good morning the committee will come to order pursuant to notice the committee on science technology needs to consider the following measures h r thirty seven ninety one the fire grants reauthorization act of two thousand and nine and h r thirty eight twenty the natural hazards  risk reduction act of two thousand that as i just noted today the committee will consider two important bills both of these bills address pressing national needs and both are the product of bipartisan cooperation and stakeholder input the first bill the committee will consider today is h r thirty seven ninety one this bill reauthorizes the assistance to firefighters grants program and the staffing for the adequate fire and emergency response program over the past nine years th programs have provided over five billion dollars to purchase firefighting equipment and training for communities to hire additional firefighters the federal support is even more important in this tough economic club conny as local officials struggle to provide services in the face of decreasing budgets thirty seven ninety one is a product of much hard work by the international so she cheats the international social firefighters the national volunteers our council and the national fire protection association as well as the congressional fire service institute and it represents a consensus of these organizations on how these programs should be improved i'm pleased at the bill has been dorst by so many of these groups and look forward to working with them as we move to get this bill and the second bill that the committee will consider today h r thirty eight twenty three authorizes two important programs that support research development and technology transfer activities to mitigate against the potential damage caused by earthquakes and severe wind storms the impact of natural hazards on communities can be devastating in the past two years in my district in middle tennessee tornadoes have killed twenty four people and injured one hundred making house so businesses and communities resistance to these forces of nature can save lives and billions of dollars h r thirty eight twenty reauthorizes the national earthquake hazard reduction program and the developed codes and standards to enable buildings and other infrastructures to withstand her earthquakes this reauthorization addresses some of the biggest challenges in earthquake mitigation developing methods to retrofit existing structures s infrastructure and most importantly convincing people in earthquake prone areas to invest in preparedness in mitigation measures h r thirty eight twenty also reauthorizes the national wind storm impact reduction program the goal of reauthorization is to enable this program created in two thousand and four to achieve the same success support for r and d for when hazard mitigation has lagged behind that for other hazards the activities authorized in the in this bill can lead to improved building practices that will protect life contain the ever increasing cost of hurricanes tornadoes and other severe winter storms as technology and innovation subcommittee hearing this june witnesses testified that much of the challenge of natural disaster mitigation was not in more research but in implementing the knowledge that already exists this building close a strong focus on the lessons learned from the different natural hazards and encourages eight twenty makes very modest changes to improve coordination among federal agencies responsible for earthquake and winced arm research and hazard mitigation second thirty seven ninety one re play statement on the record at this point and we will first consider h r thirty seven ninety one the fire grants reauthorization act of two thousand and nine and i recognize the gentleman from arizona mr mitchell described a bill subcommittees last week this amendment adds to the fire safety research provisions or mitchell i think you have a very good amendment there but we're going to start with the bill ok so if you'd like to make some comments concerning the bill that's where we'll get started thank you you know firefighters are often the first and the last to leave an emergency scene rather putting out a house fire or a wildfire or responding to a terrorist attack or a car accident we depend on firefighters every day but firefighters also dependent on us they depend on the public and their elected officials to make sure that they have the resources the equipment and the training they need to do their job without those tools we put them and all of us necessary risk the provisions in this bill reflect the needs of the frontline coders who protect us and our constituents from fires through testimony from fire service representatives this july the technology and innovation subcommittee learned that changes to matching requirements would enable fire departments with the greatest need to take advantage of the programs therefore the bill sets the matching requirements for the assistance to fire photographs program from twenty percent to ten percent with fire departments or in populations under twenty thousand paying a five percent match this greatly benefits rural and less urban areas h r s thirty seven ninety one also modifies the matching requirements for the safer program for recommendations of the fire service organizations reflecting the hardships faced by our state and local governments say for will require instead a twenty percent match for each year for three years again on the recommendation of the fire service organizations the bill also gives administrator the authority to waive the matching requirements for both programs in cases of exceptional economic hardship such waivers may also be given for the programs budget maintenance requirements and safer provisions that restrict the funding to hiring