on the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation program and on various aspects of FEMA's programs 
that have unfolded in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. She has 
rendered enormous service to the country, to the people of flood prone, 
disaster prone areas of the country through these hearings and done a 
superb job. And to Mr. Graves, the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
and Mr. Mica who has fully participated in the shaping of this 
legislation. It is truly a bipartisan initiative, but one that goes 
back a very long time.
  It was in 1988, then the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
authorized FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Program. We thought then this was a 
very important initiative to provide grants to communities so that they 
could put in place initiatives, whether structures or nonstructural 
approaches to protecting communities and individuals, businesses, 
residences against the hazards of flood, tornado, hurricane and, in our 
northern tier, excessive snowfall.
  The idea was to build better after a disaster and be better prepared 
for the next time around. But that idea evolved over time, and it was 
in the mid 1990s that then James Lee Witt, the administrator of FEMA, 
conceived the idea of taking hazard mitigation a step further to pre-
disaster mitigation. He called it Project Impact.
  He came up to the committee, now the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, to meet with then Chairman Bud Shuster and me as the 
ranking member to discuss Project Impact, saying that we can save 
money, as the gentlewoman, the minority leader for this afternoon, has 
indicated, that we can save money by protecting against what we know 
will be hazards, disasters happening in the future. And so the 
committee crafted in 2000 the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program in our 
FEMA disaster Hazard Mitigation Program.
  Out of that program was allocated to the City of Seattle $50 million 
to strengthen structures in the city against the possibility of 
earthquake. The city invested some $50 million in strengthening public 
structures, public buildings, public roadways, and private structures 
as well. And then they had an earthquake. After the effects of the 
earthquake had been analyzed, FEMA estimated that the Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation investments saved $500 million in what would have been 
damaged public and private structures alike, ten-fold the value of the 
investment.
  The program then was further extended as the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure continued its work. I remember 
subsequent Chairman Don Young saying so often: Yes, we have to be 
prepared. FEMA is in the Department of Homeland Security and has to be 
part of protecting against the security threat to the United States. We 
don't know when it will come. We know that we have to be prepared. But 
we do know that every year, said Chairman Young, there are going to be 
hurricanes, there is going to be a flood, there is going to be 
whiteouts, there is going to be an earthquake, and we need to continue 
this program. So with bipartisan support, we have extended the program.
  In the aftermath, one of the best examples was the town of Valmeyer, 
Illinois, devastated in the 1993 Mississippi River flood. For $45 
million in Federal, State, and local funding and Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation, the town was simply relocated to bluffs 400 feet above the 
site of the former town. This year, as the Mississippi overflowed its 
banks in many places along its course from southern Minnesota through 
Iowa, the Chicago Tribune ran a story entitled, ``Valmeyer, Illinois, 
Soaked in '93, Town Now High and Dry.'' Quoting a resident, Eleanor 
Anderson, 86 years old, home destroyed in the 1993 flood, said, ``I am 
sure glad I don't have to worry now that we are high enough here on the 
hill.'' That is a reasonable investment of public funds.
  Story County, Iowa, in 1990, 1993 and 1996, homes were flooded out. 
Finally, in 1996, with Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funds, those six homes 
were bought out and moved out. And in 1998 when the floods struck, FEMA 
estimated that the Federal and State and local governments saved 
$541,900 in what would have been damages to restore those homes.
  In my own district, in 1999, on the eve of July 4, on July 3, 
straight-line winds called a derecho of 100 miles an hour in a swath 15 
miles wide swept through the Superior National Forest, the Boundary 
Waters Canoe area on the U.S.-Canadian border, and blew down 26 million 
trees, 3 years' worth of timber harvest for the whole State of 
Minnesota, creating an enormous hazard for fire to local residents. In 
the area outside of the wilderness, trees had to be subjected to 
salvage logging to clear out a way from homes, from resorts, and from 
outfitter buildings.
  Following up, FEMA came to the area and said, with Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation funds, we propose a 75/25 participation to install sprinkler 
systems around all the homes and all the businesses in the Gunflint 
Trail area to protect against the potential, the very real potential of 
future fire. Almost every resident and business participated in the 
program, and about 96 percent of the people maintained their sprinkler 
systems. Then last year, in April of 2007, a fire broke out. Careless 
campers left the site of their camping and a wind came up and blew it 
into what eventually became a 75,000 acre fire. The homes that had the 
sprinkler systems, the buildings that were protected with the sprinkler 
systems were unscathed. Those that weren't, 147 of them, burned.
  Pre-Disaster Mitigation saves lives, saves property, saves costs. It 
is a sound investment in the future. We have authorized in this 
legislation the program for an additional 3 years at $250 million each 
for fiscal 2009 through 2011. The chair of the subcommittee, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has outlined all 
of the specifics of the bill; I need not go into them.
  I simply speak to reinforce the specific examples the benefits of the 
Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. It is a sound investment in the future 
of this country for all of us as we are subjected to increasing amounts 
of disaster from natural causes.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Davis of California). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 
6109, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________