Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Act of 2010

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 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''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1746, the ``Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Act of 2010''. H.R. 1746, as amended, reauthorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program and helps communities across the Nation protect against natural disasters and other hazards. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), Ranking Member of the Committee, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart), the Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, respectively, for their bipartisan efforts on this bill.

The PDM program provides technical and financial assistance to State and local governments to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage to property caused by natural disasters. Examples of mitigation activities include: seismic retrofitting of buildings to strengthen the buildings in case of an earthquake; acquiring repetitively flooded homes; installing shutters and shatter-resistant windows in hurricane-prone areas; and building ``safe rooms'' in houses and buildings to protect people from high winds.

Consideration of this bill today is crucial, as the PDM program is set to sunset with the expiration of the current continuing resolution. Therefore, Congress must take quick action to continue this vital program.

H.R. 1746, as amended, reauthorizes the PDM program for three years, at a level of $180 million for fiscal year 2011, and $200 million for each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The bill increases the minimum amount that each state receives under the program from $500,000 to $575,000, and codifies the competitive selection process of the program, as currently administered by FEMA.

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 PDM pilot program known as ``Project Impact'', which was a predecessor program to the current PDM program. Congress appropriated funds for Project Impact in each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001.

The PDM program reduces the risk of natural hazards, which is where the preponderance of risk is in our country. While it is prudent to prepare for the possibility of terrorist attacks, the occurrence of natural disasters of all types and sizes is a known certainty. The flooding that is currently occurring in California, and the tornadoes that struck in my home state of Minnesota this summer, particularly in Wadena in my district, are examples of the tragic, real impact of natural disasters that occur in our nation every year.

Mitigation saves money. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and National Institute of Building Sciences show that for every dollar invested in PDM projects, future losses are reduced by three to four dollars. In 2005, the Multihazard 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.'' Further, the Multihazard Mitigation 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''. For instance, Seattle, Washington used Project Impact PDM grants to fortify buildings. Immediately after the Nisqually Earthquake struck Seattle on February 28, 2001, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell and other public officials cited those PDM grants as one of the primary reasons that lives and property were saved during the earthquake. Ironically, the Mayor's statements came on the same day that the President George W. Bush Administration claimed that the Project Impact PDM pilot program should be defunded because it was not effective.

Another example of the effectiveness of mitigation comes from my district. On July 4, 1999, a derecho, also known as a blow down, struck the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and downed millions of trees. This created a huge fire hazard. As a result, FEMA mitigation funds were given to residents to install outdoor sprinkler systems to protect against wild fire. Unfortunately, in 2007, the Ham Lake Fire struck the area. Those structures that had sprinkler systems were protected from the fire. Since that time, communities in that area have sought and have been awarded more than $3 million of PDM funds to help protect other structures from this continuing risk of fire.

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 for 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.

The PDM program 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, as amended, 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 certainty of knowing this program will be available in the future to enable them to focus their efforts on critical, long-term mitigation planning.

The Obama administration has specifically requested that Congress reauthorize the PDM program and this legislation has been endorsed by the National Association of Counties, International Association of Emergency Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, and the American Public Works Association.

This bill passed the House more than a year and a half ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. The legislation passed the other body last night by unanimous consent. I would like to thank Senator Joseph Lieberman and Senator Susan M. Collins for their persistent efforts to clear this legislation through the other body.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1746, as amended, the ``Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Act of 2010''.

Madam Speaker, I missed the following votes from Friday, December 17 through Wednesday, December 22, 2010. I would have voted ``yes'' on the following votes:

Friday:

H.J. Res. 105--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey--Appropriations) (Voice vote)

1. H. Res. 1377--Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshio Mineta (Representative Honda--House Administration)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1107--To enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts'' (Representative Conyers--Judiciary)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 628--To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges (Representative Issa-- Judiciary)

4. H. Res. 1733--Recognizing Mark Twain as one of America's most famous literary icons on the 175th anniversary of his birth and the 100th anniversary of his death (Representative Snyder--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. H. Res. 1621--Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the historic founding of Catholic Charities USA (Representative Holt--Oversight and Government Reform)

6. H. Res. 1767--Commending the Wisconsin Badger football team for an outstanding season and 2011 Rose Bowl bid (Representative Baldwin-- Education and Labor)

7. H. Con. Res. 335--Honoring the exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and recognizing the monumental contributions he has made to United States national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolutions of international conflict (Representative Lowey--Foreign Affairs)

8. S. 3874--Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (Senator Boxer-- Energy and Commerce)

9. H.R. 6533--To implement the recommendations of the Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress regarding low-power FM service (Representative Doyle--Energy and Commerce)

10. H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

11. H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act of 2009 (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform)

12. H.R. 5510--Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010 (Representative Kaptur--Financial Services)

Tuesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5116--America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Representative Gordon--Science and Technology)(228-130)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform) (216-139)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2751--FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Representatives Waxman/Dingell--Energy and Commerce) (215-144)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3082--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey-- Appropriations) (193-165)

1. S. 3592--A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the ``First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building'' (Senator Chambliss--Oversight and Government Reform)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 81--Shark Conservation Act (Representative Bordallo--Natural Resources)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5809--Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Representative Inslee--Energy and Commerce)

4. H.R. 6540--To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess (Representative Inslee--Armed Services)

5. H.R. 6547--To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require criminal background checks for school employees (Representative George Miller--Education and Labor)

6. S. 118--Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act (Senator Kohl--Financial Services)

7. S. 1481--Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act (Senator Menendez--Financial Services)

8. S. 3243--Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 (Senator Pryor/ Representative Shuler--Homeland Security)

9. S. 2925--Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2010 (Senator Wyden--Judiciary)

10. Senate Amendment to H.R. 4748--Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010 (Representative Owens--Judiciary)

11. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1746--Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009 (Representative Oberstar--Transportation and Infrastructure)

Wednesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 847--James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (Representative Maloney--Energy and Commerce)(206-60)

Bills Adopted By Unanimous Consent (13):

1. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

2. S. 3481--Amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution (Senator Cardin--Transportation and Infrastructure)

3. House Amendment to S. 372--Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (Senator Akaka--Oversight and Government Reform)

4. H. Res. 1461--Supporting Olympic Day on June 23, 2010, and congratulating Team USA and World Fit participants (Representative Langevin--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. S. 4036--A bill to clarify the National Credit Union Administration authority to make stabilization fund expenditures without borrowing from the Treasury (Senator Dodd--Financial Services)

6. S. Con. Res. 67--A concurrent resolution celebrating 130 years of United States-Romanian diplomatic relations, congratulating the Romanian people on their achievements as a great nation, and reaffirming the deep bonds of trust and values between the United States and Romania, a trusted and most valued ally (Senator Voinovich-- Foreign Affairs)

7. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6560--Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (Representative Hank Johnson--Judiciary)

8. H. Res. 1779--Honoring the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Riders (Representative John Lewis (GA)--Judiciary)

9. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5901--Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act of 2010 (Representative Joe Crowley--Ways & Means)

10. H. Res. 1783--Technical Correction to H. Res. 1757 (Representative Brady (PA)--House Administration)

11. S. 4058--Helping Heroes Keep Their Homes Act of 2010 (Senator Kerry--Veterans' Affairs)

12. S. 3903--To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo (Senator Udall--Natural Resources)

13. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6517--To extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, and for other purposes (Representative Levin-- Ways and Means)

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, 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.