only additional firefighters rather than retaining current firefighters this is a necessary step at a time when fire departments in many areas of the country are confronted with the prospect of layoff firefighters this build is the result of a consensus among the fire service organizations including the international socialist a fire chiefs are now so she's the firefighters the national fire protection association and the congressional fire services institute thank you of the systems to five grant program and the staffing for adequate fire and emergency response both of these mails provide much needed assistance to fire departments across the nation and i will thank you mr chairman for working closely mr mitchell of arizona ice unanimous consent to dispense with the reading without objection so ordered that recognize gentlemen for five minutes to explain the amendment thank you mr chairman this amendment and the nature of the substitute make some minor and technical changes to the version of h r thirty seven ninety one that was reported out of subcommittee last week this amendment adds to the fire safety research center's provision in subsection c of section thirty three language to include national fire service and fire safety organizations as eligible applicants for center funding and also as a provision giving special consideration for this funding to partnerships between universities and national fire service or fire safety organizations including fire safety and fire service organizations brings to this center the expertise of organizations that are closest to the needs of firefighters in addition this m m a clarifies that only one fire training academy per state should be eligible to receive funding under the assistance to firefighter grant funds set aside for fire service in academies each fiscal year and finally the memmott gives the director the authority to waive the requirement that any training purchased with fire grant fundings meet or surpass national voluntary consensus standards for such training the director already has this is already in evaluating applications to purchase equipment this language affords a program displaying same flexibility for training grants and i yield back the balance of my time is a further discussion on the me chairman i hear you but i don't see you oh mr bilbray is recognized thank you mr chairman mr and i don't oppose one oppose the amendment i just want to point out though that there is a concern in my constituency in two factors first of all when you talk about state by state it may seem very simple but when you talk about the fact that the five hundred thousand people in wyoming well how the ability to have one training facility within that state but the thirty two million people in california may have where those firefighters in san diego have to travel most of thousand miles up the shaft to address those things and i just want to sensitize that there is a whole difference here and that what may seem simple on the face is much more tactical the other issue san diego county is right when we talk about rural or urban is ranked as urban county because there's three million people in that and in that county larger than twenty states of the union but eighty percent of the land mass is rural area but it's counted as urban because of its large population i just want to say that as we draw all these arbitrary lines many times they don't fall into the proper place and i understand that i want to pose the legislation but i want to do to sensitise committee to the fact that many of these arbitrary lines and which may look good in your district or your state sometimes looks absolutely ridiculous and i know there are things we do in california looks after absolutely ridiculous a lot of people in this country but the fact is is the fact of having a country with two carolinas two to dakotas and to virginia but only one california can also look rather bizarre but just wanted to recognize that there are concerns i have with this with the reading without objection so ordered recognize july for five minutes to explain their member thank you mr chairman and ranking member for considering my men with the amendment accomplish just two objectives first it clarifies section two of the bill dealing with the assistance duties mom and it would add to that those wellness programs may include activities dedicated to raising awareness and prevention of job related mental health issues the language is simple an order to and firefighters fighting is an intense profession and these individuals jump into burning buildings they see people dying they personally observe an end to a trauma as a routine part of their job it seems to me that the middle illness middle wellness is even more critical or as critical as it is physical fitness my men with would clarify that programs dedicated to protecting the mental health of our nation's firefighters is appropriate use of the fire department's grant phones the second portion of their mandate is regarding fire safety research centers as you know the bill authorizes grants to establish no more than three of these centers research at the centers is intended to advance the nation's ability to reduce the number of pirate laded deaths and injuries among firefighters the effort to show grants will authorize research development and technology transfer activities section six of this part of the deal states that the director shall give special consideration to grant applications consisting of a partnership between a university and a national forest service organization is a national policy for the organization and man and it will revive this section to encourage partnerships also with minority serving institutions this section would instead say that special consideration would be given to partnerships