U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–290 PDF 2012

A REVIEW OF BUILDING CODES AND MITIGATION 

EFFORTS TO HELP MINIMIZE THE COSTS 

ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISASTERS 

(112–94) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BOB FILNER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida ................................................................................................................... 5 

David Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................... 5 

PANEL TWO

Jim Mullen, President, National Emergency Management Association ............. 16 

James J. Gianato, Director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, State of West Virginia ............................................................................... 16 

Chief Hank C. Clemmensen, First Vice President, International Association 

of Fire Chiefs ........................................................................................................ 16 

Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain 

Managers .............................................................................................................. 16 

Julie A. Rochman, President and CEO, Insurance Institute for Business and 

Home Safety (IBHS) ............................................................................................ 16 

Rod Matthews, CPCU, P&C Operations Vice President, State Farm Insurance 

Companies, testifying on behalf of the BuildStrong Coalition ......................... 16 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Billy Long, of Missouri ................................................................................... 37 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia .................................. 39 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, of West Virginia ............................................................... 42 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart ........................................................................................... 47 

David Miller ............................................................................................................. 50 

Jim Mullen ............................................................................................................... 55 

James J. Gianato ..................................................................................................... 60 

Chief Hank C. Clemmensen .................................................................................... 68 

Chad Berginnis, CFM .............................................................................................. 72 

Julie A. Rochman ..................................................................................................... 87 

Rod Matthews, CPCU ............................................................................................. 91 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Public Works Association, written statement of Diane Linderman, 

PE, PWLF, President ........................................................................................... 99 

International Code Council, written statement .................................................... 102 

National Association of Home Builders, written statement ................................. 105 

National Institute of Building Sciences, written statement of Henry L. Green, 

Hon. AIA, President ............................................................................................. 108 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75290.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75290.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75290.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75290.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75290.005
(1) 

A REVIEW OF BUILDING CODES AND 

MITIGATION EFFORTS TO HELP MINIMIZE 

THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH 

NATURAL DISASTERS 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The committee will come to order. 

Today’s hearing will focus on building codes and mitigation efforts to help minimize the cost associated with disaster. 

I want to thank our witnesses and, in particular, Representative 

Diaz-Balart, former Republican ranking member of this subcommittee and a leader on these issues. Last June Representative 

Diaz-Balart introduced H.R. 2069, the Safe Building Code Incentive 

Act. That legislation would provide States with an incentive to 

adopt statewide building codes by providing additional mitigation 

assistance. 

Why encourage mitigation in building codes? As a Member from 

California, I know firsthand the difference building codes can have 

in saving lives and reducing costs. With the threats of wildfires and 

earthquakes, good building code can mean the difference between 

life and death or whether homes remain standing or are completely 

destroyed. 

But it is not just anecdotal evidence that shows mitigation saves 

lives and reduces costs. Study after study has shown that investment in mitigation projects directly results in lower Federal disaster payments. For example, a study completed by the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 concluded that of nearly $500 million 

invested by pre-disaster mitigation grants between 2004 and 1007, 

$1.6 billion in future losses was avoided. That is, for every dollar 

spent three dollars were saved. 

The National Institute of Building Sciences also studied this 

issue and concluded that for each dollar spent four dollars were 

saved, and more recently, just this year a study commissioned by 

the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies examined 

hurricane damages dating back to 1988. That study showed that 

since that time $67 billion of the $125 billion paid by FEMA for 

2 

disaster grants were related to hurricane and wind damage. That 

study concluded that had model building codes been in place, 

FEMA disaster payments would have been $13 billion, or almost 20 

percent less. 

Mitigation of building codes, in particular, has proven to save 

lives and taxpayer money. It makes sense for FEMA to encourage 

such mitigation measures so that the costs of disasters are reduced. 

And for families and communities facing a disaster, minimizing the 

damage and protecting lives is critical. 

Again, I want to thank Representative Diaz-Balart for his work 

on this issue and the other witnesses here with us today. 

I now call on Ms. Norton for a brief introduction statement. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And good morning. I want to join the chairman in welcoming today’s witnesses to discuss the benefits of mitigation, and our building codes, in particular, may reduce costs associated with natural 

disasters. 

Over the past several years, the subcommittee has held several 

hearings on the importance and benefits of mitigation, including 

building codes. The committee has referred to studies by the National Institute of Building Sciences and the Congressional Budget 

Office, both of which found that mitigation saves taxpayers three 

to four dollars of every dollar invested. 

Mitigation does far more than save money. It reduces injuries 

and saves lives. The underlying question is what should Congress 

do to encourage more mitigation activities. 

FEMA has two mitigation programs, the Pre-disaster Mitigation 

Program and the Hazard Mitigation Program. Both programs are 

essential to saving lives and saving tax dollars by decreasing the 

amount of damage resulting from disasters. 

Over the past several years this subcommittee has explored other 

avenues for strengthening our Nation’s efforts to limit future damages. One such avenue is strong building codes. It seems logical 

that if State and local communities have enforceable building codes 

in place when construction occurs, disaster related damages could 

decrease. 

I look forward to hearing from our colleagues and the former 

member of this committee, who was ranking member when I 

chaired the committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and I am pleased to be a 

co-sponsor of his bill, H.R. 2069, the Safe Building Code Incentive 

Act of 2011. This bill would provide an incentive for States to adopt 

and enforce model building codes that will result in less damage 

from disasters. 

Recently, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies released a study finding that FEMA would have saved $11 billion in hurricane damage payouts since 1988 if those damaged 

structures had been built to a model building code. While disasters 

always expose new avenues for mitigation after the fact, given the 

potential savings, Congress must do more to try to limit or prevent 

damage before it happens. 

An important benefit of mitigation that is often overlooked is the 

investment in communities. Mitigation can help stimulate the economy through increased economic development. Communities benefit 

when the effects of disasters can be eliminated and prevented. ProVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:05 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-24-1~1\75290.TXT JEAN
3 

viding disaster resilient structures and infrastructure will encourage communities, residents and businesses to stay or return to a 

community after a disaster. 

Finally, I must note that like the rest of the east coast, the District of Columbia was hit hard by the June storm with hurricane 

force winds that downed many power lines. I am interested in 

hearing more about mitigation and best practices to prevent or 

limit future power outages, particularly considering that the June 

storm was not the first time that this region had suffered mass 

power outages and, unfortunately, will probably not be the last if 

mitigation activities are not performed and if we do not learn more 

about how to mitigate these outages. 

I appreciate today’s witnesses preparing testimony to help the 

committee think through this issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Rahall for an opening statement. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate this opportunity, and I certainly welcome all of our 

witnesses to today’s hearing, and particularly extend a special welcome to my friend and the head of our homeland security in West 

Virginia, Mr. Jimmy Gianato. 

