[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10703-10705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1746) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the pre-disaster mitigation 
program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1746

       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 2009''.

     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) 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 one 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 
     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 2010, 2011, and 2012.''.
       (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 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''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1746.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for generously 
managing on the Republican side. Thank you for your participation. And 
I want to welcome, Madam Speaker, the gentleman, once again to our 
committee. It's his first term in Congress, first term on our 
committee, and it's good to have his participation. Appreciate it very 
much.
  I was delayed getting here to the floor because of a number of 
meetings, but the most particularly, and sort of fitting was a session 
with James Lee Witt, former administrator of FEMA, who did a superb job 
during his tenure at FEMA, and who actually initiated Project Impact, 
which was the predecessor of the legislation, or the predecessor idea 
for the legislation we bring to the floor today. It was called then 
Project Impact. And it was the idea of administrator James Lee Witt, 
after his experience with a number of tragedies that could have been 
prevented or substantially mitigated, that is, the effect of the 
natural disaster could substantially have been mitigated if cities, 
counties, States, local agencies, had taken a few practical steps that 
would be far lower cost in initial impact than the broader costs of a 
natural disaster, whether an earthquake, a flood, hurricane, or other 
tragedy.
  Over 100 communities actually participated in Project Impact. One of 
the most significant beneficiaries of Project Impact was the City of 
Seattle, which was awarded a grant of $50 million for very specific 
actions to take in Seattle to strengthen buildings, strengthen bridges, 
strengthen portions of the Alaska Way Viaduct, a portion of Highway 5 
that goes through the City of Seattle and is a focal point of a great 
deal of maritime activity and trucking and passenger vehicle activity.
  For a $50 million investment, they put all of the strengthening 
activities in place, and a year later, the earthquake struck Seattle. 
And the Mayor

[[Page 10704]]

of Seattle, I think it was Mayor Nichols at the time, said, if we had 
not made this investment, it would have cost the people of Seattle $500 
million to repair the damage that the earthquake would have caused had 
they not made this very small investment. The irony of the event and of 
the announcement is that was also the day that the Bush administration 
chose to terminate Project Impact.
  I have experience in my district of pre-disaster mitigation, when, in 
1999, hurricane-like force winds blew through the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Area, a wilderness area on the U.S./Canadian border in my district that 
stretches nearly 110 miles along the Canadian border. They're called a 
derecho, D-E-R-E-C-H-O, derecho, from the Spanish. Straight line winds, 
15 miles across, 40 miles in length, at 100 miles an hour, blew down 26 
million trees.
  The U.S. Forest Service did a computer analysis of all previous 
forest fires, and calculating with the amount of fuel on the ground, 
that when a lightning strike would hit that blown-down, drying out 
timber, it would create a fireball 50,000 feet into the air.
  Action had to be taken in the areas outside the wilderness to protect 
homes and resort facilities and outfitter facilities, and within the 
boundary waters to do controlled burns, because timber harvesting is 
not allowed within a wilderness area.
  We turned to James Lee Witt and FEMA for pre-disaster mitigation 
funding to support homes, to install sprinkler systems, and resorts to 
install sprinkler systems. Four years later, a fire known in the area 
as the Ham Lake fire, broke out. The local volunteer fire department, 
attempting to respond, found that their pumper truck was inoperative. 
They could have put the fire out in that little area, but they were 
unable to. It gathered force and burned 76,000 acres, half in the U.S. 
and half in Canada.
  The homes that were spared were those that had installed the 
sprinkler systems from the FEMA pre-disaster mitigation program. The 
ones that didn't have the sprinkler systems, or who didn't maintain 
them, were burned; 148 structures in all burned, and 135 were saved.
  This legislation will establish the pre-disaster mitigation program 
out into the future because, while the previous Project Impact was 
terminated, Congress, under the previous Republican years, re-
established, reinstated Project Impact as pre-disaster mitigation, and 
the authority will sunset on September 30. So with bipartisan support, 
we bring this legislation to the floor to extend the program.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I'd like to thank our chairman for his kind words, and 
more importantly, for your leadership on this committee. This is a very 
important issue, and I'm proud to stand with you today in support of 
this bill.
  And I do rise in support of H.R. 1746, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
Act of 2009, which reauthorizes the successful pre-disaster mitigation 
programs 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 a disaster strikes.
  Prior to the creation of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, hazard 
mitigation primarily occurred after a disaster had occurred through 
FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
  We know that every disaster costs us in damages to homes, businesses 
and infrastructure and potentially to the loss of lives. Implementing 
mitigation measures against disasters has proven to go a long way in 
minimizing damage and saving lives. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program 
prevents damage and destruction by helping communities to act 
proactively through projects that reduce the costs and limit the 
adverse impacts of future disasters.

