Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, to reinstate FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program, Project Impact. Established in 1997, Project Impact assists communities in identifying risks and vulnerabilities, developing programs to lessen risks, and involving the public and private sectors in the process. With over 250 community Project Impact partners nationwide and more than 2,500 business partners, Project Impact is the only federal program that provides funds for pre-disaster mitigation.

In Hawaii, all four of the state's counties are Project Impact partners. For example, Maui County is using Project Impact to review community mitigation plans in regions that are more isolated than others to reduce disruptions during and after disasters. The County of Kauai is using funds to assist with retrofitting and hardening public structures to protect them from damaging hurricanes, and the state's most populous area, the City and County of Honolulu, is working on an aggressive public education and awareness program, developing a mitigation strategy to include a risk/vulnerability assessment, hardening and retrofitting essential facilities, and flood control measures.

My distinguished colleague from Washington described how Seattle has benefitted from its partnership with Project Impact. I was interested that six months before the city's massive earthquake, Mayor Paul Schell said, "Seattle Project Impact helps us realize we are not powerless against the threat of earthquakes. This public-private partnership is a stellar example of how local communities can work together to become disaster resistant." Ironically, the President's budget, which was released on the same day as the Seattle earthquake, proposed to terminate Project Impact from FEMA's FY02 budget because the program "has not proven effective."

I would like to take a moment to discuss the effectiveness of this program. My first action was to ask OMB Director Mitchell Daniels and FEMA Director Joseph Allbaugh how they reached their decision to eliminate this successful program. During Director Allbaugh's confirmation hearing, he said that, with respect to the importance of disaster mitigation, "taking my lead from Congress' enactment of the 2000 Stafford Act amendments, I plan to focus on implementing pre-disaster mitigation programs that encourage the building of disaster resistant communities. FEMA has made solid progress in this area, but more can be done to limit the human and financial toll of disasters." We must assume that the "solid progress" in pre-disaster mitigation refers to Project Impact since it is the only pre-disaster mitigation program funded by FEMA. Eliminating its funding will not meet the goal of doing more to "focus on implementing pre-disaster mitigation programs" and "limit the human and financial toll of disasters."

Director Daniels recently replied to my earlier letter. He expressed strong support for Project Impact but surprisingly indicated that funding would be eliminated. Instead he suggested that a new National Emergency Reserve fund would be used for disaster mitigation although the President's proposed budget blueprint makes clear that the reserve's funds are "limited to expenditures that are sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not permanent." His letter, which I ask unanimous consent be entered into the Record along with the description of the President's National Emergency Reserve fund, deepens my concern that this program's functions will not be funded . Consequently, there will be no funding for disaster mitigation programs in the President's budget.

I also was interested to learn that there has been no formal review by the General Accounting Office of the effectiveness of this program, either by itself or with respect to the other mitigation programs in FEMA. A March 2000 FEMA Inspector General report outlined some of the management difficulties Project Impact faced as a new and rapidly expanding program. The IG found several areas lacking or in need of reform, and the agency addressed each issue. Moreover, the report stated that many of the benefits derived from Project Impact could not be quantified, which is a never-ending burden of mitigation and prevention programs: a positive outcome results in a smaller effect, or none at all.

Supporters of the President's proposed budget cut may say that all we have heard is anecdotal evidence in support of Project Impact. However, I say that we have not heard any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, against the program. We must consider qualitative results and benefits, such as public awareness, education and greater community-industry cooperation, when determining its effectiveness. These are very important to a community that hopes to sustain disaster preparedness measures long after the initial seed money is spent.

I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to reinstate the $25 million for Project Impact. With so many of our communities, especially smaller cities and towns, participating in this important program, I believe we must first determine its effectiveness before voting for its elimination. I am asking GAO to provide Congress with a detailed assessment of the program so that we may determine its effectiveness.