U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–417PDF 2015

A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE 

HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 29, 2014 

Serial No. 113–88 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

FEDERICA WILSON, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 29, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Scott Peters, Subcommittee on Research and 

Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Witnesses: 

PANEL I 

Dr. John R. Hayes, Jr., Director, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Submitted Biography ....................................................................................... 21 

Dr. Pramod P. Khargonekar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Engineering, 

National Science Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

Dr. David Applegate, Associate Director for Natural Hazards, U.S. Geological 

Survey 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 50 

Mr. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 58 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 60 

PANEL II 

Dr. Julio A. Ramirez, Professor of Civil Engineering, NEES Chief Officer 

and NEEScomm Center Director, George E. Brown Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), Purdue University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 84 

Submitted Biography ....................................................................................... 86 

Dr. William U. Savage, Consulting Seismologist, William Savage Consulting, 

LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 98 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 100 
Page

IV 

Mr. Jonathon Monken, Director and Homeland Security Advisor, Illinois 

Emergency Management Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 107 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 109 

Dr. Andrew S. Whittaker, Professor and Chair, Director MCEER; Department 

of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, 

State University of New York 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 115 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 117 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 57 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Pramod P. Khargonekar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Engineering, 

National Science Foundation .............................................................................. 134 

Mr. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency ........................................................................ 144 

Dr. Julio A. Ramirez, Professor of Civil Engineering, NEES Chief Officer 

and NEEScomm Center Director, George E. Brown Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), Purdue University ............................ 149 

Dr. William U. Savage, Consulting Seismologist, William Savage Consulting, 

LLC ........................................................................................................................ 152

Mr. Jonathon Monken, Director and Homeland Security Advisor, Illinois 

Emergency Management Agency ........................................................................ 154 

Dr. Andrew S. Whittaker, Professor and Chair, Director MCEER; Department 

of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, 

State University of New York ............................................................................. 156 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 160 

Letters submitted by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 162 

Letter submitted by Mr. Jay Berger, Executive Director, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute .................................................................................. 166 
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE 

HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM 

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry Bucshon 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Chairman BUCSHON. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Research and Technology will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘A Review of the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and truth-in-testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. I recognize myself for five 

minutes now for an opening statement. 

Earthquakes present a potential hazard to every State in our Nation. The U.S. Geological Survey recently updated its National 

Seismic Hazards Maps with research identifying that in the next 

50 years, 42 of our 50 states have a chance of experiencing damaging ground shaking from an earthquake. There are 16 States in 

the United States that have a high likelihood of experiencing damage because they have sustained earthquakes with a seismic magnitude of 6 or greater. My home State of Indiana is at risk of experiencing the effects of earthquakes stemming from the New Madrid 

fault. 

Earthquakes are unique among natural hazards because they 

strike without warning. The cascading nature of an earthquake can 

induce secondary effects such as landslides, liquefaction, and 

tsunamis. Earthquakes impact people and communities worldwide 

from the devastation of loss of life and property to the turmoil 

caused by the disruption of important services, including water, 

electricity, and other utilities or lifelines including roads and 

bridges. 

In 1977 the Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Act establishing the National Earthquake Hazards Production Program, or NEHRP, as a long-term earthquake risk-reduction program for the United States. Four federal agencies contribute to 

NEHRP research and activities: the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the United 

States Geological Survey, and the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. Program activities are focused on supporting the development of earthquake hazard reduction measures, promoting the 

adoption of these measures by federal, state, and local governments, improving the understanding of earthquakes and their effects on people and infrastructure, and developing and maintaining 

the Advanced National Seismic System, the George E. Brown, Jr. 

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, or NEES, and 

the Global Seismic Network. 

In Indiana, Purdue University leads the collaborative George E. 

Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, or 

NEES. The mission of NEES is ‘‘to accelerate improvements in 

seismic design and performance by serving as an indispensable 

collaboratory for discovery and innovation.’’ Support for research 

and activities that strengthen preparedness for, reduce the impact 

of, and aid in recovery from earthquakes will fortify the Nation’s 

ability to respond to earthquake hazards. 

Today’s hearing is a bipartisan effort to learn about NEHRP and 

understand the Nation’s level of earthquake preparedness. We 

worked across the aisle to bring together two panels of experts who 

can shed light on these important issues. I look forward to hearing 

from all the witnesses on both of our panels to understand the 
8 

work of the NEHRP agencies and how that work intersects with 

engineers, emergency managers, and lifeline experts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 
9 
10 

Chairman BUCSHON. At this point I ask unanimous consent to 

put two letters in the record regarding the NEHRP program: a letter from the American Society of Civil Engineers and a letter from 

the BuildStrong Coalition. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II:] 

Chairman BUCSHON. At this point I now recognize the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Peters, for an opening statement. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing today on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, or NEHRP, an unfortunate acronym for an important 

program. I want to thank witnesses on both panels for being here 

today. 

Though infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they strike without warning. While areas like my 

home State of California, in addition to Oregon, Washington, and 

Alaska, are the most well-known for earthquakes, earthquakes are 

not a hazard confined to the West Coast. A 2011 earthquake here 

in Washington, D.C., caused over $200 million in damages, including damage to the Washington Monument and the Smithsonian, 

and it is estimated that 75 million Americans in 39 States are exposed to significant seismic risk and nearly all states in the United 

States have some level of risk. 

In an effort to mitigate the harmful impacts and better prepare 

for future earthquakes, Congress authorized the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, an interagency program that 

includes the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the 

National Science Foundation, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, and the United States Geological Survey. 

Since NEHRP was founded in 1977, we have learned a lot about 

how to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to a large-scale earthquake. Research programs, including ones at the University of 

California San Diego and San Diego State University, are underway to help us better understand earthquakes, develop safer building construction standards, and ensure that affected communities 

can respond to and recover from earthquakes as quickly as possible. But more work is needed. 

I am pleased we have representatives today from all four agencies here to testify about their activities to reduce the risks of life 

and property from earthquakes in the United States. I am also 

pleased that we will hear from outside stakeholders, both private 

sector and academic, about how the program is working and what 

if any changes are needed to improve its effectiveness. 

As my colleagues may know, the reauthorization of these risk-reduction programs is long overdue. The authorization for this program expired in 2009. Interagency programs like these improve our 

understanding of earthquakes and then turn that knowledge into 

mitigation and outreach activities that will save lives and reduce 

economic damages. While we can’t prevent natural disasters, we 

can do more to lessen the cost to human life and property. 

Over the last two years the federal government has spent more 

than $136 billion, much of it off-budget, on relief for hurricanes, 

tornadoes, droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events. 

It is time that the government stops working in a reactive way to 

natural disasters and instead gets to work efficiently to get ahead 
11 

of the issue and help States and localities find the best steps to 

prepare, plan for, and recover more quickly from these events. We know that for every $1 spent now in resiliency we can avoid at least $4 in future losses. It makes more sense to approach this 

by thinking how we can make our communities better prepared. If 

we are focused on reducing spending, let’s do it in a way that saves 

us in the long run. 

Mr. Chairman, our goals are the same: to decrease the vulnerability of communities across the country including mine in San 

Diego. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle on a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and welcome any comments from the witnesses about changes and updates that should 

be made to the authorization language. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. I look toward 

to hearing the testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peters follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Peters. I now recognize the 

Ranking Member of the full Committee for a statement, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

for holding this important hearing on the National Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP. I also want to thank the 

Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Smith, for agreeing to this 

hearing. Chairman Smith agreed to hold a hearing on NEHRP and 

work on the NEHRP reauthorization bill while we were discussing 

the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. This hearing 

is a good first step in fulfilling that agreement. I want to thank the 

Chairman and majority staff for working with my staff on putting 

together this hearing. 

Though infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they strike with little or no warning. In 1964 Alaska 

was hit with a great earthquake that measured 9.2 in magnitude. 

That was the second-strongest earthquake in recorded history and 

resulted in significant damage from both the earthquake itself and 

the tsunamis that followed. 

California has numerous active faults that have produced large 

earthquakes in the last two decades, from 1971, the San Fernando 

earthquake to the 1989 Loma Prieta and the 1994 Northridge 

earthquakes. In fact, NEHRP was established in Congress in response to the 1964 Alaska and the 1971 San Fernando earthquakes. 

Since its creation, NEHRP has accomplished a great deal. It has 

improved our understanding of earthquake processes, improved our 

earthquake hazard and risk assessments, improved earthquake 

safety for new and existing buildings, and increased public awareness of earthquake risk and mitigation techniques. But more work 

is still needed, including improving the earthquake resilience of 

communities nationwide and developing cost-effective measures to 

reduce earthquake impacts on individuals, the built environment, 

and society. 

To ensure that this work is accomplished, we need to reauthorize 

NEHRP, which has not had Congressional authorization since 

2009. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2132, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2013, which was introduced by Representative Wilson last May. H.R. 2132 would reauthorize NEHRP 

program, as well as the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and would make changes to the Fire Research Program. This 

legislation is modeled after bipartisan legislation that passed the 

House by an overwhelming margin in the 111th Congress. And I 

am pleased that the windstorm program is reauthorized in a separate bill, H.R. 1786, that was introduced by Representative 

Neugebauer, and I supported that bill when it passed the House 

earlier this month. 

