69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–725 

PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2008 

JUNE 19, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. OBERSTAR, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 6109] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 6109) to amend the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the 

pre-disaster hazard mitigation program, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 

amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 6109, the ‘‘Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008’’, reauthorizes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (‘‘PDM’’) program for three years, 

at a level of $250 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 

2011. 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 the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(‘‘FEMA’’). 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

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 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation program is the successor to the Project Impact pilot program. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

1Section 102 of P.L. 106–390. 2 42 U.S.C. 5133. 

3Section 203(m) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; 42 

U.S.C. 5133(m). 4Section 203(f) of the Stafford Act; 42 U.S.C. 5133(f). 

5Potential Cost Savings from the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, Congressional Budget Office, September 2007, p. 1. 6 Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from 

Mitigation Activities, Multihazard Mitigation Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, 

2005, p. 5. Congress mandated this report pursuant to the Departments of Veterans Affairs, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000; Senate 

Report 106–161. 7 Id. 

The PDM program was first authorized in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106–390).1 The program is administered by 

FEMA through its Mitigation Division. It is authorized under section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (‘‘Stafford Act’’).2 Pursuant to section 203(m) of the 

Stafford Act, the PDM program terminates on September 30, 2008, 

unless Congress reauthorizes the program.3

The PDM program provides cost-effective 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 and infrastructure, acquiring repetitively flooded homes, installing shutters and shatter resistant windows in hurricane-prone 

areas, and the building of ‘‘safe rooms’’ in houses and other buildings to protect from high winds. For instance, in 2005, FEMA provided PDM program funds to finance roll-down storm shutter systems at five fire stations in Broward County, Florida. Soon after 

completion of the project, Hurricane Wilma struck Florida. The retrofitted fire stations were not damaged and were able to operate 

effectively during and after the storm. 

The PDM program provides grants to States, Territories, Tribal 

governments, and local communities on a competitive basis, with 

each State receiving a statutory minimum of $500,000, or one percent, of the funds appropriated, whichever is less.4 The Federal 

share of the costs of PDM projects is up to 75 percent, or up to 90 

percent for small or impoverished communities. 

In 2007, 47 States, seven Tribal governments, and three Territories submitted applications for 430 communities requesting $292 

million—about three times the available funding of $100 million.5

FEMA’s mitigation programs, including the PDM program and 

the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (‘‘HMGP’’) authorized by section 404 of the Stafford Act, are effective in accomplishing their goals of reducing the risk of future damage, hardship, and loss from all hazards. A number of reports, including two 

mandated by Congress, have cited the cost-effectiveness of these 

programs. 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.’’ 6

The Council found that flood mitigation measures yield even greater savings.7

Pursuant to section 209 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, 

as amended, the Congressional Budget Office (‘‘CBO’’) completed a 

study in September 2007 estimating the reduction in Federal disVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:51 Jun 21, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR725.XXX HR725

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

8Potential Cost Savings from the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, Congressional Budget Office, September 2007, p. 1. 9 Id., p. 2. 

10 Id., p. 1. 

aster assistance that is likely to result from the PDM program.8

CBO estimated that PDM-funded projects from 2004 to June 2007 

had total costs of almost $500 million and that the reduction in future losses associated with those projects is $1.6 billion (present 

value).9 According to CBO, ‘‘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.’’ 10

SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 designates the short title of the Act as the ‘‘Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008’’. 

Section 2. Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation 

Subsection (a) amends Section 203(f) of the Stafford Act. This 

subsection increases the minimum allocation that each State receives from $500,000 under current law to $575,000, but maintains 

that each State shall receive the lesser of this amount or one percent of the total funds appropriated for the fiscal year. The section 

codifies the competitive aspects of the program as currently administered by FEMA, and retains a provision that any State may not 

receive more than 15 percent of the total funds appropriated for the 

fiscal year. 

Subsection (b) authorizes appropriations for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program of $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009, 

2010, and 2011. This subsection also eliminates the provision in 

Section 203(m) of the Stafford Act to sunset the PDM program on 

September 30, 2008. 

Subsection (c) changes references in Section 203 of the Stafford 

Act from ‘‘Predisaster’’ to ‘‘Pre-Disaster,’’ consistent with how 

FEMA refers to the program. 