between a missile fire service organization or a national fire safety organization with a university and or a minority serving institutions we want to be sure to work with the foreigners asians so that the research centers  doing work that will in short time actually help our privacy do their jobs better at the same time we want to give them an artist serving institutions a realistic chance to participate in the research you may know that the majority of students a minority serving institutions study at smaller two year institutions those students could come to the larger universes to engage in research on fire saved in gain some important career experience under the graduate research understand that she's looking to clarify the fire department they might include prevention of mental health issues as well as eligible activities under the program and that's the minority serving institutions receive special consideration under famous fire safety research program certainly support the amendment and i think mrs johnson for lyndon her history her background her medical background her long ten animes consent to dispense with reading that objection so ordered and i recognize a gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment thank you mr chairman this amendment is very simple several weeks ago the house overwhelmingly voted to prohibit acorn from receiving any money in the continuing resolution with overwhelming support from both democrats as well as republicans my amendment today would ensure that acorn will not receive any money from fame and or the sisters to firefighters grant program after the c r expires on september the fourth same awarded a one million dollars fire prevention and safety grant to acorn given the recent events surrounding this organization not to mention its past history of corruption i found this inexcusable this organization's expertise in foreign prevention safety which is required by law is a preview requisite for the grand certainly this is very very questionable any money ok acorn receives from this program takes away from reputable and qualified organizations like fire departments and ultimately sacrifices the core mission of the of this program on october the eighth representative agent smith and i sent a letter to the asking for documents and answers about this report award and the process that led to its issuance i have yet to receive the first document not one single one without the confidence that number one this grant was awarded appropriately number two that this recipient had sufficient expertise and three that the human has developed adequate profiteering to define that expertise i believe it is prudent to ensure that acorn does not receive a single d the taxpayer's money from this program this program is far too important and overextended to be lining the coffers of a corrupt organization called famous been less than responsive to my inquiry i hope that mr chairman well as far as acorn is considered every other individual or organization in this country the united states of america which is a democracy we are all considered innocent until proven guilty that's the very cornerstone of our american judicial system it is not our role as a congress to judge the innocence or guilt of acorn in fact the constitution prohibits congress from passing in the legislation that punishes an individual before they've been convicted of a crime and that's why i ask every member of this committee to oppose the barn amendment of taxpayer dollars and i don't know how anybody could support that when the original person that that acorn from the day one over in the state of  arkansas the activities of those people or gusting to democrats and republicans alike when his own brother stole a million dollars and nothing happened time and this moved him around rather than going to the courts with it and that's just that's the closest indication of the leadership of a car that goes down to every single person that benefited from a car or that supported acorn  were all aware of the problems with a carnet stewardship of taxpayer found out a couple of weeks ago that acorn received a fire prevention and safety granted the same portion of this program that hundreds of fire departments had applied for but were rejected and these are the people mrs johnston and i are talking about that we're trying to to support trying to help and trying to make a to them easily and available to minorities who had been shut out prior to to work of  members of congress lacking any bernice johnson mr brown and mr smith wrote to fame requesting information on how this happened but they still haven't received a response so we have an opportunity here today i think to fix a problem or to work toward fixing a problem and then sure that this doesn't happen again the language in dr brown's amendment is nearly exactly what was overwhelmingly supported by the full house in the c r i believe the senate overwhelmingly supported it i'm not positive smith and subcommittee takes care of your your your problem however as you and mr hall both pointed out i think the house vote to this issue in a firm way earlier and so i'm sure that you'll be successful answer ms is this is not calling them guilty of anything this is preserving money for firefighters and taking away from from a small grant program it's not punitive any way it doesn't indict or convict anybody in any way and it's just preserving money for firefighters and things that this grant program is supposed to be directed towards and i think it's a strain lee important and frankly as far as i'm concerned femur went outside the law when they granted a car and the grant to begin with back in september acorn has no expertise in firefighting and so this is a very simple amendment it's one that  doesn't punish anybody it