                              {time}  1515

  It has been shown that mitigation programs like the pre-disaster 
mitigation program also save taxpayer dollars. Both the Congressional 
Budget Office and the National Institute of Building Sciences have 
determined that, for every dollar invested in mitigation, $3 are saved 
in future losses.
  Since their 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. Ensuring this program continues and 
supporting mitigation efforts is critically important as our 
communities prepare for disasters.
  In conclusion, mitigation works. It saves lives, limits future damage 
and reduces Federal disaster costs, and the pre-disaster mitigation 
program is an effective program that advances that goal.
  Thank you again. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, do you have anymore speakers on your side?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I advise the gentleman we have no further speakers. If 
the gentleman is prepared to close, I will have some closing remarks, 
and then we'll conclude.
  Mr. OLSON. In that case, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman made a very thoughtful statement, Madam 
Speaker, about the pre-disaster mitigation program, and I very greatly 
appreciate his observations and the bipartisan spirit within which our 
committee brought this legislation forward.
  Clearly, mitigation saves money. I gave an example of a situation in 
my district, but the devastation of flooding at the Red River in North 
Dakota is another example of the real impact of natural disasters, and 
the communities along the Red River of the North, on both the Minnesota 
and North Dakota sides, have benefited from pre-disaster mitigation 
funding. Nonetheless, they face huge challenges every year.
  The Congressional Budget Office and the National Institute of 
Building Sciences have issued reports showing that, for every dollar 
spent on pre-disaster mitigation, future losses are reduced by $3 to 
$4. The Multihazard Mitigation Council, the advisory body of the 
National Institute of Building Sciences, said: ``A dollar spent on 
mitigation saves society an average of $4,'' and that flood mitigation, 
according to the council, yields even greater savings. On average, 
future losses are reduced ``by about $3 for every dollar spent on those 
projects, including both Federal and non-Federal spending.''
  I also cited the city of Seattle. I misquoted the mayor. It was not 
Mayor Nickels. It was Mayor Paul Schell who deserves great credit for 
wisely using pre-disaster mitigation funds just prior to the Nisqually 
earthquake hitting on February 28, 2001.
  As for the Red River of the North, investments made by cities on both 
the Minnesota and North Dakota sides have resulted in far less damage 
than those communities experienced prior to making those investments. 
After the 1997 flood, FEMA spent $23 million to acquire vulnerable 
homes and move them out of the floodplain. In 2006, a flood came within 
2 feet of the 1997 flood level, and those mitigation investments saved 
some $24.6 million, a return of 107 percent on the investment made.
  Mitigation, clearly, is an investment in people, in property, in 
protection, and that's why the National Association of Counties, the 
International Association of Emergency Managers, the Association of 
State Floodplain Managers, the National Emergency Management 
Association, and the National Association of Flood and Stormwater 
Management Agencies, as well as the Public Works Association, all have 
endorsed this legislation.
  So I earnestly appeal for a strong vote, and I am now prepared to 
close, if the gentleman is prepared to yield back his time, Madam 
Speaker.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
1746, ``Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009.'' I want to thank my 
colleague Congressman James Oberstar of Minnesota for introducing this 
legislation.
  While tragedy has ripped through our communities, from 9/11 to 
Hurricane Katrina, leaving an enormous amount of devastation,

[[Page 10705]]

