19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–666 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HALL, from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3479] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 3479) to reauthorize Federal natural hazards 

reduction programs, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose and Summary ............................................................................... 8 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 8 

IV. Hearing Summary ....................................................................................... 10 

V. Committee Consideration ........................................................................... 10 

VI. Committee Votes ......................................................................................... 11 

VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 19 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 20 

IX. Committee Oversight Findings .................................................................. 22 

X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 22 

XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 22 

XII. Advisory on Earmarks ................................................................................ 22 

XIII. Committee Cost Estimate ........................................................................... 22 

XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 22 

XV. Federal Mandates Statement ..................................................................... 25 

XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 25 

XVII. Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................... 25 

XVIII. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ......................................... 25 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 28 

XX. Exchange of Committee Correspondence .................................................. 47 

XXI. Dissenting Views ......................................................................................... 51 

XXII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup ................................................ 53 

XXIII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 170 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Table of contents. 

TITLE I—EARTHQUAKES 

Sec. 101. Short title. 

Sec. 102. Definitions. 

Sec. 103. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 

Sec. 104. Post-Earthquake Investigations Program. 

Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations. 

TITLE II—WIND 

Sec. 201. Short title. 

Sec. 202. Definitions. 

Sec. 203. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 

Sec. 204. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction. 

Sec. 205. Authorization of appropriations. 

TITLE III—INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

Sec. 301. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction. 

Sec. 302. Coordination of Federal disaster research, development, and technology transfer. 

Sec. 303. Authorizations. 

TITLE IV—FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM 

Sec. 401. Fire research program. 

TITLE I—EARTHQUAKES 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2011’’. 

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS. 

Section 4 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7703) is 

amended by striking paragraphs (8) and (9). 

SEC. 103. NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM. 

Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7704) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘to be administered, as provided under 

this section, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation’’ after ‘‘Reduction Program’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2)— 

(i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows: 

‘‘(A) research and develop effective methods, tools, and technologies to reduce the risk posed by earthquakes to the built environment, especially to 

lessen the risk to existing structures and lifelines;’’; 

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘and retrofitting’’ after ‘‘planning and constructing’’; 

(iii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (C); 

(iv) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘, as appropriate; and’’; and 

(v) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

‘‘(E) support public education and outreach to assist different populations, 

including individuals and households with special needs, in preparing for 

and responding to earthquake-related disasters.’’; and 

(C) by striking paragraphs (3) through (5); 

(2) in subsection (b)— 

(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) LEAD AGENCY.—The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 

have the primary responsibility for planning and coordinating the Program. In 

carrying out this paragraph, the Director of the Institute shall— 

‘‘(A) ensure that the Program includes the necessary components to promote the implementation of earthquake hazards risk reduction measures by 

Federal, State, and local governments, national standards and model building code organizations, architects and engineers, and others with a role in 

planning, constructing, and retrofitting structures and lifelines; 

‘‘(B) support the development of performance-based seismic engineering 

tools, and work with appropriate groups to promote the commercial application of such tools, through earthquake-related model building codes, voluntary standards, and construction best practices; 

‘‘(C) request the assistance of Federal agencies other than the Program 

agencies, as necessary to assist in carrying out this Act; 

‘‘(D) work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National 

Science Foundation, and the United States Geological Survey, to develop a 

comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to effectively use 

existing testing facilities and laboratories (existing at the time of the development of the plan), upgrade facilities and equipment as needed, and integrate new, innovative testing approaches to the research infrastructure in 

a systematic manner; and 

‘‘(E) when warranted by research or investigative findings, issue recommendations to assist in informing the development of model codes, and 

provide information to Congress on the use of such recommendations.’’; 

(B) in paragraph (3)— 

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘seismic microzonation’’ and inserting ‘‘detailed seismic hazard and risk’’; 

(ii) by amending subparagraphs (F) and (G) to read as follows: 

‘‘(F) operate, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation, a 

Global Seismographic Network for detection of earthquakes around the 

world and research into fundamental earth processes; 

‘‘(G) support the operation of regional seismic networks in areas of higher 

seismic risk;’’; 

(iii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H) and inserting a semicolon; and 

(iv) by amending subparagraph (I) to read as follows: 

‘‘(I) work with other Program agencies to maintain awareness of, and 

where appropriate coordinate with, earthquake risk reduction efforts in 

other countries to ensure that the Program benefits from relevant information and advances in those countries; and’’; 

(C) in paragraph (4)(D), by striking ‘‘of the George’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘Reduction Program’’ and inserting ‘‘of institutions engaged in research and the implementation of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which may include the George E. Brown Jr. Network for 

Earthquake Engineering Simulation’’; and 

(D) in paragraph (5)— 

(i) in subparagraph (C)— 

(I) by inserting ‘‘and other stakeholders with relevant expertise’’ 

after ‘‘standards organizations’’; and 

(II) by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at the end; 

(ii) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting 

a period; and 

(iii) by striking subparagraph (E); 

(3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); 

(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection: 

‘‘(c) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology shall establish an Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, which shall be composed of at least 11 members, none of whom may 

be employees of the Federal Government, including representatives of research 

and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, emergency management agencies, State and local government, and business communities who are qualified to provide advice on earthquake hazards reduction and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

represent all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines. The 

recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be considered by Federal 

agencies in implementing the Program. 

‘‘(2) ASSESSMENTS.—The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction shall offer assessments on— 

‘‘(A) trends and developments in the natural, social, and engineering 

sciences and practices of earthquake hazards impact mitigation; 

‘‘(B) the priorities of the Program’s Strategic Plan; 

‘‘(C) the coordination of the Program; and 

‘‘(D) any revisions to the Program which may be necessary. 

‘‘(3) COMPENSATION.—The members of the Advisory Committee established 

under this subsection shall serve without compensation. 

‘‘(4) REPORTS.—At least every 2 years, the Advisory Committee shall report 

to the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology on the 

assessments carried out under paragraph (2) and its recommendations for ways 

to improve the Program. 

‘‘(5) TERMINATION.—The Advisory Committee established under this subsection shall terminate not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the 

Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.’’; and 

(5) in subsection (d)(1), as so redesignated by paragraph (3) of this section, 

by inserting ‘‘on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction established under section 301 

of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011’’ after ‘‘Interagency Coordinating Committee’’. 

SEC. 104. POST-EARTHQUAKE INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. 

Section 11 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7705e) 

is amended by inserting ‘‘and utilizing the coordination expertise of the lead Program agency’’ after ‘‘consultation with each Program agency’’. 

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 12 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 

(42 U.S.C. 7706) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘(a) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out this 

Act— 

‘‘(1) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(2) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(3) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

‘‘(b) UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the United States Geological Survey for carrying out this Act— 

‘‘(1) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(2) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(3) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

‘‘(c) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the National Science Foundation for carrying out this Act— 

‘‘(1) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(2) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(3) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

‘‘(d) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for carrying out this Act— 

‘‘(1) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(2) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(3) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2014.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 14 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7708) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—’’; and 

(2) by striking subsection (b). 

TITLE II—WIND 

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS. 

Section 203(1) of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 (42 

U.S.C. 15702(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy’’ and inserting ‘‘Director of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’’. 

SEC. 203. NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM. 

Section 204 of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 

15703) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, the purpose of which is to achieve major measurable reductions 

in the losses of life and property from windstorms through a coordinated Federal 

effort, in cooperation with other levels of government, academia, and the private sector, aimed at improving the understanding of windstorms and their impacts and developing and encouraging the implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures 

to reduce those impacts. 

‘‘(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM AGENCIES.— 

‘‘(1) LEAD AGENCY.—The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 

have the primary responsibility for planning and coordinating the Program. In 

carrying out this paragraph, the Director shall— 

‘‘(A) ensure that the Program includes the necessary components to promote the implementation of windstorm risk reduction measures by Federal, 

State, and local governments, national standards and model building code 

organizations, architects and engineers, and others with a role in planning 

and constructing buildings and lifelines; 

‘‘(B) support the development of performance-based engineering tools, and 

work with appropriate groups to promote the commercial application of 

such tools, including through wind-related model building codes, voluntary 

standards, and construction best practices; 

‘‘(C) request the assistance of Federal agencies other than the Program 

agencies, as necessary to assist in carrying out this Act; 

‘‘(D) coordinate all Federal post-windstorm investigations; and 

‘‘(E) when warranted by research or investigative findings, issue recommendations to assist in informing the development of model codes, and 

provide information to Congress on the use of such recommendations. 

‘‘(2) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—In addition to the 

lead agency responsibilities described under paragraph (1), the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall be responsible for carrying out research 

and development to improve model building codes, voluntary standards, and 

best practices for the design, construction, and retrofit of buildings, structures, 

and lifelines. 

‘‘(3) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—The National Science Foundation shall 

support research in engineering and the atmospheric sciences to improve the 

understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, 

structures, and lifelines. 

‘‘(4) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.—The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall support atmospheric sciences research and data collection to improve the understanding of the behavior of 

windstorms and their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

‘‘(5) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.—The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency shall support the development of risk assessment tools 

and effective mitigation techniques, windstorm-related data collection and analysis, public outreach, information dissemination, and implementation of mitigation measures consistent with the Agency’s all-hazards approach.’’; 

(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c); 

(3) in subsection (c), as so redesignated by paragraph (2) of this section, 

amend paragraph (4)(A) to read as follows: 

‘‘(A) development of improved outreach and implementation mechanisms 

to translate— 

‘‘(i) existing information and research findings into cost-effective and 

affordable practices for design and construction professionals, and State 

and local officials; and 

‘‘(ii) research, including social science research, into windstorm risk 

mitigation and preparedness strategies for individuals and households, 

including individuals and households with special needs, and businesses;’’; and 

(4) by striking subsections (e) and (f). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

SEC. 204. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION. 

Section 205 of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 

15704) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 205. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall establish an Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction, 

which shall be composed of at least 7 members, none of whom may be employees 

of the Federal Government, including representatives of research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, emergency management 

agencies, State and local government, and business communities who are qualified 

to provide advice on windstorm impact reduction and represent all related scientific, 

architectural, and engineering disciplines. The recommendations of the Advisory 

Committee shall be considered by Federal agencies in implementing the Program. 

‘‘(b) ASSESSMENTS.—The Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction 

shall offer assessments on— 

‘‘(1) trends and developments in the natural, social, and engineering sciences 

and practices of windstorm impact mitigation; 

‘‘(2) the priorities of the Program’s Strategic Plan; 

‘‘(3) the coordination of the Program; and 

‘‘(4) any revisions to the Program which may be necessary. 

‘‘(c) COMPENSATION.—The members of the Advisory Committee established under 

this section shall serve without compensation. 

‘‘(d) REPORTS.—At least every 2 years, the Advisory Committee shall report to the 

Director on the assessments carried out under subsection (b) and its recommendations for ways to improve the Program. 

‘‘(e) TERMINATION.—The Advisory Committee shall terminate not later than 5 

years after the date of enactment of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 

2011.’’. 

SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 207 of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 

15706) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘(a) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out this 

title— 

‘‘(1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

‘‘(b) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the National Science Foundation for carrying out this title— ‘‘(1) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(2) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(3) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

‘‘(c) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for carrying out this title— 

‘‘(1) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(2) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(3) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

‘‘(d) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 

carrying out this title— 

‘‘(1) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(2) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(3) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2014.’’. 

TITLE III—INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

SEC. 301. INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established an Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction, chaired by the Director of the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—In addition to the chair, the Committee shall be composed of— 

(1) the heads of— 

(A) the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

(B) the United States Geological Survey; 

(C) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 

(D) the National Science Foundation; 

(E) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and 

(F) the Office of Management and Budget; and 

(2) the head of any other Federal agency the chair considers appropriate. 

(c) MEETINGS.—The Committee shall meet not less than 1 time a year at the call 

of the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

(d) GENERAL PURPOSE AND DUTIES.—The Committee shall oversee the planning 

and coordination of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the 

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and shall make proposals for planning and coordination of any other Federal research for natural hazard mitigation 

that the Committee considers appropriate. 

(e) STRATEGIC PLANS.—The Committee shall develop and submit to Congress, not 

later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act— 

(1) a Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

that includes— 

(A) prioritized goals for such Program that will mitigate against the loss 

of life and property from future earthquakes; 

(B) short-term, mid-term, and long-term research objectives to achieve 

those goals; 

(C) a description of the role of each Program agency in achieving the 

prioritized goals; 

(D) the methods by which progress towards the goals will be assessed; 

(E) an explanation of how the Program will foster the transfer of research 

results into outcomes, such as improved model building codes; 

(F) a description of how the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation and the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System may be used in achieving the prioritized 

goals and research objectives; and 

(G) an explanation of how the Program will coordinate its activities with 

other Federal agencies performing activities relevant to the Program; and 

(2) a Strategic Plan for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

that includes— 

(A) prioritized goals for such Program that will mitigate against the loss 

of life and property from future windstorms; 

(B) short-term, mid-term, and long-term research objectives to achieve 

those goals; 

(C) a description of the role of each Program agency in achieving the 

prioritized goals; 

(D) the methods by which progress towards the goals will be assessed; 

(E) an explanation of how the Program will foster the transfer of research 

results into outcomes, such as improved model building codes; and 

(F) an explanation of how the Program will coordinate its activities with 

other Federal agencies performing activities relevant to the Program. 

(f) PROGRESS REPORTS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Committee shall submit to the Congress— 

(1) a report on the progress of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program that includes— 

(A) a description of the activities funded under the Program, a description 

of how these activities align with the prioritized goals and research objectives established in the Strategic Plan, and the budgets, per agency, for 

these activities; 

(B) the outcomes achieved by the Program for each of the goals identified 

in the Strategic Plan; 

(C) a description of any recommendations made to change existing building codes that were the result of Program activities; 

(D) a description of activities carried out under section 11 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7705e), including a description of agency activities and the amount of funding provided for each 

investigation; and 

(E) a description of the extent to which the Program has incorporated recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction; and 

(2) a report on the progress of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program that includes— 

(A) a description of the activities funded under the Program, a description 

of how these activities align with the prioritized goals and research objecVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

tives established in the Strategic Plan, and the budgets, per agency, for 

these activities; 

(B) the outcomes achieved by the Program for each of the goals identified 

in the Strategic Plan; 

(C) a description of any recommendations made to change existing building codes that were the result of Program activities; and 

(D) a description of the extent to which the Program has incorporated recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction. 

(g) COORDINATED BUDGET.—The Committee shall develop a coordinated budget for 

the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and a coordinated budget for 

the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. These budgets shall be submitted to the Congress at the time of the President’s budget submission for each 

fiscal year. 

SEC. 302. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL DISASTER RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER. 

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Subcommittee 

on Disaster Reduction of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of 

the National Science and Technology Council shall submit a report to the Congress 

detailing— 

(1) current Federal research, development, and technology transfer activities, 

including those of the National Laboratories, that address hazard mitigation for 

natural disasters, including earthquakes, windstorms, wildfires, floods, and the 

current budgets for these activities; 

(2) areas of research that are common to two or more of the hazards identified 

in paragraph (1); 

(3) opportunities to create synergies between the research activities for the 

hazards identified in paragraph (1); and 

(4) the status of coordination of Federal disaster research, development, and 

technology transfer activities including those of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 

SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATIONS. 

No additional funds are authorized to carry out this title. This title shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized or appropriated. 

TITLE IV—FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM 

SEC. 401. FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM. 

Section 16(a)(1) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 

U.S.C. 278f(a)(1)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘‘fires at the wildland-urban interface 

that are the result of natural causes,’’ after ‘‘but not limited to,’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (E), by inserting ‘‘fires at the wildland-urban interface 

that are the result of natural causes,’’ after ‘‘types of fires, including’’. 

II. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction 

Act of 2011, sponsored by Representative Biggert (R–IL–13), is to 

reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

(NEHRP) and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

(NWIRP) through Fiscal Year 2014. NEHRP and NWIRP are two 

multi-agency programs that support efforts to mitigate the impacts 

of natural hazards through targeted research and development to 

better understand and prepare for earthquakes and windstorms. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Portions of all 50 states are vulnerable to earthquake hazards, 

although risks vary across the country and within individual 

states. According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 

twenty-six urban areas in fourteen U.S. states face significant seisVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

1http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3016/2006-3016.pdf. 

2 National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and Outreach, National Research 

Council of the National Academies, 2011, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13092. 3http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html. 

4http://www.norman.noaa.gov/2009/03/us-annual-tornado-death-tolls-1875-present/. 

mic risk.1 Though infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they strike without warning. Earthquakes proceed as cascades, in which the primary effects of faulting and 

ground shaking induce secondary effects such as landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis. These secondary effects set off destructive 

processes within the built environment: structures collapse; people 

are injured or killed; infrastructure is disrupted; and business 

interruption begins.2 The socioeconomic effects of large earthquakes can reverberate for decades. 

Millions of Americans live in areas vulnerable to storms with 

damaging winds. Windstorms take lives, destroy homes and businesses, and cause billions of dollars of damage every year. 2011 

was an exceptionally destructive year—the deadliest year for tornadoes in the U.S. since 1936. There were an estimated 550 fatalities 

attributed to tornadoes alone in 2011 3 (compared to 564 American 

deaths in the 10 years prior combined).4 As populations continue 

to grow in areas prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, and windstorms, 

vulnerability to severe weather will only increase. 

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

Congress created the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program (NEHRP) in 1977 with the passage of the Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Act (P.L. 95–124). Created largely in response 

to the 1964 Alaska Earthquake and the San Fernando Earthquake 

of 1971, the original program called on 10 federal agencies to coordinate research and development activities to implement an 

earthquake prediction system; develop design and construction 

methods for earthquake resilience; identify seismic hazards, and 

make model building code and land-use recommendations; increase 

the understanding of earthquake risks; and educate the public 

about earthquakes. The 1980 reauthorization of the program designated the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as 

the lead agency. 

The 2004 reauthorization of NEHRP (P.L. 108–360) changed the 

lead agency from FEMA to the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). This change reflected concern that FEMA, 

newly located in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was 

focused on broader threats, rather than natural hazard mitigation. 

In addition, the legislation established an Interagency Coordinating 

Committee composed of the directors of NIST, FEMA, the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure coordination, the Interagency Committee was required to meet annually 

and to develop a strategic plan and a coordinated inter-agency 

budget. 

Over the past 30 years, NEHRP activities have been instrumental in developing and advancing earthquake knowledge, seismic building codes, and raising the awareness of officials and the 

general public about earthquake hazards. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) 

was established in the last reauthorization of NEHRP. The legislation directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), NIST, NSF, and FEMA to support activities to improve 

the understanding of windstorms and their impacts, and to develop 

and encourage the implementation of cost-effective mitigation 

measures to reduce these impacts. The program was authorized for 

three years through Fiscal Year 2008. 

OSTP submitted a NWIRP implementation plan in April 2006, 

which assessed programs relevant to the goals of NWIRP across 

eight federal agencies and identified important areas of research 

that were not covered by current activities. Knowledge gaps were 

identified in the three broad categories of research authorized in 

the original NWIRP Act: understanding windstorms; assessing the 

impacts of windstorms; and mitigation against the effects of windstorms. The implementation plan also recommended a continued 

role for the Interagency Working Group within the National 

Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction. 

IV. HEARING SUMMARY

On April 7, 2011, the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a 

hearing in anticipation of the reauthorization of NEHRP to examine earthquake risk in the United States and to review efforts supporting the development of earthquake hazard reduction measures, 

and the creation of disaster-resilient communities. The hearing examined various elements of the Nation’s level of earthquake preparedness and resiliency including the U.S. capability to detect 

earthquakes and issue notifications and warnings, coordination between federal, state and local stakeholders for earthquake emergency preparation, and research and development measures supported by the federal government to improve the scientific understanding of earthquakes. 

The Committee received testimony from Dr. Jack Hayes, the Director of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

(NEHRP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology; 

Mr. Jim Mullen, the Director of the Washington State Emergency 

Management Division and the President of the National Emergency Management Association; Mr. Chris Poland, the Chairman 

and Chief Executive Officer of Degenkolb Engineers and the Chairman of the NEHRP Advisory Committee; and Dr. Vicki McConnell, 

Oregon State Geologist and the Director of the Oregon Department 

of Geology and Mineral Industries. 

V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On November 15, 2011 the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation met to consider the Committee Print of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 and ordered it favorably forwarded 

to the Full Committee, as amended, by a record vote of 10 yeas and 

4 nays. 

On November 18, 2011, Rep. Judy Biggert (R–IL) along with 

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R–TX), Rep. Ralph Hall (R–TX), Rep. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

Lamar Smith (R–TX), and Rep. Steven Palazzo (R–MS) introduced 

the text of the amended Committee Print as H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. H.R. 3479 was referred 

to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee 

on Natural Resources. 

On December 1, 2011, the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 3479, as 

amended, by a record vote of 21 yeas to 12 nays. A motion to order 

H.R. 3479, favorably reported to the House, as amended, was 

agreed to by voice vote. 

VI. COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The Committee 

adopted H.R. 3479, as amended, by a record vote of 21 yeas to 12 

nays. A motion to order H.R. 3479, favorably reported to the House, 

as amended, was agreed to by voice vote. 

During Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation consideration of the Committee Print of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, the following amendments were considered: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HR666P1.001
13 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 15 here HR666P1.002
14 

During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 3479 the following 

amendments were considered: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here HR666P1.003
16 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR666P1.004
17 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HR666P1.005
18 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here HR666P1.006
19 

VII. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

TITLE I—EARTHQUAKES

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

H.R. 3479 identifies the four agencies that make up National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the United States Geological 

Survey (USGS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The 

bill defines the responsibilities of NIST as the lead Program agency 

and updates the responsibilities of the Program agencies, further 

detailing current activities. 

H.R. 3479 amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 

1977 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for 

NEHRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and revisions as necessary. This section requires 

the Advisory Committee to report to the Director of NIST on the 

assessment and its recommendations at least every two years. 

The bill amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 

to direct USGS to utilize the coordination expertise of the lead program agency in organizing post-earthquake investigations. 

Title I of H.R. 3479 authorizes a total of $366,000,000 for the 

NEHRP agencies (NIST, FEMA, USGS, and NSF) for Fiscal Years 

2012 through 2014. 

TITLE II—WIND

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

H.R. 3479 identifies the four agencies that make up the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NIST, NSF, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and 

FEMA. The bill defines NIST as the new lead program agency; and 

assigns it the responsibilities including: planning and coordinating 

the Program; supporting the development of performance-based engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal agencies other 

than Program agencies as necessary; coordinating all Federal postwindstorm investigations; and issuing recommendations related to 

model building codes as warranted based on research or investigative findings. 

H.R. 3479 amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act 

of 2004 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee 

for NWIRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and revisions, as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the Director of NIST 

on the assessment and its recommendations at least every two 

years. 

Title II of H.R. 3479 authorizes a total of $64,200,000 for the 

NWIRP agencies (NIST, FEMA, NOAA, and NSF) for fiscal years 

2012 through 2014. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

5http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/may_2009_letter2.pdf. 6http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/2009ACEHRReportResponse.pdf. 

TITLE III—INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction 

H.R. 3479 combines the Interagency Coordinating Committee on 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Interagency Working Group into one 

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction, chaired by the Director of NIST and comprised of the 

heads of FEMA, USGS, NOAA, NSF, the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), and the head of any other Federal agency the chair of the 

Committee considers appropriate. 

Coordination of Federal Disaster Research, Development, and Technology Transfer 

The bill requires the existing Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of 

the National Science and Technology Council, to submit a report to 

Congress 18 months after the date of enactment identifying the 

current Federal research, development, and technology transfer activities that address mitigation for all types of natural hazards, and 

how such activities are being coordinated to reduce duplication 

among the various research programs. 

TITLE IV—FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Fire Research Program 

This section amends the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act to include research into fires at the wildland-urban 

interface that are the result of natural causes. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

NEHRP is an important resource for improving public safety. 

The research and development efforts of the program have led to 

improved understanding of the location and effects of earthquake 

hazards as well as how to build and design structures to withstand 

earthquakes. In many earthquake-prone communities, the existing 

built environment would not withstand a strong earthquake, and 

developing tools and methods to retrofit existing structures should 

be a high priority for NEHRP. 

The Advisory Committee of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program has recommended that the coordination of post-earthquake investigations be transferred from USGS to NIST.5 The 

Interagency Coordinating Committee responded to the recommendation with a number of prerequisites before such a transfer 

should take place, including providing additional staffing and research resources to NIST to take on the additional responsibility.6

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee did not believe adequate resources were available at NIST to lead the earthquake inVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

vestigations program within the current budget constraints, and 

therefore, found the transfer unadvisable. 

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

Although the program was created in 2004, the NWIRP program 

implementation and coordination has been insufficient. NIST leadership will ensure agency efforts for wind-hazard mitigation research, development, and technology transfer are coordinated, 

transparent, and effective. As with the earthquake program, developing measures to cost-effectively retrofit existing structures is of 

high importance, as is developing methods to mitigate the impacts 

of windstorms on infrastructure and lifelines. 

Interagency coordination 

The Interagency Coordinating Committee for NEHRP has been 

effective and should continue to ensure the agencies’ activities are 

well-coordinated through strategic planning. The members of this 

committee should give the same attention and consideration to the 

NWIRP as well. Federal agencies should take advantage of opportunities for more coordination of research and development (R&D) 

across different natural hazards. An important initial step is to 

identify specific types of R&D efforts where coordination and collaboration across different natural hazards is possible. The Committee believes that the National Science and Technology Council’s 

Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction can build on its previous efforts in the Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction and identify 

areas where current federal natural hazards R&D efforts can be 

better coordinated. 

Authorizations 

For the NEHRP program, funding levels were set for each participating agency at the fiscal year 2012 request from the Administration. This collective amount is approximately six percent below 

the enacted level of funding in fiscal year 2011. 

The Congress recognized the country’s fiscal challenges and 

passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 in August. This legislation 

is expected to result in automatic reductions in discretional programs in fiscal year 2013 of 7.8 percent. Furthermore, cuts to discretionary spending are in addition to those cuts resulting from the 

discretionary spending caps. According to the Congressional Research Service, after taking those two provisions into account, total 

discretionary spending is not expected to regain its 2011 level until 

2021 in nominal terms. 

The Committee commends the Administration for recognizing the 

realities of the discretionary budget in its request for the NEHRP 

program. We believe both NEHRP and NWIRP are critical programs that need to be reauthorized, and therefore, provided for a 

three year reauthorization for both programs. However, the Committee believes that authorizing them at levels higher than the 

President’s request would not be appropriate in this instance, and 

likely to result in the agencies having to reduce funding for other 

important research programs. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

IX. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight hearing and 

made findings that are reflected in the descriptive portions of this 

report. 

X. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the performance goals and objectives of 

the Committee are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report, including the goal to reauthorize the National Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) to support efforts to 

mitigate the impacts of natural hazards through targeted research 

and development to better understand and prepare for earthquakes 

and windstorms. 

XI. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

XII. ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 

Committee finds that H.R. 3479, the ‘‘Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011’’, contains no earmarks. 

XIII. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts, as its own, the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

XIV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

JANUARY 10, 2012. 

Hon. RALPH M. HALL, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3479—Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 

Summary: H.R. 3479 would reauthorize federal programs aimed 

at developing methods to reduce damage caused by earthquakes 

and windstorms. The bill also would reauthorize an interagency advisory committee to coordinate those programs. Assuming appropriation of the authorized and necessary amounts, CBO estimates 

that implementing the legislation would cost $285 million over the 

2012–2017 period and $10 million after 2017. Enacting H.R. 3479 

would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-yougo procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 3479 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3479 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 250 (general science, 

space, and technology), 300 (natural resources and environment), 

370 (commerce and housing credit), and 450 (community and regional development). 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

3479 will be enacted early in 2012 and that the authorized and 

necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar 

activities. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012– 

2017 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Title I: National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: 

Estimated Authorization Level a ......................... 1 122 122 0 0 0 245 

Estimated Outlays .............................................. 0 52 91 57 25 11 236 

Title II: National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program: 

Estimated Authorization Level a ......................... 8 21 21 0 0 0 50 

Estimated Outlays .............................................. 4 10 16 12 5 2 49 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................... 9 143 143 0 0 0 295 

Estimated Outlays .............................................. 4 63 107 68 30 13 285 

a The estimated authorization level for fiscal year 2012 reflects the difference between the amounts authorized under the bill for the Na- tional Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program and the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for those programs. Because some of the affected agencies have not allocated their fiscal year 2012 appropriations, CBO estimated the amounts that would be allocated to the program based on information from the agencies. 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

Over the 2012–2014 period, title I would authorize the appropriation of $57.7 million a year for the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS), $53.8 million a year for the National Science Foundation 

(NSF), $6.4 million a year for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), and $4.1 million a year for the National Institute 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) to carry out the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 

The affected agencies have received appropriations for fiscal year 

2012; however, some of those agencies have not allocated those 

funds to specific programs. Based on information provided by 

USGS, FEMA, and NIST, CBO estimates that those agencies’ allocations for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

will exceed the amounts authorized under the bill and, therefore, 

no additional funds would be required for those agencies in 2012. 

Because CBO estimates that NSF’s allocation of fiscal year 2012 

appropriations for the program will be $1 million less than the 

amount that would be authorized by H.R. 3479, we estimate that 

the agency would receive an additional appropriation of $1 million 

in 2012, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 

In total, CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of title I would cost $236 million over the 2012–2017 period and $9 million 

after 2017. 

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

Over the 2012–2014 period, title II would authorize the appro- priation of $9.4 million a year for NSF, $5.3 million a year for 

NIST, $4 million a year for FEMA, and $2.7 million a year for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to carry 

out the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 

The affected agencies have received appropriations for fiscal year 

2012; however, some of those agencies have not allocated those 

funds to specific programs. Based on information provided by NSF, 

CBO estimates that the agency’s allocation for activities carried out 

under the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program will exceed the amount authorized under the bill and, therefore, no additional funds would be required for the agency in 2012. Because 

CBO estimates that allocations of fiscal year 2012 appropriations 

by FEMA, NIST, and NOAA for the program will total $8 million 

less than the amounts that would be authorized by H.R. 3479, we 

estimate that those agencies would receive additional appropriations totaling $8 million in 2012, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 

In total, CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of title 

II would cost $49 million over the 2012–2017 period and $1 million 

after 2017. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3479 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Previous CBO estimate: On June 20, 2011, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for S. 646, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act 

of 2011, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on May 5, 2011. That bill 

would authorize appropriations totaling $846 million over the 

2012–2015 period, whereas H.R. 3479 would authorize appropriations totaling $430 million over the 2012–2014 period for similar 

activities. In addition, because the cost estimate for S. 646 was 

completed before the affected agencies received their fiscal year 

2012 appropriations, the estimate for that bill did not account for 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

amounts received in 2012 prior to the bill’s assumed enactment 

date. The cost estimates for S. 646 and H.R. 3479 reflect those differences. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Jeff LaFave; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on the 

private sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

XV. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

XVI. ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No new advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by the legislation. H.R. 3479 reauthorized an Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction and a National Advisory Committee on 

Windstorm Impact Reduction. Both terminate 5 years after the 

date of enactment of H.R. 3479. 

XVII. APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

XVIII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 

Section 1. Short title 

This section sets forth the short title as the ‘‘Natural Hazards 

Risk Reduction Act of 2011.’’ 

Section 2. Table of Contents 

This section provides a table of contents. 

TITLE I. EARTHQUAKES

Section 101. Short title 

This section sets forth the short title for Title I as the ‘‘National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 

2011.’’ 

Section 102. Definitions 

This section removes the definitions of the ‘‘Interagency Coordination Committee’’ and the ‘‘Advisory Committee’’ from Section 4 of 

the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. 

Section 103. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

This section identifies the four agencies that make up National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal EmerVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

gency Management Agency (FEMA), the United States Geological 

Survey (USGS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This 

section also amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 

1977 to detail NEHRP activities, which include research and development into effective methods, tools, and technologies to reduce the 

risk posed by earthquakes to the built environment and to lessen 

the risk to existing structures and lifelines. 

Section 103 defines the responsibilities of NIST as the lead Program agency, which include: planning and coordinating the Program; supporting the development of performance-based seismic 

engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal agencies 

other than Program agencies as necessary; working with Program 

agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to use existing facilities and laboratories; and issuing 

recommendations related to model codes when warranted by research or investigative findings. This section also updates the responsibilities of the Program agencies, further detailing current activities. 

Finally, this section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Act of 1977 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for NEHRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to 

offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, 

priorities, coordination, and revisions, as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the Director of NIST 

on the assessment and its recommendations at least every two 

years. 

Section 104. Post-Earthquake Investigation Program 

This section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 

1977 to direct USGS to utilize the coordination expertise of the 

lead program agency in organizing post-earthquake investigations. 

Section 105. Authorization of appropriations 

This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows: 

For FEMA: $6,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For USGS: $57,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NSF: $53,800,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NIST: $4,100,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

TITLE II. WIND

Section 201. Short title 

This section establishes the short title for this Title of the bill as 

the ‘‘National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 

2011.’’ 

Section 202. Definitions 

This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 

Act of 2004 to define the ‘‘Director’’ of the Program as the Director 

of the National Institute of Standards and Technology rather than 

the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

Section 203. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

This section identifies the four agencies that make up the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NIST, 

NSF, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), and FEMA; defines NIST as the lead program agency; and 

assigns responsibilities to the four program agencies. 

As the new lead agency, NIST’s activities include planning and 

coordinating the Program; supporting the development of performance-based engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal 

agencies other than Program agencies, as necessary; coordinating 

all Federal post-windstorm investigations; and issuing recommendations related to model building codes when warranted by 

research or investigative findings. In addition to the lead agency 

responsibilities, NIST shall also conduct research and development 

to improve model building codes, voluntary standards, and best 

practices for the design, construction, and retrofit of buildings, 

structures, and lifelines. 

NSF activities include research in engineering and the atmospheric sciences to improve the understanding of the behavior of 

windstorms and their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

NOAA activities include the support of atmospheric science research and data collection to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and the impact on buildings, structures, and 

lifelines. 

FEMA activities include the development of risk assessment tools 

and effective mitigation techniques; data collection and analysis; 

and public outreach, information dissemination, and implementation of mitigation measures. 

Section 204. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact 

Reduction 

This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 

Act of 2004 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for NWIRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to 

offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, 

priorities, coordination, and revisions, as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the Director of NIST 

on the assessment and its recommendations at least every two 

years. 

Section 205. Authorization of appropriations 

This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows: 

For FEMA: $4,000,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NSF: $9,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NIST: $5,300,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NOAA: $2,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

TITLE III. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Sec. 301. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards 

Risk Reduction 

This section combines the Interagency Coordinating Committee 

on Earthquake Hazards Reduction and the National Windstorm 

Impact Reduction Program Interagency Working Group into one 

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

duction, chaired by the Director of NIST and comprised of the 

heads of FEMA, USGS, NOAA, NSF, the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), and the head of any other Federal agency the chair of the 

Committee considers appropriate. The section instructs the Committee to plan and coordinate NEHRP and NWIRP, including the 

development of a strategic plan for each program, a progress report 

on each program, and a coordinated budget for both NEHRP and 

NWIRP. 

Sec. 302. Coordination of Federal disaster research, development, 

and technology transfer 

This section requires the existing Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources 

of the National Science and Technology Council, to submit a report 

to Congress identifying the current Federal research, development, 

and technology transfer activities that address mitigation for all 

types of natural hazards, and how such activities are being coordinated to reduce duplication among the various research programs. 

Sec. 303. Authorizations 

This section clarifies that no additional funding is authorized to 

carry out the title. 

TITLE IV. FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Sec. 401. Fire Research Program 

This section amends the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act to include research into fires at the wildland-urban 

interface that are the result of natural causes. 

XIX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION ACT OF 1977 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(8) The term ‘‘Interagency Coordinating Committee’’ means 

the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction established under section 5(a). 

ø(9) The term ‘‘Advisory Committee’’ means the Advisory 

Committee established under section 5(a)(5).¿ 

SEC. 5. NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to be administered, as proVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

vided under this section, by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

the United States Geological Survey, and the National Science 

Foundation. (2) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—The activities of the Program shall 

be designed to— 

ø(A) develop effective measures for earthquake hazards 

reduction;¿ 

(A) research and develop effective methods, tools, and 

technologies to reduce the risk posed by earthquakes to the 

built environment, especially to lessen the risk to existing 

structures and lifelines; 

(B) promote the adoption of earthquake hazards reduction measures by Federal, State, and local governments, 

national standards and model code organizations, architects and engineers, building owners, and others with a 

role in planning and constructing and retrofitting buildings, structures, and lifelines through— 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) improve the understanding of earthquakes and their 

effects on communities, buildings, structures, and lifelines, 

through interdisciplinary research that involves engineering, natural sciences, and social, economic, and decisions 

sciences; øand¿ 

(D) develop, operate, and maintain an Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System established under section 13 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7707), the George E. Brown, Jr. 

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation established under section 14 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7708), and 

the Global Seismographic Networkø.¿, as appropriate; and 

(E) support public education and outreach to assist different populations, including individuals and households 

with special needs, in preparing for and responding to 

earthquake-related disasters. 

ø(3) INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON EARTH- QUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—There is established an Interagency 

Coordinating Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction chaired by the Director of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (referred to in this subsection 

as the ‘‘Director’’). 

ø(B) MEMBERSHIP.—The committee shall be composed of 

the directors of— 

ø(i) the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 

ø(ii) the United States Geological Survey; 

ø(iii) the National Science Foundation; 

ø(iv) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; 

and 

ø(v) the Office of Management and Budget. 

ø(C) MEETINGS.—The Committee shall meet not less 

than 3 times a year at the call of the Director. 

ø(D) PURPOSE AND DUTIES.—The Interagency Coordinating Committee shall oversee the planning, manageVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

ment, and coordination of the Program. The Interagency 

Coordinating Committee shall— 

ø(i) develop, not later than 6 months after the date 

of enactment of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2004 and update periodically— 

ø(I) a strategic plan that establishes goals and 

priorities for the Program activities described 

under subsection (a)(2); and 

ø(II) a detailed management plan to implement 

such strategic plan; and 

ø(ii) develop a coordinated interagency budget for 

the Program that will ensure appropriate balance 

among the Program activities described under subsection (a)(2), and, in accordance with the plans developed under clause (i), submit such budget to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget at the 

time designated by that office for agencies to submit 

annual budgets. 

ø(4) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Interagency Coordinating Committee shall transmit, at the time of the President’s budget request to Congress, an annual report to the Committee on 

Science and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation of the Senate. Such report shall include— 

ø(A) the Program budget for the current fiscal year for 

each agency that participates in the Program, and for each 

major goal established for the Program activities under 

subparagraph (3)(A); 

ø(B) the proposed Program budget for the next fiscal 

year for each agency that participates in the Program, and 

for each major goal established for the Program activities 

under subparagraph (3)(A); 

ø(C) a description of the activities and results of the Program during the previous year, including an assessment of 

the effectiveness of the Program in furthering the goals established in the strategic plan under (3)(A); 

ø(D) a description of the extent to which the Program 

has incorporated the recommendations of the Advisory 

Committee; 

ø(E) a description of activities, including budgets for the 

current fiscal year and proposed budgets for the next fiscal 

year, that are carried out by Program agencies and contribute to the Program, but are not included in the Program; and 

ø(F) a description of the activities, including budgets for 

the current fiscal year and proposed budgets for the following fiscal year, related to the grant program carried out 

under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i). 

ø(5) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall establish an Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction of at 

least 11 members, none of whom may be an employee (as 

defined in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 

7342(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, including repVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

resentatives of research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, State and local 

government, and financial communities who are qualified 

to provide advice on earthquake hazards reduction and 

represent all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be considered by Federal agencies in implementing the Program. 

ø(B) ASSESSMENT.—The Advisory Committee shall assess— 

ø(i) trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction; 

ø(ii) effectiveness of the Program in carrying out the 

activities under (a)(2); 

ø(iii) the need to revise the Program; and 

ø(iv) the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program. 

ø(C) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program Reauthorization Act of 2004 and at least once 

every 2 years thereafter, the Advisory Committee shall report to the Director on its findings of the assessment carried out under subparagraph (B) and its recommendations 

for ways to improve the Program. In developing recommendations, the Committee shall consider the recommendations of the United States Geological Survey Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee. 

ø(D) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT APPLICATION.— Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App. 

U.S.C. 14) shall not apply to the Advisory Committee.¿ 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM AGENCIES.— ø(1) LEAD AGENCY.—The National Institute of Standards and 

Technology shall have the primary responsibility for planning 

and coordinating the Program. In carrying out this paragraph, 

the Director of the Institute shall— 

ø(A) ensure that the Program includes the necessary 

steps to promote the implementation of earthquake hazard 

reduction measures by Federal, State, and local governments, national standards and model building code organizations, architects and engineers, and others with a role in 

planning and constructing buildings and lifelines; 

ø(B) support the development of performance-based seismic engineering tools, and work with appropriate groups to 

promote the commercial application of such tools, through 

earthquake-related building codes, standards, and construction practices; 

ø(C) request the assistance of Federal agencies other 

than the Program agencies, as necessary to assist in carrying out this Act; and 

ø(D) work with the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the United 

States Geological Survey, to develop a comprehensive plan 

for earthquake engineering research to effectively use existing testing facilities and laboratories (existing at the 

time of the development of the plan), upgrade facilities and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

equipment as needed, and integrate new, innovative testing approaches to the research infrastructure in a systematic manner.¿ 

(1) LEAD AGENCY.—The National Institute of Standards and 

Technology shall have the primary responsibility for planning 

and coordinating the Program. In carrying out this paragraph, 

the Director of the Institute shall— 

(A) ensure that the Program includes the necessary components to promote the implementation of earthquake hazards risk reduction measures by Federal, State, and local 

governments, national standards and model building code 

organizations, architects and engineers, and others with a 

role in planning, constructing, and retrofitting structures 

and lifelines; 

(B) support the development of performance-based seismic engineering tools, and work with appropriate groups to 

promote the commercial application of such tools, through 

earthquake-related model building codes, voluntary standards, and construction best practices; 

(C) request the assistance of Federal agencies other than 

the Program agencies, as necessary to assist in carrying out 

this Act; 

(D) work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the United States 

Geological Survey, to develop a comprehensive plan for 

earthquake engineering research to effectively use existing 

testing facilities and laboratories (existing at the time of the 

development of the plan), upgrade facilities and equipment 

as needed, and integrate new, innovative testing approaches to the research infrastructure in a systematic 

manner; and 

(E) when warranted by research or investigative findings, 

issue recommendations to assist in informing the development of model codes, and provide information to Congress 

on the use of such recommendations. 

* * * * * * * 

(3) UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.—The United States 

Geological Survey shall conduct research and other activities 

necessary to characterize and identify earthquake hazards, assess earthquake risks, monitor seismic activity, and improve 

earthquake predictions. In carrying out this paragraph, the Director of the United States Geological Survey shall— 

(A) conduct a systematic assessment of the seismic risks 

in each region of the Nation prone to earthquakes, including, where appropriate, the establishment and operation of 

intensive monitoring projects on hazardous faults, øseismic 

microzonation¿ detailed seismic hazard and risk studies in 

urban and other developed areas where earthquake risk is 

determined to be significant, and engineering seismology 

studies; 

* * * * * * * 

ø(F) operate a National Seismic System; 

ø(G) support regional seismic networks, which shall complement the National Seismic Network; and¿ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

(F) operate, in cooperation with the National Science 

Foundation, a Global Seismographic Network for detection 

of earthquakes around the world and research into fundamental earth processes; 

(G) support the operation of regional seismic networks in 

areas of higher seismic risk; 

(H) work with the National Science Foundation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to effectively use existing testing facilities and laboratories (in 

existence at the time of the development of the plan), upgrade facilities and equipment as needed, and integrate 

new, innovative testing approaches to the research infrastructure in a systematic mannerø.¿; 

ø(I) work with other Program agencies to coordinate Program activities with similar earthquake hazards reduction 

efforts in other countries, to ensure that the Program benefits from relevant information and advances in those 

countries; and¿ 

(I) work with other Program agencies to maintain awareness of, and where appropriate coordinate with, earthquake 

risk reduction efforts in other countries to ensure that the 

Program benefits from relevant information and advances 

in those countries; and 

* * * * * * * 

(4) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—The National Science 

Foundation shall be responsible for funding research on earth 

sciences to improve the understanding of the causes and behavior of earthquakes, on earthquake engineering, and on 

human response to earthquakes. In carrying out this paragraph, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) support research that improves the safety and performance of buildings, structures, and lifeline systems 

using large-scale experimental and computational facilities 

øof the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation and other institutions engaged in research and the implementation of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program¿ of institutions engaged in research and the implementation of the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which may include the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation; 

* * * * * * * 

(5) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.— 

In addition to the lead agency responsibilities described under 

paragraph (1), the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall be responsible for carrying out research and development to improve building codes and standards and practices 

for structures and lifelines. In carrying out this paragraph, the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

shall— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) work closely with national standards organizations 

and other stakeholders with relevant expertise to develop 

seismic safety standards and practices for new and existing lifelines; and 

(D) support the development and commercial application 

of cost effective and affordable performance-based seismic 

engineering by providing technical support for seismic engineering practices and related building code, standards, 

and practices developmentø; and¿. ø(E) work with the National Science Foundation, the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the United 

States Geological Survey to develop a comprehensive plan 

for earthquake engineering research to effectively use existing testing facilities and laboratories (in existence at the 

time of the development of the plan), upgrade facilities and 

equipment as needed, and integrate new, innovative testing approaches to the research infrastructure in a systematic manner.¿ 

(c) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology shall establish an Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, which shall be composed of at least 11 members, none of whom may be employees 

of the Federal Government, including representatives of research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, emergency management agencies, State 

and local government, and business communities who are 

qualified to provide advice on earthquake hazards reduction 

and represent all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be considered by Federal agencies in implementing 

the Program. 

(2) ASSESSMENTS.—The Advisory Committee on Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction shall offer assessments on— 

(A) trends and developments in the natural, social, and 

engineering sciences and practices of earthquake hazards 

impact mitigation; 

(B) the priorities of the Program’s Strategic Plan; 

(C) the coordination of the Program; and 

(D) any revisions to the Program which may be necessary. 

(3) COMPENSATION.—The members of the Advisory Committee 

established under this subsection shall serve without compensation. 

(4) REPORTS.—At least every 2 years, the Advisory Committee 

shall report to the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology on the assessments carried out under 

paragraph (2) and its recommendations for ways to improve the 

Program. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

(5) TERMINATION.—The Advisory Committee established 

under this subsection shall terminate not later than 5 years 

after the date of enactment of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. 

ø(c)¿ (d) BUDGET COORDINATION.— (1) GUIDANCE.—The Interagency Coordinating Committee on 

Natural Hazards Risk Reduction established under section 301 

of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 shall each 

year provide guidance to the other Program agencies concerning the preparation of requests for appropriations for activities related to the Program, and shall prepare, in conjunction with the other Program agencies, an annual Program 

budget to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 11. POST-EARTHQUAKE INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM. 

There is established within the United States Geological Survey 

a post-earthquake investigations program, the purpose of which is 

to investigate major earthquakes, so as to learn lessons which can 

be applied to reduce the loss of lives and property in future earthquakes. The United States Geological Survey, in consultation with 

each Program agency and utilizing the coordination expertise of the 

lead Program agency, shall organize investigations to study the implications of the earthquake in the areas of responsibility of each 

Program agency. The investigations shall begin as rapidly as possible and may be conducted by grantees and contractors. The Program agencies shall ensure that the results of investigations are 

disseminated widely. The Director of the Survey is authorized to 

utilize earthquake expertise from the Agency, the National Science 

Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

other Federal agencies, and private contractors, on a reimbursable 

basis, in the conduct of such earthquake investigations. At a minimum, investigations under this section shall include— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

ø(a)(1) GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the 

President to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act 

(in addition to any authorizations for similar purposes included in 

other Acts and the authorizations set forth in subsections (b) and 

(c) of this section), not to exceed $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1979, and not to exceed $2,000,000 for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 1980. 

ø(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director to 

carry out the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of this Act for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 1981— 

ø(A) $1,000,000 for continuation of the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction and the Building 

Seismic Safety Council programs, 

ø(B) $1,500,000 for plans and preparedness for earthquake 

disasters, 

ø(C) $500,000 for prediction response planning, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

ø(D) $600,000 for architectural and engineering planning 

and practice programs, 

ø(E) $1,000,000 for development and application of a public 

education program, 

ø(F) $3,000,000 for use by the National Science Foundation 

in addition to the amount authorized to be appropriated under 

subsection (c), which amount includes $2,400,000 for earthquake policy research and $600,000 for the strong ground motion element of the siting program, and 

ø(G) $1,000,000 for use by the Center for Building Technology, National Bureau of Standards in addition to the 

amount authorized to be appropriated under subsection (d) for 

earthquake activities in the Center. 

ø(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, $2,000,000 to carry out 

the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act. 

ø(4) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director, to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act, $1,281,000 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983. 

ø(5) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director, to 

carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act, for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 1984, $3,705,000 and for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1985, $6,096,000. 

ø(6) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director, to 

carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act, for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 1986, $5,596,000, and for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1987, $5,848,000. 

ø(7) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Agency, to carry out this Act, $5,778,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, $5,788,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989, $8,798,000 for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 1990, $14,750,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

1991, $19,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992, 

$22,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, 

$25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 

$25,750,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 

$20,900,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, 

$21,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999; 

$19,861,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, of which 

$450,000 is for National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program-eligible efforts of an established multi-state consortium to reduce the 

unacceptable threat of earthquake damages in the New Madrid 

seismic region through efforts to enhance preparedness, response, 

recovery, and mitigation; $20,705,000 for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2002; and $21,585,000 for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2003. 

ø(8) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency for carrying out this title— 

ø(A) $21,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, 

ø(B) $21,630,000 for fiscal year 2006, 

ø(C) $22,280,000 for fiscal year 2007, 

ø(D) $22,950,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 

ø(E) $23,640,000 for fiscal year 2009, 

of which not less than 10 percent of available program funds actually appropriated shall be made available each such fiscal year for 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

supporting the development of performance-based, cost-effective, 

and affordable design guidelines and methodologies in codes for 

buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

ø(b) GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.—(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes for carrying 

out, through the Director of the United States Geological Survey, 

the responsibilities that may be assigned to the Director under this 

Act not to exceed $27,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 1978; not to exceed $35,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979; not to exceed $40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980; $32,484,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981; $34,425,000 for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 1982; $31,843,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

1983; $35,524,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984; 

$37,300,200 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985 

$35,578,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986; 

$37,179,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987; 

$38,540,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988; 

$41,819,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989; 

$55,283,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, of which 

$8,000,000 shall be for earthquake investigations under section 11; 

$50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991; 

$54,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992; 

$62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993; 

$49,200,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995; 

$50,676,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996; 

$52,565,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, of which 

$3,800,000 shall be used for the Global Seismic Network operated 

by the Agency; and $54,052,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, of which $3,800,000 shall be used for the Global 

Seismic Network operated by the Agency. There are authorized to 

be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes of carrying out, through the Director of the United States Geological Survey, the responsibilities that may be assigned to the Director under 

this Act $48,360,000 for fiscal year 2001, of which $3,500,000 is for 

the Global Seismic Network and $100,000 is for the Scientific 

Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee established under section 

210 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 

2000; $50,415,000 for fiscal year 2002, of which $3,600,000 is for 

the Global Seismic Network and $100,000 is for the Scientific 

Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee; and $52,558,000 for fiscal 

year 2003, of which $3,700,000 is for the Global Seismic Network 

and $100,000 is for the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory 

Committee. Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under 

this paragraph, at least— 

ø(A) $8,000,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998; 

ø(B) $8,250,000 of the amount authorized for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1999; 

ø(C) $9,000,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated 

for fiscal year 2001; 

ø(D) $9,250,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated 

for fiscal year 2002; and 

ø(E) $9,500,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated 

for fiscal year 2003, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

shall be used for carrying out a competitive, peer-reviewed program 

under which the Director, in close coordination with and as a complement to related activities of the United States Geological Survey, awards grants to, or enters into cooperative agreements with, 

State and local governments and persons or entities from the academic community and the private sector. 

ø(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the United States 

Geological Survey for carrying out this title— 

ø(A) $77,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which not less than $30,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System established under section 13; 

ø(B) $84,410,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System established under section 13; 

ø(C) $85,860,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System established under section 13; 

ø(D) $87,360,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System established under section 13; and 

ø(E) $88,900,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System established under section 13. 

ø(c) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—(1) To enable the Foundation to carry out responsibilities that may be assigned to it under 

this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Foundation 

not to exceed $27,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

1978; not to exceed $35,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979; not to exceed $40,000,000 for the first year ending 

September 30, 1980; $26,600,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981; $27,150,000 for the fiscal year ending September 

30 1982; $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983; 

$25,800,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984; 

$28,665,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985 

$27,760,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986; 

$29,009,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987; 

$28,235,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988; 

$31,634,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989; 

$38,454,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990. Of the 

amounts authorized for Engineering under section 101(d)(1)(B) of 

the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988, 

$24,000,000 is authorized for carrying out this Act for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 1991, and of the amounts authorized for 

Geosciences under section 101(d)(1)(D) of the National Science 

Foundation Authorization Act of 1988, $13,000,000 is authorized 

for carrying out this Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

1991. Of the amounts authorized for Research and Related Activities under section 101(e)(1) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988, $29,000,000 is authorized for engineering 

research under this Act, and $14,750,000 is authorized for geoVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

sciences research under this Act, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992. Of the amounts authorized for Research and Related Activities under section 101(f)(1) of the National Science 

Foundation Authorization Act of 1988, $34,500,000 is authorized 

for engineering research under this Act, and $17,500,000 is authorized for geosciences research under this Act, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993. There are authorized to be appropriated, 

out of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation: (1) $16,200,000 for engineering research 

and $10,900,000 for geosciences research for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 1995, (2) $16,686,000 for engineering research and 

$11,227,000 for geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, (3) $18,450,000 for engineering research and 

$11,920,000 for geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, (4) $19,000,000 for engineering research and 

$12,280,000 for geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999. There are authorized to be appropriated to the 

National Science Foundation $19,000,000 for engineering research 

and $11,900,000 for geosciences research for fiscal year 2001; 

$19,808,000 for engineering research and $12,406,000 for geosciences research for fiscal year 2002; and $20,650,000 for engineering research and $12,933,000 for geosciences research for fiscal 

year 2003. 

ø(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 

Science Foundation for carrying out this title— 

ø(A) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; 

ø(B) $39,140,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

ø(C) $40,310,000 for fiscal year 2007; 

ø(D) $41,520,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

ø(E) $42,770,000 for fiscal year 2009. 

ø(d) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—(1) 

To enable the National Institute of Standards and Technology to 

carry out responsibilities that may be assigned to it under this Act, 

there are authorized to be appropriated $425,000 for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1981; $425,000 for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 1982; $475,000 for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 1983; $475,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984; 

$498,750 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985 $499,000 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986; $521,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987; $525,000 for the fiscal year 

ending September 30, 1988; $525,000 for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 1989; $2,525,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990; $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 1991; $3,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992; 

and $4,750,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993. 

There are authorized to be appropriated, out of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, $1,900,000 for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 1995, $1,957,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 

$2,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, 

$2,060,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, 

$2,332,000 for fiscal year 2001, $2,431,000 for fiscal year 2002, and 

$2,534,300 for fiscal year 2003. 

ø(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for carrying out this title— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

ø(A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, 

ø(B) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, 

ø(C) $12,100,000 for fiscal year 2007, 

ø(D) $13,310,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 

ø(E) $14,640,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which $2,000,000 shall be made available each such fiscal year 

for supporting the development of performance-based, cost-effective, and affordable codes for buildings, structures, and lifelines.¿ 

SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency for carrying out this Act— (1) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(2) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

(3) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

(b) UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to the United States Geological Survey for carrying out this Act— (1) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(2) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

(3) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

(c) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—There are authorized to be 

appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out 

this Act— 

(1) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(2) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

(3) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

(d) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.— There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology for carrying out this Act— (1) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(2) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

(3) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 14. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—¿The Director of the National Science 

Foundation shall establish the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for 

Earthquake Engineering Simulation that will upgrade, link, and 

integrate a system of geographically distributed experimental facilities for earthquake engineering testing of full-sized structures and 

their components and partial-scale physical models. The system 

shall be integrated through networking software so that integrated 

models and databases can be used to create model-based simulation, and the components of the system shall be interconnected 

with a computer network and allow for remote access, information 

sharing, and collaborative research. 

ø(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to 

amounts appropriated under section 12(c), there are authorized to 

be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for the George 

E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation— 

ø(1) $28,200,000 for fiscal year 2001; 

ø(2) $24,400,000 for fiscal year 2002; 

ø(3) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2003; 

ø(4) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

ø(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, all of which shall be 

available for operations and maintenance; 

ø(6) $20,400,000 for fiscal year 2006, all of which shall be 

available for operations and maintenance; 

ø(7) $20,870,000 for fiscal year 2007, all of which shall be 

available for operations and maintenance; 

ø(8) $21,390,000 for fiscal year 2008, all of which shall be 

available for operations and maintenance; and 

ø(9) $21,930,000 for fiscal year 2009, all of which shall be 

available for operations and maintenance.¿ 

NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION ACT OF 

2004 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—WINDSTORM IMPACT 

REDUCTION 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the øDirector of 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy¿ Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 204. NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 

ø(b) OBJECTIVE.—The objective of the Program is the achievement of major measurable reductions in losses of life and property 

from windstorms. The objective is to be achieved through a coordinated Federal effort, in cooperation with other levels of government, academia, and the private sector, aimed at improving the understanding of windstorms and their impacts and developing and 

encouraging implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures 

to reduce those impacts. 

ø(c) INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.—Not later than 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish 

an Interagency Working Group consisting of representatives of the 

National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and 

other Federal agencies as appropriate. The Director shall designate 

an agency to serve as Chair of the Working Group and be responsible for the planning, management, and coordination of the Program, including budget coordination. Specific agency roles and responsibilities under the Program shall be defined in the implementation plan required under subsection (e). General agency responsibilities shall include the following: 

ø(1) The National Institute of Standards and Technology 

shall support research and development to improve building 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

codes and standards and practices for design and construction 

of buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

ø(2) The National Science Foundation shall support research 

in engineering and the atmospheric sciences to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on 

buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

ø(3) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

shall support atmospheric sciences research to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on 

buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

ø(4) The Federal Emergency Management Agency shall support the development of risk assessment tools and effective 

mitigation techniques, windstorm-related data collection and 

analysis, public outreach, information dissemination, and implementation of mitigation measures consistent with the Agency’s all-hazards approach.¿ 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, the purpose of which is to achieve 

major measurable reductions in the losses of life and property from 

windstorms through a coordinated Federal effort, in cooperation 

with other levels of government, academia, and the private sector, 

aimed at improving the understanding of windstorms and their impacts and developing and encouraging the implementation of costeffective mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROGRAM AGENCIES.— 

(1) LEAD AGENCY.—The National Institute of Standards and 

Technology shall have the primary responsibility for planning 

and coordinating the Program. In carrying out this paragraph, 

the Director shall— 

(A) ensure that the Program includes the necessary components to promote the implementation of windstorm risk 

reduction measures by Federal, State, and local governments, national standards and model building code organizations, architects and engineers, and others with a role in 

planning and constructing buildings and lifelines; 

(B) support the development of performance-based engineering tools, and work with appropriate groups to promote 

the commercial application of such tools, including through 

wind-related model building codes, voluntary standards, 

and construction best practices; 

(C) request the assistance of Federal agencies other than 

the Program agencies, as necessary to assist in carrying out 

this Act; 

(D) coordinate all Federal post-windstorm investigations; 

and 

(E) when warranted by research or investigative findings, 

issue recommendations to assist in informing the development of model codes, and provide information to Congress 

on the use of such recommendations. 

(2) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.— 

In addition to the lead agency responsibilities described under 

paragraph (1), the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall be responsible for carrying out research and development to improve model building codes, voluntary standards, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

and best practices for the design, construction, and retrofit of 

buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

(3) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—The National Science 

Foundation shall support research in engineering and the atmospheric sciences to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, structures, 

and lifelines. 

(4) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.— 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall 

support atmospheric sciences research and data collection to 

improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and 

their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

(5) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.—The Federal Emergency Management Agency shall support the development of risk assessment tools and effective mitigation techniques, windstorm-related data collection and analysis, public 

outreach, information dissemination, and implementation of 

mitigation measures consistent with the Agency’s all-hazards 

approach. 

ø(d)¿ (c) PROGRAM COMPONENTS.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION.—Activities to reduce 

windstorm impacts shall include— 

ø(A) development of improved outreach and implementation mechanisms to translate existing information and research findings into cost-effective and affordable practices 

for design and construction professionals, and State and 

local officials;¿ 

(A) development of improved outreach and implementation mechanisms to translate— 

(i) existing information and research findings into 

cost-effective and affordable practices for design and 

construction professionals, and State and local officials; and 

(ii) research, including social science research, into 

windstorm risk mitigation and preparedness strategies 

for individuals and households, including individuals 

and households with special needs, and businesses; 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—Not later than 1 year after date of 

enactment of this title, the Interagency Working Group shall develop and transmit to the Congress an implementation plan for 

achieving the objectives of the Program. The plan shall include— 

ø(1) an assessment of past and current public and private efforts to reduce windstorm impacts, including a comprehensive 

review and analysis of windstorm mitigation activities supported by the Federal Government; 

ø(2) a description of plans for technology transfer and coordination with natural hazard mitigation activities supported by 

the Federal Government; 

ø(3) a statement of strategic goals and priorities for each 

Program component area; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

ø(4) a description of how the Program will achieve such 

goals, including detailed responsibilities for each agency; and 

ø(5) a description of plans for cooperation and coordination 

with interested public and private sector entities in each program component area. 

ø(f) BIENNIAL REPORT.—The Interagency Working Group shall, 

on a biennial basis, and not later than 180 days after the end of 

the preceding 2 fiscal years, transmit a report to the Congress describing the status of the windstorm impact reduction program, including progress achieved during the preceding two fiscal years. 

Each such report shall include any recommendations for legislative 

and other action the Interagency Working Group considers necessary and appropriate. In developing the biennial report, the 

Interagency Working Group shall consider the recommendations of 

the Advisory Committee established under section 205.¿ 

øSEC. 205. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT 

REDUCTION. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish a National 

Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction, consisting of 

not less than 11 and not more than 15 non-Federal members representing a broad cross section of interests such as the research, 

technology transfer, design and construction, and financial communities; materials and systems suppliers; State, county, and local 

governments; the insurance industry; and other representatives as 

designated by the Director. 

ø(b) ASSESSMENT.—The Advisory Committee shall assess— 

ø(1) trends and developments in the science and engineering 

of windstorm impact reduction; 

ø(2) the effectiveness of the Program in carrying out the activities under section 204(d); 

ø(3) the need to revise the Program; and 

ø(4) the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program. 

ø(c) BIENNIAL REPORT.—At least once every two years, the Advisory Committee shall report to Congress and the Interagency 

Working Group on the assessment carried out under subsection (b). 

ø(d) SUNSET EXEMPTION.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act shall not apply to the Advisory Committee established under this section.¿ 

SEC. 205. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT 

REDUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall establish an Advisory Committee on 

Windstorm Impact Reduction, which shall be composed of at least 

7 members, none of whom may be employees of the Federal Government, including representatives of research and academic institutions, industry standards development organizations, emergency 

management agencies, State and local government, and business 

communities who are qualified to provide advice on windstorm impact reduction and represent all related scientific, architectural, and 

engineering disciplines. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be considered by Federal agencies in implementing the 

Program. 

(b) ASSESSMENTS.—The Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction shall offer assessments on— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

(1) trends and developments in the natural, social, and engineering sciences and practices of windstorm impact mitigation; 

(2) the priorities of the Program’s Strategic Plan; 

(3) the coordination of the Program; and 

(4) any revisions to the Program which may be necessary. 

(c) COMPENSATION.—The members of the Advisory Committee established under this section shall serve without compensation. 

(d) REPORTS.—At least every 2 years, the Advisory Committee 

shall report to the Director on the assessments carried out under 

subsection (b) and its recommendations for ways to improve the Program. 

(e) TERMINATION.—The Advisory Committee shall terminate not 

later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

ø(a) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency for carrying out this title— 

ø(1) $8,700,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

ø(2) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

ø(3) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

ø(b) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying 

out this title— 

ø(1) $8,700,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

ø(2) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

ø(3) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

ø(c) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology for carrying out this title— 

ø(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

ø(2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

ø(3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

ø(d) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration for carrying out this title— 

ø(1) $2,100,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

ø(2) $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

ø(3) $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2008.¿ 

SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency for carrying out this title— 

(1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

(3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

(b) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—There are authorized to be 

appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out 

this title— 

(1) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(2) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

(3) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2014. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

(c) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology for carrying out this title— 

(1) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(2) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

(3) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

(d) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration for carrying out this title— 

(1) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(2) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

(3) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 

TECHNOLOGY ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 16. (a) There is hereby established within the Department 

of Commerce a Fire Research Center which shall have the mission 

of performing and supporting research on all aspects of fire with 

aim of providing scientific and technical knowledge applicable to 

the prevention and control of fires. The content and priorities of the 

research program shall be determined in consultation with the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration. In implementing this section, the Secretary is authorized to conduct, directly or through contracts or grants, a fire research program, including— 

(1) basic and applied fire research for the purpose of arriving 

at an understanding of the fundamental processes underlying 

all aspects of fire. Such research shall include scientific investigations of— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) the early stages of fires in buildings and other structures, structural subsystems and structural components in 

all other types of fires, including, but not limited to, fires 

at the wildland-urban interface that are the result of natural causes, forest fires, brush fires, fires underground, oil 

blowout fires, and waterborne fires, with the aim of improving early detection capability; 

(E) the behavior of fires involving all types of buildings 

and other structures and their contents (including mobile 

homes and highrise buildings, construction materials, floor 

and wall coverings, coatings, furnishings, and other combustible materials), and all other types of fires, including 

fires at the wildland-urban interface that are the result of 

natural causes, forest fires, brush fires, fires underground, 

oil blowout fires, and waterborne fires; 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 54 HR666P1.007
48 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 55 HR666P1.008
49 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 56 HR666P1.009
50 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 57 HR666P1.010
(51) 

XXI. DISSENTING VIEWS

We strongly support the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP), but we must reluctantly oppose H.R. 

3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, because of 

the damage this bill will do to these vital programs. 

Americans face significant exposure to natural hazards, and each 

year natural hazards cause significant damage in communities 

throughout the U.S. It is estimated that the economic costs associated with the unprecedented number of disasters experienced in 

the U.S. this year alone will exceed $45 billion. 

We believe that the best way to minimize the loss of lives and 

property, as well as moderate disruptions to our economy, is by 

helping our communities become more resilient to disasters. 

NEHRP and NWIRP have proven track records in bolstering the 

resiliency of our communities through advancements in monitoring 

and building practices and increased awareness and preparation by 

the public. 

As the authorizing Committee with jurisdiction over these important programs, it is our responsibility to outline the objectives of 

the programs as well as the role and responsibilities of each of the 

agencies involved. Additionally, we have an obligation to authorize 

the funding that we believe is needed by the agencies to effectively 

carry out all of what we have required of them. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 3479 proposes drastic cuts to the authorization levels of these critical programs. It reduces the authorization 

level for NEHRP by 36 percent and NWIRP by 14 percent when 

compared to the last year the programs were authorized. Furthermore, it weakens both programs by cutting the programs by 6 percent below fiscal year 2011 spending levels. 

We do not have any reason to believe, nor has the Committee received any testimony that would support the premise that these 

agencies need any less money to carry out their responsibilities 

than we determined was necessary when we last authorized these 

programs in 2004 under Republican leadership. Yet, H.R. 3479 fails 

to take a single step to reduce or minimize the obligations of these 

agencies to justify the reduction in authorized funding. Without a 

corresponding reduction in responsibilities, we are doing nothing 

less than setting these agencies up to fail. 

Democratic Members of the Committee attempted to reverse 

these proposed cuts and ensure that the agencies have the resources necessary to fulfill their Congressional mandates. One 

amendment would have restored funding authorizations to the levels included in the last authorization. Another amendment would 

have replaced the authorization numbers with the authorization 

numbers in the bipartisan bill that passed the House last Congress 

and is currently making its way through the Senate. These were 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

both reasonable and informed amendments, and we are disappointed that they were rejected along party lines. 

In addition to our concerns about cutting funding for these important programs, we are disappointed that the bill fails to implement a 2008 NEHRP Advisory Committee recommendation that 

the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) take 

over responsibility for coordinating post-earthquake investigations. 

In 2004, NIST was given the task of serving as the lead agency for 

NEHRP, and it follows that NIST should be responsible for coordinating all of the program’s activities, including post-earthquake investigations. 

The bipartisan bill that passed the House last Congress included 

this transfer. The bipartisan bill currently moving through the Senate also includes this change. In fact, the original version of H.R. 

3479 considered by the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee 

last month also included this change. Unfortunately, at the Subcommittee markup, a Republican amendment was accepted that reversed the transfer of this responsibility. We do not suspect that 

the Majority had a change of heart with respect to whether the 

transfer to NIST is the best policy. Instead, we believe they were 

constrained by their legislative protocols and could not provide 

NIST with the resources necessary to coordinate post-earthquake 

investigations without also slashing funding from the other 

NEHRP agencies that are already struggling to meet their responsibilities under the program. 

We believe that, as an authorizing Committee, our first and foremost concern should be establishing the best policy. That is why a 

Democratic amendment was offered to reinstate the transfer of responsibility for post-earthquake investigations to NIST and to increase NIST’s authorization to accommodate this new responsibility. We are disappointed that this amendment was also rejected 

along party lines. 

We share the Majority’s interest in getting a reauthorization of 

these important programs enacted into law as quickly as possible, 

but not at the cost of damaging the ability of these programs to effectively carry out their mission to save American lives and limit 

property damage. We sincerely hope that we will be able to work 

together in a bipartisan manner to accomplish these goals as we 

move forward. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. 

LYNN WOOLSEY. 

JERRY F. COSTELLO. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

TERRI SEWELL. 

JERRY MCNERNEY. 

PAUL TONKO. 

MARCIA L. FUDGE. 

HANSEN CLARKE. 

BRAD MILLER. 

DONNA F. EDWARDS. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION’S 

MARKUP ON COMMITTEE PRINT, 

THE NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION 

ACT OF 2011 

TUESDAY, November 15, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Quayle 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee of Technology and Innovation will come to order. Pursuant to notice the 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation meets today to consider the following measure. Committee Print, the ‘‘Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.’’ 

We will now proceed with the markup beginning with opening 

statements. I am going to be brief as it is my intention to yield the 

balance of my time to Ms. Biggert. 

I am pleased to call the markup this morning for consideration 

of the Committee Print of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act 

of 2011. 

As we have tragically witnessed this year, earthquakes and 

windstorms take lives, destroy homes and businesses, and cause 

billions of dollars of damage in the United States and around the 

world. The effects of these disasters can reverberate for decades. 

Portions of all 50 states are vulnerable to earthquake hazards, and 

according to the United States Geological Survey 26 urban areas 

in 14 U.S. states face significant seismic risk. 

Though infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they strike without warning. Millions of Americans 

across the U.S. live in areas vulnerable to storms with damaging 

winds, and as populations continue to grow in areas prone to hurricanes, tornados, and windstorms, our vulnerability to severe 

weather will only increase. 

This past April our subcommittee held a hearing examining 

earthquake risks in the United States and our efforts to develop 

hazard reduction measures. I am pleased that Congresswoman 

Biggert plans to introduce the ‘‘Natural Hazards Risk Reduction 

Act of 2011,’’ which will address important research and development activities to reduce the risk and impact of earthquake and 

windstorm hazards. 

I want to thank Representative Biggert and Representative 

Neugebauer for collaborating on this effort. I look forward to moving this important legislation forward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quayle follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BEN QUAYLE

I am pleased to call the markup this morning for consideration of a Committee 

Print of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. 

As we have tragically witnessed this year, earthquakes and windstorms take 

lives, destroy homes and businesses, and cause billions of dollars of damage in the 

United States and around the world. The effects of these disasters can reverberate 

for decades. 

Portions of all 50 states are vulnerable to earthquake hazards, and according to 

the United States Geologic Survey, twenty-six urban areas in fourteen U.S. states 

face significant seismic risk. Though infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they strike without warning. 

Millions of Americans across the U.S. live in areas vulnerable to storms with damaging winds, and as populations continue to grow in areas prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, and windstorms, our vulnerability to severe weather will only increase. 

This past April, our Subcommittee held a hearing examining earthquake risk in 

the United States and our efforts to develop hazard reduction measures. I am 

pleased that Congresswoman Biggert plans to introduce the Natural Hazards Risk 

Reduction Act of 2011, which will address important research and development activities to reduce the risk and impact of earthquake and windstorm hazards. 

The Committee Print we are considering today will reauthorize the activities of 

the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP, ′′KNEE-hurp) and 

the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP, ′′N-whirp′′). Over the 

years, NEHRP has been instrumental in developing and advancing earthquake 

knowledge, seismic building codes, and raising the awareness of both officials and 

the general public to earthquake hazards. NWIRP has supported activities to improve the understanding of windstorms and their impacts, and to develop and encourage the implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce these effects. Both programs are targeted federal research and development efforts to mitigate the loss of life and property due to wind and earthquake related hazards. 

I want to thank Representatives Biggert and Neugebauer for collaborating on this 

effort, and I look forward to moving this important legislation forward. I yield the 

balance of my time to the gentle lady from Illinois, for any comments she may have. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I yield the balance of my time to the 

gentlelady from Illinois for any comments she may have. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

scheduling this important markup today, I haven’t had the opportunity to congratulate the Ranking Member Edwards for taking 

over this important Subcommittee. 

The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 reauthorizes 

two important multi-agency programs that address hazards faced 

by millions of Americans. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, also known as NEHRP, whose name should be very 

difficult to talk about, and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, known as NWIRP, support research and development to better understand and prepare for earthquakes and windstorms. 

Briefly, the committee print includes a few changes to NEHRP 

Program that improves its mission and reduces duplicity. These 

changes include reauthorizing the program for three years, further 

detailing the role of NIST as the lead program agency, updating 

the existing advisory committee for NEHRP to offer recommendations and assessments on programs, developments, priorities, and 

coordination. The committee print also directs an interagency coordinating committee chaired by the director of NIST with overseeing the planning and coordination of both the earthquake and 

wind hazard programs. 

The single interagency coordinating committee replaces two separate interagency committees overseeing the current earthquake 

and windstorm programs and provides a framework for coordination of a multi-hazards approach to mitigating national disasters. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

As co-chair of the High Performance Building Caucus we frequently hold briefings on building safety and security, a defining 

attribute of a high-performing building. In fact, we held a briefing 

in April on seismic readiness of the U.S. building inventory and the 

importance of updating building codes and standards to mitigate 

our risks in communities. 

The NEHRP data and monitoring information is the foundation 

for those safety codes and standards. Without it we wouldn’t understand what areas of our country are most risk prone and what 

areas are least prepared. That is why I believe the reauthorization 

of this program is important for all of us. A little knowledge and 

improvement in earthquake risk measures go a long way in protecting life and property. 

Mr. Chairman, the committee print has been endorsed by the 

American Geophysical Union and the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, and I urge members to support this 

legislation and yield the balance of time to Mr. Neugebauer for any 

comments he may have on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Biggert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this important markup today. 

The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 reauthorizes two important 

multi-agency programs that address hazards faced by millions of Americans. The 

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, also known as NEHRP [′′KNEEHURP′′] and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, known as NWIRP 

[′′N-WHIRP′′] support research and development to better understand and prepare 

for earthquakes and windstorms. 

Briefly, the committee print includes a few changes to the NEHRP program that 

improve its mission and reduce duplication. Those changes include: 

• Reauthorizing the program for three years; 

• Further detailing the role of NIST as the lead program agency of NEHRP; 

• Updating the existing Advisory Committee for NEHRP to offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, priorities, and coordination. 

• he Committee Print also directs an interagency coordinating committee, 

chaired by the Director of NIST, with overseeing the planning and coordination of both the earthquake and wind hazards programs. The single interagency coordinating committee replaces two separate interagency committees 

overseeing the current earthquake and windstorm programs, and provides a 

framework for coordination of a multi-hazards approach to mitigating natural 

disasters. 

As co-chair of the High Performance Buildings Caucus, we frequently hold briefings on building ‘safety and security’, a defining attribute of a high-performing 

building. In fact, we held a briefing in April on the seismic readiness of the U.S. 

building inventory and the importance of updated building codes and standards to 

mitigating risk in communities. The NEHRP data and monitoring information is the 

foundation for those safety codes and standards. Without it, we wouldn’t understand 

what areas of our country are most risk-prone - and what areas are least prepared. 

That’s why I believe the reauthorization of this program is important for all of 

us; a little knowledge and improvement in earthquake risk measures go a long way 

in protecting life and property. 

Mr. Chairman, the Committee Print has been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union and the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations. I 

urge Members to support this legislation, and I hope we can see it through the rest 

of the legislative process in a timely manner. 

I now yield the balance of my time to Mr. Neugebauer for any comments he may 

have on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentlewoman, and I will be brief 

as well. The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 as mentioned authorizes the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program or NWIRP Program that I first introduced in 2004. It focuses 

on mitigating the damage from wind hazards through research designed to help us better understand the behavior and impacts of 

windstorms. 

The program includes research and development to improve 

model codes, voluntary standards, and construction practices for 

buildings and lifelines, basic research to better under windstorms, 

atmospheric science research, and data collection and the development of risk assessment tools and mitigation techniques. 

The original authorization for NWIRP expired in 2008, and although some agency work in this area has continued, it is currently 

difficult to determine the impact of agency activities and spending 

on wind hazards or reduction measures. This committee print 

makes changes to NWIRP to bring increased transparency to the 

program, including naming NIST as the lead program agency 

which would ensure improved coordination and planning for agency 

activities. 

I would like to thank Chairman Quayle for holding this markup 

today and Representative Biggert for her commitment to reauthorizing these programs. I would also like to note that the Windstorm 

Bill I introduced in October, which has been included in the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act has been endorsed by the American Society of Civil Engineers. I believe we should work to get 

these important programs reauthorized, and I look forward to 

working with other members to strengthen this committee print in 

preparation for introduction. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer and Mrs. 

Biggert. I now recognize Ms. Edwards for five minutes to present 

her opening remarks. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Chairman Quayle and thank you to 

Mrs. Biggert and Mr. Neugebauer for your contributions and for 

holding today’s markup to reauthorize two important programs; the 

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Ms. Biggert, I 

share your concern, NEHRP, and the National Windstorm Impact 

Reduction Program, NWIRP. 

The reauthorization of these programs is very timely as there 

have been a record number of declared federal disasters in the U.S. 

this year resulting in economic damage exceeding $45 billion. It is 

already the deadliest year for tornados in the United States since 

1936, with 550 fatalities so far. The images of devastation from our 

colleague Congresswoman Sewell’s district in Alabama and those of 

an almost completely flattened Joplin, Missouri, were nothing less 

than heartbreaking. Even in my own district and state we suffered 

hurricane and wind damage this year, and I have had earthquake 

damage, in fact, at my home. 

The best way to minimize the loss of lives and property caused 

by natural disasters as well as reduce disruptions for our economy 

is to create communities that are disaster resilient. NEHRP and 

NWIRP support research and development programs to better understand earthquakes and windstorms and their impact and to improve the resiliency of buildings and critical lifelines. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

This work has led to advancements in monitoring and building 

practices and has increased awareness and preparation by the public. Today’s committee print makes a number of important improvements to these programs, including establishing NIST as the lead 

agency for both NEHRP and NWIRP and placing the responsibility 

for inner-agency coordination in the hands of agency directors who 

have the authority to make both budgetary and programmatic decisions. 

I am pleased that we are also able to work together over the last 

week on additional changes that we will consider as part of the 

manager’s amendment. 

Despite this and my strong support for the reauthorizations of 

these programs, I do still have some concerns with the committee 

print that we are considering today. First, even though these programs have proven track records in bolstering the resiliency of our 

communities and reducing the costs associated with natural hazards and despite the fact that experts have expressed concern that 

sufficient—insufficient funding has negatively impacted the implementation of these programs and contributed to the loss of low-cost 

mitigation opportunities, the committee print that we are considering today cuts the funding authorizations for these programs and 

then freezes funding over the authorization period. 

When we consider the devastating losses that have plagued the 

United States this year and the potential costs associated with a 

larger-scale disaster like the earthquake in Japan, this course of 

action seems irresponsible. 

I urge my colleagues to consider the long-term savings these programs will provide. Studies of FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program have shown that for every dollar we invest in mitigation activities we actually save $3 to $4 in recovery costs. We can and 

should be doing more to help our communities be prepared so we 

can realize those cost savings. 

In addition, despite the leadership’s attempts to clarify authorization protocol, confusion remains. Not only is it increasingly difficult for my Democratic colleagues to understand what the rules 

of the road are at any given moment or how to craft amendments 

that comply with them, I think this uncertainty has actually resulted in some bad policy. 

In this case we have a combination of seemingly arbitrary numbers that seem to be justified only by an effort to comply with certain protocol and not on real-world need and the experiences that 

we have had in our communities. 

I also want to take a moment to talk about a disturbing trend 

that seems to be emerging, and that is on bills that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Such as this there has been a startling lack of outreach, although to be fair, the majority did ask for 

input on today’s committee print, which I do appreciate, but only 

because the previously-scheduled markup was postponed due to 

factors not within control of the majority. And so thankfully we 

have had an opportunity to participate at some level in this committee print. 

In the last Congress the markup of the previous iteration of the 

bill was preceded by weeks and perhaps months of outreach and 

negotiation with minority. As a result we incorporated many ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

publican ideas, legislative priorities in the bill, and Ranking Member Smith agreed to be an original cosponsor. That bill ultimately 

passed I think on a suspension vote by a vote of 335 to 50, which 

included the support of many notable Republican members, including our Speaker Majority Leader Cantor and Majority Whip, Kevin 

McCarthy. 

This was a terrific example of bipartisan legislating, and it was 

a better bill as a result of the process. I think the bipartisanship 

does take work, and it takes a willingness, and I know a willingness certainly that I shared with Mrs. Biggert to compromise, and 

I think that has been noticeably lacking, at least in this process. 

So I sincerely hope that the members of the subcommittee can 

move forward in a more productive and bipartisan manner in the 

future and particularly on issues such as these which have historically benefited from bipartisan support, and I would note that over 

on the Senate side this has moved in a bipartisan fashion, and it 

would seem that if we want to get to a point where we have a bill 

that is signed into law, that we should proceed in that direction. 

And with that I yield. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DONNA EDWARDS

Thank you, Chairman Quayle, for holding today’s markup to reauthorize two important programs, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program-or NEHRP 

[knee-herp] and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program-or NWIRP [Nwerp]. 

The reauthorization of these programs is very timely as there have been a record 

number of declared Federal disasters in the U.S. this year, resulting in economic 

damage exceeding $45 billion. It is already the deadliest year for tornadoes in the 

U.S. since 1936, with 550 fatalities so far. The images of devastation from our colleague Congresswoman Sewell’s district in Alabama and those of an almost completely flattened Joplin, Missouri were nothing less than heartbreaking. 

The best way to minimize the loss of lives and property caused by natural disasters, as well as reduce disruptions to our economy, is to create communities that 

are disaster resilient. NEHRP and NWIRP support research and development programs to better understand earthquakes and windstorms and their impact, and to 

improve the resiliency of buildings and critical lifelines. This work has lead to advancements in monitoring and building practices, and has increased awareness and 

preparation by the public. 

Today’s Committee Print makes a number of important improvements to these 

programs, including establishing NIST as the lead agency for both NEHRP and 

NWIRP and placing the responsibility for interagency coordination in the hands of 

agency directors who have the authority to make both budgetary and programmatic 

decisions. I am pleased that we were also able to work together over the last week 

on additional changes that we will consider as part of the Manager’s Amendment. 

Despite this and my strong support for the reauthorization of these programs, I 

do have some concerns with the Committee Print that we are considering today. 

First, even though these programs have proven track records in bolstering the resiliency of our communities and reducing the cost associated with natural hazards, 

and despite the fact that experts have expressed concern that insufficient funding 

has negatively impacted the implementation of these programs and contributed to 

the loss of low-cost mitigation opportunities, the Committee Print cuts the funding 

authorization for these programs and then freezes funding over the authorization 

period. When we consider the devastating losses that have plagued the U.S. this 

year and the potential costs associated with a large-scale disaster like the earthquake in Japan, this course of action seems irresponsible. 

I urge my colleagues to consider the long-term savings these programs will provide. Studies of FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation program have shown that for every 

dollar we invest in mitigation activities, we save $3 to $4 dollars in recovery costs. 

We can, and should, be doing more to help our communities be prepared so we can 

realize these cost savings. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

In addition, despite your attempts to clarify authorization protocols, confusion remains. Not only is it increasingly difficult for my Democratic colleagues to understand what the rules of the road are at any given moment or how to craft amendments that comply with them, I believe that the uncertainty is resulting in bad policy. In this case, we have a combination of seemingly arbitrary numbers that seem 

to be justified only by an effort to comply with an absurd protocol and not on any 

real-world need. 

I also want to take a moment to talk about a disturbing trend that seems to be 

emerging. On bills which have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, there has 

been a startling lack of outreach by the Majority prior to markup. To be fair, the 

Majority did ask for our input on today’s Committee Print, but only because the previously-scheduled markup was postponed due to factors not within the control of the 

Majority. Had this markup proceeded as originally scheduled, we would not have 

been provided an opportunity for input. 

In the last Congress, the markup of the previous iteration of this bill was preceded by weeks, and perhaps months, of outreach to and negotiation with the Minority. As a result, we actively incorporated Republican ideas and legislative priorities into the bill, and Ranking Member Smith agreed to be an original co-sponsor. 

That bill ultimately passed the House by a vote of 335-50, which included the support of the following notable Republican Members: Ms. Biggert, Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy. This was a 

great example of bipartisan legislating, and it was a better bill as a result of the 

process. Bipartisanship takes work, and it takes a willingness to compromise that 

has been noticeably lacking by the Majority this Congress. 

I sincerely hope that the members of this subcommittee can move forward in a 

productive and bipartisan manner in the future, particularly on issues such as these 

which have historically benefitted from bipartisan support. That’s what produces 

good policy, and that’s what our constituents want us to do. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. There being no further discussion, without objection all member opening statements 

will be placed in the record at this point. 

We will now consider the committee print, ‘‘The Natural Hazards 

Risk Reduction Act of 2011.’’ Without objection I ask unanimous 

consent that the committee print is considered as read and open to 

amendment at any point and that members proceed with amendments in the order listed on the roster. So ordered. 

[The Committee Print appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman QUAYLE. Are there any amendments to the committee 

print? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I am. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The clerk shall report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 001, amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to the committee print offered by Ms. Edwards of 

Maryland. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman QUAYLE. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I am offering an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. This substitute is actually based on the text of the bipartisan bill from last Congress. I 

firmly believe that this bill is a better starting point for our subVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

committee because it stands a better chance of actually being enacted into law. 

I do want to thank Mrs. Biggert for working with me on the 

manager’s amendment to address some concerns in the underlying 

bill. I hope this subcommittee continues to work together and in 

the future will work together from the outset to conceive the best 

legislative product that can receive support on both sides of the 

aisle. 

Given the bipartisan cooperation that has taken place on the 

Senate side, Senators Boxer and Hutchison in reporting hazards reduction legislation out of the Senate Commerce Committee, it 

seems that this is one place where this subcommittee might also 

strike a bipartisan agreement. 

The bill from last Congress was a product of extensive bipartisan 

negotiations between members of this committee. We sought to 

make the bill something of which all of the members of this committee could be proud. We solicited suggestions and feedback from 

the minority and made changes based on that feedback. 

As I stated earlier, this included months and weeks of negotiation and included making significant adjustments to the authorization levels we had originally proposed. As a result then Ranking 

Member Smith joined as an original cosponsor of the bill, and it 

was passed by this committee unanimously. 

In contrast, the committee print that we are considering today 

was shared with us just days before the originally-scheduled markup, and there was no attempt to incorporate our feedback. Although obviously with the postponement we were able to incorporate feedback, which I appreciate Ms. Biggert’s support in, in the 

committee print, and we did appreciate that unexpected postponement that allowed an opportunity to share our concerns. 

I am pleased that we are going to address some of the low-hanging fruit through the manager’s amendment later today, something 

that should—that would not have taken place had the markup proceeded as originally scheduled. 

Unfortunately, though, this collaboration has not spilled over to 

our most significant concerns with the bill. Namely the low authorization levels and decision to flat fund these agencies over the life 

of the bill. Last Congress we made changes to our authorization 

numbers to ensure it had bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the 

majority has not shown a similar willingness this time around. 

Last Congress we also worked with the other committees with jurisdiction over these programs to ensure that their priorities were 

reflected. In order for a bill to get to the floor and pass it needs 

the support of these other committees. We shared our draft bill 

with our colleagues on these other committees and ended up making changes, including changes to some of the authorization numbers to get their support. 

As a result of these efforts our bill passed the House on the suspension calendar. Unfortunately, in this case I am concerned that 

majority has not worked closely enough with the other committees 

of jurisdiction to ensure a clear and smooth process through the 

House. 

I would point out that the agencies which drew the short straws 

in this effort are agencies which are primarily or wholly outside of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

this committee’s jurisdiction. It makes me question the commitment of the majority to actually move a bill through the House and 

similarly through the Senate that we can get to the President’s 

desk for his signature. We seem to be thumbing our noses, in fact, 

at these other committees. 

In addition, our bill from last Congress is a bill that is currently 

moving through the Senate. The bill already has been reported out 

of the Senate Commerce Committee, and as we understand it from 

our colleagues in the Senate, it is likely to be considered and 

passed by the Senate in the near future. 

If we are committed to getting these programs reauthorized, the 

truth is that we need the support of the Senate. We know our previous bill has the Senate support, but I am not confident that we 

will get it with this committee print. 

The Senate bill also has the support of more than 15 stakeholder 

organizations representing engineers, scientists, building code officials, architects, and emergency management response leaders. 

Certainly the top priority of the stakeholders is to get these programs reauthorized, but I am also fairly certain that they would 

uniformly prefer the Senate bill over this committee print. 

The language in this substitute is identical to the language contained in the bill that passed the House last Congress with two 

slight modifications. Since the fiscal year 2012 NWIRP numbers for 

NIST and NOAA in the committee print are closer to the numbers 

we originally proposed last Congress before we negotiated them 

down with then Ranking Member Smith in an effort to garner his 

support, we have chosen to include the majority’s authorization 

numbers for NIST and NOAA in this amendment and adjust those 

numbers for inflation for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. 

Mr. Chairman, let us get these important programs reauthorized. 

Let us move the bill that we know can garner bipartisan support 

in the House and that concurrently has bipartisan support and momentum in the Senate. I urge adoption of this substitute amendment. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I thank the Ranking Member Edwards for 

her amendment, and I will rise in opposition. I am opposed to this 

amendment for a number of reasons, not the least of which being 

that it would negate the entire committee print before us. 

This amendment increases the funding authorization levels well 

above the committee print into President’s requested levels for the 

first fiscal year and continues to increase spending every year of 

the authorization. 

It also authorizes the program for five years rather than 3. In 

the difficult fiscal crisis our country is facing, the current committee print represents a responsible reauthorization of two programs which are important to our national safety and security. A 

number of organizations have supported the committee print, demonstrating support for reauthorization, and Congresswoman 

Biggert has presented a vehicle that will provide a real opportunity 

for reauthorization of the programs. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute also modifies and 

expands the activities of the agencies. We must be cognizant of our 

budget environment, and therefore, the committee print does not 

add significantly to agency responsibilities but rather provides 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

guidance on continuing ongoing programs in need of reauthorization. 

Additionally, the amendment in the nature of a substitute expands the committee print and the statutes that are not currently 

addressed in the bill. 

Finally, I understand that the manager’s amendment that Representative Biggert intends to offer today was worked out in a bipartisan manner, and I believe that amendment represents a goodfaith effort to meet in the middle on a number of issues. While we 

were not able to include everything in that amendment, there are 

a number of changes included in that amendment that strengthen 

the committee print. And while there are areas of policy differences, they were not so substantial as to merit consideration of 

an entirely different vehicle at today’s markup in the form of this 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

For these reasons I must oppose the gentlelady’s amendment in 

the nature of a substitute. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? 

The gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry that 

we haven’t reached an agreement here. I always try to be the most 

bipartisan and this has worked, for example, in the Financial Services Committee this year. We worked with everybody and found 

that a bill passed out of Financial Services, the National Flood Bill, 

54 to nothing, which everybody turned around and said, what happened? It was so unusual for that committee. 

This Committee to me has always had a very bipartisan nature. 

That is one of the reasons that I really like serving on it, so I am 

concerned about all the rhetoric that I have just heard. This is a 

different Congress, and a different sponsor. This is a different 

make up of the Committee; we have reached out to the other Committees that may have jurisdiction, and there was one that said 

that they didn’t want anything to do with it, and if it went over 

there, it was going to be a problem. 

So, we have tried to cut this as closely as we can to be able to 

get this to the Floor and to get it over to the Senate. It is also a 

different Senate than what was set up there. 

I do have three concerns, and that is the five-year authorization, 

and I would think that the three years is better in these economic 

times, and the flat funding as the chairman said was at the President’s request instead of the ascending increases in out year spending that totals $618 million more than the committee print and 

adds $113 million more over a comparative three years. We just 

can’t afford it right now. We can’t spend money that we don’t have, 

and if we keep it lower, we have much more of an opportunity of 

being able to reauthorize these programs. 

The committee print closely parallels current mission and responsibility of hazards research versus the expanding scope of research beyond current statute, and you have to remember that this 

is a committee print. There is no bill yet, and that is why we have 

done this is to have the input, and I know that my staff has spent 

a lot of time with your staff and other members over there, and I 

think that is the way that this should work. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

And so I just don’t think that we can go back to the former bill, 

and with that I would oppose the amendment. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hall. 

Chairman HALL. I would like to oppose the amendment. I am not 

happy to, but I listened very carefully to the young lady, and she 

always is eloquent and makes good points, but when she talks 

about low-hanging fruit, you know, that is usually the most expensive because it is the easiest gathered. 

And I looked at this first and had my mind made up that I couldn’t be for it because it added over $100 million, and I looked 

a little closer. It is not just $100 million. It is $618 million when 

compared with the committee print. This isn’t the time to be spending that kind of money or extending the time of authorization. 

For those reasons I oppose the amendment and urge a no vote. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I thank the Chairman. Is there any further 

discussion on the amendment? 

Hearing no further discussion on the amendment, are there any 

amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

Hearing none, the vote occurs on the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute offered by the gentlelady from Maryland. All those 

in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The no’s have it, and the 

amendment is not agreed to. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Quayle? 

Chairman QUAYLE. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Quayle votes no. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes no. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes no. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

Mr. Hall? 

Chairman HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. 

Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Lujan? 

Mr. LUJAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan votes aye. 

Ms. Johnson? 

[No response.] 

Chairman QUAYLE. The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, three members vote aye, and ten 

members vote no. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPVOTE1.eps
66 

Chairman QUAYLE. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments to the committee print? 

For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The next amendment is offered by the 

gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. The clerk will report the 

amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 0045, amendment to the committee print offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman QUAYLE. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her 

amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment before 

us was worked out in a bipartisan manner among committee staff, 

and I believe represents a good-faith effort to meet in the middle 

on a number of issues. While we were not able to include everything in this amendment, there are a number of changes included 

that strengthen the committee print, and I appreciate the Ranking 

Member’s willingness to work with me on these provisions. 

Briefly, the manager’s amendment includes the following provisions. Number one is to add social science to the trends in science 

that the Advisory Committee for the Earthquake and Wind Program should examine. 

Number two, it articulates that one of the activities of the 

NEHRP Program is supporting public education and outreach to 

help prepare for and respond to earthquakes. Number three, it provides for the termination of the Earthquake and Windstorm Advisory Committees five years after enactment. 

And number four, strengthens the coordination of research, development, strategic planning, and budgeting across the federal 

disaster programs. The manager amendment I think adds language 

to ensure coordination, not duplication, of disaster activities within 

the Federal Government. 

And with that I would urge support for the amendment. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment 

and for her good-faith efforts working in a bipartisan manner to 

strengthen the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 

Are there any other comments or Members who want to discuss 

the amendment? 

Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I am pleased to 

support Ms. Biggert in this manager’s amendment, and I do appreciate that with the committee print having had our ability to have 

the—to have input on the committee print, although, obviously, 

there are other things that we would like to do to strengthen it, 

it is really important for us to have had a role in trying to 

strengthen what is before us. 

And so I appreciate her willingness to work with us. The amendment makes some important improvements to the committee print. 

For example, we have been concerned on this side of the aisle that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

activities within NEHRP and NWIRP are not sufficiently coordinated with relevant activities at non-program agencies. Specifically 

in hearings earlier this year we heard from officials at the Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, 

and the Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovation 

Technology Administration about work they were performing to improve the disaster resiliency of our Nation’s communities to earthquakes. 

However, when asked how those efforts were being coordinated 

with NEHRP, they indicated there was limited interaction. We 

need to make sure that we are leveraging resources across the entire Federal Government and that one agency is not duplicating efforts already underway at another agency. 

Therefore, I am pleased that we were able to work together to 

bolster inner-agency coordination in this manager’s amendment. 

The manager’s amendment also addresses our concerns about terminating the advisory committees at the end of the authorization 

period. If I have learned anything during my time in Congress it 

is that even well-intentioned efforts to get programs reauthorized 

on time fall short. 

I am pleased that the manager’s amendment ensures that the 

agencies will continue to benefit from the oversight and counsel of 

the advisory committees even if we are unable to get reauthorization—a reauthorization bill over the finish line before the authorization expires. 

These improvements as well as a number of other important 

changes make the bill we are considering today better, and I, 

again, want to thank Mrs. Biggert for working with this side to address some of our concerns in the manager’s amendment, and I 

urge its adoption. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is 

agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments to the committee print? 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. For what purpose does the gentleman seek 

recognition? 

Chairman HALL. I have an amendment at the desk, amendment 

number 011. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The next amendment is offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 011, amendment to the committee print offered by Mr. Hall of Texas. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman QUAYLE. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the 

amendment. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the 

markup, and I appreciate the interest and efforts of both Mrs. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

Biggert and Congressman Neugebauer and the minority, the support that they have given. 

The committee print before us today proposes to change the leadership of the earthquake investigations from the United States Geological Survey to the National Institute for Standards and Technology. However, after gathering additional feedback from various 

stakeholders we talk about how it will better go in the Senate and 

how it would better progress as it moves across the Floor. 

It appears that we need a better understanding of the current 

system of investigation before transferring this responsibility to 

NIST. So my amendment would essentially maintain the status 

quo, keeping the current responsibility and funding for post-earthquake investigations at the U.S. Geological Survey, while also asking USGS to use the coordination expertise of the Earthquake Program’s lead agency, NIST, when conducting such investigations. 

I urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman, and I will recognize 

myself in support of this amendment. 

I thank the chairman of the full committee for his amendment, 

which removes the transfer of responsibility and the funding for 

the coordination of post-earthquake investigations from the United 

States Geological Survey to NIST. Rather than transferring this 

role to NIST, this amendment directs USGS to utilize the coordination expertise of NIST in organizing investigations on the implications of earthquakes by each of the agencies in the NEHRP Program. 

Furthermore, the amendment adjusts the authorization amounts 

of the United States Geological Survey and the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, bringing both program authorizations in line with the Administration’s agency’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request. 

In the difficult fiscal crisis our country is facing, the amendment 

represents a good-faith effort and a responsible reauthorization of 

the program. I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman 

Hall and other members of the committee, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, although I appreciate that Chairman Hall wants to make sure that 

NIST is not forced to take on responsibility for coordinating postearthquake investigation if it is not provided with funding it needs 

to fulfill that responsibility, but I am concerned that the motivation 

for the amendment is not really the best policy. Instead its compliance with the confusing set of legislative protocols regarding where 

we are pushing and pulling funding. 

We just spoke to the importance of the advisory committees here 

and yet the NEHRP advisory committee in its 2008 report recommended the transfer of post-earthquake investigations from 

USGS to NIST, consistent with NIST’s role as the program’s lead 

agency. In hearing after hearing we heard expert testimony praise 

the job NIST had done as a lead agency. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

Furthermore, the experts are in agreement that it is appropriate 

for NIST to also coordinate post-earthquake investigations under 

the program, and when we talked to NEHRP agencies about making this change in the bipartisan bill passed by the House last Congress, they were supportive of the change. 

The bipartisan bill making its way through the Senate right now, 

which is based on the bipartisan House bill from last Congress, 

also authorizes this transfer. 

But as I understand it both USGS and FEMA have understandably expressed concern that their authorizations were cut by 13 

percent and 18 percent below current spending levels in the committee print so that the NIST authorization level could be raised 

to accommodate the transfer of the responsibility. 

And so it is not that the policy is wrong. It is that the funding 

levels are wrong, and the other agencies have suffered cuts that 

have to be absorbed. The truth is that all of the NEHRP agencies 

including USGS and FEMA are already under-funded at existing 

spending levels. The NEHRP Advisory Committee and the stakeholder community at large have indicated that current spending 

levels are inadequate and the pace of implementation of the program is being compromised to the point that opportunities for lowcost mitigation measures are being lost. 

The NEHRP agencies can’t afford any further spending cuts. 

That is clear, and in this time of budget uncertainty, federal agencies are fighting to protect every single cent. 

But here is the rub. Either we think it is good policy for NIST 

to coordinate post-earthquake investigations or we don’t. Either we 

take the recommendations of the advisory committee or we don’t, 

and we if we think it is good policy, we should authorize that 

transfer and provide NIST with the resources it needs to carry out 

the responsibility, and those resources should not come at the expense of other NEHRP agencies who are already struggling to meet 

their responsibilities under the program. 

As an authorizing committee our primary objective should be to 

make good and reasonable policies. Unfortunately, what this 

amendment proposes doesn’t have anything to do with what is good 

or reasonable in terms of the policy implication. Instead it is only 

concern is compliance with what I believe are misguided funding 

protocols. 

We simply can’t legislate in this kind of way. It doesn’t serve the 

American people, and we will suffer disasters that we won’t be able 

to respond to because we are approaching this in the wrong way. 

The members of this committee, our agencies, and our constituents 

deserve better than that, and for this reason I cannot support the 

amendment. 

And with that I yield. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank the gentlelady. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is 

agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments to the committee print? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I have an amendment at the desk. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

Chairman QUAYLE. The next amendment is offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 036, amendment to the committee print offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman QUAYLE. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the 

amendment. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by 

thanking my fellow Illinoisan, my neighbor, Ms. Biggert, for authorizing this committee print. As well as thanking her, Chairman 

Hall, and Chairman Quayle for working with me to address some 

of my concerns in the manager’s amendment. 

There is one additional issue I would like to address in this 

amendment that I am offering. An amendment to ensure that social science research is adequately included in the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 

This year’s tornado season was one of the worst in this country’s 

history, killing 546 people and causing $6.5 billion in damage 

throughout the midwest and the south. I believe that research into 

resilient structures as envisioned by this legislation’s authors will 

certainly help reduce the impact of these storms. 

But in addition a better understanding of how both organizations 

and individuals respond to disasters will lead to more resilient institutions in response and planning strategies that save lives. 

Many people erroneously believe that calling 911 after a major disaster will bring them help within an hour, the highway overpasses 

are a good place to shelter from a tornado, or that opening windows 

can help equalize pressure to prevent damage to a house. 

None of these are true, and I think social science research is important if we want to understand why these myths are so pervasive 

and that we can better inform Americans about safe actions to 

take, or if we want to improve institutional structures, disaster response plans, or risk assessments, that is how the institutions that 

we have set up, local law enforcement, others respond to these disasters. We want to make improvements to that. Social science research can help. 

My amendment would include social science research in end 

work in a similar manner to how it is now included in the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program in this legislation. When tornados or hurricanes strike, the behavior of people and organizations matter, and I believe that the Impact Reduction Program 

should include what we know about behavior. 

Adopting my amendment would make sure that we are using all 

the information at our disposal to improve disaster resiliency strategies for our communities and to help make Americans safer. 

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and I want to 

thank you for your amendment, and I appreciate your desire to include language regarding the use of social science research to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

form windstorm risk mitigation and preparedness strategies in 

NWIRP. The bipartisan manager’s amendment considered today includes provisions adding social science to the list of different scientific disciplines assessed by the advisory committees for both the 

wind and earthquake programs. 

I am concerned about highlighting the role of research and social 

sciences over other types of science research. I just—what are you 

considering to be included in social science? 

And I yield to you to answer these questions. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The information about—such as what people know about response, what—how people, first of all, how people respond to disasters, how then they expect the institutions that we have set up, 

mostly law enforcement, others that they go and deal with, how 

they interact with them when there is an emergency. How they respond to warnings that come from say the National Weather Service, understand what they do so that we have a much better understanding of the behavior that people engage in because I think people can be much safer than they are. Those myths that I had mentioned, I mean, certainly those are things that, you know, I remember hearing growing up, opening windows to equalize the pressure 

would make a difference. 

Those things don’t work. There are things that people can do, I 

believe, that work, and I think by bringing social science research 

and learning about people’s behaviors, learning about institutions’ 

behaviors. The communications between different jurisdictions in 

an emergency. These are all types of things that can help in—to 

mitigate problems that occur, windstorms. We just included this in 

NEHRP with the manager’s amendment, and I think that would 

also be helpful in this section of the bill. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Reclaiming my time, I just am concerned 

about how the specificity of listing this type of research when other 

types of research aren’t specified in this bill. I just don’t know if 

this is going to create some unintended consequences of focusing on 

and highlighting social science research. 

Do you think that it is necessary to include this type of specificity when they are already doing this type of research going forward? Is this specificity actually needed when that will be a part 

of the broader research that is going to go on with NWIRP and 

NEHRP? 

And I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Well, the only place when it comes to 

NWIRP that the social science research is included is in the advisory committee’s assessment of the program, and I think if we are 

going to say in an advisory committee’s assessment of the program 

that we should use social science research, I think it also makes 

sense to include that in the broader part of this section of this legislation. 

Ad it was included in the bill that passed out of this committee 

on last year, and I think it would be good to continue to include 

that because it is something that is sometimes forgotten and not 

considered. That is why we included it last year. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I guess it goes back to the question, is the 

specificity for social sciences necessary in the broader bill when 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

other types of research are not specifically labeled out? When you 

do list things, a lot of interpretation will go, well, they did list social sciences, but they didn’t list others. So social sciences should 

take precedence. 

And I yield to you just to try to clarify that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, a 2006 National Research Council’s report on 

NEHRP noted that the efforts are needed to compare catastrophic 

events and to examine societal responses in relation to variables 

such as warning time, magnitude, scope, and duration of impact. 

And the report found that more social science research is needed 

to understand long-term disaster recovery. 

So the NRC said that more social science research is necessary 

when it comes to emergencies, and so I think that is why we included that last year in this bill because NRC says it has been 

missing, and it tends to be overlooked. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Well, thank you, and I think I just do 

have some concerns—I agree with you that people need to understand this, but specifying this in this manner, I don’t know if it is 

the best way to go about it when we already do have the advisory 

committee where it is specified out. 

But I do appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, and is 

there any further discussion on the amendment? 

The gentlelady from Maryland is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I didn’t think I would 

speak, but I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I have 

to tell you when I joined this committee and sat through a number 

of hearings that we held on the importance of social science research, it was something actually completely new to me, but I 

think as my colleague rightfully points out, that if we want to create communities that are resilient to disasters, we need to understand the behavior of the people in those communities. This includes understanding what an individual does when a tornado or 

hurricane warning is issued, as well as what motivates people to 

develop an emergency plan or to retrofit their home to withstand 

high winds associated with tornadoes or hurricanes before they 

happen. 

We can also perform all the engineering and natural science research we like, but in the grand scheme of things if we don’t have 

a clear understanding of the human element in disaster mitigation, 

preparedness, and response, then the efforts may be for naught. 

Building disaster-resilient communities will take an inner-disciplinary approach that includes social science research in order to 

make sure that we have strong communities. I would note that in 

the underlying statute there actually are a couple of the areas 

where specific kinds of research are specified. 

So, for example, there is research, development, and technology 

transfer to improve loss estimation and risk assessment. There is 

research, development, and technology transfer to improve simulation and computational modeling and windstorm impacts. This 

would add another area of research in an area where there are certain areas of specificity with respect to research. 

And I think it would be a strong component because it wouldn’t 

do us any good to have, you know, all the other research that we 

do, the engineering changes that we make, and then not to underVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

stand how it is that people are going to respond in a natural disaster. 

And with that I yield. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank the gentlelady. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments to the committee print? 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The next amendment is offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan. The clerk will report the 

amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 003, amendment to the committee print offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman QUAYLE. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The bipartisan version of this bill from last Congress included a 

fire research title to ensure that NIST continues to carry out important research on fires in the wildland-urban interface, which is 

where homes and communities are tucked in and intermixed with 

wildlands such as forests and grasslands. 

Unfortunately, that title is missing from the committee print 

that we are considering today. As more and more communities are 

expanding into areas in and around forests and other wildlands, it 

is more critical than ever that we conduct this important research. 

For this reason my amendment restores this important fire research provision. Since the bipartisan bill passed the House last 

Congress, the severity of the U.S. fire problem has grown, and the 

amount of damage caused by fires at the wildland-urban interface 

has risen. 

In fact, from January through September of this year we saw 

more than 7.7 million acres burn across the U.S. This is the fifth 

worst year on record for wildfires with the southwest being hit particularly hard. According to the National Inner-agency Fire Center, 

there have been more than 7,000 wildfires in New Mexico, Arizona, 

and Texas. Both my State of New Mexico and neighboring Arizona 

have seen more than a million acres burned. 

In fact, both States have suffered the largest wildfires in their 

histories. The wildfire which burned in the White Mountains in 

eastern Arizona and western New Mexico was declared the largest 

fire in Arizona history, causing an estimated $109 million in damage, burning over half a million acres, destroying 72 building, and 

injuring 16 people. 

Also in June the Las Conchas fire in my district burned more 

than 104,000 acres in just 6 days. More than 100 buildings were 

destroyed, and 15 people were injured by the fire, which blackened 

the slopes of the Hemus Mountains and threatened both the Los 

Alamos, the community of Los Alamos and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

The truth is while we do not currently have a complete understanding of how fires behave in the wildland-urban interface, this 

lack of understanding is limiting our ability to develop effective fire 

safety systems and technologies. In the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 we charged NIST with supporting fire research to 

help preserve and control fires. My amendment updates the statute 

to ensure that NIST continues to conduct research on fires occurring specifically in the wildland-urban interface. 

This fire research will help us minimize the spread of wildland 

fires into communities through tools that predict and reduce fire 

risks, post-fire investigations, improve fire codes and standards, 

and safe and effective use of emerging fire technologies. Addressing 

these research needs is essential if we are going to reduce losses 

from fire and increase the resiliency of buildings and infrastructure. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment 

and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank him 

for his amendment and appreciate his desire to amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to include the 

ability for NIST to conduct research into fires at wildland-urban 

interface. 

In general I am supportive of NIST conducting this work. However, it is important to consider how this amendment changes the 

scope of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act, which amends 

the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004. 

I am concerned about Mr. Lujan’s amending the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, potentially opening the bill 

to provisions that are not in NEHRP or NWIRP Programs. 

Thus I would ask that Mr. Lujan consider withdrawing this 

amendment. I would welcome the chance the work together on this 

subject as the committee print moves forward through the legislative process because it is a very important issue, and I look forward 

to working with the gentleman from New Mexico going forward, if 

you would be willing to withdraw your amendment. 

Mr. LUJAN. If the chairman would yield. 

Chairman QUAYLE. I yield. 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand and appreciate the majority’s concerns about how the provisions may open us up to nonrelated amendments from the House Floor, and I certainly respect 

the desire to preserve this committee’s product, and I am very open 

to working on some agreeable language if there is a hard commitment to do so before full committee markup. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUJAN. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the 

amendment. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. 

The amendment is withdrawn for the record. 

Are there any other amendments to the committee print? 

Hearing none, the question is on the committee print, the ‘‘Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011,’’ as amended. All those 

in favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion 

of the chair the ayes have it. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The gentlelady from Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, finish up first. I would ask for a recorded 

vote. 

Chairman QUAYLE.Recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Quayle? 

Chairman QUAYLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Quayle votes aye. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes aye. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes aye. 

Mr. Hall? 

Chairman HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes no. 

Ms. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan? 

Mr. LUJAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. 

Chairman QUAYLE. The clerk will report. Mr. Hultgren. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren is not recorded. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

Chairman QUAYLE. The gentleman from Illinois? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes aye. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Any other members who want to be recognized? 

The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, ten members voting aye, and four 

members voting no. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPFINALVOTE.eps
78 

Chairman QUAYLE. The committee print is agreed to. 

The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the hearing record letters of support for the reauthorization of the Natural Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program from the 

American Geophysical Union, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Earthquake Hazards Risk Reduction Coalition, 

and the National Council of Structural Engineers Association. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE JUDY

BIGGERT


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJB1.eps
79 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJB2.eps
80 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJB3.eps
81 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJB4.eps
82 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJB5.eps
83 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJB6.eps
84 

Chairman QUAYLE. I now recognize myself to offer a motion. I 

move that subcommittee forward the committee print, the ‘‘Natural 

Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011,’’ as amended to the full committee. 

Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the subcommittee report and make necessary technical and conforming 

changes. 

Questions on the motion to forward the committee print as 

amended. Those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes 

have it, and the committee print is favorably reported. 

Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I move that members may have two subsequent calendar days in 

which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on the 

measure. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

This concludes our subcommittee markup. The chairman declares 

the subcommittee adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(85) 

Appendix: 

COMMITTEE PRINT: THE NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION 

ACT OF 2011, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENTS, 

AMENDMENT ROSTER


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.037
87 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.038
88 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.039
89 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.040
90 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.041
91 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.042
92 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.043
93 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.044
94 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.045
95 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.046
96 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.047
97 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.048
98 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.049
99 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.050
100 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.051
101 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.052
102 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.053
103 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.054
104 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.055
105 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.056
106 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.057
107 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.058
108 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.059
109 

SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION OF COMMITTEE PRINT: THE NATURAL HAZARDS

RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011 

Section 1. Short Title 

This section sets forth the short title as the ′′National Hazards Risk Reduction 

Act of 2011.′′ 

Section 2. Table of Contents 

This section provides a table of contents. 

Title I. EARTHQUAKES 

Section 101. Short Title 

This section sets forth the short title for Title I as the ′′National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2011.′′ 

Section 102. Definitions 

This section removes the definitions of the ′′Interagency Coordination Committee′′ 

and the ′′Advisory Committee′′ from Section 4 of the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Act of 1977. 

Section 103. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

This section identifies the four agencies that make up National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This 

section also amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to detail 

NEHRP activities, which include researching and developing effective methods, 

tools, and technologies to reduce the risk posed by earthquakes to the built environment, especially to lessen the risk to existing structures and lifelines. 

Section 103 defines the responsibilities of NIST as the lead Program agency, 

which include: planning and coordinating the Program; supporting the development 

of performance-based seismic engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal 

agencies other than Program agencies as necessary; working with Program agencies 

to develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to use existing 

facilities and laboratories; coordinating all Federal post-earthquake investigations; 

and issuing recommendations to assist in informing model codes when warranted 

by research or investigative findings. This section also updates the responsibilities 

of the Program agencies, further detailing current activities. 

Finally, this section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for NEHRP of relevant nonFederal employee experts to offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and revisions as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the Director of NIST on the assessment 

and its recommendations at least every two years. 

Section 104. Post-Earthquake Investigation Program 

This section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 reassigning 

to NIST the lead agency responsibility for the NEHRP post-earthquake investigations program. The lead agency shall continue to be responsible for coordinating investigations after major earthquakes, in order to gather information and data to 

learn lessons that may be applied to reduce the loss of life and property in future 

earthquakes. 

Section 105. Authorization of Appropriations 

This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows: 

For FEMA: $6,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For USGS: $54,200,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NSF: $53,800,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NIST: $7,500,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

Title II. WIND 

Section 201. Short Title 

This section establishes the short title for this Title of the bill as the ′′National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization Act of 2011.′′ 

Section 202. Definitions 

This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 to define the ′′Director′′ of the Program as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology rather than the Director of the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP). 

Section 203. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

This section identifies the four agencies that make up the National Windstorm 

Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NIST, NSF, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and FEMA; defines NIST as the lead program agency; and assigns responsibilities to the four program agencies. 

As the new lead agency, NIST’s activities include planning and coordinating the 

Program; supporting the development of performance-based engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal agencies other than Program agencies as necessary; coordinating all Federal post-windstorm investigations; and issuing recommendations to assist in informing model codes when warranted by research or 

investigative findings. In addition to the lead agency responsibilities, NIST shall 

also conduct research and development to improve model building codes, voluntary 

standards, and best practices for the design, construction, and retrofit of buildings, 

structures, and lifelines. 

NSF activities include research in engineering and the atmospheric sciences to 

improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

NOAA activities include the support of atmospheric science research to improve 

the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, 

structures, and lifelines. 

FEMA activities include the development of risk assessment tools and effective 

mitigation techniques; data collection and analysis; and public outreach, information 

dissemination and implementation of mitigation measures. 

Section 204. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction 

This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for NWIRP of relevant nonFederal employee experts to offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and revisions as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the Director of NIST on the assessment 

and its recommendations at least every two years. 

Section 205. Authorization of Appropriations 

This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows: 

For FEMA: $4,000,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NSF: $9,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NIST: $5,300,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NOAA: $2,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

Title III. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

Sec. 301. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards 

RRisk Reduction 

This section combines the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Interagency Working Group into one Interagency Committee on Natural Hazards Risk 

Reduction, chaired by the Director of NIST and comprised of the heads of FEMA, 

USGS, NOAA, NSF, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), and the head of any other Federal agency the 

chair of the Committee considers appropriate. The section instructs the Interagency 

Committee to plan and coordinate NEHRP and NWIRP, including the development 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

of a strategic plan for each program, a progress report on each program, and a coordinated budget for both NEHRP and NWIRP. 

Sec. 302. Coordination of Federal Disaster Research, Development, 

and Technology Transfer 

This section requires the existing Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, of the 

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and 

Technology Council, to submit a report to Congress identifying the current Federal 

research, development, and technology transfer activities that address mitigation for 

all types of natural hazards, and opportunities to create synergies and reduce duplication among the various research activities. 

Sec. 303. Authorizations 

This section clarifies that no additional funding is authorized to carry out the 

title. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

AMENDMENTS


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt1.eps
113 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt2.eps
114 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt3.eps
115 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt4.eps
116 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt5.eps
117 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt6.eps
118 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt7.eps
119 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt8.eps
120 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt9.eps
121 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt10.eps
122 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt11.eps
123 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt12.eps
124 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt13.eps
125 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt14.eps
126 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt15.eps
127 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt16.eps
128 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt17.eps
129 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt18.eps
130 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt19.eps
131 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt20.eps
132 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt21.eps
133 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt22.eps
134 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt23.eps
135 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt24.eps
136 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt25.eps
137 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt26.eps
138 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt27.eps
139 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt28.eps
140 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt29.eps
141 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt30.eps
142 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt31.eps
143 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt32.eps
144 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt33.eps
145 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt34.eps
146 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt35.eps
147 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt36.eps
148 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt37.eps
149 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt38.eps
150 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt39.eps
151 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt40.eps
152 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt41.eps
153 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt42.eps
154 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt43.eps
155 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt44.eps
156 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt45.eps
157 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt46.eps
158 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt47.eps
159 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt48.eps
160 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt49.eps
161 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPEdAmdt50.eps
162 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJBAmdt1.eps
163 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJBAmdt2.eps
164 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJBAmdt3.eps
165 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPJBAmdt4.eps
166 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPHallAmdt.eps
167 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPLipAmdt36.eps
168 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPLujAmdt3.eps
169 

AMENDMENT ROSTER


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHCPROSTER.eps
170 

XXIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 3479, NATURAL 

HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman HALL. Good morning. The Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology meets today to consider the following measure: H.R. 3479, 

the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, and that is an 

important announcement. 

I have a more important announcement to make, and that is that 

the Ranking Member of this Committee has a birthday today, and 

I have known her a long, long time and I know now that she is 

old enough to vote. I have an 18-year-old granddaughter that 

warned me last week, Papa, you better be better to me, I am old 

enough to vote now, so I will have to be better to you if you are 

up to voting age, Eddie. Happy birthday to you. You are a wonderful person and we wish you a good birthday and many, many more. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 6d and House Rule 11(2)(h)(4), 

House announces that he may postpone further proceedings today 

on any question approving any measure or matter adopting an 

amendment on which a recorded vote of the yeas or nays are ordered. It is the Chair’s intention to provide reasonable notice prior 

to the commencement of rolled votes. Any rolled votes will start 

around noon, and that is about the time we ought to be winding 

up here. Let us proceed with the markup beginning with opening 

statements. I will begin. 

All right. I am pleased to call the markup this morning for consideration of H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act 

of 2011. The bill we are considering today will reauthorize the activities of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. Both programs are targeted federal research and development efforts to 

mitigate the loss of life and property due to earthquake and windrelated hazards. 

Over the years, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program has been instrumental in developing and advancing earthquake knowledge and raising awareness of earthquake hazards. 

The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program has supported 

activities to improve the understanding of windstorms and their 

impacts, while developing and encouraging the implementation of 

cost-effective mitigation measures. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
171 

I want to thank Representatives Biggert and Neugebauer for collaborating on this effort, as well as my fellow cosponsors Representatives Smith and Palazzo. We want to truly aid our agencies 

and instruct them to do that which we expect them to do, and what 

their needs are this year probably is different than what their 

needs were last year or ten years ago or two years ago. We are in 

a different day and time, and the test last year or in the 1980s or 

1990s or most of this session is that we be careful as we add on 

to these bills, the cost of the bills. We expect the people that are 

going to have to carry this out to be pleased and work hard with 

what we are able to give them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH HALL

I am pleased to call the markup this morning for consideration of H.R. 3479, the 

Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. 

The bill we are considering today will reauthorize the activities of the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. Both programs are targeted federal research and development efforts to mitigate the loss of life and property due to earthquake and wind related 

hazards. 

Over the years, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program has been 

instrumental in developing and advancing earthquake knowledge and raising 

awareness of earthquake hazards. The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program has supported activities to improve the understanding of windstorms and their 

impacts, while developing and encouraging the implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures. 

I want to thank Representatives Biggert and Neugebauer for collaborating on this 

effort, as well as my fellow co-sponsors Representatives Smith and Palazzo. I strongly support this measure and look forward to discussion of the proposed amendments. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. I yield the balance of my time back, and at this 

time I recognize Mrs. Johnson for her five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, and thank you 

for the recognition of this birthday that will get me closer to 80 

than to 70. 

Today, we are marking up H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk 

Reduction Act of 2011, and this bill reauthorizes two important 

programs: the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 

or the NEHRP, and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, or the NWIRP. 

It has been a devastating year of natural disasters in this country, and we have experienced one of the deadliest and most destructive tornado seasons in U.S. history. We have had earthquakes in areas that don’t usually experience earthquakes, including Virginia and Oklahoma. And Hurricane Irene caused widespread destruction and death along the Eastern seaboard. 

This Committee has an important role to play in helping Americans prepare for and recover from tornadoes and other natural disasters by facilitating the disaster resiliency of communities. By reauthorizing the earthquake and windstorm reduction programs, we 

can minimize the number of Americans who are harmed or killed 

by natural disasters or who have to face the challenge of putting 

their homes, businesses, and communities back together. 

These programs both have proven track records in reducing the 

vulnerability of our communities to natural disasters. They support 

research and development to better understand earthquakes and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
172 

windstorms and their impacts. The results of this work have led to 

advancements in monitoring, the design and construction of infrastructure and critical lifelines, and public awareness and preparation for tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. 

Today’s bill includes good provisions that I believe are important 

and will make the programs more efficient and effective. For example, establishing NIST as the lead agency for both programs, improving the coordination of these programs with other federal agencies, and increasing transparency are all positive additions. 

That being said, there is definitely room for improvement. As an 

authorizing committee, we require agencies to carry out specific activities and have an obligation to authorize the funding that we believe is needed by the agencies to effectively carry out all of what 

we have required of them. As authorizers, we must ask ourselves 

how much money an agency truly needs to do every single thing 

we have asked of it exceedingly well. 

It is then the responsibility of the Appropriations Committee to 

weigh various priorities in the context of the current budgetary climate and determine what ultimately should be funded and at what 

level. 

Unfortunately, the funding levels in this bill do not seem to align 

with our responsibilities as an authorizing committee. The bill reduces the authorization level for NEHRP by 36 percent and 

NWIRP by 14 percent when compared to the last year the programs were authorized. Further, it constrains both programs by 

providing flat authorizations that are six percent below current 

funding. 

While some may claim that our budgetary situation has changed, 

the truth is that the need to improve the disaster resiliency of our 

communities has not. We don’t have any reason to believe that 

these agencies need any less money to carry out these responsibilities than we determined was necessary last year, or the last time 

we authorized these programs. Yet the bill fails to take a single 

step to reduce or minimize the obligations of these agencies to justify a reduction in authorized funding. Without a corresponding reduction in responsibilities, we are doing nothing less than setting 

these agencies up to fail. 

For these reasons, I believe that the authorization levels in this 

bill have missed the mark. This is especially true this year, when 

disasters have caused over $45 billion in economic damage and cost 

hundreds of lives across this country, and we simply can’t afford 

to have these agencies miss further opportunities to implement 

low-cost mitigation measures prior to the disasters. Studies have 

shown that for every dollar we invest in mitigation activities 

through FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation programs, we save $3 to 

$4 in recovery costs. In the end, strong and effective hazard reduction programs will not only save lives and property, but also provide us with meaningful cost savings. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Hall. Today, we are marking up H.R. 3479, the Natural 

Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. This bill reauthorizes two important proVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
173 

grams—the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program-or NEHRP [kneeherp] and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program-or NWIRP [N- werp]. 

It has been a devastating year for natural disasters in this country. We’ve experienced the deadliest and most destructive tornado season in U.S. history. We’ve had 

earthquakes in areas that don’t usually experience earthquakes, including Virginia 

and Oklahoma. And Hurricane Irene caused widespread destruction and death 

along the Eastern seaboard. 

This Committee has an important role to play in helping Americans prepare for 

and recover from tornadoes and other natural disasters by facilitating the disaster 

resiliency of communities. By reauthorizing the earthquake and windstorm reduction programs, we can minimize the number of Americans who are harmed or killed 

by natural disasters or who have to face the challenge of putting their homes, businesses, and communities back together. 

These programs both have proven track records in reducing the vulnerability of 

our communities to natural disasters. They support research and development to 

better understand earthquakes and windstorms and their impacts. The results of 

this work have lead to advancements in monitoring, the design and construction of 

infrastructure and critical lifelines, and public awareness and preparation for tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. 

Today’s bill includes many good provisions that I believe are important and will 

make the programs more efficient and effective. For example, establishing NIST as 

the lead agency for both programs, improving the coordination of these programs 

with other federal agencies, and increasing transparency are all positive additions. 

That being said, there is definitely room for improvement. As an authorizing committee, we require agencies to carry out specific activities and have an obligation 

to authorize the funding that we believe is needed by the agencies to effectively 

carry out all of what we have required of them. As authorizers, we must ask ourselves how much money an agency truly needs to do every single thing we have 

asked of it exceedingly well. 

It is then the responsibility of the Appropriations Committee to weigh various priorities in the context of the current budgetary climate and determine what ultimately should be funded and at what level. 

Unfortunately, the funding levels in this bill do not seem to align with our responsibilities as an authorizing committee. The bill reduces the authorization level for 

NEHRP by 36 percent and NWIRP by 14 percent when compared to the last year 

the programs were authorized. Furthermore, it constrains both programs by providing flat authorizations that are six percent below current spending. 

While some may claim that our budgetary situation has changed, the truth is that 

the need to improve the disaster resiliency of our communities has not. We don’t 

have any reason to believe that these agencies need any less money to carry out 

these responsibilities than we determined was necessary the last time we reauthorized these programs. Yet the bill fails to take a single step to reduce or minimize 

the obligations of these agencies to justify a reduction in authorized funding. Without a corresponding reduction in responsibilities, we are doing nothing less than setting these agencies up to fail. 

For these reasons, I believe that the authorization levels in this bill have missed 

the mark. This is especially true this year, when disasters have caused over $45 billion in economic damage and cost hundreds of lives across this country. 

And we simply can’t afford to have these agencies miss further opportunities to 

implement low-cost mitigation measures. Studies have shown that for every dollar 

we invest in mitigation activities through FEMA’s pre-disaster mitigation program, 

we save $3 to $4 in recovery costs. In the end, strong and effective hazard reduction 

programs will not only save lives and property, but also provide us with meaningful 

cost savings. 

Thank you, Chairman Hall. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Without objection, all Member statements can be placed in the 

record at this point. 

We will now consider the bill, H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards 

Risk Reduction Act of 2011, and I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, to describe her bill. I recognize you, Mrs. 

Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start with the 

bill and then the amendment. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
174 

I want to thank you for scheduling today’s markup. H.R. 3479, 

the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, reauthorizes two 

important multi-agency programs that address natural hazards 

faced by millions of Americans. The bill will reauthorize two important programs that support research and development to better understand prepare for earthquakes and windstorms. 

The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program has been 

instrumental in developing and advancing earthquake knowledge, 

raising the awareness of both officials and the public to earthquake 

hazards and updating seismic building codes. As co-chair of the 

High Performance Building Caucus, I know how important 

NEHRP’s data and monitoring information is to updating building 

codes and standards. The NEHRP program recently published the 

2010 NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings 

and other structures and provided estimates on the fatality and 

economic losses anticipated from earthquakes across the Nation. 

The bill includes bipartisan changes to the NEHRP program that 

improves its mission and reduces duplication. Changes include reauthorizing the program for three years, further detailing the role 

of NIST as the lead program agency of NEHRP and updating the 

existing advisory committee for NEHRP to offer recommendations 

and assessments on program developments, priorities and coordination. 

The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 also reauthorizes the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, a program that my colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, first championed in 

2004. H.R. 3479 includes improvements to NWIRP—all these 

names are really hard acronyms, they don’t make too much sense 

to me—but anyway, to strengthen the program including naming 

NIST as the lead program agency which will ensure improved coordination and planning of the agency activities and budget. A 

strong windstorm program can enable faster development and implementation of codes, standards and practices to mitigate windstorm damage, protect life and contain the ever-increasing costs of 

hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe windstorms. This research 

is particularly important due to the exceptionally destructive year 

that we had had for windstorms. 

As demonstrated by these two programs, hazard mitigation is a 

responsibility shared by multiple federal agencies, and to better coordinate a multiple-hazard approach to national disasters across 

the government, H.R. 3479 creates a single interagency coordinating committee chaired by NIST charged with overseeing the 

planning and coordination of both earthquake and wind hazard 

programs. The single interagency coordinating committee replaces 

two separate interagency committees. 

The American Geophysical Union, the American Society of Civil 

Engineers, the National Earthquake Hazards Risk Reduction Coalition and the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations 

have endorsed H.R. 3479, and I would urge Members to support 

this legislation. 

Let me just say while we are talking, the Ranking Member 

talked about the authorization, we did change this to make it three 

years rather than the five years, and I think that the request was 

for $900 million for five years, and this is a six percent reduction 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
175 

for $366 million for three years, 2012 through 2014. I wish that we 

could make it more, but in these economic times, I think we are 

very fortunate to be able to provide the authorization that we have 

now where many committees are not able to do this with programs. 

By making it three years, I would hope that we have the economic 

turnaround that perhaps there will be more in the future, but if 

we don’t keep this where we don’t have the money, we can’t spend 

the money that we don’t have. To be able to reauthorize this for 

the three years and proceed I think is better than having no authorization at all, which could happen if we don’t pass this bill. 

So with that, I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, and 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Does anyone else care to comment on the bill for five minutes? 

Okay. Without objection I ask unanimous consent that the bill is 

considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that 

Members proceed with amendments in the order listed on the roster. So ordered. 

Chairman HALL. Are there any amendments to the bill? The first 

amendment on the roster is a Manager’s Amendment offered by 

Mrs. Biggert. The clerk shall report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 048, amendment to H.R. 3479, 

offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman HALL. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The amendment before us makes a number of minor changes 

that strengthen the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act. Briefly, 

the Manager’s Amendment includes the following provisions. 

One, it updates NEHRP’s progress report to include a description 

of the post-earthquake investigation activities carried out under 

the program in order to gather a better understanding of the current system of investigations organized by the United States Geological Survey. Second, it directs the National Science and Technology Council to report on the disaster research, development, and 

technology transfer activities of the national laboratories, which 

are complementary to the activities the bill authorizes under 

NEHRP and NWIRP programs. And third, it modifies the NEHRP 

strategy plan requirements regarding a description of how the 

George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation and Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System, and I quote, ‘‘may be used’’ increasing flexibility and achieving 

the programmatic goals and research objectives. 

I believe that the Manager’s Amendment makes sound improvements to the bill, and I urge the adoption of the measure. 

Chairman HALL. All right. I thank the gentlelady for the amendment. I support the amendment. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? All right. Hearing 

no further discussion, a vote occurs on the amendment offered by 

Mrs. Biggert. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes 

have it. The amendment is agreed to. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
176 

Other amendments? For what purpose does the gentleman seek 

recognition? 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer an amendment that 

would provide that the programs here up for reauthorization would 

include public education and outreach to different populations including and especially those individuals in households with special 

needs and that also any research for natural hazard preparedness 

would also include strategies to reach those and help those with 

special needs. This is similar to an approach that FEMA has taken 

to help certain populations, those that may be physically disabled, 

may have barriers, cultural barriers that prevent them from clearly 

understanding direction, whose proficiency in English may not be 

at a level to allow them to be prepared and to receive direction in 

case of an emergency. 

So I would urge your support. 

Chairman HALL. All right. This amendment is offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Clarke. The clerk will report the 

amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 050, amendment to H.R. 3479, 

offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman HALL. All right. I want to thank the Member for this 

amendment. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would like to ask Mr. Clarke a question for 

the record. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You had suggested that this might help people who do not speak English enough, and this does not require, 

am I correct, your amendment does not require a bilingual and 

multilingual presentation by the agencies involved? 

Mr. CLARKE. It does not expressly require this, correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It says they may, and they could consider 

that a factor but they are not mandated to do this? 

Mr. CLARKE. No. The language in this amendment does not mandate that. That is correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Is there further discussion? Mrs. Johnson. I recognize Mrs. Johnson for five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I support this amendment because it is clear from the evidence 

that a one-size-fits-all approach to hazard mitigation education and 

outreach is not sufficient to protect the most vulnerable members 

of our population. Most of us have elderly, disabled, chronically ill 

or otherwise vulnerable friends, relatives and constituents who live 

in areas that experience severe windstorms and earthquakes, and 

I am sure we want to be sure that our loved ones in our communities are saved during disasters. 

As a former nurse, I understand too well how much more difficult it is for many people with special needs to duck and cover 

or to get to basements or do whatever it is they need to do to be 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
177 

saved during this natural hazard. But they often have to rely on 

others who know best how to help them. But it is also about what 

everyone can do to prepare themselves in advance, for example, by 

having enough water, food, medication in their homes to get them 

through a week or more when supply lines are cut off. We do have 

now some warning through our systems that we put together 

through both NASA and EPA as well as the Weather Service to 

give us some warning but we need to alert people as to what they 

need to be doing during the time that we were anticipating. 

So this amendment would simply ensure that all of the participating agencies take into account the unique needs of different vulnerable populations and ensure that research about how best to 

protect these populations in the event of an earthquake or windstorm is incorporated into education and outreach efforts. 

I thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Are there further—Ms. Biggert, do you wish to be recognized? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I understand the purpose of this amendment and I think it is 

very important that we make sure that all individuals have the 

education that is needed. My only concern is do we need to be that 

specific? Do we need to be that specific in the legislation itself? I 

know that we had asked whether report language would be enough 

with the legislative intent, because it just seems like when you say 

you are including one group and there might be—then people are 

saying well, I am left out and we are going to have a whole laundry 

list of various things. For example, what Mr. Rohrabacher said, are 

we going to have to put in languages, and the list would continue. 

Is this language that is used by FEMA and other bills? Do you 

know, or can you tell me why it is not enough just to have what 

is in the legislation as such now? And I yield to the gentleman. 

Chairman HALL. Go ahead. She is yielding part of her time to 

you, Mr. Clarke. Your mic won’t come on? Just talk a little louder. 

Mr. CLARKE. So FEMA actually uses the term ‘‘special needs’’, 

and the reason why we use it is because it is broad enough to avoid 

that type of laundry listing that the gentlewoman would have a 

concern about. 

Chairman HALL. Is there something that can be worked out if 

you withdraw this and work on report language? Are you willing 

to do that, Ms. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I would be willing to do that but it is up to 

the—— 

Chairman HALL. It is not a bad amendment. It is a needed 

amendment. Can you all work out something here and now? You 

are at two disadvantages, though. One, you are a man and Ms. 

Biggert is a woman, and two, it is her bill. 

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chair, I think it is so important that, you know, 

people who are disadvantaged right now do get the type of outreach 

that is necessary. I would rather proceed with the bill on a recorded vote. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
178 

Chairman HALL. All right. Does anyone else care to be heard on 

the bill? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Respectfully disagreeing with my colleague, I 

think that this is an appropriate amendment, and quite frankly, we 

have seen this in many other bills and many other pieces of legislation over the years where we just want to remind the bureaucracy 

that, for example, there are sick and infirmed people out there who 

need some special consideration as well as others, mentally ill people and things like that, that may have to be taken care of during 

a time of disaster, and just mentioning that to make sure that they 

know, that the bureaucracy knows that we expect them to take 

care of everybody in these situations. I think that is very appropriate. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Now, I have not made a recommendation here 

against it. My concern is that whether it is needed or not or it is 

limiting. I am more concerned whether it is limiting the concept, 

and if it is not, then I am fine with having it in the legislation. I 

just didn’t want to be, you know, where we are including—— 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Cravaack, I recognize you—who seeks recognition? Ms. Edwards, you, I recognize you for five minutes or 

more. 

Ms. EDWARDS. No, Mr. Chairman, don’t be too surprised. I wondered if it would help, though, to clarify. I do support the amendment, but to clarify for Ms. Biggert that in 2006 there was a Department of Homeland Security and Department of Transportation 

report that actually came to a conclusion based on inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina that substantial improvement is necessary to integrate people with disabilities in emergency planning 

and readiness, and then in 2007 FEMA issued a more strident 

guidance in its planning, and I think that that actually begs the 

question of whether as a Congress we need to actually be more directive of the agencies in terms of their response to these unique 

special-needs communities, and I think the language is actually 

consistent with that and consistent with the direction that the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation and these 

agencies are going in any case. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. With that, then I would support the amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack, is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and if I could—I support 

the amendment, and I just have a question if my colleague, Mr. 

Clarke, could answer this question. Are the needs of special-needs 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
179 

people right now, are they not being addressed under the current 

legislation or current intent of other programs? And I will yield. 

Mr. CLARKE. My concern is in the event of a disaster, we want 

to make sure that the outreach and research is being conducted to 

reach out to people that need help. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. And I share that concern as well, but is it not 

being addressed now? That was—I am trying to educate myself. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I will yield to Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

As I was just pointing out, the difficulty is that the needs in 

these communities actually haven’t been met, and what I was suggesting before is that in fact that was recognized both by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation and FEMA as an 

agency that they were not adequately meeting those needs, and it 

isn’t spelled out in legislation. That is why they have had to come 

up over some time with some guidance but they don’t really have 

any direction, and so the point of the amendment, as I understand 

from Mr. Clarke, is that it would give that directive, and then 

FEMA and DHS would have, you know, sort of much greater responsibility in terms of them and their accountability to us as to 

whether they are providing—meeting the special needs of these 

communities in the event of a disaster. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you. 

With that then, sir, I speak in favor of this amendment. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. It seems to me that 

the gentleman is in pretty good shape with his amendment. 

Hearing no further discussion—is there further discussion? The 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The gentleman’s amendment is 

agreed to. 

Are there other amendments? And for what purpose does the 

gentleman seek recognition—the gentlelady? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is on 

the docket. 

Chairman HALL. The next amendment is offered by the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. Are you ready to proceed? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am ready to proceed. 

Chairman HALL. Do you have an amendment at the desk? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I do. 

Chairman HALL. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 010, amendment to H.R. 3479 

offered by Ms. Lofgren of California. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment implements the 

2008 Natural Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Advisory 

Committee recommendation that NIST be the agency responsible 

for coordinating post-earthquake investigations. The amendment 

also provides NIST with the authorization that they would need to 

carry out this responsibility. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
180 

In 2004, NIST was given the task of serving as the lead agency, 

and it follows that NIST should be responsible for coordinating all 

of the program’s activities including post-earthquake investigations. The experts who testified before this Committee praised 

NIST, and I think we all know NIST as a very efficient agency, and 

I think everybody agreed that they should take the responsibility 

of coordinating post-earthquake investigations, and in the last Congress, the House passed in a bipartisan manner—I think the vote 

was on suspension 335 to 50—the reauthorization that included 

this change. 

The hazards bill that is moving through the Senate also includes 

this change, and I think the original bill that was considered by the 

Subcommittee implemented the advisory committee’s recommendation. However, the current matter before us does not include that 

transfer. 

Now, California has had its share of earthquakes, and I do understand the importance of NEHRP and the work it does to minimize risks and hazards. I think the experts have told us that NIST 

is the proper agency to serve as lead in the post-earthquake investigations. I remember quite well in my prior role as a member of 

the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County after the Loma 

Prieta earthquake how chaotic the situation is when you have a 

major event and agencies from everywhere coming in. It is important that this be handled in an efficient and orderly way, and I 

think the experts have recommended NIST. I think we should listen to their advice, and that is what the amendment does, and I 

would yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Does anyone else care to be heard? The Chair recognizes Ms. 

Biggert for five minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the amendment offered by my colleague from 

California. Unfortunately, because the amendment transfers the responsibility currently conducted by the USGS to NIST without 

transferring funding—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentlelady yield? It does actually. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, it does, but the problem that we have is that 

it adds funding to NIST, leaving the USGS at the same funding 

level as its fiscal year 2012 request, and I support giving NIST 

more funding if we are giving it new responsibilities, but I think 

that the problem that we have is that funding should come from 

the agency which currently holds this responsibility. That is a 

problem and it is a problem with the Natural Resources Committee, who also has jurisdiction over the earthquake program. 

From our conversations with our colleagues there, the transfer of 

the responsibility from USGS to NIST is problematic to them, and 

consequently I am concerned that the addition of this amendment 

could potentially slow down the bill’s progress and whether we 

would be able to do it. 

I would also like to note that the Manager’s Amendment that I 

offered today includes a provision seeking more information on the 

current state of earthquake investigations conducted by USGS. I 

believe that this provision would be helpful to all stakeholders in 

order for us to understand how best to proceed on the earthquake 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
181 

investigation coordination and to make sure that the—I think that 

the USGS would improve what they have been doing. 

But again, this is a problem with the authorization of money and 

I don’t see a way around it. We can’t add any more funding to this, 

and that is my problem, so I would unfortunately oppose the 

amendment. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Are there other—who seeks recognition? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Ms. Johnson, I recognize you for five minutes. 

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

I clearly understand what is being said here about the funding, 

but the earthquake program’s advisory committee recommended 

transfer of the post-earthquake investigations from USGS to NIST 

in 2008 consistent with NIST’s role as the program’s lead agency, 

and in hearing after hearing we have heard expert witnesses praise 

the job NIST has done as lead agency. Further, the experts are in 

agreement that it is appropriate for NIST to also coordinate postearthquake investigations under the program, so when we talked 

to the agencies about making this change in the bipartisan bill 

passed by the House last Congress, they were supportive of the 

change, and the bipartisan bill making its way though the Senate 

right now, which is based on the bipartisan House bill from last 

Congress, authorizes this transfer. 

And so this amendment makes the right policy choice by transferring coordination of post-earthquake investigations to NIST and 

providing NIST with the resources necessary to carry out the responsibility. 

Unfortunately, even though I believe that my colleagues also believe it is the right policy to transfer the post-earthquake investigations coordination to NIST, they could not accomplish it without 

taking resources from other agencies who are already struggling to 

meet their responsibilities under the earthquake program. And so 

in order to comply with their misguided legislative protocols, I suppose the Republicans have decided to sacrifice the best policy. This 

is not the way that we ought to be legislating as an authorizing 

committee. We do not spend money in this Committee. We authorize what the Appropriations Committee has the right to spend or 

recommend be spent. 

And so our top concerns in this Committee ought to be policy, 

and so I support this amendment. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Chairman HALL. Excuse me. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I yield. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. And I understand exactly what you are saying, 

and maybe the Senate can find more money. But when this program was authorized, it was when we weren’t in such dire straits 

in the economy and it was much easier then to say well, this will 

be the money. We just don’t have it now, and I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. We are not spending in this Committee. We are 

trying to make good policy. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
182 

Chairman HALL. Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Lynn Woolsey down here. 

Chairman HALL. Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I—— 

Chairman HALL. For five minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much, and I certainly support Ms. 

Lofgren’s proposal and amendment, and I would yield my time to 

her for whatever time she may consume. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I appreciate my colleague for yielding to me. 

As has been pointed out, there is limited information on the activities being performed under the program’s post-earthquake investigation authority, which is being addressed in the Manager’s 

Amendment, but I think that lack of data and information actually 

is part of the reason why we should support transferring the coordination of the responsibility to NIST because NIST has been repeatedly praised by the stakeholder community, experts, NEHRP 

agencies for being an effective coordinator and manager of the program, and the policy of promoting that is really what we are about. 

And I think the underlying issue that my colleague from Illinois 

has addressed really is that in the original mark, Committee print, 

the majority transferred the responsibility and cut funding 13 percent below fiscal year 2011 funding for U.S. Geological Survey, 

which promoted a tremendous outcry, and to avoid doing that, the 

transfer to NIST, which is the right policy, was voided basically to 

avoid the reduction in U.S. Geological Survey. You know, that is 

not a good reason, I think, to not do the right policy. I think we 

should authorize, as my amendment provides, and let the appropriators struggle with this. 

But this is—it is real money that we are authorizing but it is 

real losses that occur in earthquake events, and I speak as a Californian having been through many earthquakes. The amount being 

authorized is a very small proportion of the losses that are experienced in a major event, and it is very important that this be done 

well. 

And I understand Ms. Biggert’s constraints. It is not of her making. But I think that we should adopt this amendment. And I 

thank the gentlelady for yielding to make that point. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

I thank Ms. Lofgren also for her amendment but I do oppose the 

amendment. I appreciate that it seeks to implement a policy recommendation from the advisory committee for the earthquake program. It is one that we also are interested in keeping and seeing 

come to fruition. As a matter of fact, this transfer was proposed in 

the Committee print that we marked up at Subcommittee, and 

after receiving feedback from various stakeholders, it became apparent that before transferring post-investigation responsibilities to 

NIST, it would be necessary to gain a better understanding of the 

current system of investigation. For this reason, I offered an 

amendment at the Subcommittee level that switched the investigations back to USGS. 

Additionally, this amendment increases the authorization levels 

by nearly $11 million over three years for NIST, and the funding 

exceeds even what the Administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
183 

quests. I believe this would be an imprudent increase in federal 

funding in such fiscally challenging times. This isn’t the 1980s or 

1990s nor the last few sessions. With the country at crossroads 

now, I think we ought to go along with the President’s recommendation. I yield back my time. 

Does anybody else care to be heard? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. McNerney, I recognize you for five minutes, 

sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to be supporting the amendment. I live in earthquake 

country, and basically what you want for your district is the best 

possible agency to take care of the problem, and that is what this 

amendment asks. Anyone that would experience this sort of event 

would want that, and I ask all the Members of the Committee to 

consider if you have a major event in your district, do you want the 

most qualified agency to be taking care of business or do you want 

someone else? And the answer in my mind is pretty clear. 

So I ask the Committee to support Ms. Lofgren’s amendment, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Whereas I come from earthquake country as 

well, I can suggest that yes, we always know in the back of our 

mind that there may be an earthquake, but one thing we know for 

sure, unless we start acting responsibly in our financial affairs, 

there is going to be a financial earthquake that is going to cause 

a lot more damage to this country than we could ever imagine. So 

I agree to oppose this amendment. 

Chairman HALL. If the gentleman would yield, you base your 

statement probably on the fact that the funding exceeds the Administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget also. 

The gentleman yields back. 

Anyone else care to be heard? If not, hearing no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, say no. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, could we have a roll call? 

Chairman HALL. A roll call has been requested. Under the 

Chair’s prior announcement, proceedings on this motion will be 

postponed. 

Are there any other amendments? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman 

Chairman HALL. Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman HALL. Oh, Ms. Woolsey. An amendment is offered by 

the gentlelady from California. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am. I ask unanimous consent to 

dispense with the reading. Without objection—whoops. 

Chairman HALL. Let the clerk report the amendment first and 

then we will do that. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
184 

The CLERK. Amendment number 006, amendment to H.R. 3479 

offered by Ms. Woolsey of California. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman HALL. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. My amendment brings funding levels for earthquake and windstorm hazards to the exact levels set by the Republican majority in the 2004 reauthorization. 

I fully support reauthorization of these valuable hazard programs. Of particular importance to me and the community that I 

represent is the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. 

Earthquakes are a common occurrence, as we all know, in the San 

Francisco Bay area. And Marin and Sonoma counties, my two counties, are right across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. 

Individuals, households and businesses in our area must be prepared for any earthquake, and we know there will be earthquakes 

in our lifetime. Unfortunately, Californians know that it is not a 

question of if but when the next scale earthquake will happen. 

The earthquake program has and will continue to improve our 

understanding of California’s risks and vulnerabilities. It is helping 

us develop mitigation preparedness and response plans. The program makes it more likely that communities will withstand and 

quickly recover from a massive earthquake. 

The two programs covered by this bill were last authorized in 

2004 under Republican leadership. Now, not one of us can claim 

with a straight face that the risk from natural hazards or the potential impact of such disasters on our communities has diminished 

since then. My colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, was the sponsor of the 

windstorm program in 2004, and he is the sponsor of the reauthorization again today. I hope that he agrees with me that the risk 

of windstorms has not declined since 2004, especially given that 

this year has been the second deadliest year on record for tornadoes. 

My colleagues, we should all agree that on the heels of the tragedy in Japan earlier this year, ensuring that our communities can 

respond to and recover from a large-scale earthquake is as pressing 

as ever. If that is the case, it is simply inappropriate and irresponsible for us to cut the funding authorizations for these programs, 

and yet the bill before us this morning does just that. 

Some may argue that the fiscal climate in 2011 is markedly different than it was when these programs were last authorized and 

that we must take drastic measures and make significant sacrifices 

to reduce our national debt. However, I want to point out that in 

the year 2004, we experienced the largest deficit since World War 

II. The budget surpluses from the final years of the Clinton presidency had vanished altogether and the stage had been set for the 

fiscal situation we find ourselves in today. Yet in the midst of that 

unprecedented and serious fiscal crisis, the Republican majority 

correctly recognized the value of these programs and saw fit to authorize nearly $192 million for the earthquake program and $25 

million for the windstorm program. Now, however, the majority is 

claiming that its very own numbers are too high and is proposing 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
185 

to cut the authorization for earthquakes by 36 percent and windstorms by 14 percent. 

I must admit that I am particularly troubled by the proposed 73 

percent cut to FEMA under the earthquake program. FEMA has 

indicated that under these authorization levels, it will likely end 

support for its critical infrastructure activities and provide less 

support for the earthquake state assistance program. 

In fact, states with high seismic risk like California would receive 30 percent less in funding and states with medium seismic 

risks like those in the New Madrid region of Tennessee, Illinois, 

Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas could have their funding eliminated 

completely. 

My amendment proposes to put in place the authorization numbers from the last year each of the programs were authorized. I 

want to make clear that these are the exact same numbers included by the Republican majority in the 2004 authorization. I believe that by reverting back to 2009 funding levels for the earthquake program and 2008 funding levels for the windstorm program 

and freezing funding at those levels over the life of this bill, we can 

help keep spending under control but also ensure that these agencies have the funding that they need to effectively carry out the responsibilities we have given them. 

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Are there others who want to be heard? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Neugebauer, the gentleman from Texas, 

five minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And I won’t take that long, and I appreciate 

the gentlewoman’s comments. You know, all I would just say is 

that, you know, we are in a different environment than we were 

in the previous years, and today every 40—every dollar we spend, 

we are borrowing 42 cents, and basically what we are doing is, we 

are living a lifestyle today and we are charging it to our children 

and grandchildren. Now, as a brand-new grandfather of a little 

girl, the first girl in the Neugebauer family in over 80 years, I am 

not interested in increasing the gift of the American government 

any more than what they have already given her. They have given 

her a note of $50,000, and she hasn’t even had a chance to enjoy 

any of the privileges of being an American yet. 

But I understand that this research is important. I still think 

that good research can be done but it is going to have to be done 

at lower levels. 

And with that, I yield back my time. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Would you yield? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I would yield to the gentlewoman. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, sir, first of all, for your good legislation in 2004, and hopefully for understanding that this is an authorization. It is suggesting to the spending committees what it 

will cost to carry out these programs effectively. And for your sweet 

little granddaughter, we have to prevent these serious accidents, 

and that is going to be, you pay up front of you pay later, and it 

is going to cost more in the long run. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
186 

I will yield back. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. If I could reclaim my time and yield back my 

time. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Miller, the gentleman from North 

Carolina, for five minutes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I support this amendment, not because I don’t want to try to do 

things more frugally. I am one of the more frugal people on the 

planet. Just this morning I ran the shower into the last little bit 

of my shampoo bottle so I could get it all. And believe me, there 

are many things I could tell you like that. 

But these numbers are simply snatched out of thin air. Yes, it 

would be nice if we could do all this on two-thirds of the money 

or less, but there is absolutely no evidence, no record, nothing, to 

support the idea, and so Republicans are going to go home and say 

look, we protected, we are going to be doing all the same stuff, we 

told the Federal Government agencies they have got to be prepared 

for earthquakes, they got to be prepared for tornadoes and hurricanes, and we save two-thirds doing it, and they just snatched the 

number out of thin air. 

I chaired the Oversight Subcommittee of this Committee for four 

years, and yes, there is waste in Federal Government. Some of it 

is because of corruption. More of it is because of just garden-variety 

stupidity. It should be part of the function of Congress to identify 

that and to do something about it. We have many management 

tools that are available to us. One is oversight hearings. And once 

Federal Government employees understand that there is an Oversight Subcommittee that really is about the business of trying to 

make government run more efficiently, they will provide you information. Things will come over the transom that will lead you to 

identify programs that are not being run well. There is the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, that will help, that will point 

to how-what government agencies are being run poorly and how 

they can be run more effectively. There are inspector generals all 

throughout government. They can examine how agencies are being 

run and they report both to the agency head and to Congress. And 

none of that has happened with respect to this program. Instead, 

we see a number snatched out of thin air and say do everything 

you are doing, do everything you are doing so we can go home and 

tell people we protected these programs but do it for two-thirds of 

what you are doing without any evidence. Without any record, 

without anything to support the idea that the numbers that we 

have got now are not the right numbers, it simply—there simply 

is not a basis for this change in the law to reduce the authorization 

by the amounts they are being reduced. 

So I do support Ms. Woolsey’s amendment. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Biggert, the gentlelady from Illinois, is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The gentleman is talking about the figures that seem to come 

from the air. Actually, the authorizing figures are the President’s 

request, and we have tried not to go over the President’s request 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
187 

and we haven’t gone under it. And so I think that this is something 

that the agencies have looked at, and so I can’t support Ms. 

Woolsey’s amendment when we really have done the reauthorization according to what the President requested. 

With that, I would yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair recognizes Mrs. Sewell, the gentlelady from Alabama. 

Ms. SEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, I address the Committee in support of Representative 

Woolsey’s commonsense and lifesaving amendment. This amendment strikes a balance I believe between fiscal responsibility and 

strategic investing by restoring the authorization levels for the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program and the National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Program back to the levels approved 

by their last authorization. 

H.R. 3479 as proposed dramatically undercuts critical disaster 

prevention activities. This is particularly concerning given the devastating natural disasters observed earlier this year in the United 

States and worldwide. Both of these programs are important partnerships between government, academia and the private sector 

aimed at improving the understanding of windstorms and earthquakes and their impacts. Their main purpose is to provide and encourage and develop implementation of cost-effective mitigation 

measures to reduce devastating loss of life and property. 

As you all may know, the 7th Congressional District and other 

parts of the State of Alabama suffered from tornadoes and heavy 

storms during the month of April of this year. Homes, churches, 

schools, businesses, entire communities were destroyed and damaged. Many people in my district lost their lives as well as the lives 

of their friends and loved ones. It is this type of natural disaster 

that highlights our need to continue to provide adequate funding 

for disaster preparedness efforts and to ensure that our first responders are equipped to meet the needs of our communities in 

these times of great tragedy. 

The reality is, that the need for these types of programs has not 

changed. In fact, there is now an even greater realization of the importance of these types of programs and initiatives. The best way 

to minimize the lives of—the loss of lives and property and the economic impact due to disaster is to invest in pre-disaster mitigation 

activities. Put simply, the activities and responsibilities we are asking this network of agencies to fulfill has become even more critical 

and necessary. I believe it is irresponsible and would be costly in 

the long run to underfund programs that have the potential to minimize property damage and save lives. 

I understand that in these difficult budgetary times, we must 

find ways to reduce cost and identify savings wherever possible. 

However, we must also continue to make strategic investments 

that will yield tangible results and benefits in the future. I urge my 

colleagues to support Representative Woolsey’s amendment and restore funding levels for these critical, important programs back to 

the reauthorization level. 

Thank you, and I yield back my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. SEWELL. I will. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
188 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to add my voice in support of the 

amendment, and just reflect back on the—my experience in local 

government after the Loma Prieta earthquake. I remember it so 

well. It was, you know, around 5 o’clock on a Tuesday, and there 

were a number of collapses of structures but nothing collapsed in 

San Jose, and my college classmate was then the Chief Science Officer for the USGS up in Menlo Park, and I remember asking him 

why nothing had collapsed in downtown San Jose when buildings 

collapsed in Oakland and in San Francisco and in Santa Cruz, and 

he said, really, it wasn’t anything about the waves of the earthquake, it was good engineering. It was the information that the city 

had received to require that buildings be engineered and not fall 

down. 

And I look at these authorizations, and it is one building that we 

would prevent from collapsing. So I think we need a little perspective here on what we are authorizing and what the potential losses 

are, and it is really a situation of an ounce of prevention is worth 

many, many pounds of cure, and I thank the gentlelady for yielding 

and my colleague from California for offering the amendment. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

I recognize myself for just a couple of minutes. We are in different days and times. One of the speakers—and all of you made 

good arguments, but one speaker compared it to 2004. The whole 

world wasn’t trying to go broke in 2004, and that is the direction 

we are going now, and I recognize that my colleagues on both sides 

are unhappy with the authorization amount in this bill. I am not 

real happy with it. But we didn’t cut, we matched the Administration’s fiscal year 2012 request for the earthquake program which 

each agency prepared and each agency defended. 

The bill makes only modest changes to the current program, 

carefully ensuring that we are not significantly expanding programs in tight fiscal times and asking agencies to do more with 

less. We are not doing that. Nevertheless, we believe both are critically important programs in need of reauthorization. 

The gentlelady’s amendment would increase funding for the 

earthquake program by more than 50 percent in fiscal 2012 compared to what was spent in 2011, wind program increased by 20 

percent when compared to the last authorization. Her total increase is $224.3 million. In this day and time, I just don’t think 

that is practical. It would be good to do that. But to continue to 

fight for higher funding, especially above the fiscal year 2012 agency request, seems to ignore the financial crisis we are in. We just 

can’t do that. Who across the Nation is getting a 50 percent raise? 

The amount of the funding is unrealistic in this fiscal environment, 

and I believe these increases would hamper the chances of these 

programs even being reauthorized, which I am sure my Democratic 

friends would not want. 

I think we just absolutely have to be cognizant of our current 

budget environment. Therefore, I oppose the gentlelady’s amendment. 

Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. I yield back my time. Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
189 

Chairman HALL. Ms. Edwards, the Chair recognizes you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I rise in support 

of the amendment here offered by Ms. Woolsey, and I think it really is important for us to focus as an authorizing committee on our 

responsibility to outline what the requirements are to do the work, 

and we have other colleagues who sit on the Appropriations Committee in another venue whose challenge it will be to match that 

with what our fiscal responsibilities are in terms of our spending, 

and you know, we can’t divvy there because otherwise we get away 

from making good policy. 

And with that, I would like to yield the balance of my time to 

Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much for yielding. 

It is really nice to hear the other side of the aisle supporting the 

President’s budget. We should wallow in that. But this budget 

doesn’t truly, I believe, represent what he would do or what he 

should do, and—well, he is not always right. You know what? And 

in 2004, President Bush was right on this, and—— 

Chairman HALL. Even if we don’t agree with her, we—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And I am surprised that when this is exactly the 

same numbers that came out of the Republican majority in 2004, 

which was seven years ago, so that is not a raise over what is going 

on right now, when the economy was not in good shape as it isn’t 

now, that an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure is not what 

we would be using as our guidelines here when we are talking 

about disasters. We are not talking about frills. We are talking 

about really important programs. 

So Mr. Chairman, thank you for hearing me. Remember, this is 

a number that is not an increase over 2004, so I think we should 

go from there. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentlelady. Do you yield back? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bucshon 

from Indiana for five minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Being new to Congress, I know full well we are an authorizing, 

not an appropriating committee, but I would like to point out the 

appropriate amount of spending for the earthquake program, 

NEHRP, in 2009 was $129.4 million, in 2010, $131.2 million, and 

in fiscal year 2011, $129.5 million. This bill would authorize $122 

million, which is a very, very modest decrease, and has been pointed out, requested by the President’s budget. 

So even though we have a lot of drama about dramatic cuts and 

other things, I think it is very important for people to understand, 

for the American people to understand that the actual amount of 

money spent in those years is only slightly more than the current 

bill is authorizing, and therefore I do not think will result in any 

significant decrease in the ability of these agencies to function and 

to protect the American people, and with that, I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Are there others who want to be heard? Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
190 

Those opposed, say no. The nos have it and the amendment is not 

agreed to. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a recorded 

vote. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady asks for a recorded vote. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thought it was rolled. 

Chairman HALL. Didn’t you ask for a recorded vote? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I want it rolled. I would like us to have a 

vote. I thought you were rolling it all until the end of the—— 

Chairman HALL. I have the discretion to roll or not roll, and it 

looks like you have a lot of people here. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yeah, I see what happened. 

Chairman HALL. Which do you want to do? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to vote at the end of the bill like the 

others are. 

Chairman HALL. Do you want to roll it? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, please roll it. 

Chairman HALL. All right. We will roll it. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Are there other amendments? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The next amendment is offered by the 

gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, and I know you are ready 

to proceed with your amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 007, amendment to H.R. 3474— 

79, offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman HALL. Okay. I ask unanimous consent to dispense 

with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her 

amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I suppose this amendment in the spirit of Ms. Woolsey’s is, and 

I can’t quote poetry the way the chairman can, but if at first you 

don’t succeed, try, try again. 

Mr. Chairman and Ms. Biggert, at the Subcommittee markup of 

the bill, I offered an amendment to replace the Committee print 

with the text of the bipartisan bill from last Congress. That bipartisan legislation passed the House by a wide margin, a vote of 335 

to 50, and it is the legislation that is currently moving through the 

Senate. At the Subcommittee markup, I argued that the text from 

last Congress was the better starting point for our Committee’s 

consideration because it was bipartisan and because it stands a 

better chance of actually being enacted into law in the near future, 

and I think that is a goal that we all share. 

We are at a time also when the American public is looking at us 

wondering whether it is that we can agree on something. We did 

agree on something last year. That something is in the Senate this 

year, and we have an opportunity to come together as a Committee 

in the spirit in which I think this Committee has operated in the 

past to move this legislation forward more expeditiously. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
191 

But the truth is, much of the policy contained in the bill from 

last Congress has in fact—thank you, Ms. Biggert—been incorporated into the bill before us today, either as part of the underlying text or through the bipartisan Manager’s Amendment that 

Ms. Biggert and I first offered at the Subcommittee markup. I am 

very pleased that in this case, and I want to thank Mrs. Biggert 

and Chairman Quayle for working with us on many of those issues. 

Unfortunately, the difference that remains between this bill and 

the bill from last Congress is arguably the most important difference, and that is the funding levels authorized for these important activities. 

The amendment I am offering this morning strikes the authorization numbers in the current bill and replaces them with the bipartisan authorization numbers. For NEHRP, the amendment proposes the exact same authorization numbers as those included in 

the bipartisan bill from last Congress and the bill currently making 

its way through the Senate. For NWIRP, the amendment proposes 

the bipartisan numbers for the National Science Foundation, 

NOAA and FEMA but maintains the authorization numbers for 

NIST that are in Ms. Biggert’s bill. I agree with my Republican colleagues that NIST requires a higher authorization to accommodate 

its new responsibility as the program’s lead agency. The bill before 

us today includes authorization levels for NEHRP and NWIRP that 

are not only flat but below current spending. I am very concerned 

about lowering the authorization levels for those agencies, especially at the close of a year in which this country has experienced 

a historic number of disasters, and I think we are all aware of the 

terrible tragedy that occurred in Japan, an earthquake and ensuing 

tsunami that devastated parts of Japan and triggered the worst 

nuclear accident since Chernobyl. This one disaster has so far resulted in over 15,000 lives lost, and moreover, it is quite likely to 

end up being the costliest natural disaster ever with estimates exceeding $300 billion. 

A large earthquake like this one will indeed happen in the 

United States, and it could happen on the San Andreas Fault in 

California, in the New Madrid Fault in the Mississippi valley, or 

off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, and the devastation that was 

witnessed in this country this year from tornadoes and other windstorms including in the district of our colleague, Ms. Sewell, is 

staggering. Tornadoes have caused deaths in 15 states from Louisiana to Massachusetts this year, and in fact, 2011 is the deadliest 

year for tornadoes in the United States in over 80 years and the 

second deadliest ever. I think we are all just shocked to know that 

552 people have died in tornadoes so far this year in 2011. 

For these reasons, I can’t in good conscience support a cut to the 

authorization levels for these programs. As we said before, it will 

be the job of the appropriators to find the actual funding that is 

required or the offsets required for that funding because that is 

their duty as appropriators. Our duty and responsibility as authorizers is to set the level that we know to be appropriate for the 

agencies to do the job that we expect of them and that the American people expect, and as the authorizing Committee with jurisdiction over the programs, we should be setting the mark and includVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:56 Sep 15, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
192 

ing the level of funding that we honestly believe these agencies 

need to fulfill their responsibilities. 

I doubt anyone on this Committee believes that the risk to people 

and property has gone down, and if that is the case, it is wrong 

for us to cut the authorization levels for these important natural 

hazards programs. 

Mr. Chairman, when we invest in mitigation activities that save 

lives and money in the future, and when we do more to ensure that 

our communities are resilient to disasters, we know that that can 

only be accomplished by providing the programs with authorization 

levels that allow them to fulfill their responsibilities and objectives 

that have been outlined in the bill we are considering today. 

I want to thank you, and I urge my colleagues to support the 

amendment, and I yield my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back, and I want to thank 

her for her amendment. However, I have to point out again that 

this amendment increases authorization levels for the earthquake 

and windstorm programs to levels well above the authorizations 

currently included in H.R. 3479, well above the fiscal year 2012 

agency request and the amount spent in 2011 by the program 

agencies. 

We made an attempt at a responsible reauthorization of the 

earthquake and windstorm programs. This amendment increases 

the President’s fiscal year 2012 request, implying that the President’s proposed level of funds were grossly inadequate, and I try 

to protect that President every chance I get, and here is an opportunity where I respect his recommendations. And actually, Ms. 

Edwards, you know how fond I am of you and how much I admire 

your background and your presentations here, but when you tell 

me it is a bipartisan bill, there is not a Republican sponsor in the 

Senate so far as I know. But that doesn’t make any difference but 

I want the record to reflect what the hard, cold facts are. 

And this increases—once again increases $198.6 million. I just 

think that for these reasons, I have to oppose the gentlelady’s 

amendment. 

Now I recognize Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just want to note 

that the bill in the Senate actually passed the Committee unanimously and was reported out by Ms. Hutchinson. 

Chairman HALL. Anyone else care to be heard? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So what we are asked to do here is to increase the spending level about what the President has requested 

by about $200 million. If we are not going to be in a disastrous financial situation, we need to at least when we are going to increase the level somewhere tell us where you might want to cut 

down, what science programs do you want to reduce by $200 million in order to make sure that our country doesn’t go off the financial cliff. 

Ms. EDWARDS. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly would. 

Ms. EDWARDS. The point here is that we are supposed to be looking at these agencies and their responsibilities, and figuring out 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
193 

what it takes for them to meet their responsibilities. Now, we can 

play a lot of politics, and I am as a good a Democrat as the next 

one, but whether we have a Democrat in the White House or a Republican in the White House, that doesn’t change our responsibility 

on this Committee. And so the fact that even among Democrats 

that we might disagree with what the President has proposed in 

his budget, it is our job as legislators. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so I think that looking at these agencies and 

their responsibilities. In fact, I think my amendment actually 

strikes a balance between where Ms. Woolsey is and where we are 

in the Committee print, and I would urge us to do that because 

what I would like to see more than anything else is for us to report 

a bill that gets all of us on board. I think one of these two amendments on this bill in fact would do that, and I think the American 

people would like to see it and I think it would be good and healthy 

for us on this Committee. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, reclaiming my time, yes, you are right 

what our responsibility is, but that is within the context of the 

overall responsibility we have to the American people and to the 

next generation of Americans that we are not doing something that 

will cause an overall negative impact on our country to the point 

that all of these other debates will become meaningless. If we have 

a collapse of our currency, which is possible when you are going 

$1.5 trillion into debt every year, all of this will disappear. We will 

be in a crisis like Greece and everywhere else, and we know it. So 

that when we actually ask for $200 million more in spending than 

even the President wants to offer, I think that when you use the 

word ‘‘responsibility’’, it would require us to say well, here are some 

examples of $200 million that I would like to cut out of the science 

program that aren’t as high a priority as this. You know, the ultimate responsibility is setting priorities. That is what we are hired 

for. That is what we have been elected to do: set the priorities 

within the context of what our economy can actually function at, 

and I don’t see either one of these amendments as doing that. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Are there others? Hearing no further discussion—excuse me. Mr. 

Tonko is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes, just briefly, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to add my voice of support to the amendment offered by 

Representative Edwards. You know, seeing the record number of 

tornadoes and earthquakes in some very atypical areas across the 

country this year draws upon me to be very supportive of the effort 

made by Representative Edwards. Having witnessed in the 21st 

Congressional District of New York some tremendous destruction 

and devastation via Mother Nature this past summer, we are very 

concerned about having the appropriate authorization so that the 

agencies can respond in very sensitive and reasonable terms to the 

American public. 

I know that there are those who are suggesting that we may be 

facing a record number of natural disasters that amassed at least 

a billion dollars worth of damage. If we break that record, that tells 

us that we have to be very, very laser sharp in our focus, which 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
194 

I believe that the Representative has done here. She has outlined 

her increases in a very targeted way, and I just want to encourage 

Members of this Committee to support Representative Edwards’ 

amendment. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. You yield back. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Cravaack, the gentleman from Minnesota, for five minutes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and if I could yield to Ms. 

Biggert, just a couple questions so I understand this process correctly. 

Do I understand it correctly that these agencies have put forth 

a number of what it would take to fund their specific agencies? 

Would that be correct? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Yes, the agencies do, and then that is how the 

President comes up with his request. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So it is incumbent upon the responsibility of 

these agencies to put forth a budget that would be able to reflect 

upon what it would take to do their jobs. And then it goes up 

through the process to the President where the President will then 

verify their numbers. Is that correct, ma’am? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. That is right, and then the Congress has the oversight to reauthorize that and look at their numbers and make a decision. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. Thank you, ma’am. So understanding this 

correctly, it is incumbent upon the individual—— 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Now, I must say. You know, just for clarification, 

the President came forward with the request for the earthquake 

program. At that time we did not have the wind in this bill, so that 

was not determined by the President. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. But it is incumbent upon the agencies to have 

the responsibilities to ensure that they have the budget necessary 

to complete their mission? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I am sorry. Would you repeat that? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. It is incumbent upon the agencies to make sure 

that they put forth a budget to complete their mission? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. That is correct. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. That would be correct. Okay. That is what I 

needed to know, and I will yield back. And I would have to speak 

against this amendment as much as I admire and respect Representative Edwards. Unfortunately, if these numbers actually 

come forth from the agencies themselves saying that this is what 

it would take to complete their mission, then I think we should go 

forward with what the agency is requesting, and I will yield back. 

Chairman HALL. And you further want to support the President’s 

request, right? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. We should always support the President, sir. 

Chairman HALL. I agree with you. Thank you. 

All right. Ms. Edwards has made a good case and had an opportunity. Does anyone else want to be heard? If not, hearing no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, 

say aye. Those opposed, say no. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
195 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman HALL. The next amendment is offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Mr. LUJAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 003, amendment to H.R. 3479, 

offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman HALL. I might say to Mr. Lujan now before he gets underway that we think it is a good amendment, and we want to let 

you know we are going to accept your amendment and appreciate 

your desire to ensure that NIST conducts research into fires at the 

wildland-urban interface. 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much. 

Chairman HALL. Would you like to go ahead and present your— 

say a few words? 

Mr. LUJAN. Quickly, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of thank yous 

to share with our friends on the other side of the aisle. 

Chairman HALL. Well, we will yield you a full five minutes for 

that. 

Mr. LUJAN. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

In the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, we charged NIST 

with supporting fire research to help prevent and control fires. My 

amendment updates the statute to ensure that NIST continues to 

conduct research on fires occurring specifically in the wild-urban 

land area. NIST fire research will help us minimize the spread of 

wildland fires into communities through tools that predict and reduce fire risk, post-fire investigations, improved fire codes and 

standards and the safe, effective use of emerging fire technologies. 

Addressing these research needs is essential if we are going to reduce losses from fire and increase the resiliency of buildings and 

infrastructure. 

This is an urgent and growing hazard. From January through 

September of this year, we saw more than 7.7 million acres burn 

across the United States. This is the fifth worst year on record for 

wildfires with the Southwest being hit particularly hard. We will 

remember fires that burned through Arizona and New Mexico and 

Texas and devastated families, families that lost entire businesses 

and their homes. 

When I offered a similar amendment at the Subcommittee, the 

majority had some concerns and we agreed to work out a compromise before coming to the full Committee. This amendment 

today is a result of that effort, and I want to thank Ms. Biggert, 

my friend, Chairman Mr. Quayle for their support and for all of the 

majority staff for their efforts in making sure that we had a chance 

to work together. I sincerely appreciate that. And I am happy that 

we found a way to authorize this important research. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, not only thank you to you for allowing me to present this amendment today and for the work that we 

were able to do together, and with that, I urge adoption of this 

amendment. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
196 

Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it and 

the amendment is agreed to. 

Pursuant to the Chair’s earlier announcement, further proceedings on the postponed questions will resume at noon. The Committee stands in recess. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, before you do that, may I enter 

some documents into the record? 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the hearing record letters of support for the reauthorization of the Natural Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program from the 

American Geophysical Union, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations. And with that, I yield back. 

[They appear below:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
197 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.119
198 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.120
199 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.121
200 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

We are in recess until noon. In the Texas legislature, we used to 

have a guy that set the clock there. When something had to be 

done by midnight and couldn’t be done past that, we had one that 

moved it back for about two hours a lot of times. So we don’t have 

that luxury up here, and we thought we would be through, completely through by noon. We perhaps could go ahead with unanimous consent. We need to come back at 10 of noon, I am told by 

this lawyer here. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HALL. All right. The Committee will please—the very 

patient Committee will please come to order. 

Okay. The unfinished business of the Committee is a postponed 

roll call on the amendment offered by Mrs. Lofgren, amendment 

number 10. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall? 

Chairman HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. 

Mr. Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. 

Mrs. Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Adams votes no. 

Mr. Quayle? 

Mr. QUAYLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Quayle votes no. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. No. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
201 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes no. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes no. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes no. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes no. 

Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes no. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes no. 

Mr. Benishek? 

Mr. BENISHEK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Benishek votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes aye. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes aye. 

Mr. Lujan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes aye. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
202 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes aye. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes aye. 

Ms. Sewell? 

Ms. SEWELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sewell votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke? 

Mr. CLARKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke votes aye. 

Chairman HALL. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 

Have all the Members voted? Any Members wish to change their 

vote? Then the clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 11 Members vote aye and 20 Members vote no. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
203 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS3479V3.eps
204 

Chairman HALL. The amendment is not agreed to. 

The next unfinished business of the Committee is on the postponed roll call on the amendment offered by Mrs. Woolsey, amendment number 006. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall? 

Chairman HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. 

Mrs. Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Adams votes no. 

Mr. Quayle? 

Mr. QUAYLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Quayle votes no. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes no. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes no. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes no. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes no. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
205 

Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes no. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes no. 

Mr. Benishek? 

Mr. BENISHEK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Benishek votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes aye. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes aye. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes aye. 

Mr. Lujan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes aye. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes aye. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes aye. 

Ms. Sewell? 

Ms. SEWELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sewell votes aye. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
206 

Ms. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke? 

Mr. CLARKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke votes aye. 

Chairman HALL. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 

Have all the Members voted? Do any Members wish to change 

their vote? The clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 12 Members vote aye and 21 Members vote no. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
207 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS3479V2.eps
208 

Chairman HALL. The amendment is not agreed to. 

The question is on the House bill, House Resolution 3479, the 

Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 as amended. All those 

in favor will say aye. Those opposed, say no. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I would like to ask for a record vote, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

A Member requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall? 

Chairman HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall votes aye. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. 

Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. 

Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. 

Mrs. Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Adams votes aye. 

Mr. Quayle? 

Mr. QUAYLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Quayle votes aye. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes aye. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. Aye. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
209 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes aye. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes aye. 

Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes aye. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes aye. 

Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes aye. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes aye. 

Mr. Benishek? 

Mr. BENISHEK. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Benishek votes aye. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes no. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. 

Mr. Lujan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. No. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
210 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes no. 

Ms. Sewell? 

Ms. SEWELL. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sewell votes no. 

Ms. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke? 

Mr. CLARKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke votes no. 

Chairman HALL. The clerk will report the—are there other— 

first, are there other Members who wish to vote or any Members 

who wish to change their vote? The clerk shall report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 21 Members vote aye and 12 Members vote no. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
211 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS3479V1.eps
212 

Chairman HALL. The bill is agreed to. 

I will make a motion. I move that the Committee report H.R. 

3479 as amended to the House with the recommendation that the 

bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the chairman take all necessary steps to 

bring the bill before the House for consideration. 

The question is on the motion to report the bill. Those in favor 

will say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the resolution is 

favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

Okay. Members will have 2 subsequent calendar days in which to 

submit supplemental minority or additional views on the measure. 

I move pursuant to clause 1 of rule 22 of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives that the Committee authorizes the chairman to 

offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to adopt and 

pass H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 

as amended. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

This concludes our Committee markup. The Committee is adjourned. Thank you for your patience. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(213) 

Appendix: 

H.R. 3479: THE NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT 

OF 2011, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENTS, AMENDMENT ROSTER


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
214 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.001
215 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.002
216 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.003
217 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.004
218 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.005
219 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.006
220 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.007
221 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.008
222 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.009
223 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.010
224 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.011
225 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.012
226 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.013
227 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.014
228 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.015
229 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.016
230 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.017
231 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.018
232 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.019
233 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.020
234 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.021
235 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.022
236 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.023
237 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.024
238 

SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION OF H.R. 3479, ‘‘THE NATURAL HAZARDS RISK

REDUCTION ACT OF 2011’’ 

Section 1. Short Title 

This section sets forth the short title as the ‘‘Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act 

of 2011.’’ 

Section 2. Table of Contents 

This section provides a table of contents. 

Title I. EARTHQUAKES 

Section 101. Short Title 

This section sets forth the short title for Title I as the ‘‘National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2011.’’ 

Section 102. Definitions 

This section removes the definitions of the ‘‘Interagency Coordination Committee’’ 

and the ‘‘Advisory Committee’’ from Section 4 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Act of 1977. 

Section 103. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 

This section identifies the four agencies that make up National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This 

section also amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to detail 

NEHRP activities, which include researching and developing effective methods, 

tools, and technologies to reduce the risk posed by earthquakes to the built environment, especially to lessen the risk to existing structures and lifelines. 

Section 103 defines the responsibilities of NIST as the lead Program agency, 

which include: planning and coordinating the Program; supporting the development 

of performance-based seismic engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal 

agencies other than Program agencies as necessary; working with Program agencies 

to develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to use existing 

facilities and laboratories; and issuing recommendations to assist in informing 

model codes when warranted by research or investigative findings. This section also 

updates the responsibilities of the Program agencies, further detailing current activities. 

Finally, this section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for NEHRP of relevant nonFederal employee experts to offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and revisions as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the Director of NIST on the assessment 

and its recommendations at least every two years. 

Section 104. Post-Earthquake Investigation Program 

This section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to direct 

USGS to utilize the coordination expertise of the lead program agency in organizing 

post-earthquake investigations. 

Section 105. Authorization of Appropriations 

This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows: 

For FEMA: $6,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For USGS: $57,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NSF: $53,800,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NIST: $4,100,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

Title II. WIND 

Section 201. Short Title 

This section establishes the short title for this Title of the bill as the ‘‘National 

Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2011.’’ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
239 

Section 202. Definitions 

This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 to define the ‘‘Director’’ of the Program as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology rather than the Director of the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP). 

Section 203. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 

This section identifies the four agencies that make up the National Windstorm 

Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NIST, NSF, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and FEMA; defines NIST as the lead program agency; and assigns responsibilities to the four program agencies. 

As the new lead agency, NIST’s activities include planning and coordinating the 

Program; supporting the development of performance-based engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal agencies other than Program agencies as necessary; coordinating all Federal post-windstorm investigations; and issuing recommendations to assist in informing model building codes when warranted by research or investigative findings. In addition to the lead agency responsibilities, 

NIST shall also conduct research and development to improve model building codes, 

voluntary standards, and best practices for the design, construction, and retrofit of 

buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

NSF activities include research in engineering and the atmospheric sciences to 

improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

NOAA activities include the support of atmospheric science research and data collection to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact 

on buildings, structures, and lifelines. 

FEMA activities include the development of risk assessment tools and effective 

mitigation techniques; data collection and analysis; and public outreach, information 

dissemination and implementation of mitigation measures. 

Section 204. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction 

This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for NWIRP of relevant nonFederal employee experts to offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and revisions as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the Director of NIST on the assessment 

and its recommendations at least every two years. 

Section 205. Authorization of Appropriations 

This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows: 

For FEMA: $4,000,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NSF: $9,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NIST: $5,300,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

For NOAA: $2,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014. 

Title III. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 

Sec. 301. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards 

Risk Reduction 

This section combines the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Interagency Working Group into one Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural 

Hazards Risk Reduction, chaired by the Director of NIST and comprised of the 

heads of FEMA, USGS, NOAA, NSF, the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the head of any other 

Federal agency the chair of the Committee considers appropriate. The section instructs the Committee to plan and coordinate NEHRP and NWIRP, including the 

development of a strategic plan for each program, a progress report on each program, and a coordinated budget for both NEHRP and NWIRP. 

Sec. 302. Coordination of Federal Disaster Research, Development, 

and Technology Transfer 

This section requires the existing Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, of the 

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
240 

Technology Council, to submit a report to Congress identifying the current Federal 

research, development, and technology transfer activities that address mitigation for 

all types of natural hazards, and how such activities are being coordinated to reduce 

duplication among the various research programs. 

Sec. 303. Authorizations 

This section clarifies that no additional funding is authorized to carry out the 

title. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
241 

AMENDMENTS


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
242 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.027
243 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.025
244 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.035
245 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.036
246 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.029
247 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.030
248 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.031
249 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.032
250 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.033
251 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.034
252 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS72649.028
253 

AMENDMENT ROSTER


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
254 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSFullRoster.eps
255 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSFullRoster2.eps