However, I do believe we need to take a multi-hazards approach 

to disaster mitigation. Taking a multi-hazards approach could create opportunities for synergy among the various research and mitigation activities. Further, a multi-hazard approach could help 

achieve the goal of producing communities that are resilient to any 

and all disasters. I hope that as we work on a NEHRP reauthoriza-
15 

tion bill we look for opportunities to create synergies and coordination across the hazards program. 

I want to thank the witnesses from both panels for being here 

today, and it is important to hear from you as we consider reauthorizing this important program. I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
16 
17 
18 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. Just as a sideline, I have been 

in three earthquakes myself: one in Southern California in the late 

’80s; one in Illinois, southern Illinois when I was a kid; and one in 

Evansville, Indiana, in about 2001. So it is a fairly—if you have 

never been in an earthquake, it is a fairly unique experience. 

At this point if there are Members who wish to submit additional 

opening statements, your statements will be added to the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski appears in Appendix II:] 

Chairman BUCSHON. At this time I would like to introduce our 

first panel of witnesses. Our first witness today is Dr. John Hayes, 

Jr. Dr. Hayes is the Director of the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program of the Engineering Laboratory at the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Our next witness is Dr. Pramod—I said this before and now I 

will get it correct—Khargonekar is the Assistant Director for the 

Directorate of Engineering at the National Science Foundation. 

Welcome. 

Our third witness is Dr. David Applegate. Dr. Applegate is the 

Associate Director for Natural Hazards at the U.S. Geological Survey. 

And our final witness on the first panel is Mr. Roy Wright. Mr. 

Wright serves as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each. I now recognize Dr. Hayes for five minutes to 

present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN R. HAYES, JR., DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. HAYES. Chairman Bucshon, Congressman Peters, and other 

Members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

as you review the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, for possible reauthorization. 

Mr. Peters, I can assure you that the acronym NEHRP grows on 

you after a while so it works. 

In your invitation to me you asked me to address several topics 

and I will try to address each one of those briefly in my testimony 

this morning. 

NIST fulfills two broad roles within NEHRP. First, NIST performs statutory lead agency duties, including supporting an Interagency Coordinating Committee and the Advisory Committee on 

Earthquake Hazard Reduction, drafting and updating NEHRP’s 

strategic plans, submitting annual NEHRP reports to Congress, 

and fostering interagency coordination and cooperation. 

Second, NIST performs applied research related to earthquake 

engineering, including developing performance-based design tools, 

guidelines, and standards for practitioners who design buildings to 

resist earthquake effects. 

A 2003 applied Technology Council report identified a major 

earthquake engineering technology gap between performing basic 

research and developing earthquake-related provisions for national 

model building codes and standards. NIST bridges this gap with its 

Applied Earthquake Engineering Research Program. In 2008 the 
19 

NEHRP agencies produced a NEHRP strategic plan which guides 

NIST’s way forward. The National Research Council, or NRC, developed a 20-year action plan for improving U.S. earthquake resilience, and in the process endorsed the NEHRP strategic plan. The 

Building Seismic Safety Council, or BSSC, formulated recommendations for applied research that point NIST toward addressing the broad research directions that were set by the NRC 

plan. 

NIST research projects address issues identified by leading 

earthquake engineering practitioners and researchers, as well as 

the work that was suggested by BSSC in its plan. NIST’s research 

includes significant interactions with the NEHRP partners and 

continuous engagement with other leading earthquake researchers 

and practitioners. Alongside FEMA and USGS, NIST participates 

in the technical committees that develop new building codes and 

standards. This provides direct access to practicing engineers’ 

needs and facilitates the effective transfer of new knowledge gained 

through NIST’s research back to the practitioners. 

NIST’s work is subdivided into program elements that includes 

seismic design technical briefs, codes and standards support 

projects, structural and geotechnical engineering-related projects, 

and planning projects that support both NIST and NEHRP-wide 

activities. Since 2008 NIST has produced approximately 30 reports 

on these topics that are in widespread use by practitioners and researchers alike. Webinars have also been developed to inform practitioners in the United States and around the world about these 

tech briefs. 

Coordination among the NEHRP agencies fosters synergies that 

complement agency capabilities. FEMA and USGS work closely on 

earthquake hazards definitions, hazard mapping, and earthquake 

monitoring. NIST and FEMA work closely in fulfilling the respective roles for engineering research and implementation and NIST 

has formed a very special partnership that involves frequent exchanges of project information and in some instances direct collaboration on critical projects. FEMA, USGS, and NIST work closely 

with NSF-supported researchers to ensure effective transfer of 

basic research knowledge into NIST’s research programs. 

In closing, I note that NEHRP was created to address the reality 

that earthquakes are inevitable and occur without warning. NIST 

has done much to minimize their consequences but much more 

needs to be done. The NEHRP agencies translate NIST’s research 

results into actions to ensure that Americans are less threatened 

by the effects of devastating earthquakes. The NEHRP agencies 

fulfill unique but complementary roles in a partnership not duplicated elsewhere. 

It is also important that I note that the NEHRP family extends 

well beyond the four NEHRP program agencies to other federal 

agencies, state and local governments, nongovernmental professional organizations, model building codes and standard organizations, and earthquake professionals both in the private sector and 

academia. Without these dedicated professionals, the NEHRP agencies could not satisfy the statutory responsibilities. 
20 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this morning. This 

concludes my remarks and I am happy to answer any questions 

that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hayes follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Dr. Hayes. 

I now recognize Dr. Khargonekar for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. PRAMOD P. KHARGONEKAR, 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

DIRECTORATE OF ENGINEERING, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. KHARGONEKAR. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is 

my pleasure to be able to testify before you today on the topic of 

National Science Foundation’s activities in earthquake hazards reduction. I am Pramod Khargonekar, Assistant Director for Engineering at NSF. 

Since the start of NEHRP, NSF has supported a broad range of 

fundamental research in geosciences, engineering, and social 

sciences relevant to the understanding of the causes and impacts 

of earthquakes. The Foundation also provides support for education 

of new scientists and engineers, the integration of research and 

education, and outreach to professionals and the public. Today, I 

would very briefly like to outline NSF’s NEHRP efforts related to 

facilities, research, and coordination. 

NSF funds three distributed multiuser national facilities that 

support critical fundamental research relevant to NEHRP. The 

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, or NEES, the Geodesy Advancing Geosciences and 

EarthScope, or GAGE, and the Seismological Facilities for the Advancement of Geoscience and EarthScope, or SAGE. 

NEES currently provides access to 14 earthquake simulation experimental facilities located in eight States. The NEES facilities include shake tables, large-scale labs, geotechnical centrifuges, field 

testing equipment, and a tsunami wave basin. NEES operations 

are currently supported through an award to Purdue University 

covering the fiscal years 2010 to 2014. Following 2014, NSF has 

updated its strategy for the future of NEES operations, which will 

include NSF support for multiple NEES awards managed under a 

single program. This strategy maintains the NSF commitment 

earthquake research and infrastructure while aligning it more strategically under a multi-hazards approach. 

The GAGE and SAGE facilities provide key data, instrumentation, and educational information and basic research and education 

in the Earth sciences. Of particular relevance to NEHRP, SAGE 

supports the Global Seismographic Network, GSN, a worldwide 

array of 153 permanent seismic stations funded by NSF and USGS 

with additional support from the Departments of Energy, State, 

and Defense. 

Complementing these facilities, NSF funds a wide range of fundamental research into the processes that drive and control earthquakes and into the impacts of earthquakes on the built environment. This includes individual investigative grants, research centers, and a variety of research collaborations. 

NSF also supports rapid response activities to gather data from 

disaster sites using its RAPID funding mechanism. In the response 

to recent earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan, NSF supported 

over 30 RAPID awards. 
39 

Another research effort conducted in partnership by NSF and 

USGS is EarthScope, an Earth science program to explore the 

structure of North America and provide a framework of broad integrated studies. Scientists using EarthScope data are developing a 

comprehensive understanding of the structure, dynamics, and evolution of North America. 

NSF supports multiagency collaboration on NEHRP activities 

through a variety of matters. In addition to research collaboration, 

NSF actively contributes to the NEHRP Program Coordination 

Working Group and the Interagency Coordinating Committee. 

Finally, NSF staff regularly briefs the NEHRP Advisory Committee for earthquake hazards reduction and responds to recommendations for NSF. 

In closing, I would like to leave you with two quick examples of 

some recent achievements of NSF-funded grantees. NSF-funded researchers have discovered how to make underground water lines 

that bend and move rather than snap and rupture in an earthquake. The Cornell team found that medium and high density polyethylene pipelines remain intact even when the Earth liquefies and 

shifts. The City of Los Angeles is now installing these pipelines the 

in Elizabeth Tunnel, which provides half the city’s water supply. 

The second example concerns ports. In 2005 NSF supported a research project led by Georgia Tech which examined the seismic vulnerability of ports. Project researchers found that a majority of the 

ports located in the areas of high seismic risk had either no or only 

informal seismic risk mitigation plans. Utilizing unique NEES facilities, the project team developed a new approach for assessing 

and managing seismic risk in container ports. 

Mr. Chairman, NEHRP is a strong and dynamic program at NSF 

and we hope to continue to support research, education, and facilities to mitigate the impacts of earthquake hazards. I thank the 

Subcommittee for considering priorities for reauthorization of the 

program and appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Khargonekar follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Dr. Applegate for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID APPLEGATE, 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR NATURAL HAZARDS, 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dr. APPLEGATE. Great. Well, thank you, Chairman Bucshon and 

Congressman Lipinski, other Members of the Subcommittee. I very 

much appreciate the invitation for the U.S. Geological Survey to 

testify at this hearing. 

The USGS is proud to be part of the NEHRP four-agency partnership effort. I think it has been highly successful and continues 

to make valuable contributions to the Nation’s resilience to earthquakes. 

As Jack Hayes noted, NEHRP is predicated on the recognition 

that while earthquakes are inevitable, their consequences are not 

and there is much that we can do as a nation to improve public 

safety when it comes to earthquakes and related hazards. Within 

NEHRP, each agency performs a distinct and complementary role 

essential for the overall success of the program. The heart of this 

partnership is a broadly shared commitment to translate research 

results into implementation actions that can reduce earthquake 

losses. That commitment involves collaboration that goes well beyond the four NEHRP agencies to include other federal partners, 

plus state, tribal, and local governments, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector, as reflected in the 

second panel. 

Carrying out its role within NEHRP, the USGS strives to deliver 

the data and information tools that engineers and design professionals, emergency managers, government officials, and the public 

need to prevent earthquake hazards from becoming earthquake disasters. With its partners, the USGS provides rapid and authoritative information on earthquake size and location, shaking intensity, and potential impacts. We develop hazard assessment maps 

and related products, we support targeted research to improve our 

monitoring and assessment capabilities, and we build public awareness of earthquake hazards. 

When damaging earthquakes strike here in the United States or 

around the world, the USGS delivers a broad suite of information 

tools that are made possible by our Advanced National Seismic 

System and the worldwide coverage of the Global Seismographic 

Network, which is a program involving USGS, the National Science 

Foundation, and the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology. 

The ANSS consists of a national backbone network, regional networks that are operated by state and university partners, the 

USGS National Earthquake Information Center, and ground and 

structure-based instruments concentrated in high-hazard urban 

areas. With funding from Congress since 2000, USGS and its partners have installed more than 2,800 new and upgraded stations out 

of a total of 7,100 that are targeted in the ANSS plan for full implementation of the system. Investments in ANSS have greatly improved the information available for emergency responders, engi-
49 

neering performance studies, and long-term earthquake hazard assessments. 

Recent earthquakes in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Virginia, that 

last one felt up and down the East Coast, have underscored the national nature of earthquake risk. One of the most important 

achievements that NEHRP has made is the translation of research 

into national models of the location and expected severity of earthquake shaking within specified time periods. These models are in 

turn used to generate maps that are incorporated into the seismic 

safety elements of building codes and standards. 

As you noted in your opening statement, earlier this month the 

USGS released the latest update of the National Seismic Hazard 

Maps, the timing coordinated with the consequent release of the 

next generation of model building codes and seismic safety standards, a process that involves close collaboration among USGS, 

FEMA, the Building Seismic Safety Council, American Society of 

Civil Engineers, International Code Council, and other organizations. Complementing the national maps, urban seismic hazard 

maps provide more detailed information on local site conditions for 

use in engineering and planning, most recently delivered for 

Evansville, Indiana. 

Looking forward, the Administration’s 2015 budget continues 

several initiatives that Congress supported in 2014. In particular, 

I wish to highlight Earthquake Early Warning, which we see as 

representing the next advance in public safety. Modern seismic networks can in favorable circumstances provide a minute or more of 

warning before the onset of strong shaking. In a number of countries around the world, operational earthquake early warning systems exist today. The USGS has supported research and development toward establishing such a capability in California, and the 

test system is now operating and delivering warnings to a small 

group of test users. Considerable additional testing and equipment 

deployment will be required to create a robust and reliable warning 

system, but we are on our way. 

In conclusion, USGS and the Department of the Interior strongly 

support reauthorization of NEHRP. It has proven to be a successful 

partnership that continues to make valuable contributions to the 

Nation’s resilience to earthquake and other hazards. 

Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with the USGS views, and I would be pleased to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Applegate follows:] 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Mr. Wright for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ROY E. WRIGHT, 

DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MITIGATION, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. WRIGHT. Good morning, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for 

having me here today. 

I am Roy Wright, the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation within the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency. It is my pleasure to be here today to 

discuss the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and 

FEMA’s principal responsibilities within that program. 

I want to start by giving you my simple bottom line. By including 

science into building codes, conducting outreach, and advancing 

mitigation, the NEHRP funds enable state-level efforts to better 

prepare for earthquakes. These actions make the Nation more resilient and better able to address this threatening hazard. As others have said this morning, these are no-notice events and they can 

be catastrophic. And we share the view that while earthquakes 

may be inevitable, disasters caused by earthquakes are not. This 

really guides everything that we do. 

FEMA and our NEHRP partners have made significant progress 

in earthquake safety since NEHRP was established 37 years ago. 

Although changing demographics and economic conditions present 

challenges, the program is committed to building on our progress, 

developing practical solutions to reduce or eliminate the earthquake risk, and ensuring our nation’s continued resilience. 

I would briefly like to talk with you this morning about two 

areas of our focus: building codes and education. In terms of building codes, NEHRP primarily works with the National Codes and 

Standards to promote implementation of research results. That is, 

we work with stakeholders to ensure the promotion of and use of 

those building codes so that we all can be safer. For example, 

FEMA worked with the International Code Council and other partners in the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code to 

develop updated provisions for braced sheer wall panels which help 

ensure the stability of a structure. 

As you can see from the maps on the screens, adoption of these 

codes strong in some areas of the country, particularly those where 

they are most likely to experience an earthquake. It is something 

we are proud of and we have worked hard with our partners to 

achieve, but there is more to do. There are still too many areas 

where the risk is high but adequate building codes have not yet 

been adopted. This leaves these communities vulnerable to the impacts of potential earthquakes. We still have much more that needs 

to be done and we are committed to educating these communities 

on best practices and the importance of earthquake hazard mitigation, which brings me to our second area of focus: education. 

FEMA develops and supports public education and awareness 

programs on earthquake loss reduction, sharing best practices, and 

encouraging mitigation. We pursue all of this of course to create resilience and help ensure the safety of our citizens. I would like to 
59 

give you but one example of our work in this area. After we were 

approached by the City of San Francisco, FEMA commissioned a 

study to examine whether it was possible to retrofit only the first 

story of a weak-story building without altering the rest. So a weakstory building is a multistory wood-framed building where the first 

floor is much weaker than the upper stories due to a garage or a 

storefront opening. FEMA published its findings and created an 

electronic tool that allows an engineer to assess the strength of 

walls on the first floor and upper floors. Then the engineer can virtually strengthen these walls and recalculate the strength. The 

goal is to strengthen the first floor just enough so the entire building can withstand an earthquake. 

As a Nation, our architects, engineers, local officials, homeowners, and our federal partners, we all have an indispensable role 

to play in preparing for earthquakes and mitigating their impacts. 

The NEHRP has done a commendable job in identifying the hazards, communicating the risks, and researching how we can protect 

our citizens. As we look forward to reauthorization, more must be 

done. It is not enough to educate the public about what earthquakes can do. Until we are able to convince the public to take action to address that risk, we have not truly implemented this program. We must continue to work together across the whole community to move beyond understanding risks to making concrete steps 

to mitigate and strengthen our collective resilience. 

Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to come before you 

this morning and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. I would like to thank 

the witnesses for their testimony. 

I am reminding the Members that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair at this point will open the round 

of questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Dr. Hayes notes in his testimony that maintaining the serviceability of lifeline systems is critical to societal resilience. What research and development is being supported through NEHRP related to lifelines in a seismic event and what more needs to be 

done? I will address that to Dr. Khargonekar first. 

Dr. KHARGONEKAR. Chairman Bucshon, that is a very, very important question. We are funding research in this area at a number 

of institutions across the research universities in the United States. 

I don’t have a list of projects that we are funding, but just to go 

back to the example I gave about high density polyethylene pipes, 

this is a major impact of the kind of work that NSF has supported 

in this space. 

Chairman BUCSHON. You might just—when you do have that list 

might just submit that for the record so we will have that in the 

Congressional record what you are doing. 

Anyone else have any other comments? 

Dr. Hayes, you mentioned this in your testimony. 

Dr. HAYES. Yes, sir. If I could just comment briefly, the NEHRP 

agencies are currently in the process of wrapping up a study with 

a contractor who is examining all of the issues related to lifelines 

research and implementation. That report should be out sometime 

within 60 to 90 days, and it outlines what NSF-supported researchers at the basic level need to do, what NIST needs to do at the applied level, the kinds of things that USGS needs to do, and the 

kinds of things that FEMA needs to do to implement lifelines safety efforts as well. 

And one of the key issues there is that lifelines are absolutely 

critical to societal resilience in any given community around the 

country, and one of the main findings so far has been that no matter whether it is an earthquake or some other hazard, the disruptions to lifelines are really critical and we hope the study will help 

point all of us in the future on what we should be doing in that 

area. 

