[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8969-8970]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           H.R. 1746, THE PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 26, 2009

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1746, the ``Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009'', a bill to 
reauthorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (``FEMA'') Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (``PDM'') program, a program to help communities 
across the nation protect against natural disasters and other hazards. 
I thank Ranking Member Mica, and the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), 
Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, for joining me in 
sponsoring this bill.
  The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program provides technical and financial 
assistance to state and local governments to reduce injuries, loss of 
life, and damage to property caused by natural hazards. Examples of 
mitigation activities include the seismic strengthening of buildings, 
acquiring repetitively flooded homes, installing shutters and shatter-
resistant windows

[[Page 8970]]

in hurricane-prone areas, and building ``safe rooms'' in houses and 
buildings to protect people from high winds.
  Action on this bill today is crucial because, under current law, the 
Pre-Disaster Mitigation program will sunset on September 30, 2009. 
Therefore, Congress must take quick action to continue this vital 
program.
  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 pre-disaster mitigation pilot program known as 
``Project Impact''. Congress appropriated funds for Project Impact in 
each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001. The Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure first authorized the current Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
program in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
  The PDM program reduces the risk of natural hazards, which is where 
the preponderance of risk is in our country. The devastating ice storms 
that struck the middle of the United States (including Missouri, 
Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Kentucky) earlier this year and the 
floods currently on the Red River in the Midwest are examples of the 
tragic, real impact of natural disasters that occur in our nation every 
year. Over the last decade, natural disasters have cost our nation an 
average of nearly $30 billion per year.
  Mitigation has been proven to save money. Studies by the 
Congressional Budget Office and National Institute of Building Sciences 
show that for every dollar spent on pre-disaster mitigation projects, 
future losses are reduced by three to four dollars. In 2005, the 
Mutihazard 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.'' The 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''. One of the best examples of mitigation 
is the town of Valmeyer, Illinois. The town was devastated by the great 
flood of 1993. With $45 million in Federal, state, and local funding, 
the town relocated to bluffs 400 feet above the site of the former 
town. When faced with floods last year, the residents of that town were 
out of harm's way, as the Chicago Tribune reported in a story aptly 
titled ``Valmeyer Illinois--Soaked in '93, Town now High and Dry''. The 
June 19, 2008 story quotes an 86-year old resident named Elenora 
Anderson. Her home was destroyed by the 1993 flood but as she said, 
``I'm sure glad I don't have to worry now that we're high enough here 
on the hill.''
  This month, we have seen the communities of North Dakota and my home 
state of Minnesota damaged by floods. Many of these same communities 
were devastated by floods in 1997. However, because of mitigation after 
the 1997 floods, the communities face far less risk. Even before this 
year's floods, mitigation investments had paid off. For example, in 
Grand Forks, after the 1997 floods, FEMA spent $23 million to acquire 
vulnerable homes in the flood plain. In 2006, a flood came within two 
feet of the 1997 flood level, and according to FEMA, the 1997 
mitigation investment saved $24.6 million. That investment represents a 
return of 107 percent after just one flood.
  Another success story comes from Story County, Iowa. There, six homes 
that had been flooded in 1990, 1993, and 1996 were bought out with 
$549,662 in FEMA mitigation grants. In 1998 when a flood struck again, 
FEMA estimates that $541,900 in damages to the homes was avoided. This 
mitigation project paid for itself in just one flood, and the estimated 
savings do not include the costs of warning, rescue, or evacuation.
  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 and state and local governments 
in 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, as not every storm, fire, or flood 
warrants the assistance of the Federal Government.
  The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, through property improvements, 
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.
  H.R. 1746 reauthorizes the PDM program for three years, at a level of 
$250 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012. 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 also 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 certainly of 
knowing this program will be available in the future so they can 
conduct vital longer-term mitigation planning.
  Last year, the House passed a virtually identical bill, H.R. 6109, 
but the other body did not take action on this bill. While a one-year 
extension was included in the Department of Homeland Security Fiscal 
Year 2009 Appropriations Act to keep this vital program alive, Congress 
must act. If we do not, this worthy program will sunset on September 
30, 2009.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1746, the ``Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009''.

                          ____________________