79–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–83 

PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2009 

APRIL 23, 2009.—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. 1746] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred 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, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 1746, the ‘‘Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009’’, reauthorizes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (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 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 

PDM Mitigation program is the successor to the Project Impact 

pilot program. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

1See Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106–390, § 102, 114 Stat. 1552, 1553 (2000). 2See 42 U.S.C. § 5133 (2008). 3 42 U.S.C. § 5133(m)(2008). 

4 42 U.S.C. § 5133(f)(2008). 

5 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Potential Cost Savings from the Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

Program (2007), at 1 (hereinafter CBO Report). This report was prepared pursuant to § 209 of 

the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as amended. 6Source: FEMA. 

The PDM program was first authorized in section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.1 The program is administered by 

FEMA through its Mitigation Division. It is currently 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, 2009, 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 PDM project costs 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

In 2008, 45 States, five Tribal governments, and one Territory submitted 485 applications requesting $318.6 million—almost three 

times the available funding of $114 million. In 2009, 46 States, six 

Tribal governments, and six Territories submitted 485 applications 

requesting $310.3 million—more than three times the available 

funding of $90 million.6

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 (‘‘Council’’), 

an advisory body of the National Institute of Building Sciences, 

found that ‘‘a dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

7Multihazard Mitigation Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard 

Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities, 5 (2005). Congress mandated this report pursuant to the Departments of Veterans Affairs, 

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

L. No. 106–74 (2000); see also Senate Report 106–161. 8 Id. 9See note 5, supra. 10 Id. at 2. 11 Id. at 1. 

of $4.’’ 7 The Council found that flood mitigation measures yield 

even greater savings.8

In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the reduction 

in Federal disaster assistance that is likely to result from the PDM 

program.9 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).10 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.’’ 11

SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 designates the short title of the Act as the ‘‘Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009’’. 

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 PDM program of 

$250 million for each of fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012. This 

subsection also eliminates the provision in section 203(m) of the 

Stafford Act to sunset the PDM program on September 30, 2009. 

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 PDM 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 PDM program, when local governVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:11 Apr 24, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR083.XXX HR083

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

12Francis X. McCarthy, Congressional Research Service, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program 

(2008). 

ments do not have the resources to perform this function on the 

PNPs behalf. 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 a PNP, an 

appropriate State agency may do so on its behalf. 

One of the few criticisms of the PDM program has been the time 

that it takes for FEMA to obligate PDM funds.12 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 PDM Mitigation Program from grant administration and other requirements imposed in the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 

110–53), 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 continue 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. 

FEMA has begun a multi-year effort to harmonize administrative 

requirements for all of FEMA’s hazard mitigation programs; these 

include the all hazards PDM program and HMGP authorized by 

the Stafford Act, as well as flood mitigation programs (Flood Mitigation Assistance, Repetitive Flood Loss, and Severe Repetitive 

Loss). FEMA’s goal is to unify the administrative requirements of 

hazard mitigation assistance programs by using common systems 

and tools, and by simplifying and streamlining the application and 

eligibility determination process. FEMA expects this will improve 

program implementation, management and close-out. The focus is 

on simplifying the process for both FEMA and the communities 

they serve. The Committee supports these efforts. 

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. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

In 2000, Congress enacted the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 

(Public Law 106–390). In 2005, Congress reauthorized the program 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

through fiscal year 2008 (Public Law 109–139). In 2008, Congress 

extended the program’s authorization for one year (Public Law 

110–329). Under current law, the PDM program terminates on 

September 30, 2009, 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. 

On June 19, 2008, the Committee reported the bill to the House 

(H. Rept. 110–275). On June 23, 2008, the House passed H.R. 6109 

by voice vote with a quorum present. No further action was taken 

on the bill. 

On July 30, 2008, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced H.R. 

6658, the ‘‘Disaster Response, Recovery and Mitigation Enhancement Act of 2008’’, which included reauthorization of the PDM program. On July 31, 2008, the Committee ordered H.R. 6658 reported 

favorably to the House by voice vote with a quorum present. No 

further action was taken on the bill. 

On March 26, 2009, Chairman James L. Oberstar introduced 

H.R. 1746, the ‘‘Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009’’. On April 2, 

2009, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in 

open session to consider H.R. 1746. 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 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 consideration of H.R. 1746 or ordering the bill reported. A motion to order H.R. 1746 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. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

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. 1746 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, April 16, 2009. 

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. 1746, the Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation Act of 2009. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel Hoople. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Douglas W. Elmendorf). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1746—Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009 

Summary: H.R. 1746 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 earthquake zones. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1746 would cost $700 million over the 2010–2014 period and $50 million in later years, assuming appropriation of the 

specified amounts. Enacting H.R. 1746 would not affect direct 

spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1746 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. 1746 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 450 (community and 

regional development). 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
7 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010– 

2014 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level 250 250 250 0 0 750 

Estimated Outlays 25 100 200 225 150 700 

Basis of estimate: Under current law, FEMA is authorized 

through 2009 to provide grants and technical assistance to state 

and localities to implement measures that prevent damage in areas 

frequented by natural disasters. This legislation would extend this 

authority through 2012 and authorize the appropriation of $250 

million in each year over the 2010–2012 period, an increase of $160 

million over the 2009 appropriation level of $90 million (as provided in Public Law 110–329). CBO’s estimate of outlays is based 

on historical spending patterns for such grants. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1746 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, and tribal governments. Assuming appropriation of authorized amounts, those 

governments would benefit from $700 million in grants over the 

2010–2014 period for pre-disaster mitigation activities. Any costs to 

those governments, including matching funds, would be incurred 

voluntarily. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Daniel Hoople; 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. 1746 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). 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

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. 1746 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 omitted 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
9 

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; 

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) 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. 

* * * * * * * 

(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) * * * 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
10 

(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, 2009.¿ 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS