[Pages H9045-H9049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2003

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 2608) to reauthorize the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2608

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

Section 4 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977
(42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraphs:
``(8) The term `Interagency Coordinating Committee' means
the Interagency Coordinating

[[Page H9046]]

Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction established under
section 5(a).
``(9) The term `Advisory Committee' means the Advisory
Committee established under section 5(a)(5).''.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.

Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977
(42 U.S.C. 7704(b)) is amended--
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--There is established the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
``(2) Program activities.--The activities of the Program
shall be designed to--
``(A) develop effective measures for earthquake hazards
reduction;
``(B) promote the adoption of earthquake hazards reduction
measures by Federal, State, and local governments, national
standards and model code organizations, architects and
engineers, building owners, and others with a role in
planning and constructing buildings, structures, and
lifelines through--
``(i) grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and
technical assistance;
``(ii) development of standards, guidelines, and voluntary
consensus codes for earthquake hazards reduction for
buildings, structures, and lifelines; and
``(iii) development and maintenance of a repository of
information, including technical data, on seismic risk and
hazards reduction; and
``(C) improve the understanding of earthquakes and their
effects on communities, buildings, structures, and lifelines,
through interdisciplinary research that involves engineering,
natural sciences, and social, economic, and decisions
sciences.
``(3) Interagency coordinating committee on earthquake
hazards reduction.--
``(A) In general.--There is established an Interagency
Coordinating Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction
chaired by the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (referred to in this subsection as
the `Director').
``(B) Membership.--The committee shall be composed of the
directors of--
``(i) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
``(ii) the United States Geological Survey;
``(iii) the National Science Foundation;
``(iv) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and
``(v) the Office of Management and Budget.
``(C) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet not less than 3
times a year at the call of the Director.
``(D) Purpose and duties.--The Interagency Coordinating
Committee shall oversee the planning, management, and
coordination of the Program. The Interagency Coordinating
Committee shall--
``(i) develop, not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and update periodically--

``(I) a strategic plan that establishes goals and
priorities for the Program activities described under
subsection (a)(2); and
``(II) a detailed management plan to implement such
strategic plan; and

``(ii) develop a coordinated interagency budget for the
Program that will ensure appropriate balance among the
Program activities described under subsection (a)(2), and
submit such budget to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget at the time designated by that office
for agencies to submit annual budgets.
``(4) Annual report.--The Interagency Coordinating
Committee shall transmit, at the time of the President's
budget request to Congress, an annual report to the Committee
on Science and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate. Such report shall include--
``(A) the Program budget for the current fiscal year for
each agency that participates in the Program, and for each
major goal established for the Program activities under
subparagraph (3)(A);
``(B) the proposed Program budget for the next fiscal year
for each agency that participates in the Program, and for
each major goal established for the Program activities under
subparagraph (3)(A);
``(C) a description of the activities and results of the
Program during the previous year, including an assessment of
the effectiveness of the Program in furthering the goals
established in the strategic plan under (3)(A);
``(D) a description of the extent to which the Program has
incorporated the recommendations of the Advisory Committee;
``(E) a description of activities, including budgets for
the current fiscal year and proposed budgets for the next
fiscal year, that are carried out by Program agencies and
contribute to the Program, but are not included in the
Program; and
``(F) a description of the activities, including budgets
for the current fiscal year and proposed budgets for the
following fiscal year, related to the grant program carried
out under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i).
``(5) Advisory committee.--
``(A) In general.--The Director shall establish an Advisory
Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction consisting of non-
Federal members, including representatives of research and
academic institutions, industry standards development
organizations, State and local government, and financial
communities who are qualified to provide advice on earthquake
hazards reduction. The recommendations of the Advisory
Committee shall be considered by Federal agencies in
implementing the Program.
``(B) Assessment.--The Advisory Committee shall assess--
``(i) trends and developments in the science and
engineering of earthquake hazards reduction;
``(ii) effectiveness of the Program in carrying out the
activities under (a)(2);
``(iii) the need to revise the Program; and
``(iv) the management, coordination, implementation, and
activities of the Program.
``(C) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act and at least once every 2 years
thereafter, the Advisory Committee shall report to the
Director on its findings of the assessment carried out under
subparagraph (B) and its recommendations for ways to improve
the Program. In developing recommendations, the Committee
shall consider the recommendations of the United States
Geological Survey Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee.
``(D) Federal advisory committee act application.--Section
14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C. 14)
shall not apply to the Advisory Committee.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and
all that follows through ``of the Agency'' and inserting
``National Institute of Standards and Technology shall have
the primary responsibility for planning and coordinating the
Program. In carrying out this paragraph, the Director of the
Institute'';
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and
redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (C)
and (D), respectively;
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) support the development of performance-based seismic
engineering tools, and work with appropriate groups to
promote the commercial application of such tools, through
earthquake-related building codes, standards, and
construction practices;'';
(iv) by striking ``The principal official carrying out the
responsibilities described in this paragraph shall be at a
level no lower than that of Associate Director.''; and
(v) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by clause (ii), by
striking ``National Science Foundation, the National
Institutes of Standards and Technology'' and inserting
``Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science
Foundation'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(i) by striking ``In addition to the lead'' and all that
follows through ``Agency'' and inserting ``The Director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in this Act referred
to as the `Agency')''; and
(ii) by amending clause (iii) to read as follows:
``(iii) assist the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, other Federal agencies, and private sector groups
in the preparation and wide dissemination of building codes
and practices for structures and lifelines, and aid in the
development of performance based codes for buildings,
structures, and lifelines that are cost effective and
affordable;'';
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ``and other activities'' after ``shall
conduct research'';
(ii) in subparagraphs (C) and (D), by striking ``the
Agency'' both places it appears and inserting ``the Director
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Director
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology'';
(iii) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``establish, using
existing facilities, a Center for the International Exchange
of Earthquake Information'' and inserting ``operate, using
the National Earthquake Information Center, a forum for the
international exchange of earthquake information'';
(iv) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``Network'' and
inserting ``System''; and
(v) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(I) work with other Program agencies to coordinate
Program activities with similar eathquake hazards reduction
efforts in other countries, to ensure that the Program
benefits from relevant information and advances in those
countries; and
``(J) maintain suitable seismic hazard maps in support of
building codes for structures and lifelines, including
additional maps needed for performance based design
approaches.'';
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) as
subparagraphs (E), (F), and (H), respectively;
(ii) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) support research that improves the safety and
performance of buildings, structures, and lifeline systems
using large-scale experimental and computational
facilities;'';
(iii) in subparagraph (F) (as so redesignated), by striking
``; and'' and inserting a semicolon; and
(iv) by inserting after subparagraph (F) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(G) include to the maximum extent practicable diverse
institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and those serving large proportions of
Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, and
other underrepresented populations; and''; and
(E) in paragraph (5), by striking ``The National'' and
inserting ``In addition to the lead agency responsibilities
described under paragraph (1), the National''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``Agency'' and
inserting ``Interagency Coordinating Committee''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Section 12 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding after paragraph (7) the
following new paragraph:
``(8) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency

[[Page H9047]]

for carrying out this Act $19,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
$21,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and $23,000,000 for fiscal
year 2006. Of such amounts appropriated, not less than
$3,000,000 shall be made available each such fiscal year for
supporting the development of performance-based, cost-
effective, and affordable codes for buildings, structures,
and lifelines.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the United
States Geological Survey for carrying out this Act
$80,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, of which not less than
$30,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the
Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System
established under section 13; $83,500,000 for fiscal year
2005, of which not less than $30,000,000 shall be made
available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic
Research and Monitoring System established under section 13;
$93,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not less than
$36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the
Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System
established under section 13; such sums as may be necessary
for fiscal year 2007, of which not less than $36,000,000
shall be made available for completion of the Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System established
under section 13; and such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal year 2008, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be
made available for completion of the Advanced National
Seismic Research and Monitoring System established under
section 13.'';
(3) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Science Foundation for carrying out this Act $39,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004; $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
$47,500,000 for fiscal year 2006.''; and
(4) in subsection (d) by adding at the end the following:
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology for carrying out this
Act $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; $9,600,000 for fiscal
year 2005; and $12,500,000 for fiscal year 2006. Of such
amounts appropriated, not less than $2,000,000 shall be made
available each such fiscal year for supporting the
development of performance-based, cost-effective, and
affordable codes for buildings, structures, and lifelines.''.
(b) Section 13 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977 (42 U.S.C. 7707) is amended by striking subsection (c).
(c) Section 14(b) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7708(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, all of which shall
be available for operations and maintenance; and
``(6) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, all of which shall
be available for operations and maintenance.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