Dr. APPLEGATE. Just very briefly, one area that we have been 

working on is developing scenarios that sort of play out the impacts 

of events, trying to make the hazard real to people before they have 

to go through the catastrophic event. And lifelines have been a very 

important part of that, getting the operators together, getting their 

input, understanding what those consequences—those cascading 

consequences are going to be, and particularly in California and 

Southern California and now with the new focus on the Hayward 

Fault in the Bay Area, what those impacts—what can be done before the event to change those outcomes. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

Mr. Wright, part of the preparedness puzzle is learning how to 

work together and forming a seamless response and recovery effort. 

Can you comment on the coordination between federal, state, and 

local stakeholders and their roles in earthquake response? You had 

some of that in your testimony, but kind of talk about that a little 
77 

more, and how do NEHRP stakeholders coordinate efforts with 

emergency responders? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Absolutely. It is FEMA’s responsibility to look 

across all hazards and ensure that we are prepared for them. And 

as we look at these seismic elements, very specific investments 

have been made. In 2011 there was a national-level exercise that 

looked across the New Madrid area where we brought together the 

totality of the federal family, but particularly working with the 

state emergency managers as well as the state and locals. We do 

this across the West Coast. And there is a particular relationship 

we share with the USGS on this by which we are directed to ensure that the kind of warnings and insights that can be given to 

us from the USGS then move its way out. That helps from a response and from a recovery. Obviously you look at these larger 

earthquakes that played out in California, Loma Prieta, and 

Northridge where significant dollars were made available under 

the Disaster Relief Fund after the event. But collectively, it is that 

kind of integrated respond that we do, and it is a long-standing relationship, particularly between myself and Dr. Applegate and others across our agencies to make that happen as cooperation with 

the state and locals. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Yeah, because I think that is critically important along with the lifelines. The last earthquake I was in I was 

on the 6th floor of the hospital in Evansville, Indiana, and nothing 

happened but if that was an area where a hospital lost access to 

water and power that couldn’t be restored quickly, it is a big issue. 

I didn’t think it was an earthquake and the patient did. She was 

an elderly lady and she said I think it is an earthquake. I said no, 

it can’t be an earthquake. So I turned on the TV and sure enough, 

it was an earthquake. 

I now recognize Mr. Lipinski for five minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. I am very hopeful that we can do a NEHRP reauthorization soon. 

It was good to hear all the testimony today. I want to thank Dr. 

Applegate for work USGS has done with my staff and with me. We 

have gone through a few conversations about an earthquake that 

I felt sitting at my kitchen table at home that was—we believe was 

induced by some quarrying activity and there is more work going 

on with that. But it was very helpful for me to be able to have 

those discussions to try to get at and understand what had happened there, so I thank you for—thank USGS for that. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Khargonekar about social science research. 

You mentioned in your testimony of the involvement of social 

science research and NSF’s efforts on earthquake research. How 

does social, behavioral, and economic research help with planning 

effective risk mitigation efforts and how does—how is SBE research 

integrated into NSF’s NEHRP activities? 

Dr. KHARGONEKAR. Congressman Lipinski, thank you very much 

for that question, which is evidently very important. 

If you think about resiliency, which is certainly one of the major 

objectives, people’s behavior plays a huge role in terms of how we 

can achieve systems that can recover from a major disaster. NSF 

is funding a number of projects in that area out of the Directorate 
78 

of Engineering. We have a program on Infrastructure Management 

and Extreme Events that funds social science type of research. For 

example, how do we communicate risk? How do people respond to 

those types of communications? 

And things are changing. I mean with the mobile phones and cellular technologies and so forth, people are getting their information 

in very different ways than used to be the case before. We are 

funding research into the next frontier that can allow us to leverage all the advances in technology and couple it to people’s perception of risk, the reactions to risk, and those types of activities. So 

we believe this to be a very important part of the research program. It is no good to come up with technological solutions that 

people don’t use for improved public safety and the safety of themselves and their property and so on and so forth. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

And I wanted to—the next thing I want to address is building 

codes and address this to Dr. Hayes and Mr. Wright. We know that 

strong and modern building codes are often cited as the most effective tools for limiting the impact of earthquakes. How do model 

building codes in the United States compared to building codes in 

other countries such as Chile, Haiti, Japan, and New Zealand? And 

what have we—what lessons have we learned about the design of 

resilient structures from the recent earthquakes in these countries 

that I mentioned? 

So, Dr. Hayes, do you want to begin? 

Dr. HAYES. I think our current building codes are actually quite 

comparable to those that you would see in some of the countries 

you mentioned, particularly New Zealand and Japan. They are not 

identical. They have evolved in slightly different ways, but the 

earthquake professional community around the world is extremely 

close-knit and the provisions that are in one country will bear a 

striking resemblance quite often to provisions in another country. 

The NEHRP agencies study the earthquake events that occur in 

other countries to try to learn from them, particularly when the 

building codes in those countries lead to construction that is very 

similar to what we see in our country. And we are very conscious 

of the earthquake that occurred down in Chile that led to a lot of 

interest here in the United States and also the one in New Zealand 

that occurred in Christchurch. 

And in Christchurch, we haven’t yet had a chance to study that 

much about it, but a couple of things that have leaped out at us 

about Christchurch is that the liquefaction that occurred in the 

area is very similar to liquefaction that could occur in many earthquake-prone areas in our country, particularly in the middle 

United States. And the older buildings in Christchurch that were 

severely damaged bear a striking resemblance to the kinds of brittle or non-ductile buildings that you would see in many cities in 

the United States, and I think there is a lesson there that we all 

carry that these older buildings are really something that really 

need to be looked at very carefully in the future as we look at how 

we make our society more resilient. 

In New Zealand also I think that there was a realization that a 

moderate earthquake which people had thought might happen 

could be much more damaging than perhaps it was expected to be 
79 

in Christchurch. That was a devastating event there and the area 

has not fully recovered yet over two years later. It is still working 

on doing that. 

In Chile, their primary means of engineered construction was in 

reinforced concrete, and it turns out that in Chile they have adopted much of the American Concrete Institute’s provisions for seismic 

design in our country, but not all, and we have been studying what 

happened down there to learn from what went well and what didn’t 

go so well in their buildings and have produced a couple of reports 

on that already. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. End of my time but if the Chairman would allow 

Mr. Wright—do you have anything to add? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Just briefly to build on that. I think that what we 

learned from the work we see in Japan and Chile, we work with 

the other agencies that are here after those events and in particular to see how those elements will perform. Again, we are on 

a three-year cycle with the building codes in this nation by which 

we are continuing to make sure that those are being updated. The 

2015 ones have now been set, and we would look to the kinds of 

things that we will learn from Christchurch and Chile in terms of 

what it would mean to inform the next cycle. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I will just—sure—Dr. Khargonekar, go ahead. 

Dr. KHARGONEKAR. Well, In the spirit of the question, I would 

like to offer an example. We supported a RAPID response team in 

Hawaii and Oregon State to perform a high resolution survey of 

damaged coastline around Japan after the Tohoku Earthquake. 

Now, cutting long story short, they have collect data and their results are now being used by the committee working on Chapter 6 

on tsunami loads and effects for ASCE 7 standards. So we think 

that that is a great example where we fund research to go collected 

data, do all the work, and it comes back in effect. So we think that 

once the ASCE 7 standards are adopted, it will improve the whole 

building code in that particular section. Thank you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Johnson for his line of questioning. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to thank our panel for being with us today. 

You know, while your agencies are the four NEHRP agencies as 

defined in statute, I understand that other agencies such as NASA 

also conduct seismic or earthquake-related research and activities. 

Have there been any related earthquake-related collaborations that 

your agencies participated in with other agencies? And if so, what 

were those agencies and can you give us any idea of the work that 

was done to help us better prepare for earthquakes? Any of you? 

Dr. APPLEGATE. I can start on that one. Yeah, absolutely. It is 

a very good point. There are many different agencies that are involved in the earthquake arena and we actually have a White 

House Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction that brings together all 

of those agencies looking at different hazards and it is a way to 

bring this partnership in and coordinate with the broader effort. 
80 

With NASA, the USGS works very closely on, for example, SAR 

technology, Synthetic Aperture Radar, where you can use overlapping images to see change patterns. And so using that remote sensing technology that has been developed through NASA has been 

very valuable for understanding the damage patterns, for example, 

after events. 

We also work very closely with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. Of course they have very specific concerns and issues 

as they ensure the safety of the Nation’s nuclear power plants and 

they have supported some tremendous research looking at particularly some of these sort of very long-term—you know, the Black 

Swan type events and events in the eastern and central United 

States. So there are a number of other agencies that play a key 

role here. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Thank you. 

Anybody else? 

Dr. KHARGONEKAR. On the disaster recovery side of the problem, 

we work closely with other agencies such as Department of Transportation on developing plans on how one would recover from disasters. We have ongoing research projects and activities that bring 

together these communities. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. 

Shifting gears just a little bit, talking about earthquake hazard 

mitigation, what type of research in your opinion is needed to better understand and encourage people to adopt earthquake hazard 

mitigation measures? I mean what is our greatest weakness in 

terms of our current approach to earthquake mitigation? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, I will start. It is—the country’s understanding 

of risk is a very difficult thing to somehow pierce through. We see 

this across many of the natural hazards by which they may understand that there is a hazard that could affect them but they somehow believe that it won’t necessarily impact them the day that it 

occurs, this kind of cognitive dissonance that sits there. And so it 

is that kind of partnership that goes towards that social science research that helps us get past those next kind of pieces. 

You look across the Nation and, as I was showing the map of it 

earlier, about—there are high seismic risks in parts of the country, 

yet the element that we know does the most to help mitigate that 

related to building codes, many have not chosen yet to adopt those. 

And so these elements are things we continue to collaborate, particularly with the National Science Foundation, but others as well 

in terms of how do we link what we know on the seismic side with 

the social science side? 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. So it is kind of ‘‘it is not likely to happen 

to me’’ syndrome that we are dealing with? 

Mr. WRIGHT. That is exactly the case. And we struggle with this 

across a whole range of hazards that we would deal with in an 

emergency management space, but these kind of no-notice events 

that happen on sort of a severe or catastrophic level on a far less 

frequent basis really allow people’s attention to them to erode. 

Dr. KHARGONEKAR. I would like to just add a few comments to 

what was stated. You know, one of the questions you may ask is 

what is the impact of having insurance on people’s behavior in 

adoption of solutions? So we funded again collaborative research 
81 

with colleagues in New Zealand because their situation is very 

similar to the United States’ situation with respect to insurance, 

and we are funding research, we are collecting data from Christchurch to see what was the impact of having different kinds of insurance on people’s behaviors and decisions, so it is sort of the social, behavioral science type of activity, and that complements what 

was said earlier. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. So do you have any examples of lowhanging fruit in overcoming that risk avoidance or lackadaisical attitude if you will? I guess that is a good way to phrase it. Any ideas 

on how we go about penetrating that? You talked about some of 

them but—— 

Mr. WRIGHT. I think part of what we have found when we deal 

with these issues some of it happens from a grassroots perspective 

but local elected leaders and particularly the economic drivers in 

the community often are the kind of place by which they are able 

to provide the kind of leadership in a State—you look at—there are 

particular things that happen in some of the major industries that 

are in the Memphis area and how they began to really lean forward in this space and work with those local electives to pay more 

attention to this kind of risk. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I would like to just comment on what you talked about briefly 

and I think in healthcare we are acutely aware of people’s lack of 

understanding of statistical probability. I think it may start in 

grade school where we are not doing a good enough job for people, 

in all seriousness, understanding statistics, and that is very important. Without that understanding, you can’t really figure out what 

the risk is so—— 

Mr. WRIGHT. Without question. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Yes. 

Mr. Collins, I recognize you for five minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am kind of a private sector guy. I am new to Congress but I 

have spent decades in the private sector, and I always come to 

work and when I tour companies now, the first thing I look for on 

the wall is a vision statement. Why did you come to work today? 

And a mission statement, what are we going to try to accomplish? 

And I always talk about five-year strategic plan and so forth and 

so on, just very metric-driven and results-oriented. 

So I guess with half the money—Dr. Applegate, for NEHRP, 

more or less half of it going to your agency, and I know you are 

natural hazards so that is beyond just earthquakes, but a simple 

question. Is there an underlying vision statement and/or mission 

statement related to the work that we are doing on earthquakes 

that somebody would see when they come to work and say this is 

the Holy Grail? Or—and is there a strategic plan within your organization? And if so, are there like three things you could point to, 

ABC, that you accomplished last year and three more this year and 

three more next year, just kind of hard things? 

Dr. APPLEGATE. Sure, absolutely. Working in the broader hazards 

mission of the USGS, and I oversaw these earthquake efforts pre-
82 

vious to that, yes, you know why you get up in the morning and 

it is about making the American people safer. It is as simple as 

that. It is a public safety mission. We are trying to ensure that 

science is there to help people when the event strikes so that we 

are providing the situational awareness, where the shaking is most 

intense, what the emergency managers need to be able to respond, 

what the public needs to know. 

But the most important things we do are what happens before 

the event and that is what has been talked about a lot here. We 

use our seismic hazard assessments to bring everything that we 

know about the hazard both from the fundamental research coming 

through NSF, as well as the targeted research we do that feeds 

then into the building code process and helps to make people safer. 

So you have the one element is the monitoring, the situational 

awareness; the other is the assessment understanding so that you 

can build buildings that are going to be safe for people. 

And the third piece of it is education. It is just what we were 

talking about. How do you make these hazards real to people? And 

so we do a lot with our agency partners in the public preparedness 

arena, the shakeout events which now—started in California but 

they now involve—I think we are up to about 38 of the States— 

FEMA has been a big supporter of this—to simply get people to 

participate in drop, cover, and hold drills and do one of the things 

to protect themselves. 

Jack would be the best to talk about the broader NEHRP strategic plan. Within USGS, we have nested our earthquake hazards 

program plan within that broader NEHRP strategy as well as within our broader natural hazards mission. 

Mr. COLLINS. Now, I would think early warning would go a long 

way. And I understand we have got a pilot program in California, 

but if there is probably anything that could truly save lives, you 

can’t prevent the earthquake, but if somebody had even the oneor two-minute warning, it—— 

Dr. APPLEGATE. Absolutely. I mean I think what we saw in the 

Japan, there are three key elements. I mean there were relatively 

low—from the magnitude 9 earthquake, giant earthquake that 

struck that country, relatively low fatalities from the earthquake 

shaking itself, probably in the order of maybe 100, 150. That reflects three things. One of them is building codes. They were—people were in buildings that did not collapse, and that is I think the 

first thing and the most important. Then it is that public awareness, that culture. The third thing is they have early warning and 

so people did receive the notice before the shaking event so they 

could get themselves safe. There are a lot of things that can be 

done even with just a few seconds. And so we are trying to move 

towards that for that very reason. 

Mr. COLLINS. Do you have a goal in mind there? Again, back to 

vision statements, is there a goal to have early warning at least in 

the most critical areas by date certain and is there a way to measure that? And—— 

Dr. APPLEGATE. Yes. We have just recently issued an implementation plan for earthquake early warning for the West Coast, so the 

beginning phase is the pilot effort in California expanding up the 

West Coast. But in many ways the high hazard areas, for example, 
83 

in the central United States where you are likely to have shaking 

experienced over very broad areas, you would actually get additional time before that shaking arrives, so less frequent events but 

the potential for damage over much broader areas. So, yes, absolutely, we have those plans in place. We would be very happy to 

share those. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yeah. No, thank you very much. 

It looks like my time is expired. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

And at this point I would like to thank the witnesses for your 

valuable testimony. It is a very fascinating subject. 

The Members of the committee may have additional questions as 

we asked about the list of funding projects for you and we will ask 

you to respond to those in writing. The witnesses are excused, and 

at this point we will take a very short break prior to the next 

panel. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. Now, I will introduce 

our witnesses for our second panel. 

Our first witness of our second panel is Dr. Julio Ramirez. Dr. 

Ramirez is Professor of Civil Engineering, Chief Officer of the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation and NEEScomm Center Director at the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake 

Engineering Simulation at Purdue University. And I have visited 

their facility; it is a great facility. 

Our second witness is Dr. William Savage, Manager of William 

Savage Consulting, LLC. He is also an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Geoscience and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction at the University of Nevada 

Las Vegas. 

Our third witness is Mr. Jonathan Monken, Director of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency. Mr. Monken previously 

served as Acting Director of the Illinois State Police and possesses 

a distinguished military career having served in Kosovo and Iraq. 

Thank you for that service. It is much appreciated. 

Our final witness is Dr. Andrew Whittaker. Dr. Whittaker is Professor and Chair of the Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering at the University at Buffalo, and the Director of MCEER. 

As our witnesses know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each, after which Members of the committee will ask questions for five minutes. Your written testimony will be included in 

the record of the hearing. 

I now recognize our first witness, Dr. Ramirez, for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JULIO A. RAMIREZ, 

PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, 

NEES CHIEF OFFICER AND NEESCOMM CENTER DIRECTOR, 

GEORGE E. BROWN JR., 

NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION 

(NEES), PURDUE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. RAMIREZ. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity, 

Chairman Bucshon, Congressman Lipinski, and distinguished 
84 

Members of the panel, to testify before the Congress as you work 

to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP. 

I am Julio Ramirez, a Professor of Structural Engineering in the 

School of Civil Engineering of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and the Chief Officer of the NSF-funded George E. 

Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, 

NEES. 

Existing vulnerable buildings and infrastructure assets are the 

number one seismic safety problem in the United States and the 

world today. Since the 1980s, I have been involved in the development of building codes and conducted research in earthquake safety of buildings and bridges. I have lead or participated in some 

eight reconnaissance missions starting with the earthquake of 

Northridge, California. The central purpose of these missions was 

to gather perishable data on the performance of bridges and buildings following major earthquakes to distill lessons to improve the 

seismic resilience of our society. 

The NEHRP vision is for a nation that is earthquake-resilient 

with regard to public safety, economic strength, and national security. NEHRP provides the critical support structure for seismic protection in the United States. The NSF provides the fundamental research arm of NEHRP supporting research in engineering, Earth, 

and the social sciences. To mitigate the earthquake risk by reducing the vulnerability of the built environment, the NSF-funded 

NEES originated in 2004 as a national multiuser research infrastructure, and its central mission aligns with the larger NEHRP 

national plan for earthquake risk reduction. May I have the first 

slide, please? 

[Slide.] 

Dr. RAMIREZ. NEES laboratories are used for research conducted 

or funded by the NSF, other government agencies, and by private 

industry. To date, more than 400 multiyear, multi-investigative 

projects have been completed or are in progress at NEES sites. 