doesn't convict anybody or any organization it just says that that they will not receive funds from this grant as we have already seen them from the grant that allied organizations would not receive any money i'm not sure i'd like an example of who would ally organization would you yes acorn if you look at it they have  and this wouldn't it would prevent grants from anybody else but it's just those allied over his ations and and i hope any reputable organizations sever their ties with acorn so  if they haven't they should immediately because of the corruption this coming to surface with reclaiming my time if i may but since we don't know who these al at organizations you're referring to it gives me cause and pause because there are certain  many very reputable organizations who are in fact aligned in some way with acorn and i may agree with you that maybe they should maybe they shouldn't but if they have not in some way distance themselves from acorn i can't see that organizations that do good work who have been productive and who should probably qualify for the would be left out because we put in language that's very very subjective and we don't even know  yourself we don't know who those organizations are you say it's such a web if i don't know who they are i can't vote against them receiving dollars with a yield yes we do know that acorn has at least three hundred sixty one affiliate in their web and then this this tremendous organization that just if i may i'm not talking about affiliates i'm talking about an affiliate organization so it's it does not prevent any group that's not affiliated or part of acorn from getting the funds but they should be any organization under this grant program under current law should be have the expertise and certainly a court doesn't have that either i find that it's despicable to me the female ward of the grant to begin with but reclaiming my time and not our when the acorn point i'm arguing the language allied organizations which to this point you have not told me who those would be or you'll have a shot at that some time later concept that somehow there is a constitutional right for access to taxpayers funds i think it's something that a lot of people across the country upset with this is there is not a constitutional right to have to have access to funds that we forcibly remove from private possession that citizens give up this under the force of law and when we start doling it out we have a responsibility goes far beyond what is traditionally considered in the criminal courts and that is a fact that there is not a right but a privilege to receive public funds under under our constitution and that with that privilege comes added responsibilities that private individuals normally don't bear and the organizations that ask both public and private organizations that ask access to the to the public treasury have a responsibility beyond those that that are just asking to operate outside of public funding so i just think we need to clarify that and i appreciate your support on this because i think that this is where we need to clarify that look there is this added obligation and when in doubt we're not we're going to be conservative in the application of the public by saying we want this clarified and i just think that we need to clarify that this is not a partisan issue what is happening in nevada is actually something that's been totally handled by your party in very responsible manner where actually the head of the organization has gone state's witness on this issue so i think we've got to point out that this is not a democrat or republican issue it's an american issue the fact that the standard of  for public funds is one that's higher than the general public and we this continues i again asked for support of it and recognize that when we talk about this affiliated issue the board of directors actually serve on different boards but the same people are based are on the boards and the same directors are on different different agencies and so this has been very well documented and will become obviously more more public as it goes over so i just ask everybody take a look at what's going on in las vegas right now and understand this is something mutually agreeable report language that will help to fine tune any any concerns in that regard it might be and i thank you and i and i think all of us agree that there is a problem here with identified right now with one name but we know this is a shell game here where there are so many people playing the same game the same people with under different titles and the intention of this amendment is the make sure that the shell game isn't played with american taxpayers yield to mr brown do you could tell me how it differs what was introduced on it was adopted in the c r in the house floor the difference is this is prospect of instead of retrospective in other than that it's essentially the same it's what many many most democrats voted for i think i didn't look at the total vote but it's it's what republicans and democrats both parties voted to  prohibit acorn from getting funds and this is just prospected so that in the future on this grant program acorn cannot get grants and recall it was focused at this program where is the c r was more was a broader commitment also and reclaiming my time does the language that was adopted on house floor in the c r to contain the language or allied organizations and i i'm sorry state that again please does the language that was adopted on the c r contain the language or allied organizations in fact if the gentleman knew you would you allow i would give you the phone ok this is the c r chairman talked about is recognized you know when you have made the sale it's probably wise to stop selling i'd like to move the question dr borrow it once again brings wisdom to the  on the house floor and there are definitions but there is no definition for allied organization it's actually not even in the language of what was passed in the house and i think it's a very dangerous road that we go down where we include a defunding mechanism that states that it's it's attached to an allied organization so does that mean that if an organization  or community with an acorn group or one of its affiliates that it would be an allied organization this is a various day a very dangerous road to go down it's not what we actually passed on the house floor and i would say i didn't vote for that  but i think i think it's not really useful for this committee to include language that requires further definition an x and explanation that no doubt will lead to further to litigation i mean it seems that if i were  an organization that was associated in any way in a coalition in an informal working group could be defined as and or or identified as an allied organization i would challenge this statute and the language of it applying to me for the purposes of achieving federal funds i would also say that there are current prohibitions in law that go to issues debarment when there has been a criminal violation or other kind of sanction that would that enables any one of our federal agencies to deny funds under current law and so it's actually the truth that this is totally unnecessary and we have plenty of examples of corporations in this country and non profit organizations that have engaged in wrongdoing have been found to engage in wrongdoing and prohibited from engaging in other another contract and we also have plenty of examples where that's been true and they've gotten other contracts and so i'm really not sure what this amendment is trying to trying to get to with respect to one single organization because i don't want to see federal funds misused by anyone under any circumstance whether it's acorn or any other group but let's have a finding in law that there has been a violation and let the current statute that exist that prohibit giving contracts and funding to organizations institutions and corporations that have committed wrongdoing and apply that law and i  think this is a complete redundancy with respect to one single organization and i don't even believe that what we're doing especially with respect to so called allied organizations even achieves the result that we're looking for except capturing in the widest possible way in a net that has no boundaries organizations and institutions that may be perfectly operating perfectly legally and legitimately  under the terms of their agreements receiving federal funds and so i think it's a really dangerous road to go down and i don't understand frankly why this committee has to engage in this kind of way  with respect to a single organization when we should be saying that no organization that's engaged in wrongdoing or corporation that's engage in wrongdoing should be receiving for further federal funds thank you would generally  you are aware of that and thank you mr thank you mr chairman and let me just let me just close by saying mr chairman that i think that we have a lot of really important business to do on this allied organizations there's actually no such term in that in that measure is anyone else wish to be recognized i'm feeling a bit left out of this even though i don't have anything to add at least i haven't had a chance to say it yet but i've just astounded that this discussion i recall some years ago before i was in the congress when we had a situation where the pentagon paid two hundred dollars for a hammer they paid five hundred dollars for a toilet seat no one questioned whether they were guilty no one questioned whether they were convicted  congress just went bonkers and punish them by withholding funds that's what we're doing here we're not convicting we're not playing with a broad brush here simply as an organization has  improperly the congress took action against them in a generic way and now we're just simply saying look they shouldn't get any any of this money to train firefighters there are many other organizations that can do that probably do it better and certainly have a better record of honesty so i have i don't see why individuals are taking up the cause for the so called allied organizations that will quickly get sorted out if there are qualified organizations that somehow  recognize fraud when you see it and let's act accordingly we would do that within the organization that was here that was misusing federal funds we have a firm solid line nonpartizan line saying we're not going of anybody to do to do so but it is absolutely critical that we put the money where it's supposed to be and that's with fire fighting with the fire fighters and not with organizations like acorn dot dialers made a great point this is about being responsible with taxpayers money we already see that acorn is under tremendous amounts of investigation that we already know of embezzlement and other things going on with this organization but this is not just denying them funds with this one grant program and it's just common sense simple amendment and i encourage people to  in their words convicting an organization before there's been a conviction elsewhere but i just want to point out for the benefit of all my friends that in the words of all when the homes all about a century ago in a case involving a boston policeman that you have a right to do that but you don't have a right to be a boston policeman so there might be a different standard when one is talking about federal funding and the allocation of federal funds the flipside of this is it is also my recollection that in a series of supreme court cases in the one nine hundred fifty s and  was very careful to not