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

On April 30, 2008, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, 

Public Buildings, and Emergency Management held a hearing on 

FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. At this hearing, there 

was a discussion of the important role of building codes in reducing 

damage to buildings from natural hazards. The Committee reminds 

FEMA that adoption and enforcement of appropriate building codes 

should be considered under section 203(g)(2). 

At the hearing, emergency management representatives also suggested that private non-profits (‘‘PNPs’’) be allowed to be sub-applicants and sub-grantees for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, 

when local governments do not have the resources to perform this 

function on behalf of the PNPs. The Committee is not aware of any 

specific cases of this problem, and believes that if a local government is unable to serve as the sub-applicant and sub-grantee on 

behalf of an PNP, an appropriate State agency may do so on its behalf. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

11 Congressional Research Service, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, Francis X. McCarthy, 

June 2008. 

One of the few criticisms of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program 

has been the time that it takes for FEMA to obligate PDM funds.11

The Committee notes that FEMA is taking steps to streamline 

grant processes and encourages FEMA to use all appropriate flexibility. The Committee reminds the Department of Homeland Security that Congress specifically exempted the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program from grant administration and other requirements 

imposed in P.L. 110–53, the ‘‘Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007’’, to avoid additional administrative requirements that would slow down the disbursement of funds. 

The Committee is aware of the difficulties that several small localities in Minnesota faced when attempting to apply for PDM 

grants, due in part to the limited application timeframes. In addition, the Committee is aware of the challenges that communities in 

Minnesota and other small communities around the country have 

faced in completing well-developed applications due to the timeconsuming requirement of using FEMA’s eGrants application system. The Committee urges FEMA to develop a streamlined application process and continue to seek ways by which small communities can make the most efficient use of their limited resources 

during the application process. 

The Committee recognizes that some communities have less capability than others to develop competitive hazard mitigation applications, and that some States are less able than others to build and 

maintain the capacity to provide needed technical assistance. The 

Committee encourages FEMA to continue to make available technical assistance, and allow States the greatest flexibility permitted 

to provide technical assistance, to communities that require such 

assistance and capacity building to identify and develop applications in accordance with the specifications of the nationally competitive program. 

The Committee notes the clear purpose of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage to property from natural disasters and the program’s broad statutory authority to provide Federal assistance for projects, such as tornado 

warning sirens, which serve this purpose. Given the sudden nature 

and extreme destructive power of tornados, the Committee believes 

warning sirens are a cost-effective measure for mitigating injuries 

and loss of life from tornados. The Committee believes that Section 

203 of the Stafford Act clearly authorizes mitigation assistance for 

tornado warning sirens. Indeed, a number of States have recognized the problem of tornados in their Hazard Mitigation Plans 

submitted to FEMA, pursuant to the Stafford Act. FEMA has provided mitigation grant funding for tornado warning systems in a 

number of states, including Kentucky and Mississippi. In addition, 

FEMA highlights the value of these warning systems in its own 

Mitigation Best Practices database. The Committee believes that 

providing funding for mitigation projects such as warning sirens is 

consistent with the intent of the PDM program to help reduce injuries and loss of life. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

In 2000, Congress enacted the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 

(P.L. 106–390). In 2005, Congress reauthorized the program 

through fiscal year 2008 (P.L. 109–139). Under current law, the 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation program terminates on September 30, 

2008, unless Congress reauthorizes the program. 

On April 30, 2008, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, 

Public Buildings, and Emergency Management held a hearing on 

FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. 

On May 21, 2008, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced H.R. 

6109, the ‘‘Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008’’. On May 22, 2008, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 6109. The Committee ordered the bill reported favorably to the House by voice 

vote with a quorum present. 

RECORD VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report to include the total number of 

votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to report 

and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the 

names of those members voting for and against. There were no recorded votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 6109 reported. 

A motion to order H.R. 6109 reported favorably to the House was 

agreed to by voice vote with a quorum present. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee references the 

report of the Congressional Budget Office included in the report. 

2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objectives of this legislation are to reauthorize the Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation program for three years. 

3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6109 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, June 5, 2008. 