These projects are yielding a wealth of valuable experimental data 

and continue to produce informational research and outcomes that 

impact the engineering practice from building models to design 

guidelines and codes. 

Information on the impact of NEES work is submitted with my 

written testimony as Reference 3, ‘‘NEES, 2004–2014, A Decade of 

Earthquake Engineering Research.’’ In this document there are— 

there is information regarding lifelines projects that have been 

funded by NSF and many other references as well. 

The human capital gain in this activity represented by the more 

than 2,000 graduate and undergraduate students that have participated in on-site of NEES researchers also supports the United 

States in retaining a competitive edge in the STEM areas. Many 

of the world’s global challenges such as the mitigation of earthquake risk can best be met with a strong presence of engineers 

working in teams with social scientists and other experts, yet the 

number of U.S. engineering students is declining. 

Purdue University and our College of Engineering have taken a 

leadership role as part of a national call to graduate 10,000 more 
85 

engineers per year enhancing our state and national capacity for 

innovation, economic growth, and solutions to global challenges. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. RAMIREZ. Linking the NEES experimental facilities to its 

users in the community is the NEES cyber infrastructure. This 

unique system of IT resources enables researchers participating at 

the facilities or remotely to collect, view, process, and store data 

from NEES experiments and to conduct numerical simulations 

with access to key U.S. high-performance computing resources. 

At the heart of this system is NEEShub, a platform designed to 

facilitate information exchange and collaboration among earthquake engineering research and other stakeholders. NEEShub features the NEES Data Repository with over 2.5 million data files. 

This public repository is used to store and share data of research 

and research results. 

Final slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. RAMIREZ. Since the first release of NEEShub in August 2010 

it has served tens of thousands of users of more than 200 countries. 

In conclusion, maintaining a balanced program supporting research and the Earth science, engineering, and social sciences is 

important. In achieving resilience of communities against earthquakes and tsunamis, engineering-related research is of the highest priority as it directly impacts the mitigation of the extent of 

damage to the built environment and can reduce the time needed 

for recovery. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ramirez follows:] 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I recognize Dr. Savage for five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM U. SAVAGE, 

CONSULTING SEISMOLOGIST, 

WILLIAM SAVAGE CONSULTING, LLC 

Dr. SAVAGE. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member 

Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I am speaking to you today on behalf of the Seismological Society 

of America, a scientific organization devoted to the advancement of 

seismology and the understanding of earthquakes for the benefit of 

society. I also am speaking specifically about lifelines and my experience there devolves from 15 years working for Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company in San Francisco in the late ’80s until 2000. 

My written testimony addresses four pertinent questions that I 

was asked. Although there is not time this morning to cover all 

four, I would like to discuss the question asked about my views on 

the Nation’s level of earthquake preparation and resiliency regarding lifelines, particularly the urban utility systems for electric 

power, natural gas, potable water, and wastewater. These systems 

are the underpinning of our modern society. 

To get to the essential point, I personally think that we actually 

do not know how resilient our urban utilities systems are in terms 

of their operability to deliver customer service after the next strong 

earthquake. Utility personnel may have opinions one way or another but they generally do not have a strong objective basis for a 

definitive statement. 

In my written testimony I briefly discussed four guideline documents prepared by FEMA’s American Lifelines Alliance that use 

currently available information to provide guidance for conducting 

such assessments for the four types of urban utility systems. The 

guidance calls for systematic and quantitative consideration of the 

two key aspects of each assessment: first, specification of the local 

and regional earthquake hazards, both ground shaking and ground 

failures; and secondly, estimation of the expected performance of 

the utility system components given the hazard and the impact of 

the expected performance on customers. 

The American Lifelines Alliance guidelines can only go so far in 

giving a rigorous answer to questions about what would happen if 

this or that earthquake occurred. The next stage of lifeline resiliency assessment is calling for development of more refined hazard 

characterizations using advances in geotechnical and seismological 

modeling to estimate ground motions and ground failures. The U.S. 

Geological Survey is already engaged in research that is leading to 

such advances. 

Performance modeling of pipelines, substation equipment, overhead transmission structures, et cetera, is also advancing with 

NSF and NIST exploring research in these areas. Operating utilities and related professional organizations are evaluating the benefits of such advances and are likely to help fund them. These advances are necessary to achieve a high level of confidence in understanding the earthquake performance of lifeline components and 

thus the resiliency of utility operations. One of the mechanisms to 

pursue this goal is a reauthorized NEHRP program. Authorization 
99 

of this valuable program provides continuity and stability for the 

NEHRP agencies. 

In closing, I should point out the obvious. There are two ways to 

find out if a utility lifeline is resilient to earthquakes. The first way 

is to invest in improved hazard characterizations and performance 

models for lifelines and plan to mitigate the unacceptable risks. 

The second way is to just wait and see what happens in the next 

damaging earthquake. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you and I would 

be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Savage follows:] 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 

Chairman BUCSHON. Yeah, hopefully we can use the former in 

that to figure this out. 

I now recognize Mr. Monken for five minutes for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JONATHON MONKEN, 

DIRECTOR AND HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR, 

ILLINOIS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. MONKEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be 

here to speak with all of you and represent the Illinois Emergency 

Management Agency, Governor Quinn, and the State of Illinois to 

discuss this incredibly important program of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 

So it is a critical asset not just in our ability to work with the 

earthquake hazard but all hazards because it is really about that 

collaborative nature that the program is really founded under. 

My biggest concern right now with the program overall is that 

the collaborative nature in which it was founded to execute is 

something that we have kind of strayed from over the course of the 

past few years. And there is a variety of different reasons why that 

has happened, but right now, it comes at a time when the risk of 

this particular hazard, we are gaining a better understanding of it 

and we are certainly seeing both increased frequency of seismic activity and we are getting a better understanding of the severity of 

the potential threat. And that was mentioned earlier with the 

USGS’s release of their updated earthquake hazard maps and some 

of the statistics that we see just from the last few years. 

So taken in context in Illinois and the central United States, that 

area of the country on average from 1981 to 2011 saw an average 

of 20 earthquakes per year. In the last three years we have seen 

a quintuple increase in the frequency of earthquakes to the tune 

of 100 earthquakes per year. So this in another itself is certainly 

concerning but it also highlights the importance of what we are 

talking about here. 

Now, it is a little-known fact that the most powerful earthquake 

in the continental United States in history actually happened in 

the central United States in 1811 and 1812 when a 7.7 magnitude 

earthquake struck and two aftershocks. If a comparable magnitude 

earthquake struck today in the same area, it would cause economic 

damage to the total of about $300 billion. Put into context, Hurricane Katrina, the most expensive U.S. disaster in history to date, 

was $106 billion. 

So there is a lot of progress that we can make in a lot of things 

that we have seen to make progress in this area in the emergency 

management community. A specific example is the CAPSTONE–14 

exercise conducted in June of this year when we had an opportunity for 2,500 personnel in 20 States to participate in this fourday event. We beta-tested the first-ever multistate common operating picture sharing more than 13,000 real-time status updates of 

critical data from 440 counties and seven impacted states. Additionally, we launched the first National Resource Database with 

more than 500 mission-ready packaged asset deploying from 18 different states across the country. The tools and processes created for 

this exercise have fundamentally changed the way we plan for, re-
108 

spond to, and recover from disasters of all types. Additionally, we 

developed awareness campaigns such as the Great U.S. ShakeOut 

with millions of people participating across the country. We also 

improved school safety drills and created public service announcements to educate those in areas of the country where the threat 

still remains a relative unknown. 

Despite these successes, these efforts also served to identify gaps 

in our systems and capabilities, as well as the inherent weaknesses 

in our critical infrastructure and life-support systems. The problem 

in front of us now is, because of these issues, right now the track 

of NEHRP really threatens to not only lose some of the lessons that 

we have learned in recent years but really take us back to a time 

that predates the existence of the program. 

Some of these problems began with the expiration of the NEHRP 

authorization of 2009, as has been discussed extensively today, and 

the lack of reauthorization since then. This program absolutely deserves to be a legislative priority and balance should be restored 

in terms of how the program is governed and funded. While emergency management plays a significant role in earthquake preparation response and mitigation, only 1 of the 15 Members of the 

NEHRP Advisory Committee actually comes from the emergency 

management profession. 

From a funding perspective, emergency management is also 

grossly underrepresented, receiving less than seven percent of all 

funds allocated for this particular threat. To make matters worse, 

the state-level earthquake program managers are rapidly disappearing due to a decision by the Federal Emergency Management Agency pulling all state funding in Federal Fiscal Year 2013. 

The need for coordination between all levels of government has 

never been greater, and yet the program continues to lag behind 

at the federal level because of FEMA’s NEHRP office being buried 

and fragmented within the agency. This disjointed approach makes 

it even more important for the earthquake consortia located 

throughout the State that perform that multistate coordination effort. Language related to consortia absolutely needs to be restored 

as part of the authorization recognizing these entities as critical in 

the process of multistate coordination for these particular threats 

and along regional lines. 

The most important change in research and development measures is a better integration of the components of the program. 

NEHRP was designed to be a hazard reduction program, not just 

hazard research and to conduct more targeted risk assessments 

based on joint evaluations from program participants. These assessments should be focused on more detailed impact analysis and 

sectors of critical infrastructure such as road and bridge networks, 

rail systems, potable and wastewater systems, voice and data communications in the national power grid to use the limited resources 

that we have on the most important projects first. 