General Leave

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks, and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2608, the
bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know that I am a fiscal conservative; so
in evaluating this bill, we looked at the justification for an
authorized spending that is going to move us closer to being able to
deal with earthquakes, to mitigate their damage.
There is no question that damaging earthquakes are inevitable however
infrequent they may be. Some of our evaluation reported that annual
damages from earthquakes in the United States are about $4.4 billion.
This is annual. What we did in this bill is a slight reduction in the
authorization; from the prior years. In California, the 1994 Northridge
earthquake, the magnitude was 6.7; and it was the most costly
earthquake in history, amounting to over $40 billion.
Of course, even though the State of California is very aggressive in
trying to work with earthquakes and paying for some of the damages and
working in their research to mitigate those damages; through FEMA, our
Federal Emergency Management Agency, all of the taxpayers in the United
States contribute to paying for some of the damage by earthquakes. So
if we can mitigate that damage through research, which helps us
engineer buildings and bridges and roadways that are less vulnerable to
earthquakes, we are going to, by far, save more money than we are
spending on this authorization bill.
The west coast, California, and certainly that area of the country,
is assumed to be the location of earthquakes. But that is not the only
part of the country that is very vulnerable. In fact, Alaska is more
vulnerable than California in terms of the risk from earthquakes. The
recent massive earthquake of 7.9 magnitude in Alaska was right where
the Alaskan oil transline went through.
We heard testimony before our Committee on Science earlier this year
that that quake went relatively unnoticed simply because of the extra
precautions and wisdom of people like Lloyd Cluff, who recognized that
this pipeline was being built over a vulnerable earthquake area and so
he, in effect, built a flexable cradle for that pipeline. So when the
earthquake happened, the pipeline was not so rigid and it withstood
that huge quake. Without current technology and foresight damage to
that pipeline could have cost billions.
There are 39 States that are within zones where the probability of an
earthquake occurring is great, and recent research indicates that areas
in the eastern and central United States are at greater risk than we
ever thought. A 19th century quake in Missouri actually rang church
bells in Boston. So the threat is there and the justification to be
better prepared, to even possibly with new seismic technology increase
the alert time by maybe 8 or 9 or 10 seconds can help us to be better
prepared such as immediately shutting off gas lines, et cetera.
We are moving ahead in NEHRP, and so I commend the Democrats and
Republicans for working with all of the agencies and organizations
involved to develop this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 2608. H.R. 2608 is
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act
of 2003.
This legislation will strengthen a valuable Federal program which has
the important goal of improving public safety. I want to acknowledge
the leadership of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and my colleague, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Baird), in introducing H.R. 2608. I also want to
thank the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert), for working in a bipartisan manner with this side
of the aisle to further develop the bill and to move it expeditiously
through the committee and to the floor.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, often called
NEHRP, was established 25 years ago to address a serious seismic hazard
in the United States. The program has the major goal of determining how
to lower the risk to people and to the built environment.
Today, 75 million Americans in 39 States are directly vulnerable to a
serious earthquake. The potential economic losses in a large
metropolitan area due to a major earthquake could be over $100 billion.
These facts alone make the justification for NEHRP self-evident, and
even after 25 years the relevance of the program continues.
Most observers of NEHRP believe it has made many valuable
contributions. In particular, it has increased our understanding of
earthquake processes and has provided detailed information about the
geographic distribution of earthquake risk. Equally important, the
program has helped to improve engineering design and practice for
structures and lifelines suitable for earthquake-prone regions.
Nevertheless, much work remains to be done. The NEHRP can be improved
and made more effective, which became evident from the hearings before
the Committee on Science. More can be done on technology transfer that
will bring into practice what has been learned from the research
activities about the most effective and economical ways for enhancing
seismic safety of the built environment.
Also, some deficiencies needed to be addressed regarding the planning
and

[[Page H9048]]