involve organizations in loose terminology and it seems to me that if we have defined terms for controlled affiliates  a slight tweaking of his language to make it a little bit more precise and to consider this as organizations legally controlled by a court and i believe that that accepting that reclaiming my time i would like to understand the basis of that rejection because this seems to address all of his legitimate concerns and i yield to the gentleman thank you i just want to remind the gentleman that you did vote for this i did i voted for a commonsense amendment that was precisely drawn and i'm trying to offer the gentleman the same opportunity to make his amendment more careful and i yield to the gentleman  reclaiming my time and i will depend on the gentleman and the good graces of the chairman to make this language more analytically correct and reflect the will of the committee and of the house and i yield back if there's ok if there's no further discussion then the vote is on the courts of plot a two pronged test number one whether specific individuals or entities are affected by statue another to whether legislation in fact a quote punishment unquote on those individuals and serves no legitimate regulatory p punishment by any means in fact will the gentleman from georgia explain what the constitution says about the gentleman you know for second german from florida no i'd like an answer to my question well frankly i can't wait to see the discussion when it comes i did not build and i'd like an answer from the gentleman that congress shall pass no bills of attainder but this is not one all right now would you agree with me that it is unconstitutional to single out one or more persons without the benefit of trial no sir there's a two prong test and this is or well when i when i said i'll reclaim my time i just quoted william rehnquist writing the book the supreme court he wrote that book and said you cannot single out one or more persons a man a trial well gentleman agree that bil attainder are contrary to every principle of sound legislation the two main critic which courts would like to look in order to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder one is whether this is a specific individual entities a fact about a statue number two whether the legislation affects a punishment on those individuals will the gentleman please tell me whether you agree or not that bills of attainder are contrary to every principle of sound legislation are unconstitutional and contrary to every principle of sound legislation is that correct that's correct all right and you know so that tell me james madison in the federalist papers now do you does the gentleman agree that the bill of  attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers and a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply trial by a legislature with a gentleman agree with me about well gentleman yield no  the wood the german restates question the question is will the gentleman from georgia agree with me that the bill of attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision but as an implementation of separation of powers a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply trial by a legislature will the gentleman agree to that will not nighest counsel to to help us with this and i think all this is determination brown something i would expect you might know about given your name listen with the german you know listen we we are trampling on people's constitutional rights and i think it's unfortunate that the mania that exists on the other side of the aisle regarding this one organization and we know why that man exists because they've registered an awful lot of democrats continues to distort and waste the time of this committee and many other committees here in passed called the tax or more properly to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain tarp recipients the bill passed the house of representatives even the president the united states who used to be a law professor as i recall referred to this is a bill of attainder and i notice that the gentleman from florida voted aye so i guess we have different bills of attainder some are good and some are bad well germany are all unconstitutional of course i'm happy to hold on like you well i would point out that unlike you i did not vote for the war in iraq on the basis of weapons of mass destruction didn't exist o r or make any of the other mistakes that you might have made over my i'll reclaim my time and i'll just say that the whole business of the gentleman from florida is a debate shows  how irrelevant it is to the question of whether we're going to make a priority determination on whether to give federal funds the acorn or federal funds the firefighters and mr brown of your gentlemen you  will the gentleman you might like to finish my sentence please mr brown of georgia i think is stated that this is a question of where we spend scarce federal dollars now a bill of attainder has always been taking away property that already belongs to somebody such as posing a confiscatory in punitive tax rather than saying that an organization and its affiliates are not going to get any funds in the future now mr brown's amendment does say that acorn is affiliates are not getting any funds in the future we're not taking away the funds that they already have and even though that might have been a mistake for congress to appropriate it but we're just saying enough is enough no more funds for acorn and its affiliates and let's spend the funds on the firefighters so that's why of this amendment is not a bill of attainder it's good policy and we all ought a vote for it and i yield back the balance of my time the chairman has the authority to call a previous question at any time he's never done that don't want