I appreciate the time here today and I look forward to any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Monken follows:] 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Dr. Whittaker for his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ANDREW S. WHITTAKER, 

PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DIRECTOR MCEER; 

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, STRUCTURAL AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 

UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO, 

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

Dr. WHITTAKER. Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, 

and other Members of the committee, good morning. 

My name is Andrew Whittaker and I am delighted to appear before you this morning. I am an academic structural engineer employed as a Professor of Civil Engineering in the Department of 

Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering at the University 

at Buffalo and I serve as the Director of the earthquake-focused 

center known by the acronym MCEER. 

Your letter of invitation asked me to respond to four specific 

items in my written testimony and I talk to only one of the four 

today for reasons of time. And the question is what are your recommendations for research and development measures in earthquake preparation and mitigation? 

The United States Geological Survey is building the Advanced 

National Seismic System, as identified previously by Dr. Applegate. 

Information from the instruments in the System will permit refinement in the mapping of the earthquake hazards, the development 

of improved ground motion prediction equations, and a much better 

understanding of how clusters of buildings respond to earthquakes. 

Importantly, the successful and complete deployment of the Advanced National Seismic System by the USGS will enable the 

Earthquake Early Warning System that was identified previously. 

ANSS is not being deployed at the speed originally envisioned and 

I recommend that ANSS be completed as quickly as possible and 

that its maintenance and use be adequately funded. 

Second, the National Science Foundation has operated the NEES 

collaboratory since 2004. As Professor Ramirez noted, the equipment sites within the collaboratory offer unique physical testing capabilities ranging from geotechnical centrifuges to earthquake simulators to a tsunami wave basin. University at Buffalo is home to 

one of these NEES equipment sites. Professor Ramirez identified 

the benefits of NEES that have found their way into our building 

standards and building codes already. The NEES collaboratory will 

end in September 2014 to be replaced by a smaller number of 

equipment sites with an expanded treatment of hazards. It is unclear what the impact on seismic risk reduction and earthquake resilience will be, but the momentum we have gained over the past 

decade will certainly be lost unless the National Science Foundation’s support for earthquake engineering research is maintained at 

current levels or increased. 

Five subject areas deserving of future NEHRP resources are 

identified in my written testimony and these cut across the 18 elements of the National Research Council roadmap. I will focus here 

on three of the five. First, lifelines. Lifelines such as water, gas, 
116 

and oil pipelines, power transmission systems, and rail lines and 

highways and bridges provide the core of resilience. Their failure 

or part thereof has led to significant cascading financial losses in 

past earthquakes and their unavailability after an earthquake dramatically slows response and recovery. The interdependency of lifelines and the regional and national economic and social impacts of 

their loss in the event of a major earthquake are not understood. 

Lifelines should be a focus of NEHRP because they substantially 

affect earthquake resilience and in my opinion have received far 

too little attention to date. 

Progress has been made in the domain of performance-based 

earthquake engineering through NSF funding, NEES research, and 

the FEMA-funded ATC–58 project. Additional work is needed to refine the tools and calculation procedures, address other types of 

buildings and structural systems, to better consider the effects of 

soil structure interaction, and to extend the products to non-building structures. 

Technology transfer and earthquake engineering has traditionally been accomplished by the promulgation of codes, standards, 

and guidelines. NEHRP has made many significant contributions 

to the standards, codes, and guidelines, and these efforts must be 

continued. In the past six years, NIST has sponsored the preparation of technical briefs that transform basic and applied research 

into practical guidance for design professionals, enabling them to 

fully leverage federal investments in NSF and USGS, and this activity must also continue. 

FEMA plays a critical role in implementing risk mitigation measures developed by its NEHRP agency partners and others, and I 

recommend that support for FEMA be substantially strengthened 

to enable effective implementation, which is the key to achieving 

resilience. 

In closing, continued support at NEHRP is vital because the risk 

our nation faces measured here in terms of economic loss, business 

interruption, dislocation of social fabric, and casualties grows by 

the day because mission-critical infrastructure, property, and population density are increasing in locations affected by earthquakes. 

Our nation will not become earthquake-resilient if the NEHRP 

agency partnership with the earthquake professional community is 

ended. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Whittaker follows:] 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much for your testimony 

and thank all the witnesses. And be assured that your written testimony is critical to the committee even though we don’t have a 

large number of Members here today. Your both spoken and written testimony is critical when we try to reauthorize these programs. So I wanted you to know that. 

Also, I thank Mr. Monken because this past winter I had two 

family Members stuck on I–57 for about 12 hours when you had 

that big snowstorm. But—I don’t know if you were there then 

but—and your agency was very responsive trying to find out the 

status of my family. It was about ten below zero and there were 

accidents on 57 and people were stuck for a long time, so thank 

you. And I will take that personal privilege to thank your agency 

at this point. 

Mr. MONKEN. You are very welcome, sir. 

Chairman BUCSHON. And I am going to remind the Members 

that the committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. 

The Chair at this point will recognize himself for five minutes. 

And I will direct this to Dr. Ramirez. 

And I say this a little tongue-in-cheek, are all the major problems in earthquake engineering solved and should we now focus on 

solving problems in response and recovery? 

Dr. RAMIREZ. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. 

To improve the resilience of our society, it is important not only 

to facilitate the road to recovery but also to limit the amount of 

damage that occurs after an event. And here is where mitigation 

plays a critical role not only in identifying the vulnerable infrastructure, assessing it properly, and then putting in place measures 

to upgrade its performance. Work is very much needed in that area 

and should be continued. 

Chairman BUCSHON. And Purdue has—also to you, Dr. Ramirez, 

Purdue has pledged to increase the number of engineers graduated. 

How do undergraduate and graduate engineering students participate in the research funded by the National Science Foundation 

grant to Purdue and NEES, and how does that contribution to 

their success—how does that contribute to their success post-graduation? 

Dr. RAMIREZ. Thank you. The contribution is essential in the development of the conduct of the research. They do it at various levels. One of the most successful programs in NEES is the research 

experience for undergraduates. Since the program was instituted 

about eight years or so ago, close to 700 undergraduates have benefited from this experience. Of those, fully half of them have continued to do research as graduate students in the earthquake engineering field. Furthermore, in these last two years, graduates from 

the REU program have been now graduate students mentoring current REU students. 

The graduate students are the blood of the research that is conducted throughout NEES, fully including Ph.D.s and masters. Over 

1,200 of them have gotten their degrees through Purdue. Of the 

Ph.D. students, 75 percent of them have gone into academia and 

are now many of them researchers in NEES as well. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 
127 

And this would be for all witnesses. What is the greatest weakness in the current approach to earthquake mitigation? Anyone 

want to tackle the question? 

Mr. Monken. 

Mr. MONKEN. So, first off, I was in the emergency operations center all night. I didn’t sleep until everyone made it out at about 5:00 

a.m.—— 

Chairman BUCSHON. You remember that, right? 

Mr. MONKEN. Every—absolutely. January 6 I will not forget. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Yeah. 

Mr. MONKEN. I think for—when it comes to mitigation the hard 

part is the size of the elephant is enormous and trying to prioritize 

those efforts is where we run into significant issues. There is not 

enough funding in the world and there aren’t enough programs in 

the world to address them all. And I think the untapped potential 

that exists with the Members of the NEHRP really comes down to 

a more targeted approach of risk assessment as we go through and 

identify the projects that are most critical. So when we look at 

those lifeline sources, that was articulated well by many of the witnesses here today, starting with some of those systems to be able 

to try and address some of the systemic weaknesses that exist 

within the systems I think will have the most significant impact 

in terms of loss of life and property. So that prioritization I think 

in mitigation is the biggest shortfall that we had today to make 

sure that we are making the best use of limited assets. 

Chairman BUCSHON. How do we do that? How do we make that 

happen? 

Mr. MONKEN. I think with a greater integration when we look at 

things like the exercises that we conduct and a better integration 

with the private sector. So the last exercise we conducted was extremely valuable because we had 45 companies running parallel exercises simultaneously to give us a better and more detailed understanding of that 85 percent of all critical infrastructure that resides 

within the private sector. So they can help us prioritize some of 

their efforts and we can do a better assessment holistically if we 

see that better cross-section of the research community embedded 

within the exercise programs of emergency management as well. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Anyone else have any comments? 

Dr. Savage. 

Dr. SAVAGE. I think the uncertainty in the NEHRP organizations 

based on the lack of authorization of the program is a tremendous 

threat, and I think that action that you all are looking at is probably in the near term the most important thing that can be done. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. Dr. Whittaker, you have—— 

Dr. WHITTAKER. Just a short comment. You asked what is the 

greatest weakness in risk mitigation? I would say not knowing our 

exposure. And in my written testimony I have an example of the 

ports of L.A. and Long Beach through which 40 percent of our nation’s imports flow. The loss of those ports would have a catastrophic financial impact on our nation, not just Southern California but the impact would stretch all the way across the country. 

We just don’t yet know what those impacts would be. We don’t 

know the interdependency of the lifelines, and until we do, it will 

be difficult to develop cost-effective mitigation strategies. 
128 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, I want to start off by thanking Dr. Ramirez for emphasizing the need for more training for more engineers in our country. We certainly need more engineers in our nation and we need more engineers in Congress also I think. 