Americans continue to demonstrate yet again the amazing unity, strength 
and resilience that we possess. Whether rich or poor, black or white, 
young or old, Democrat or Republican, everyone has been working 
together to respond, recover, rebuild and move forward.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of 
legislation that will amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the pre-disaster mitigation 
program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 
Stafford Act, is a Federal law designed to bring an orderly and 
systemic means of federal natural disaster assistance for State and 
local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to aid 
citizens. This law establishes a process for requesting and obtaining a 
Presidential disaster declaration, defines the type and scope of 
assistance available under the Stafford Act, and sets the conditions 
for obtaining that assistance.
  It created the system in place today by which a Preside Disaster 
Declaration of an emergency triggers financial and physical assistance 
through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. The Act gives 
FEMA the responsibility for coordinating government wide relief 
efforts. The Federal Response Plan it implements includes the 
contributions of 28 Federal agencies and non-governmental 
organizations, such as the American Red Cross.
  We must work together to improve access to housing and the critical 
infrastructure necessary to ensure that Americans and their communities 
are safe. Where unacceptable vulnerabilities remain, swift action must 
be taken to eliminate them. I am committed to ensuring the 
implementation of such action.
  In the weeks that followed Hurricane Katrina, thousands of families 
struggled to survive with no electricity, including no air conditioning 
in the sweltering heat, which had a particularly severe impact on the 
elderly, disabled, impoverished and other vulnerable populations. 
Clearly, we need to invest substantial funds to improve our electric 
grids to ensure that the disparate impact on vulnerable populations are 
corrected and are never allowed to reoccur. I was particularly 
concerned that neither the utility companies nor the emergency 
management personnel had lists of or could expeditiously provide 
generators to the vulnerable individuals and communities residing in 
hospitals, clinics, senior housing, and assisted living communities who 
would be disparately impacted by the power outages in the aftermath of 
the storm. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation in Congress to 
ensure that utility companies are held accountable. I was also dismayed 
that creditors for healthcare providers interfered with the ability of 
hospitals to receive funds from insurance and business interruption 
claims that are vitally necessary to ensure that hospitals can be open 
to serve communities in dire need of healthcare.
  Furthermore, the response efforts to Hurricane Ike in Texas, 
unfortunately similar to Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana but to a 
smaller extent, revealed breakdowns in communication between the State 
and local government on the one hand and FEMA and the Federal 
Government on the other hand. These communication failures resulted in 
unnecessary and avoidable delays in deploying vital resources in a 
timely fashion to individuals and families in need through Disaster 
Recovery Centers, DRCs, in locations which are accessible to the 
affected communities. I look forward to hearing from the panelists on 
how we can increase the role that FEMA along with local and State 
agencies can play in the response and recovery efforts to natural 
disasters in order to ensure the most expeditious and efficient 
decision-making process possible. Whether it be through legislation or 
simply improved preparation and communication, we must take concrete 
steps to ensure that in the ongoing recovery effort, bureaucratic 
barriers are eliminated and minimized and that resources are deployed 
to individuals and families in need efficaciously.
  As a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, which 
has oversight over the Federal Emergency Management Administration, 
FEMA, I am working to ensure that our communities are prepared to deal 
with natural disasters. I am committed to working with members of this 
Select Committee and the other panelists, Federal and State agencies, 
and the companies that manage Houston's critical infrastructure to 
ensure that Houston and Texas are prepared for the next natural 
disaster. The protection of our homeland and the security of our 
neighborhoods are at the forefront of my legislative agenda.
  Madam Speaker, it is my hope that this legislation, which is 
necessary in policies, procedures, and protocols to ensure that: first 
responders and emergency management personnel across America are better 
prepared for future disasters; communication and coordination between 
local, State, and Federal agencies is improved; and all Americans can 
recover more quickly from a future disaster.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the reauthorization of the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program sends an important signal about the 
effectiveness of hazard mitigation in ensuring public safety and 
reducing financial losses in the event of a natural disaster. I am 
pleased that the House is reauthorizing the program for an additional 
three years and increasing the minimum amount that each State can 
receive from $500,000 to $575,000.
  I have been a longtime supporter of pre-disaster mitigation and the 
approach adopted in the 1990's by former FEMA Administrator James Lee 
Witt as illustrated in the `Project Impact' pilot program. The City of 
Portland, Oregon and Multnomah County, areas I represent, were early 
partners in the Project Impact program which helped to establish a 
flood hazard Community Rating System. By taking steps to mitigate 
potential flood damages in excess of FEMA standards, some area 
floodplain residents were able to qualify for reductions in their flood 
insurance premiums. On a national scale, Project Impact helped 
communities large and small across the country make much needed 
investments in hazard mitigation.
  In 2005, the Multihazard Mitigation Council, on behalf of FEMA, found 
that on average, a dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation provides 
the nation in about $4 in future benefits. In that regard, the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation program is a leading example of how the federal 
government can be a better partner to local communities by helping to 
improve public safety and reduce disaster related financial losses. It 
is the right thing to do for communities that are rebuilding after 
disasters, like New Orleans, and for those trying to avoid becoming the 
next victims.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, there being no Members wishing to speak on 
my side, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1746.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________