to do it because i want to have four open conversations here but as dr avers pointed out several minutes ago i think everything has been said question thank you very much mr chairman i'm getting more and more confused the parts that i heard about acorn weren't there would not convict anybody it's not indicting anybody just says that these funds will be utilized for firefighters and for what they need to perform their job and keep us safe and so that's what it's all about and it's very simple it is a sense of congress emphasizing we storing funding to the assistance to firefighters grant program should be a priority the program is authorized in this legislation at a billion dollars per year however its appropriated funding has never reached that amount and in fact it steadily declined in recent years in f y o three seven hundred fifty million dollars was appropriated for a f g since this time funding has steadily declined last year it was five hundred sixty five million and this year the administration only requested three hundred ninety million this represents a forty eight percent decline since f y o three given the importance of a f g and helping fire departments around the country meet minimum response requirements especially those in rural areas with limited tax bases and this trend is troubling and should certainly be reversed the underlying  attempts to do that and i support it but this amendment adds to the bill by explicitly calling attention to this issue and stating that addressing this funding decline should be a priority i urge members to support it thank you i yield back  suppose know the as have it the members agreed to are there any father amendments if not then the vote occurs on the memo in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from arizona as amended  zero for a motion yes mr chairman i move that the committee favorably report h r thirty seven ninety one as amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill do pass furthermore i move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the chair take all the necessary steps to bring the bill before the house for consideration the question is on the motion to report the bill five really those in favor of the motion  a motion to consider is laid upon the table members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on the measure we will now consider h r thirty eight twenty the natural hazards  wu to describe his bill thank you very much mr chairman as you know timing is everything this this bill joins the reauthorizes two important programs that address important hazards earthquake and wind storms and establishes a framework that to begin joining together multi hazards approach to mitigating natural disasters i'd like to thank the ranking member of the technology and innovation subcommittee subcommittee the gentleman from nebraska mr smith and his staff and also the full committee staff and subcommittee staff working closely with me in developing this legislation  in my home state of oregon we're very very well aware of the threats posed by natural hazards the cascadia fault line off our coast could devastate oregon with a nine point zero to nine point five richter scale earthquake also because it is offshore the associated tsunami would then affect the coastline or devastated coastline that made may have been cut off by the earthquake from the rest of the  valley for aid and support it is not just seismic activity or tsunami that has the potential for vast describe the destruction of the pacific northwest two years ago when storm with win up to one hundred forty miles an hour caused eighteen deaths and nearly two hundred million dollars in damage in oregon and washington since one thousand nine hundred seventy seven the national earthquake hazard reduction program or near her which this bill  reauthorizes has supported research and development to better understand earthquakes and their impact and to improve the seismic a fee of buildings and other infrastructure this work has lead to improved seismic monitoring with the advance national seismic system better building practices and seismic regions and increase public awareness of the need to prepare for earthquakes the success of such efforts can be seen in the recent california shakeout in which six point eight million californians participated in an earthquake drill after widespread drills people are often more driven to prepare for future earthquakes purchasing double the earthquake mitigation materials at home improvement stores h thirty eight twenty also reauthorizes the national windstorm impact reduction program at and hearing in june the technology and innovation subcommittee test testimony stated that when hazard mitigation r and d has received much less attention than earthquakes and other hazards from the research community it is because of the nature of the problem itself is not quite as technically challenging and also there is not as long a history of investigation however over two hundred lives are lost each year and sixteen billion dollars are lost to severe weather events the problem of wind storm damage is therefore no less earthquakes a strong wind storm r and d program can enable the faster development and implementation of codes standards and practices to mitigate against wind storm damage h r thirty eight twenty provides the windstorm program with the same coordination structure that created a successful near program based on hearings and recommendations from the stakeholder community the natural hazards risk reduction act of two thousand and nine also lays the foundation to consider natural hazards r and d in a multi hazard framework the bill establishes the national institute of standards and technology as the lead agency for both the earthquake and win programs and gives primary