Director Monken, I want to also thank you for your service to our 

nation and your service now to the State of Illinois. Obviously from 

what Chairman Bucshon was—the story he relayed, you are doing 

a good job there in some very tough times. 

One question I wanted to ask Director Monken, how is the—how 

is your work with the federal government? Is there more that the 

federal government can be doing, in terms of coordinating with 

States? Is there anything that you would recommend? 

Mr. MONKEN. Yeah, I think there is a couple issues that are out 

there right now. One is that the National Earthquake Program is 

not treated similarly to other catastrophic hazards, specifically hurricane is an example. So the National Earthquake Program does 

not have a dedicated program manager; there is not an SES-level 

individual at FEMA dedicated to the earthquake program. It is currently housed in Mitigation, which is not obviously an unimportant 

component of what we are talking about. It is hugely important. 

However, it does not give—because of its presence in Mitigation, it 

doesn’t give it full access to the capacity of FEMA as the hurricane 

program has in the response and recovery division in terms of access to funding, additional resources, things like that. 

And then as I mentioned in my testimony, the removal of funding directly to States to fund earthquake program managers at the 

state level being pulled in Fiscal Year 2013 has really created a situation now where we have very, very limited engagement. Right 

now, there are more FEMA regions that don’t have an earthquake 

program manager than FEMA regions that do, and that is a huge 

problem because that is the point of coordination for emergency 

management nationally and it also underscores the importance of 

these consortia, the three earthquake consortia located throughout 

the United States that are region-specific. And they perform an incredible task of that state-to-state coordination and yet have not 

seen any changes in their funding or programmatic or policy-level 

support in the past 20 years. So the lack of emphasis on some of 

those grassroots coordinating programs I think has had a detrimental effect. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And one other question I wanted to ask, as you notice a theme here, I am an engineer. I am also a social scientist. 

I have always asked about the social science aspects of—any issue 

that we are dealing with and the research and how you deal with 

the human element. 

So let me start with Director Monken. What kind of work do you 

do to try to ensure that people of the State of Illinois understand 

the risks from earthquakes? Is this a—do you find this to be a big 

problem? I know most people are going to think more about tornadoes than they do about earthquakes, but how does all of that come 

together? And what you do in terms of trying to make people aware 

of the risk and also to prepare them—so that they know what to 

do in case there is a major earthquake? 
129 

Mr. MONKEN. Yes, sir. It is a great question and I think it is accurately highlighted as a significant issue. We have had 11 declared disasters in Illinois in the last five years, none of which were 

earthquakes, so that is really where a lot of the emphasis happened. But I think some of the public awareness campaigns that 

we have done, the areas where we have had specific success is certainly within schools and that is where Chairman Bucshon was 

right on. Elementary school students, these are the folks that actually retain this information for the rest of their lives. Adults have 

made up their minds for all intents and purposes. In trying to 

reach out to students and educate them on those threats, there is 

the educational component that exists with it and that extends 

through the development and training of engineers at all levels. All 

those levels of understanding are important. 

We also saw that our PSAs were actually generated by high 

school and college students in the States, so we actually put it to 

them to come up with public awareness campaigns, videos, and 

radio bits that were much more effective in actually reaching their 

peers instead of a government person like myself trying to relate 

to a 12-year-old and telling them why this is important. Have another one of their fellow students communicate that message to 

them. 

And the ShakeOut grew from just a handful of a few thousand 

people the first year to the annual competition between Illinois and 

Indiana to see who can get more people to participate and over 10 

million people participating nationally last year, those are successes that really need to be reinforced. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, and I appreciate all of the witnesses’ 

comments on NEHRP, and again I emphasize that hopefully we 

will get reauthorization done. And I think all of your comments 

have—are very helpful to us as we work to move that forward. 

So I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I recognize Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much, 

panel, for being here. I think this is really important for us to be 

able to hear how NEHRP affects practitioners, especially those at 

the state and local level, really on the ground, so I really thank 

you. And I especially want to thank Director Monken. So good to 

have you here. I appreciate your service to our country and to our 

State, and please say hi to your family back in St. Charles as well. 

Mr. MONKEN. Yes, sir. Will do. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I am glad you are here. 

Director Monken, I wanted to address a couple questions to you 

first if I could. First, does NEHRP program—does the program 

produce actionable data for the emergency management community? If so, what types of data are produced, shared, and utilized, 

and how are technical guidance, behavior research, and other information produced by NEHRP agencies shared with local stakeholders? 

Mr. MONKEN. So the answer is yes and no. So there is actually 

an incredible amount of information and data that is generated 

from the entities that are represented here as witnesses today and 

many other folks who are not, but the hard part is turning infor-
130 

mation into intelligence, and the difference is whether or not it is 

actionable. And we have gotten a good partnership with U.S. Geological Survey. We had been able to use some of there what they 

call the PAGER program where people can actually report ground 

shake from their mobile phones to give us a clear picture of what 

is happening and to what extent the ground is shaking. Those 

things are all very, very important. 

What we want to do is tie it together in a more practical sense 

and have a more collaborative outreach between emergency management to make sure that those efforts are as integrated as possible to make sure that the time being spent on research is targeted to the areas with greatest impact in terms of lives and property saved and really trying to make sure that it is more of a userdefined system. 

So some of the information-sharing that we pilot-tested during 

the exercises here was unprecedented. Four hundred and forty 

counties in seven States have never shared data in any way, shape, 

or form in any disaster in U.S. history. I can’t overstate the importance of that. But the research community absolutely needs to be 

integrated into that process to make sure that the models that are 

being generated and research are being compared and utilized to 

effectively execute the exercise. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Is there an openness you think for that, first of 

all recognizing that the successes of the pilot program but then seeing potential hurdles and dealing with those hurdles? Is there an 

openness there? I guess how can we help? 

Mr. MONKEN. Yes, sir. Well, certainly the reauthorization of the 

program is hugely important and some of the changes I mentioned 

at FEMA I think would go a long way to making sure we are doing 

that, and then supporting the consortia because that is—CUSEC, 

the Central United States Earthquake Consortium that Illinois and 

Indiana are part of, was actually the organization that ran that exercise. It wasn’t a federally led effort. So reinforcing that type of 

success is absolutely important. 

But I think it is fertile ground. Everybody wants the same thing 

when it comes down to it. The hard part is making sure, as I mentioned, the NEHRP Advisory Council out of 15 people only has one 

emergency manager on it. It is very difficult to understand local 

and state impact when they are not represented on that group that 

is consulting on how we should be guiding the program. So that is 

hugely important. 

But I think it is fertile ground to do it and I think the folks that 

are doing the research, they want that input; they want that interplay because it only makes their research more targeted and more 

effective just like we want access to that information to build our 

exercises around and then ultimately compare that to a real-world 

event. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Dr. Monken, I wondered if you could address— 

quickly, we touched on this a little bit—but if you could talk a little 

bit more about the state of research and development for hazard 

mitigation tools and products. These activities must meet the needs 

of state and local officials who must prepare their communities for 

disaster and help them respond. How well do NEHRP activities 

meet state and local needs and how could efforts be better aligned? 
131 

We kind of touched on that already, but what are the lessons that 

can be drawn from the resilience demonstrated in responding to a 

moderate earthquake and in preparing for a great one? 

Mr. MONKEN. So I think the issues that we have seen that we 

have run into is in large part some of the state and local mitigation 

programs are very compartmentalized. So each of the programs or 

proposals are analyzed individually. So as we go through the 

FEMA process for spending mitigation dollars, each program is 

evaluated on its own merits without a great deal of consideration 

for the interconnectivity with corresponding projects in the same 

area of impact within the same scope of the hazard. 

So I think that component needs to be brought to bear in more 

detail, not to mention the fact that in many cases if it is the private sector that benefits specifically from it, so if it is a utility company that has a mitigation project they want to do, that is not 

something that we do within the federal mitigation program. So 

how do we coordinate their efforts to make sure that we don’t 

build, as we like to say, cylinders of excellence or these individual 

silos that are—that have these pockets of competency that aren’t 

really tied into the interconnectivity of these lifeline systems that 

are out there? 

So that is where the private sector outreach comes into play. So 

utility companies alone, there are 3,000 utility providers in the 

country, and trying to tie those folks together is difficult but they 

are willing participants to do it. And I think some of the issues are 

really known. If an earthquake like this hit the central United 

States, power would be out for 6 to 9 months, not days or weeks. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yeah. Well, my time is coming to a close. Thank 

you again, all of you, for being here. I appreciate your input on this 

important program. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

At this point I will thank all the witnesses for your valuable testimony. Like I said, your written testimony—your spoken testimony is very important to the committee and for the Members for 

their questions. 

The Members of the committee may have additional questions for 

you and we will ask you to respond in writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written 

questions from Members. 

At this point the witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(133) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
134 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Pramod P. Khargonekar 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 

Responses by Mr. Roy E. Wright 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 

Responses by Dr. Julio A. Ramirez 
150 
151 
152 

Responses by Dr. William U. Savage 
153 
154 

Responses by Mr. Jonathon Monken 
155 
156 

Responses by Dr. Andrew S. Whittaker 
157 
158 
(159) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
160 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE

RANKING MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI
161 
162 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON
163 
164 
165 
166 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY MR. JAY BERGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE
167 
168 

Æ