Hon. JAMES L. OBERSTAR, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House 

of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6109, the Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation Act of 2008. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Daniel Hoople and Jeffrey LaFave. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Peter R. Orszag, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6109—Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008 

Summary: H.R. 6109 would authorize appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for grants to states 

and localities for pre-disaster mitigation programs such as constructing levies, relocating homes from flood-prone areas, and retrofitting buildings in areas prone to earthquakes. CBO estimates 

that implementing H.R. 6109 would cost $700 million over the 

2009–2013 period and $50 million after 2013, assuming appropriation of the specified amounts. Enacting H.R. 6109 would not affect 

direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 6109 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 6109 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 450 (community and 

regional development). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ....................................................................... 250 250 250 0 0 50 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 25 100 200 225 150 700 

Basis of estimate: Under current law, FEMA is authorized 

through 2008 to provide grants to states and localities to help prevent damage in areas frequented by disasters. H.R. 6109 would extend this authority through 2011 and authorize the appropriation 

of $250 million per year over the 2009–2011 period, an increase of 

$136 million over the 2008 appropriation level of $114 million (see 

Public Law 110–161). CBO’s estimate of spending is based on historical spending patterns for such grants. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 6109 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Assuming appropriation of authorized amounts, those governments would benefit from $700 million in grants over the 2009–


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
7 

2013 period for mitigation activities. Any costs to those governments, including matching funds, would be incurred voluntlarily. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Daniel Hoople and Jeffrey 

LaFave; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa 

Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI 

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, H.R. 6109 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific 

powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

measure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

finds that Congress has the authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(Public Law 104–4). 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, local, or tribal law. The Committee states 

that H.R. 6109 does not preempt any State, local, or tribal law. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:51 Jun 21, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR725.XXX HR725

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

ted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND 

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—DISASTER PREPAREDNESS 

AND MITIGATION ASSISTANCE 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 203. øPREDISASTER¿ PRE-DISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The President may establish 

a program to provide technical and financial assistance to States 

and local governments to assist in the implementation of 

øpredisaster¿ pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures that are 

cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and 

damage and destruction of property, including damage to critical 

services and facilities under the jurisdiction of the States or local 

governments. 

(c) APPROVAL BY PRESIDENT.—If the President determines that a 

State or local government has identified natural disaster hazards 

in areas under its jurisdiction and has demonstrated the ability to 

form effective public-private natural disaster hazard mitigation 

partnerships, the President, using amounts in the National 

øPredisaster¿ Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund established under subsection (i) (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Fund’’), may provide 

technical and financial assistance to the State or local government 

to be used in accordance with subsection (e). 

* * * * * * * 

(e) USES OF TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Technical and financial assistance provided 

under this section—

(A) shall be used by States and local governments principally to implement øpredisaster¿ pre-disaster hazard 

mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are described in proposals approved by the President under this 

section; and 

* * * * * * * 

ø(f) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—The amount of financial assistance 

made available to a State (including amounts made available to 

local governments of the State) under this section for a fiscal 

year—

ø(1) shall be not less than the lesser of—

ø(A) $500,000; or 

ø(B) the amount that is equal to 1.0 percent of the total 

funds appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal 

year; 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
9 

ø(2) shall not exceed 15 percent of the total funds described 

in paragraph (1)(B); and 

ø(3) shall be subject to the criteria specified in subsection 

(g).¿ 

(f) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.— (1) BASE AMOUNT.—The amount of financial assistance made 

available to a State (including amounts made available to local 

governments of the State) under this section for a fiscal year— (A) shall be not less than the lesser of— (i) $575,000; or 

(ii) the amount that is equal to 1.0 percent of the 

total funds appropriated to carry out this section for 

the fiscal year; and 

(B) shall be subject to the criteria specified in subsection 

(g). 

(2) COMPETITIVE PROGRAM.—Other than the amounts described in paragraph (1), financial assistance made available to 

a State (including amounts made available to local governments of the State) under this section shall be awarded on a 

competitive basis subject to the criteria in subsection (g). 

(3) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The amount of financial assistance 

made available to a State (including amounts made available 

to local governments of the State) for a fiscal year shall not exceed 15 percent of the total amount of funds appropriated to 

carry out this section for the fiscal year. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) NATIONAL øPREDISASTER¿ PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President may establish in the 

Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the ‘‘National øPredisaster¿ Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund’’, to be used 

in carrying out this section. 

(2) TRANSFERS TO FUND.—There shall be deposited in the 

Fund—

(A) * * * 

(B) sums available from gifts, bequests, or donations of 

services or property received by the President for the purpose of øpredisaster¿ pre-disaster hazard mitigation. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(m) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided by 

this section terminates September 30, 2008.¿ 

(m) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS