[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15654-15655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO AMEND THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF 
  AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT TO REAUTHORIZE THE PRE-DISASTER HAZARD 
                           MITIGATION PROGRAM

                                  _____
                                 

                           HON. ANDRE CARSON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 10, 2013

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill 
to amend to the

[[Page 15655]]

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to 
reauthorize the pre-disaster hazard mitigation program.
  First authorized in 2000, the pre-disaster hazard mitigation program 
has a proven history of saving taxpayer money by investing in cost 
effective projects that are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, 
and damage and destruction of property in the event of a disaster. As 
the old adage goes: an ounce of prevention is worth its weight in gold.
  This is true for the pre-disaster hazard mitigation program. In 2005, 
the Multi Hazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of 
Building Sciences found that for every $1 spent on mitigation, $4 was 
saved in potential disaster costs. Other corollary benefits and 
indirect savings at the local level and within the business sector were 
also identified. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed 
the cost savings of the program. Using a different analysis, the CBO 
found in 2007 that for every $1 spent on mitigation, $3 was saved in 
potential disaster costs.
  But it is not just empirical studies that have confirmed the benefits 
of this program. There are numerous examples of flood control projects, 
voluntary acquisitions of real property located in flood zones, and the 
construction of safe rooms that have saved lives and prevented future 
damage. Areas that have experienced flood damage in the past, and have 
flooded again, experienced reduced or no damage thanks to effective 
mitigation. For instance, in Iowa, pre-disaster mitigation funds were 
used to purchase riverfront homes from homeowners that had suffered 
flood damage and then converted to green space. When the area 
subsequently flooded again, there was no new damage, thanks to the pre-
disaster mitigation efforts.
  With today's ongoing fiscal challenges, increasingly severe storms, 
and escalating effects of climate change, it makes sense for our 
country to prepare for these disasters now in order to prevent or 
reduce damage. Smart planning to mitigate the adverse impact of 
disasters not only saves lives, but saves money--especially over the 
long run.
  In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy when there were initial damage 
estimates in the billions of dollars, many Members from both sides of 
the aisle streamed to the floor to express sympathy to the victims, as 
well as decry the extent of the damage and large costs. This program 
represents an opportunity to curb similar costs in the future while 
also saving lives and protecting property.
  It is time to reauthorize the Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Program 
at a sufficient level to make an impact. I urge my colleagues to 
support this measure.

                          ____________________