[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7589-7590]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        INTRODUCING THE PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION REAUTHORIZATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ANDRE CARSON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 4, 2017

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill 
to amend the 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. The 
Multi Hazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building 
Sciences has found that for every $1 spent on mitigation, $4 were saved 
in potential disaster costs. Other 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

[[Page 7590]]

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.

                          ____________________