responsibility for ensur interagency coordination to one committee a program agency directors in addition the bill requires that the national science and technology council subcommittee on disaster reduction prepare a report to congress that identifies all of the natural hazards  d and technology transfer activities supported by the federal government in addition to identifying the activities the purpose of the report is to find commonalities among research activities for different hazards and to identify ways to coordinate this work it is clear that the national that the biggest impediment to mitigating natural disasters is encouraging people to actually adopt mitigation measures changes to code standards and building practices are important component to addressing this challenge to enable this h r thirty eight twenty includes provisions to give nist greater flexibility in implementing the national construction safety team after this act passed after the collapse of the world trade center towers gives nist the authority to lead building failure investigations the act requires nist to issue recommendations based on the investigation findings that can provide building practices and report to congress on whether its recommendations were adopted by building code developers the changes made to  thirty eight twenty will give the agency the flexibility to lead investigations after all natural disasters to study the effects of these disasters on all types of structures as was highlighted in two subcommittee hearings on how has related programs science and engineering research is important but it is the push to implement better building practices that will save lives and money this provision is a key element to make sure this happens i would also like to add that this bill has been endorsed by the american society of civil engineers i'm pleased to offer this bill today and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on its passage thank you mr will also i want to thank you and mr smith for the hard work that you put in on the subcommittee you have brought us unified building code probably one of most successful government regulations ever formed anywhere my biggest concern is that we keep in mind that a scientist look at that that we look at alternative technologies to often so much of this is figured out in concrete and steel and brick but not looking at alternative constructions renewable material and things like that i would just like to make sure down the line we sort of sensitized the scientists and the the building inspectors to the fact that they should be looking at nontraditional building materials that may be very successful an example of kind of shocked everybody was the fact that in the mission district of san francisco the one building that survived all the earthquakes in the history of that city has been the mission at san  francisco which is on reinforce technically but because it's adobe it get was able to work and be survived though under the building code you could not build that building today because it's perceived as being unsafe i do think that a scientist look at this that they should be looking at alternative construction as being an option they need to look deeper into it may save a lot of money may save a lot of lives and be able to give us a sustainable resource to be able use for concern so as we get in here i really ask that we remember that technique one hundred years ago called straw bale construction which is absolutely very resistant to her quake and wind damage but is one that is probably not legal anywhere in this country except for a small cities that have done the research  changes the language regarding the national science foundation social science research to authorize such research on the specific types of vulnerabilities faced by segments of the community vulnerable to national natural hazards this broadens the language from population groups and economic sectors to give the n s f more flexibility the amendment also changes the no a portion of the bill under title two to clarify that the development of hazard assessment models and tools should be done in cooperation with both federal agencies and state and local governments it further clarifies that knoebels no us responsibility under this program will be the development of wind speed but not their maintenance the maintenance of these maps is reading without objection so ordered recognize gentlemen for five minutes to explain is a moment mr chairman this is a technical amendment this has to do with section two zero four of this bill which establishes the national windstorm impact reduction program and assigned certain activities to improve understanding of wind storms and their impact on building structures and lifelines that list building structures in lifelines does not include bodies of water i believe it's important to have no identify at the impact of windstorms on bodies of water particularly in coastal areas but also areas like mine that i have many many lakes so i am moving to amend the bill on the basis stated which is to add the term interaction between wind storms and bodies of water as amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill do pass for the more i move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative reported make necessary technical and conforming changes so that the chair take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the house for consideration the question is on the motion to report to be favorably those in favor of the motion signify by saying i oppose no the eyes have it the bill is favor reported that objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental minority and additional views on the measure and i want to thank all of the members for being here and taking part in this good markup thank you