administration of the program. In 1993, the former chairman of the
Committee on Science, Mr. George Brown, wrote the President to express
concerns about NEHRP. He cited the lack of strategic planning,
insufficient coordination and implementation of research results and a
lack of emphasis on mitigation. Unfortunately, most of these concerns
are still valid.
H.R. 2608 focuses on two aspects of the program most in need of
improvement: program leadership and increased emphasis on transitioning
the results of research into practice.
Leadership is addressed by designating the National Institutes of
Standard and Technology, the lead agency for planning and coordinating
the implementation of the interagency program. NIST is charged to
convene a process to develop a strategic plan and work jointly with the
other NEHRP agencies to prepare a detailed implementation plan and
budget for the program for submittal to OMB during the budget
formulation process.
The bill also creates an advisory committee of nongovernment experts
to help guide implementation of the program and to assist the agencies
in defining program priorities. Thus, H.R. 2608 puts in place
mechanisms that will provide the leadership needed to ensure a well-
coordinated, carefully planned, and effectively executed National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
In addition, the legislation authorizes the resources needed to
enable NEHRP to achieve its goals. It authorizes full funding for the
Advanced National Seismic System. This distributed national facility,
which has been the highest priority of the earthquake hazards reduction
community, was first authorized in the year 2000, but has been funded
at only 10 percent of the level required. I hope that with this
authorization adequate appropriations will follow so that the Advanced
National Seismic System may be completed without further delay.
The bill also specifies funding needed to complete the George E.
Brown Network for Engineering Simulation and to support its operation.
Moreover, the funding increases authorized will enable NEHRP agencies
to expand their research activities so that this powerful new research
tool can be fully employed.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2608 is a bill of national importance and will help
improve public safety and mitigate earthquake hazards. I commend the
bill to my colleagues and ask for passage by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to just urge that our appropriators and the Senate look
carefully and hopefully will quickly adequately fund the efforts that
we have put forth in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Today I rise in support of H.R. 2608, the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2003.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards of the Committee on Science, with jurisdiction over the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, more familiarly known
as NIST, I want to comment on the interagency coordinating committee in
section 3 of H.R. 2608.
This section designates NIST as the Chair of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program Coordinating Committee. While I believe that
NIST is more than capable of carrying out these responsibilities, and
should have this position, I am concerned that the institute will not
receive adequate funding to perform these duties. In the past, NIST's
earthquake research activities have not received the full funding
authorized for them, and this section designates additional
responsibilities for NIST.
Adequate funding for NIST labs continues to be a concern. The funding
levels for NIST labs in the fiscal year 2004 House Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill are $30
million below the administration's request and flat compared to the
fiscal year 2003 appropriations.
For the building and fire research lab, where NIST's NEHRP activities
are based, the funding level in the fiscal year 2004 House bill is $3
million less than fiscal year 2003 levels.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations' representations for these
labs are at the administration's request level. Given that the final
number will likely be somewhere between these two, this budget
situation could leave many of NIST's vital initiatives underfunded. Any
funding level less than the President's request would result in a
reduction in force of up to 50 scientists and staff from NIST labs.

{time} 1130

NIST is a world-class science institution, home to two Nobel
Laureates and scores of other experts who diligently provide the
scientific expertise and measurements and standards that is the basis
of technologies we use every day. This Chamber has passed laws giving
NIST new responsibilities for programs including voting standards,
building safety, and nanotechnology. Yet, given the difficult budget
climate, it has been a challenge to ensure NIST receives adequate
funding to carry out these important duties. You simply cannot keep
piling on additional duties without providing funding for them. I am
very concerned about that trend.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that I do support this
legislation with NIST taking the lead on earthquake leadership
activities. However, I intend to work with the other members of the
NEHRP Interagency Coordinating Committee, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the
chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Appropriations Commerce,
Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies to ensure that NIST
receives adequate funding and support for these additional
responsibilities. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and in
supporting H.R. 2608.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the committee totally agrees with the concerns of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). What we did in this bill is we
increased the authorization of NIST from $2.5 million up to $8 million;
but we will work with NIST, we will work with the appropriators because
adequate funding is necessary.
The management, moving the management from FEMA, the lead agency
management from FEMA to NIST, was a difficult decision in our
committee; but we ended up with unanimous agreement because of the new
obligations that have been put on FEMA as they go into Homeland
Security. We felt that as the lead agency NIST could dedicate the kind
of time and organization needed. So there is somewhat of an increased
responsibility.
In conclusion, we will work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers) to try to make sure that adequate funding is available.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson)
for all of their hard work to bring this bill to the floor today.
I represent an area in California that has been affected in the past
by earthquakes. In fact, I remember very well the 6.9 Loma Prieta
earthquake that shook the Bay Area in 1989. It was really an awesome
experience, and I think anyone who has been through an earthquake like
that can remember exactly what they were doing and how it felt. And to
know that that level of earthquake is not the big one really does
emphasize the need to take this whole area very seriously. That is what
this bill does.
The bill is to make sure that the Federal Government provides the
necessary resources and support needed by those in the earthquake
research community who have dedicated much of their life's work trying
to understand the causes of earthquakes, to anticipate when and where
an earthquake may happen, and, most importantly,

[[Page H9049]]

how we can best prepare ourselves to survive the potentially
devastating results of earthquakes.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was first created
in 1977 in response to growing concerns about the threat of damaging
earthquakes. Initially, the program focused on research in the areas of
geotechnical and structural engineering and earthquake prediction. Over
time, researchers acknowledging that earthquake prediction was a huge
challenge and began to emphasize activities like seismic retrofitting
and rehabilitation, risk assessment, public education, and outreach and
code development. And the fact that San Jose, California, did not fall
down in the Loma Prieta earthquake is testimony that good code
enforcement and structural engineering does work and does save lives.
The program has achieved great progress since its inception and is
considered by most to be a very successful undertaking. Through the
efforts of those involved, we have seen a substantial decrease in the
loss of life and injury. The capabilities of seismic risk assessment
have improved greatly. We have learned important lessons in mitigating
earthquake hazards as a result of technological advances in areas like
performance-based engineering, information technology, sensing and
imaging.
In the Committee on Science we were faced with many challenges in
order to make this program even more helpful in our understanding of
and our ability to mitigate the effects of earthquakes. Some have
argued that the new knowledge and tools have not translated into a
decreased overall vulnerability. The adoption by end-users of NEHRP
innovations has been incremental and slower than expected. The cost of
rehabilitating existing structures to be more earthquake resistant has
often proved to be too high as is the cost of building new facilities
to minimize risk.
We know that the private sector has not had adequate incentives and
that most State and local governments lack adequate budgets to address
these challenges.
I will be following these issues with great interest particularly
when it comes to ensuring that the Federal Government provides
sufficient funding and leadership to meet the research needs of this
program. That a future large earthquake in a major U.S. urban area
could result in damages of $200 billion should provide us here in the
Congress with sufficient incentive to encourage our research in this
vital area. This is a historic case where we know that we must not be
``penny wise and pound foolish.''
I remain concerned as to whether or not NEHRP can be reasonably
expected to meet its goals at the level of funding it currently
receives. And I look forward to working to increase the level of
funding.
I was happy to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) as
well as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) in a
bipartisan manner to make sure that the funding in the fiscal year 2004
was increased for the Advanced National Seismic System. I think they
did a great job. And, actually, I think our committee worked well
together to improve this bill. I look forward to continuing to work
with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the rest of the committee to try
to make certain that those who are doing research in the sciences have
the funds and support they need from our Federal Government.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) for bringing us the kind of information and dedication that
she has to try to make this a better bill and to try to have government
do a better job in terms of mitigating the consequences of earthquakes.
And I would mention that it is not just this country that NEHRP
helps. We work worldwide in trying to share the research that we have
done to help reduce the consequences of earthquakes all over the world.
I think it is appropriate in terms of understanding that I just give a
brief background on some of the agencies that are involved.
NEHRP is a long-term comprehensive interagency earthquake hazard
reduction mitigation program. It was established in Congress in 1977,
and four agencies participate in this effort. We have FEMA, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS which has
done a fantastic job in this area; the National Science Foundation,
which is under the purview of our Subcommittee on Research because of
the tremendous research efforts that we are making in this arena; and
of course, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Each agency has distinct responsibilities to undertake in support of
the overall program goals. NSF, with the geoscience, the engineering,
the economic and social aspects of earthquakes; USGS carries out both
the basic and applied Earth science and seismic research and
monitoring; and FEMA has been responsible for overall coordination of
the program, education outreach and implementation of research results,
and now we are asking NIST as the lead agency to take a little larger
role to conduct the research and development in earthquake engineering
aimed at improving building design codes and construction standards.
Also, there needs to be additional support to reducing the damages
from earthquakes. In addition to our efforts in government, I would
call on the insurance industry to consider lowering its insurance rates
for those municipalities and for those individuals who comply and build
their structures to be more resistant to earthquake damage. It seems
logical that if there is extra spending of money to protect against
earthquakes in the building structures, whether they are municipal
bridges, highways, buildings, or residential structures, that the
insurance industry should consider encouraging the effort with lower
premiums.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further
requests for time. I urge this bill be passed, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that we should appreciate the
bipartisan support and the support of the government agencies that are
involved in this program. Certainly we know that earthquakes cannot be
prevented, but we can mitigate their impact; and that is what this bill
does. I ask for all Members to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2608, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________