Jimmy has a well-deserved reputation in West Virginia as a crisis manager, having served as a West Virginia Director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management since 2005. His dedication and expertise were critically important in helping our State to 

organize its response to the June 29th derecho storm that left residences and businesses in every county of my State, 680,000 electrical customers in total without power. 

Jimmy’s tireless efforts are even more remarkable, given the loss 

of his own home in this came massive storm due to a lightning 

strike. 

Mr. Chairman, it should be disconcerting to this committee that 

more than 2 weeks after that monstrous storm has passed thousands of West Virginia residents and businesses were still without 

power. That means 2 weeks without air conditioning in extreme 

heat; 2 weeks without refrigeration, as food spoiled in family kitchens and grocery stores; 2 weeks of relying on battery powered radios, flashlights, candles, canned goods, and the generosity of 

friends and neighbors. 

But that is what we are about in West Virginia, coming together, 

helping each other, friends helping friends, neighbors helping 

neighbors, family helping family, strangers helping strangers. That 

is what we are about. 

In addition, the lack of generators, gas stations created fuel 

shortages, leaving many in long, panicking lines that lasted for 

days. The lack of generators at hospitals and nursing homes, along 

with disruptions of power to water and sewage treatment facilities 

left elderly and vulnerable residents sweltering and caretakers 

struggling to provide food, water and medicine, and in some cases 

oxygen. 

Small businesses were forced to close their doors for days, losing 

critical sales. Workers were unable to do their jobs, losing pay, and 

these already financially strapped families and business owners 

were hit with multiple unexpected costs, like the purchase of genVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:05 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-24-1~1\75290.TXT JEAN
4 

erators, if they could be found, made worse by the inability to get 

cash at banks that had no power. 

The Governor of West Virginia estimates that residents and businesses combined lost a total of at least $340 million. Emergency response officials, all of whom I commend for the manner in which 

they responded, are appropriately asking questions about the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of burying power lines and considering 

the potential need for generators to be locally available at gas stations, health care facilities, and other public and private locations. 

Concerns have been raised about the electrical grid and its capacity to endure emergencies like that devastating story, and I certainly associate with the comments just made by the gentlelady 

from DC. We must search for future methods of mitigating such 

power outages. 

Since 1995 over $58 million has been invested in West Virginia 

mitigation activities, primarily for flood prevention. In 2005 and 

2007, two separate studies confirmed that hazard mitigation activities reduced future losses by three to four dollars for every dollar 

spent. 

This morning I am interested to learn about the types of mitigation activities that can be undertaken to prevent future power outages like that experienced on June 29th. Equally important, I want 

to know about potential steps that Congress should take to allow 

or encourage more mitigation activities to present future widespread power losses. 

So I look forward to Jimmy’s testimony and the other witnesses 

this morning on how risk assessment, planning and construction 

may help reduce further damage and limited some of the turmoil 

caused by the massive power outages. 

Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, let me remind the committee that 

just yesterday the President did issue a disaster declaration to help 

communities, including every county in my district, with recovery 

expenses resulting from the June 29th story, making it the third 

such declaration for my State this year. While I am grateful that 

the administration acted so expeditiously and I commend FEMA 

for the manner in which they have reacted to this circumstance, as 

well as many others in the past, this declaration has opened the 

way for the public assistance. 

And I must note that the State is now in the process of seeking 

that individual assistance to help families and businesses hard hit 

by the storm. It is certainly my hope that this part of the process 

has moved along just as quickly so that West Virginians can soon 

receive the full measure of help they so badly need to recover from 

this devastating storm. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to today’s witnesses. 

Mr. DENHAM. I ask unanimous consent that written testimony by 

Representative Billy Long, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, be entered into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[Please refer to the table of contents section entitled, ‘‘Prepared 

Statements Submitted by Members of Congress’’ for Hon. Long’s 

statement.] 

5 

Mr. DENHAM. I want to just read one brief paragraph of his 

statement. ‘‘Joplin’s tragedies should serve as a warning to all of 

our Nation’s communities that despite modern technology advancement, we are still very much at the mercy of extreme natural 

events like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and floods. It is important that we continually work to improve the strength of our 

Nation’s building, especially critical infrastructure in large buildings in order to reduce the damage and loss of life which can be 

caused by natural disasters. A little common sense should help 

take us a long way.’’ 

We will have two panels today. The first panel includes the Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart from Florida, Member of Congress, and 

Mr. David Miller, associate administrator, Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration under FEMA. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made part of the record, 

the subcommittee would ask you to limit your testimony to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARIO DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA; 

AND DAVID MILLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 

INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Holmes Norton, for holding this important meeting. It is a privilege to be back at the T&I Committee. 

I served on this committee for 8 years, including the last 2 as 

ranking member. So, again, I appreciate the work that you are 

doing. 

And as you said, my entire statement is in the record. So I will 

just hit some highlights if that is all right with you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first piggyback on what you just read from Congressman 

Billy Long. He is absolutely right. We know what the problem is, 

and we know that there are a number of things that we can do to 

help. Whether it is the wildfires in Colorado this summer, whether 

it is the tornadoes that wreaked havoc in Missouri, whether it is 

Hurricane Irene which pounded and flooded big parts of the east 

coast, Mother Nature continuously sends us telegrams, sends up 

wake up calls. 

The economic losses just this year, the first part of this year, of 

2012, are already estimated to be at $14.6 billion. I mean, it is 

mind boggling. So given those facts and given also the fiscal climate that we face, it, frankly, does not make any sense just after 

a big storm just do another emergency supplemental. 

We know that these storms are going to continue to happen, and 

we also know that there are meaningful steps that we can take to 

promote sound strategies that save lives, that mitigate the devastation of future disasters, and by the way, ultimately also save taxpayers money. 

6 

A commonsense approach, as the ranking member said just a little while ago, should be to adopt model building codes that will 

make our homes and our businesses more resistant to the forces of 

nature. Strong building codes are widely accepted in the emergency 

management community as being our best line of defense against 

these storms, these natural disasters. 

So while the evidence is overwhelming, most States have yet to 

either adopt strong building codes or, frankly, do not have mechanisms to enforce them if they have. So because of this, my colleagues, Representative Albio Sires, Mr. Richard Hanna from this 

committee, Steve Southerland and I have introduced H.R. 2069, the 

Safe Building Code Incentive Act. It provides financial incentives 

for States to voluntarily adopt and enforce the model building 

codes, for the construction of new commercial and residential properties. 

This legislation, frankly, Mr. Chairman, just simply rewards 

good behavior. It rewards States that have those building codes 

and that enforces those building codes and provides incentives to 

do so for the States that have not done so. It is important to note, 

however, that this bill does not place mandates on States that do 

not currently or do not enforce statewide building codes. 

Mr. Chairman, next month is the 20th anniversary of Hurricane 

Andrew. That was a turning point for many of us in south Florida. 

It killed dozens. It was $26.5 billion in damage. In those days it 

is hard to believe, but in south Florida what we thought about 

when a hurricane was coming is we would tape our windows. We 

would put tape on the windows and we thought that would solve 

the problem. 

Well, we learned the hard way. After that, Florida became a 

leader in building codes, and because of that, research conducted 

by the Insurance Institute of Business and Home Safety, because 

of Florida’s building codes, it reduced the severity of property damage resulting from Hurricane Charlie in 2004 by more than 40 percent, 40 percent. And so think of what that means in money and 

also in disruption of people’s lives and potentially saving people’s 

lives. 

So the evidence is clear, Mr. Chairman. Building codes work. It 

is vital that we seize this opportunity to encourage States to adopt 

their building codes in a manner that will save lives, that will protect property, and ultimately also reduce taxpayers’ exposure to 

natural disasters. 

I want to thank the BuildStrong Coalition for their advocacy on 

this important issue. They have been an incredible partner in promoting the needs for stronger building codes. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, sir, for your 

leadership, for this committee’s leadership. This is a commonsense 

issue. We, I think, have a good piece of legislation that would go 

a long way. 

With that I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. Miller, you proceed. 

Mr. MILLER. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished members of the committee. My name 

is David Miller, and I am the associate administrator of the FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:05 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-24-1~1\75290.TXT JEAN
7 

eral Insurance and Mitigation Administration for the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

In my testimony I will share an overview of FEMA’s role in 

building codes and discuss current programs and initiatives used 

by the Agency to encourage mitigation efforts. Mitigation is the 

thread that permeates emergency management and links together 

preparedness response and recovery to reduce the loss of lives and 

damage to property resulting from disasters. Mitigation is about 

building stronger and more resilient communities. 

Mitigation efforts like building codes, flood-proofing requirements 

and earthquake design standards support rapid recovery from disasters and lessen the financial impact of disasters on the Nation. 

To achieve FIMA’s vision of a Nation committed to a disaster resilient and sustainable future, we engage and partner with a broad 

spectrum of whole community stakeholders that include Federal, 

State, tribal, territorial, local, nonprofit and private sector organizations. 

FEMA works side by side with organizations like the International Code Council to support development of the International 

Codes, I-Codes, a family of building and fire safety codes which 

provide a complete set of coordinated, comprehensive and contemporary building and fire safety standards available for adoption by 

jurisdictions. 

Over the past 30 years, FEMA has worked with stakeholders 

from across the whole community to propose and gain adoption of 

numerous disaster-resistant provisions for earthquake, wind, and 

flood hazards in the Nation’s model codes and standards. The 

Agency has championed hundreds of provisions now published by 

the American Society of Civil Engineers in their publication ‘‘Flood 

Resistant Design and Construction,’’ which serves as the core reference standard for the International Building Code flood provisions. 

FEMA’s role in building codes is likely to evolve given the recent 

passage of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, 

which directs the Agency to conduct a study and submit a report 

to Congress regarding the impact, effectiveness and feasibility of 

amending sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to 

include widely used and nationally recognized building codes as 

part of the flood plain management criteria in that section of the 

Act. 

FEMA helps thousands of communities and tens of thousands of 

individuals avoid the suffering and economic loss associated with 

disaster damage through mitigation efforts like strong building 

codes and grants to strengthen the build environment. We encourage construction of safe rooms through grant programs such as the 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and since 1999, have helped 

fund 1,334 community safe rooms in 20 States. This includes 235 

safe rooms in 2011, a nearly 90-percent increase from the 124 

rooms constructed with FEMA funding during 2010. 

According to a 2005 report by the Multihazard Mitigation Council, a public-private partnership designed to reduce the economic 

and social costs of natural hazards, FEMA grants disbursed between 1993 and 2003 to mitigate the effects of floods, hurricanes, 

8 

tornadoes, and earthquakes are expected to save more than 220 

lives and almost 4,700 injuries over approximately 50 years. 

Mitigation programs save the American public an estimated $3.4 

billion annually through a strategic approach to natural hazard 

risk management. In 2011, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance 

(HMA) Programs helped local communities across the United 

States prepare for future disasters by providing up to $252 million 

in flood grant funds for mitigation activities affecting more than 

1,300 properties. These measures are expected to result in potential losses avoided of approximately $502 million for flood programs. 

FEMA’s HMA Programs are one way FEMA supports mitigation 

through a whole community approach. We are also working to implement Presidential Policy Directive 8, which aims to strengthen 

the security and resilience of the United States through systemic 

preparation for threats that pose the greatest risk to the security 

of the Nation. As part of PPD–8, FEMA and its interagency partners are developing the National Mitigation Framework and its 

companion, Federal Interagency Operation Plan, which support efforts to create a nationwide, holistic, integrated model for mitigation. 

In an effort to support development of building codes and engage 

State and local partners, FEMA has collaborated nationally to 

bring attention to the importance of the codes through a number 

of activities, including a Presidential proclamation declaring the 

month of May as National Building Safety Month in both 2011 and 

2012; publishing articles highlighting the importance of disaster resistant building codes in technical journals and magazines; blog 

posts and postings on the FEMA Web site; and the creation of a 

Building Codes 101 toolkit for communities to use to adopt and enforce effective building codes. 

FEMA also uses a variety of programs to reach members of the 

whole community, including Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning, our Risk MAP Program, which strengthens State, tribal, territorial and local government capability by providing actionable 

risk information, mitigation planning tools, and risk communication outreach support. Risk MAP is the intelligence function that 

helps us better inform and reduce risk, and it’s critical to our toolkit. 

FEMA coordinates with communities to use data identified 

through the Risk MAP processes to inform communities and citizens about their risk so they can take effective actions to reduce 

their risk. As you are aware, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, 

as written by the committee, requires the development of State-approved hazard mitigation plans to pre-identify projects for execution once funding becomes available through the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 

The programs and initiatives I described here today help FEMA 

help our Nation to save lives and property through mitigation. 

Adoption and enforcement of effective building codes in local ordinances can further mitigation efforts and preserve lives and property that would otherwise be lost. 

9 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me this opportunity to 

appear before you today. I look forward to answering any questions 

you or other members of the committee may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Diaz-Balart, in your testimony you highlight 

some of the issues that you saw with Hurricane Andrew. I remember very vividly after returning home from Desert Storm that was 

one of our deployments, was to send help from California. I know 

how devastating that was for your State. 

Can you describe the process Florida went through in evaluating 

the need for building codes and the work that you have done on 

this issue? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Actually I was involved in the statewide building code effort 

when I was in the State legislature, and I will tell you that it was 

a heavy lift. There were some that because they had not gotten hit 

by a hurricane in recent years just said they did not want to do 

that. However, we succeeded, and I worked on that. 

We succeeded in first having a very strong building code in south 

Florida and southeast Florida. Then we were able to get the State 

to pretty much do the same thing. 

I will tell you, by the way, a little anecdote about that. There 

was a wonderful member of the Florida Senate who, frankly, I was 

working with in trying to get a statewide building code, and he refused to have his part of the State be part of it because he said 

that it was not necessary. They had not gotten hit by a storm in, 

you know, 100 years or whatever. 

So we exempted that part of the State, frankly. So we had a 

statewide building code with a gap. 

Well, then we had that year, I think, five hurricanes that hit the 

State of Florida. The legislature right after that closed that gap, 

and now we have one of the strongest building codes in the entire 

country. 

So it is a heavy lift, but I will tell you, as I think Congressman 

Billy Long said it very well, better than I could: Look. These things 

are going to happen, and the question is are we ready beforehand. 

Can we take some commonsense measures to avoid loss of life, loss 

of property damage, and also to save taxpayer money? 

Yes, we can, and this is one of those. I think the legislation that 

a number of us have is a commonsense approach because it is not 

punitive to the States. It encourages the States to do so. So that 

is one way to do that. 

Now, is it a heavy lift in some cases? Yes. That changes as soon 

as they get hit by a flood or a fire or a tornado. All of a sudden, 

the States realize that they can do better. 

Mr. DENHAM. And from your personal experience, do you have 

examples of homes or buildings that are compliant versus maybe 

in the same area or in different parts of the State where you did 

not have compliant homes, the differences in the damage and the 

assessment after the fact? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Sure. Actually the Insurance Institute has a 

facility where they test different buildings. Florida International 

University has a similar facility, what they call the Wall of Wind, 

I believe, where they test different facilities and different mitigations to see what works and what does not work. 

10 

But we saw that very clearly in south Florida after Hurricane 

Andrew, and we have seen it after other storms. Those buildings, 

whether it is residential or commercial, that were built under higher standards, frankly, withstand the damage, and those that are 

not, well, they disappear. 

And so they rebuild. They have to be rebuilt. It costs insurers. 

It costs the taxpayers. It costs everyone a lot more money. So, look, 

this saves money and it saves lives in the long term. 

And what we do know is that every time one of these things happen, Congress gets together and we will then do a bill to make sure 

that we can fund whatever we need to fund to try to get those communities back and running. Does it not make sense if that is going 

to happen that we at least encourage those States to have stronger 

building codes so that we do not have to do that time after time 

after time? It is throwing good money after bad or bad money after 

good, however you want to call it. 

Yes, we have seen it in south Florida. It works. It has made a 

huge difference, and it is part of my statement today that after a 

recent storm, after looking at that, we were told that the stronger 

building codes reduced the damage by 40 percent. That just pays 

for itself right there, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for returning to this 

subcommittee about your bill. I liked the way your bill was framed. 

That is why I was a co-sponsor, because it does seem to me that 

particularly in light of federalism, if the Federal Government 

wants you to do something, you offer incentives, as I recall. You get 

more hazard mitigation funds if you did a building code. 

I understand that there was a score on it. Somehow the CBO 

does not get it, this extraordinary saving, three to four dollars for 

every dollar invested. Is there a way to somehow enact your bill? 

I would hate to take the incentive out, but you and I know what 

happens when a bill gets scored. Is there some way to move your 

bill through the CBO scoring process so that it does not get stopped 

dead in its tracks, despite all of the information that has been collected. I mean, it is just the way scoring works. 

So have you considered another way to get our bill passed or to 

the floor? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. We understand why CBO has 

scored it the way they do. They do static scoring. They do not look 

at the savings. They look at what potentially more money could go 

out. 

Now, you know, all of this is subject to appropriations anyway, 

obviously, like most things. We are looking at ways that we can try 

to, again use the word ‘‘mitigate’’ that scoring; the problem being, 

however, that we do need to have an incentive for States to do so, 

and we are always looking at ways of doing that. 

Again, we understand the scoring problem, but the issue is this: 

We have actual evidence that this saves money. It actually saves 

money, but the ranking member knows and I know the frustration 

that she has had over the years with issues of leasing versus buying properties and how that is scored, and we know that that is, 

frankly, also a static score. 

11 

We have to deal with that reality. We are looking at ways to do 

that. We have not yet come up with a good answer for that. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I think it is worth our trying to think of a 

way. If not incentives, I do not know. If we said you would not get 

any hazard mitigation funds if you did not do it, I guess that would 

not score. That is pretty draconian. Instead your bill is framed as 

a win-win, and we need a score. 

I do not know what to do about it, but I very much think it is 

worth thinking through, and I certainly would like to work with 

you to. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. If I may, you know, it is interesting. If we 

were to do that obviously, you know, we would read about it. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. However, you are right. It would score then 

with huge savings, and we all know that that would not happen; 

that after a storm, Congress would get together and we, of course, 

would fund that, which I think highlights how sometimes the scoring issue can be very frustrating. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Miller, I had a question about this National 

Mitigation Framework because we have been sitting in the committee talking about this framework for almost 10 years, and when 

we passed the Homeland Security Act, there is a section in there 

that calls for strategies, mitigation strategies. 

Then in 2005, we had this extraordinary result. Congress mandated the study. We have the extraordinary results, and now we 

are 10 years later, and you are speaking about a National Mitigation Framework. I mean, it looks to me as though this has been 

10 years in the development. So I have to ask you when will we 

have a framework. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, ma’am, the framework is not in development, 

but is going through the final concurrence processes now. We hope 

to have it out in the next few days and be able to publish that. 

But I think as importantly as the framework itself, and getting 

that published after it goes through the concurrence process, is the 

Federal Interagency Operational Plan. We are putting that together now. 

The approach that we are taking is to look at a ‘‘mitigation all 

the time’’ strategy instead of just after disasters, and look at the 

role all of Government can play along with our other partners in 

taking effective mitigation action. So it is not just a single focuse 

on the largest disaster. It is not just the flood focus we have seen 

in the past. We really want to broaden that, talk about the role all 

Government can play, not just the—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, your testimony is that your National Mitigation Framework is about to be published. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. In addition, you are calling on other agencies. What 

agencies? What kinds of agencies’ help would FEMA elicit? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, ma’am, we go across the broad Federal spectrum. When we look at mitigation activities and we really look at 

it writ large, all of the things that are possible, we involve agencies 

like USDA, the Department of Transportation, the Department of 

the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Public Health. 

There are a number of mitigative actions that can be taken both 

12 

in their current authorities as they exist and then what comes to 

play during a disaster declaration. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have got a question for Mr. Miller. From your personal experience at FEMA and previously in Iowa, could you share some examples of some specific cases in which building codes made a difference in terms of lives saved and damages reduced? 

Mr. MILLER. I think there are any number of those. As we walk 

through it, in my own experience in Iowa, we looked at building 

code and building code enforcement. It is sporadic in Iowa. There 

is not a statewide building code enforcement. The various communities have adopted building codes but do not have a statewide enforcement. 

But as we looked at those that have done that, have built to that 

environment, and we looked at wind damage, we looked at damages from floodings; we have seen the benefits of that code and 

code enforcement. As far as specific lives saved, that I cannot talk 

to, but again, we look at the forensics of it. 

In FEMA, one of the things that interests me is that we actually 

go out with a mitigation assistance team to go out and look at the 

forensics and the performance of buildings after a disaster to see 

how well they perform. And the truth is that those that have been 

built to code perform much better than those that have not. 

So not only do we have the testing facility that Congressman 

Diaz-Balart talked about, but we actually have forensic testimony 

that tells us buildings have performed and performed well, especially those that are built to code. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Do you think that this bill would reduce Federal 

disaster costs and actually save taxpayer dollars? 

Mr. MILLER. I do. I think time and time again as we go through 

this and, again, look at the forensics and the proof before us, look 

at the testing that is done, the testimony of others, we see time 

and again that the adoption of building codes and the enforcement 

of building codes is a good value statement to our communities. It 

makes them more resilient. It saves lives, and it protects property 

and people. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

The last question to Congressman Diaz-Balart. 

Just to be clear, and if I am repeating myself forgive me, does 

the Safe Building Code Incentive Act place mandates on States? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. It does not. It gives incentives to the States. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And that is one of the issues that we have 

with the scoring, but yes, I think I am one of those who does not 

like mandating things to the State. So this is a different approach 

to that. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Miller, let me begin by highly complimenting you 

and FEMA for the manner in which you have responded to our criVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:05 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-24-1~1\75290.TXT JEAN
13 

ses in West Virginia, not only the recent storm, but many in the 

past. You know, you have been in our State. You have partnered 

with our State after numerous storms, been there within days after 

a disaster has hit, and many in the past have grateful words of 

praise for FEMA. Many parents sometimes say they want to have 

the nickname of FEMA for their newborn child that has been born 

out of the storm. So we do compliment you and thank you for all 

that assistance. 

You heard my opening comments, and I was on the ground after 

this recent disaster, as I am after every one that occurs, personally 

experiencing with each family the damages and the turmoil 

through which they are traveling. 

This latest one in which we had such severe power outages does 

not fit the classical definition of traditional sources of damage like 

a food would. A flood destroys one’s home. You have figures immediately you can put on the value of that home. When you have 

power outages, as you know, it is a little different. You have families that have to go to hotels in order to maintain their dialysis machine to keep their medical supply going, and oftentimes these families are in the middle class. They have no other form of assistance 

available. Their income is above a certain level, and they are certainly not in the upper class. So they are in that middle class 

where they often fall through the crack as far as receiving help 

that they need after such a disaster. 

We thank you for what you have declared just yesterday in providing public assistance to our communities. That will help a great 

deal, and my question is headed toward the individual assistance 

that we now need. Even though we may not fit the traditional criteria or figures for such an individual disaster declaration, will you 

give that same sense of urgency to this individual request that our 

Governor and you will hear from our Homeland Security Director 

in a few moments, when all of the figures will be before you? 

But will you give that the same sense of urgency that you have, 

and we thank you for, the Community Assistance Declaration? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe we will, sir. I have not talked to Administrator Fugate about this issue, but knowing his feelings about how 

we respond to and how we help the survivors of disasters, I am 

sure it will receive our full consideration as we move it forward. 

You know, it is the part that we look at. It is one thing to affect 

communities, but how it affects individuals I know weighs on his 

mind considerably, and he will give it the fullest consideration. 

Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate that because, as I said, you know, you 

sometimes have to look beyond the cold, hard figures as to what 

the suffering was really all about. 

While it is up to each State, of course, to prepare and submit a 

hazard mitigation plan to address such State hazards, what type 

of outreach does FEMA do to distribute best practices to the 

States? 

Mr. MILLER. Actually, we do it in a number of areas, and we are 

looking at broadening that dialogue. When I spoke in my testimony 

of Risk MAP, the first thing that we really want to do is enter a 

dialogue with the community about risk. Risk MAP is based primarily on flooding, but it is not the only dialogue we want to have. 

14 

We have talked about how we brought in other sectors of FEMA 

to talk about overall risk. One of the things that is going to drive 

the process as we issue our grants and as we do mapping is what 

we call THIRA, the threats and hazards identification and risk assessment, that will happen. 

It is another opportunity to have a conversation about the total 

risk facing a community and what they can do to buy down that 

risk either by effective building codes or by taking other measures 

in their community. We think there is some real opportunity there, 

and we look forward to engaging the whole community. 

I think in the past we have focused oftentimes on talking to 

emergency managers and not talking to everybody in the community. I think the real effort here will be to talk about it in terms 

of the value to the community of taking effective measures before 

the disaster to enforce codes and standards that will help them 

mitigate against the next event. That has a benefit over a broad 

array, not just the direct benefit about avoiding disaster loss. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. 

Currently there is 15 percent allowance for mitigation. We are 

going to raise it to 19 percent. The Government is full of incentive 

plans for hiring people, filling any number of things that look good 

on paper and work well in our imaginations, but what specifically 

makes anybody think, and I am on board for this incidentally; what 

tools do we have to make us believe that municipalities and State 

governments after they have done their cost-benefit analysis will 

actually pull that lever to direct this money towards building codes 

as opposed to other things? 

So the question is: did they do it very well at 15 percent and will 

19 percent increase that in your opinion? And generally do States 

look at changes in their codes as a way to use mitigation money? 

Anybody. 

Mr. MILLER. From my experience they do, and they are looking 

for the incentives to allow them to move forward. As you stated in 

the Hazard Mitigation Plan, we offer 15 percent for those that have 

a plan in force. We offer 20 percent to those who have an enhanced 

plan, and there are a handful of States that have enhanced plans. 

But I think as we move forward in communities and we look at 

that 4 percent adjustment and an incentive, anything that allows 

us to move to building codes, I think those that have lived in the 

margins and question the values of building codes, perhaps this 

will push them over the edge. 

We have done the other efforts. We have done the community 

outreach, the things that that we need to do. We have worked with 

the code councils. We have talked to a number of groups about the 

performance of building codes, and right now I think we are at 

about 51 percent of the communities that have building codes. 

What I do not know is the level of enforcement, the energy by 

which they enforce those codes across the United States, but we do 

know they perform and they perform well. I think an incentive that 

allows them to move forward is certainly something that States 

would entertain and need, especially in these tough economic 

times. To tip that edge. 

15 

Mr. HANNA. Do you feel as though you may need it within the 

context of this bill a way to formalize that incentive? 

I think part of it is the discussion, and I will defer a little bit 

to the States. I know they are on your panel today, on what tips 

them and moves over the edge. I have some experience in our own 

State. I know part of the question is the cost of compliance and 

moving forward and what it does to the overall economic stability 

of an area and how they develop and compete. 

But I think, again, for us it becomes the value judgment. As far 

as implementing it, should the law pass, I think that is a fairly 

straightforward implementation for us, much like we do the other 

incentives in the bill, including the enhanced planning status. 

I think the question is, as I recall, the bill asked for those codes 

to be submitted to the State. We would have to work with the code 

and other committees to insure that it is the newest, up-to-date 

code. There are some things that we would have to do to administer the program within FEMA. 

Mr. HANNA. And you think 4 percent is a reasonable place to go 

with this? 

Mr. MILLER. I would not question that, sir. I mean, we have not 

done an effective study to say what the real incentive should be 

and what the tipping point is. You know, we will have some costs 

for administration, but again, I think moving in a direction that allows us to move building codes forward is the right direction. 

Mr. HANNA. Have you seen some marginal changes in behavior 

before as the incentives changed? 

Mr. MILLER. We have, but with incentives a lot of times comes 

requirement, and I think there needs to be some balance there. I 

do not know that we will know the full effect of that until we try 

it out. 

I will give you the for-instance. As we looked at it in enhanced 

States, and we talked about the 5-percent increase between 15 and 

20 percent for States that have an enhanced plan, frankly, we have 

held, I think, in about 10 States that incentive for a long time. It 

is a fairly arduous requirement on States to have an enhanced plan 

and to administer that. 

So as we look at these things and at incentives, the question will 

be relative to building codes how arduous are they; what is our implementation; what is the cost of compliance; how do we move forward. Again, the general feeling is incentives work, but to the degree that they will work, I am sure all of these questions will have 

to be answered. 

Mr. HANNA. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would like to thank this first panel for your testimony today, and specifically Representative Diaz-Balart for your 

efforts not only on the State level but the fact that you are able 

to save your State money and save lives. But now certainly with 

your bill here being able to stretch our FEMA dollar and save lives 

from a national perspective is something that you should be commended for. 

So thank you for your efforts and thank you for your testimony 

today. 

And if our second panel would take the witness stand here, today’s witnesses include Mr. Jim Mullen, president, National EmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:05 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\7-24-1~1\75290.TXT JEAN
16 

gency Management Association; Mr. Jimmy Gianato, director of 

homeland security and emergency management, State of West Virginia; Chief Hank C. Clemmensen, first vice president, International Association of Fire Chiefs; Mr. Chad Berginnis, executive 

director, Association of State Floodplain Managers; Ms. Julie 

Rochman, president and CEO, Insurance Institute for Business and 

Home Safety; and Mr. Rod Matthews, CPCU, P&C operations vice 

president, State Farm Insurance Companies. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses here with us today. I ask 

unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included 

in the record. 

Without objection so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made part of the record, 

the subcommittee would request that you limit your testimony to 

5 minutes. 

Mr. Mullen, you may proceed. If you could, pull your microphone 

a little closer to you and push the on button. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM MULLEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; JAMES J. GIANATO, DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; CHIEF HANK C. 

CLEMMENSEN, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS; CHAD BERGINNIS, CFM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS; JULIE A. ROCHMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS AND HOME SAFETY (IBHS); 

AND ROD MATTHEWS, CPCU, P&C OPERATIONS VICE PRESIDENT, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, TESTIFYING 

ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDSTRONG COALITION 

Mr. MULLEN. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is 

Jim Mullen, and I am the director of Washington State Emergency 

Management Division. Thank you for the opportunity to present 

testimony today as the president of the National Emergency Management Association. 

NEMA represents State Emergency Management Director of the 

50 States, District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. 

Few professions lend themselves to sports metaphors like the 

emergency management does. One that I think is particularly appropriate is offense wins games, defense wins championships. In 

our case, response and recovery addresses short-term goals following a disaster, but mitigation, like defense, is critical to winning 

in the long-term battle for disaster resistant communities. 

The emergency management community plays a large role in 

communicating the message of mitigation, and what is that message? We mitigate so that preparedness is based on the best assessment of threats and hazards. We prepare because we cannot mitigate every threat, and we respond because mitigation and preparedness cannot completely eliminate risk, and we recover because it is important that we return to what our new normal has 

become. 

17 

In the wake of a disaster we then resume mitigation efforts all 

over again. The cycle of emergency management begins and ends 

with mitigation. 

At its core, mitigation is easy to justify, and it seems like common sense. In practice, however, challenges still exist. The current 

funding structure for mitigation limits full integration and implementation of a National Mitigation Strategy. 

FEMA has mitigation assistance grant programs to provide funding for pre and post disaster mitigation. While funding levels for 

the other HMA grants are set, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

funds are only available to jurisdictions that experience a major 

disaster declaration and levels are determined as a percentage of 

their overall Federal assistance. 

In examining funding history over the past 10 years, it becomes 

evident that HMGP funding far outweighs investment in the four 

other programs. It cannot be overstated how crucial mitigation is 

post disaster to address critical points of failure, but instead of capitalizing on the 1 to 3 ratio of dollars invested to dollars saved on 

recovery costs, the Federal Government is missing the opportunity 

to focus money on the frontend instead of on the backend. 

Lack of effective communication is also a barrier to mitigation. 

For example, the private sector makes mitigation decisions all the 

time, but they do not always call it mitigation. Businesses take actions to invest in long-term profitability and eliminate or lessen future losses. Mitigation makes good business sense, and the private 

sector is able to communicate their motives to corporate and community stakeholders. 

In order to achieve the goals of mitigation as a national strategy, 

there are actions that must be taken. First, we must imbed mitigation and policy development as broadly as possible. Risk reduction 

policies and specific hazard mitigation measures are not the sole 

domain of any single agency, discipline, or profession. Policymakers 

in many domains could advance the reduction of risk in ways outside their traditional scope of responsibility. 

Secondly, we must educate Federal, State and local officials. 

Local elected and appointed officials make tough decisions and 

weigh costs versus benefits every day to make wise policy decisions 

where mitigation investments are concerned. They deserve to be 

educated about the threats, risks, benefits, and costs as fully as 

possible. 

Third, we should emphasize incentive, not punitive mitigation 

policies. Mitigation can be encouraged and rewarded or it can be 

mandated with punishment for the noncompliant. 

Policymakers should consider funding programs designed to reward effective land use and building design actions, including 

building codes and ordinances, and flexibility is needed to realize 

that one size does not fit all. 

And, lastly, there should be a focus on measuring and capturing 

success, along with some enhanced ability to measure the effectiveness of mitigation. Strategies that publicize those successes must 

also be developed, exploring ways to measure the long-term benefits of mitigation on tourism, the environment and economy, and 

enhance the attractiveness of mitigation efforts. 

18 

In order to encourage investment and promote the goals of mitigation activities on the State and local level, specific recommendations should be considered. Better coordination is needed between 

Federal agencies with roles in mitigation. No single agency or level 

of Government sector of business or individual community can 

achieve successful mitigation on its own. Mitigation must be connected to other programs. Mitigation objectives for specific projects 

can differ among individuals, but if the same project supports multiple desired outcomes, success and achievement are increased. 

To support a National Mitigation Strategy, we must rethink the 

Federal grant structure. The current mitigation structure is centered on the Federal Government. Local governments and communities must find a way to illustrate their commitment to mitigation 

and demand partnerships to leverage their investment. 

The funding that comes down from the Federal Government 

must supplement, not supplant the work already being done at the 

State and local level. The path to successful implementation of a 

national strategy is filled with challenges, but there are numerous 

opportunities for effective collaboration between all mitigation 

stakeholders. 

NEMA and our partners remain committed to advancing the 

message of mitigation and furthering the core goals of risk reduction and loss avoidance. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

Mr. GIANATO. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Congresswoman Norton, distinguished members of the committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before before you today on behalf 

of the citizens of West Virginia and all Americans that were so affected by this devastating storm known as the derecho. 

I have been the director of homeland security and emergency 

management in the State of West Virginia since 2005 and previously served for 22 years as a local county and State official dealing with numerous disasters. I can honestly report to you that I 

have never witnessed anything of this magnitude with the impact 

it had on our State. The widespread devastation the storm produced in West Virginia was without precedent. 

The June 29th derecho was one of the most destructive, fast moving severe thunder storms in North American history. The massive 

storm brought straight line winds of over 100 miles per hour and 

traveled close to 700 miles in just 10 hours. It devastated 10 

States, left over 4 million homes and businesses without electricity, 

and resulted in the deaths of at least 22 people. 

In West Virginia we realized almost immediately that the damage would be particularly heavy. Before 10:00 p.m. on June 29th, 

2012, Governor Tomblin had already declared a state of emergency 

for the entire State of West Virginia. I had activated the State 

Emergency Operations Center and Adjutant General Hoyer had activated the West Virginia National Guard’s Joint Operations Center and the first complement of our soldiers and airmen. 

For West Virginia the major impact from the storm was the loss 

of electrical power, which at its peak included almost 700,000 customers or roughly 1.6 million citizens. The power outages result in 

as many as 87 public community water systems going offline, as 

19 

well as hundreds of families depending on privately owned water 

wells without power to run their pumps, leaving tens of thousands 

of mountaineers without water. 

The suffering from this lack of power and water was compounded 

by the record heat wave that swept the country during this outage 

period. With high humidity and a heat index touching 110 degrees, 

our most vulnerable populations were particularly at risk. 

The lack of power impacted much more than the comfort of an 

air conditioner. With most gas stations inoperable, the few that 

had power saw lines of over 2 hours long. Grocery stores lost the 

ability to keep perishable foods and lost most business for over a 

week. 

Pharmacies were unable to dispense badly needed medications. 

Cell phone towers became inoperative, and at least 50 percent of 

the State’s hospitals were on generator power. 

Immediately we set to coordinate one of the largest response efforts in West Virginia history. Governor Tomblin took swift action 

in activating the State Emergency Operations Plan and requested 

Federal assistance as soon as the magnitude of the storm was realized. Hundreds of State employees from almost every State agency 

reported for duty ready to assist their fellow citizens. At least 50 

percent of our Division of Highways’ support was solely dedicated 

to disaster response, clearing 1,846 roads and delivering fuel to all 

of our counties. 

Our Department of Health and Human Resources activated its 

Health Command Center to assist at one time during the storm up 

to 50 percent of the hospitals reporting on generator power. Thirtyeight long-term health care facilities were on backup power. Seventy-nine percent of the community water systems in the State 

were impacted by the storm, and at least 146 used generators in 

one or more water plants. 

Another major issue encountered during the event was the lack 

of our ability to acquire oxygen for patients who used concentrators. Lack of power caused them to switch to bottled oxygen, which 

was in short supply, and local home health providers were unable 

to meet the demand. 

FEMA also assisted us in acquiring additional oxygen. I have attached copies of the DHHR report to my written testimony, but as 

with many agencies, they are still gathering data related to this 

event. 

The FEMA response to this disaster was immediate. From the 

time the Governor made the request to FEMA at about 3:00 in the 

morning, relief supplies and personnel began arriving within 6 

hours. Throughout the duration of the event, FEMA personnel were 

extremely helpful and responsive to our needs. 

To give you an idea of the supplies provided, almost 2.6 million 

liters of water were provided by FEMA, over 669,000 meals, 97 

generators and 20 infant kits. 

The West Virginia Emergency Operations Center focused its immediate response on identifying initial impacts and to trying to determine what needs will be required. Even with the large volume 

of communications not functioning, our statewide Public Safety 

Radio Network provided us a solid and reliable communications 

backbone. 

20 

By Saturday, June 30th, the next day of the storm, we knew that 

53 of our 55 counties had been impacted. Among the most impressive response efforts came from our citizen soldiers and airmen of 

the West Virginia National Guard. Over 700 Guardsmen disbursed 

throughout the State to provide life sustaining supplies and even 

door-to-door checks. 

The support from the private sector was tremendous. Our interaction with agencies, such as the West Virginia Oil Marketers and 

Grocers Association, were a tremendous support system for our 

State. This was just one example of the private sector stepping up 

to assist. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of what we 

have done in West Virginia to deal with this event. I have submitted written testimony to you, and I will be glad to answer any 

questions at the end. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Chief Clemmensen. 

Chief CLEMMENSEN. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking 

Member Norton and members of the subcommittee. I am Chief 

Hank Clemmensen of the Palatine Rural Fire Protection District 

located in Inverness, Illinois, and the first vice president of the 

International Association of Fire Chiefs. 

I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to represent 

the fire and emergency service’s support for building codes and effective hazard mitigation. 

America suffers from one of the worst fire problems in the civilized world. In 2010, there were more than 1.3 million fires in 

America which resulted in the deaths of more than 3,100 Americans and more than 17,000 injuries. 

The economic cost of these fires is equally compelling. For exam- ple, the economic loss due to fires in 2009 was $16.1 billion. The 

total cost for fire that year, including insurance costs and local fire 

department expenditures, was $331 billion. This amount represents 

approximately 2.3 percent of the national gross domestic product. 

Model building codes and fire codes play a key role in mitigating 

the damage done by fires, windstorms, earthquakes and other disasters. They are designed using a consensus-driven process that includes all of the stakeholders. The fire service participates in the 

development of these codes to ensure that modern construction is 

safe for the public and first responders. 

There is strong evidence that building and fire codes prevent the 

tragic loss caused by extreme weather and national disasters. For 

example, a 2009 World Bank report demonstrated that the strict 

adherence to tough zoning and building codes resulted in greatly 

reduced fatalities in California as compared to earthquakes in 

other countries. A 2012 report by the IBHS found that the adoption 

of high wind provisions in residential buildings reduced the frequency of claims after a hurricane by 60 percent and the severity 

of such claims by 42 percent. 

Unfortunately, some jurisdictions do not adopt model building 

codes or update them until after a natural disaster occurs. In Illinois, there was a greater focus on adopting sprinkler codes for 

schools after the Our Lady of Angels fire in 1958. Sadly, more than 

21 

90 students and teachers perished in that fire before sprinkler 

codes were changed. 

The IAFC believes that H.R. 2069 will encourage States to adopt 

the most current commercial and residential building codes 

proactively. By adding a 4-percent incentive to FEMA’s Hazard 

Mitigation Grant Program, the bill will create a virtuous cycle for 

States to receive more funds to protect their citizens. 

As the subcommittee begins to consider this legislation, we would 

like to raise three points for your consideration: (1) To qualify for 

the 4-percent incentive, States should not be able to opt out of or 

reduce substantial code requirements. For example, the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code included a requirement 

for residential sprinklers. Many States opted out of this requirement when adopting the code. 

The IAFC is greatly concerned about this decision since there is 

clear evidence that fire sprinklers save lives. 

A report by Scottsdale, Arizona, found that one or two sprinkler 

heads controlled or extinguished the fire 92 percent of the time. Because of their proven efficiency, the U.S. Fire Administration recommends the installation of fire sprinklers in residences. 

The decision to opt out of residential fire sprinkler requirements 

presents a serious problem for public safety. Sixty-six percent of all 

civilian fire injuries from 2008 to 2010 resulted from fires in residential buildings. So, the decision to opt out of the residential 

sprinkler requirements will do nothing to mitigate two-thirds of the 

casualties caused by fires. 

(2) Local jurisdictions should be allowed the latitude to adopt 

more stringent codes than the State minimum code requires. Especially in large States, the various regions in a State may face different threats. For example, the wind resistance requirements for 

buildings in south Florida and the Panhandle vary due to the 

threat of hurricanes. When implementing H.R. 2069, local jurisdictions should be allowed to strengthen their requirements to address 

all hazards. 

(3) The legislation should also include both building codes and 

fire codes. Both building codes and fire codes work together in tandem. In many communities a building code addresses design and 

construction of a building while the fire codes address specific life 

safety hazards associated with the facility’s use. The adoption of 

both building codes and fire codes at the State level will ensure 

that there is a minimum level of fire protection in local communities across the Nation. 

Finally, on behalf of the America’s fire and EMS chiefs, I would 

like to thank you for holding today’s hearing. Model building and 

fire codes play an important role in mitigating the effects of fire 

and other natural disasters. H.R. 2069 proposes an incentive that 

will improve the safety of the American public and first responders. 

We urge Congress to consider this legislation and look forward 

to working with the subcommittee. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Berginnis. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking 

Member Norton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

22 

I am Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State 

Floodplain Managers. We are pleased to offer our thoughts related 

to hazard mitigation and building codes. 

ASFPM’s 14,000 members and 33 chapters are the country’s 

practitioners who administer flood hazard mitigation programs, 

land use and building codes on a daily basis. 

2011 was a record-setting year in the United States. Data indi- cated that 2011 resulted in at least $10 billion in flood damages. 

The Nation experienced 14 disasters from natural hazards where 

the cost of each exceeded $1 billion, and President Obama issued 

a record 99 major disaster declarations. 

As the cost of disasters continues to rise, Governments and citizens must find ways to reduce cost from natural hazards. Hazard 

mitigation means taking a sustainable action to reduce or eliminate long-term risks from hazards and their effects. There is a variety of mitigation tools though, including planning, building codes, 

land use standards, planning, hazard insurance, mitigation grant 

programs, protection of critical facilities, infrastructure protection, 

and high engineered structural measures. 

Hazard mitigation also saves money. The 1993, Mississippi River 

flood affected hundreds of homes and caused several million dollars 

of damage in the small city of Arnold, Missouri. In 1995, a large 

number of at-risk homes were bought, demolished, and the remaining property was deed restricted as open space. 

By 2008, over 322 homes had been acquired. When flooding oc- curred that year, a total of $12,000 in damages resulted. Today 

flooding is mostly an inconvenience in Arnold, and the long-term 

cost to the U.S. taxpayer is essentially zero. 

Mitigation grant projects are an important tool used nationwide, 

especially in older communities that have existing inventories of atrisk buildings and infrastructure. Demand for these programs far 

exceeds available resources. A poll of State hazard mitigation officers found that current demand ranges anywhere from 3 to 10 

times available funding. 

Mitigation practitioners in the Nation though are concerned 

about the administration’s proposed FY 2013 budget to zero out the 

Pre-disaster Mitigation Program, and ASFPM appreciates Congress’ expression of support of that program through restoration of 

some of those funds. PDM is a significant source of mitigation 

funds for mitigation planning, and it is not redundant to other 

sources that may be available after a declared disaster. 

In fact, over half of the States depend upon PDM for planning 

assistance. 

ASFPM also thinks that building codes can play an effective role 

in hazard mitigation, and there are six key considerations for any 

legislation addressing building codes and mitigations. First, State 

adoption does not necessarily equal all communities adopting the 

same code. As the previous panelists had indicated, there is the 

ability to opt out of codes, and the code adoption process is voluntary and variable. 

Many States do not require local jurisdictions to adopt building 

codes, and others allow communities to adopt a building code of 

their choice. Ohio serves to illustrate this point well. The States of 

Ohio adopted international codes. In fact, they are required in all 

23 

communities. Those codes are required for three-plus family, residential, commercial and industrial buildings. 

However, the Ohio residential code is optional in communities for 

one to three family dwellings. Furthermore in 2012, when the Ohio 

residential code was updated, controversial provisions of the International Residential Code were omitted. 

Second, State adoption does not necessarily equal enforcement of 

those codes. Over the past 25 years, FEMA post event reports find 

that the construction does not meet targeted building code performance. Anecdotally, many local flood plain managers indicate that 

code enforcement can be difficult. Everything from political pressure, misuse of the variance process, to other inadequate legal 

counsel can impact a community’s ability to enforce its regulations. 

Third, model codes are consistent with minimum national standards, but do the standards achieve the needed amount of loss reduction? While flood provisions of the model building codes are consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program standards, minimum standards of the NFIP have not been updated in over 25 

years, and much loss experience has been learned. 

Are these minimum standards enough? Steps should be taken to 

encourage or incent States and/or communities with unique hazards or long-term vision to implement standards beyond those in 

the international codes. 

An effective approach must include both incentives and the elimination of perverse disincentives. Today’s communities and States 

get rewarded for doing little or nothing to increase their resiliency. 

If a community is not willing to do the day-to-day mitigation 

through codes and land use, why should even they be eligible for 

programs such as HMGP, public assistance or disaster assistance 

in general? 

Fifth, local capacity is key to successful implementation of building codes. 

And finally, effective land use and planning must work in concert 

with building codes to achieve overall community resiliency. 

ASFPM appreciates the committee’s interest in and encouraging 

adoption and enforcement of statewide building codes. H.R. 2069 is 

a good step in the right direction through offering an incentive for 

adoption enforcement of nationally recognized building codes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Rochman, and I understand you have a brief video. 

Ms. ROCHMAN. We do, yes, sir. We will show it in the middle of 

the testimony if that is all right. 

Mr. DENHAM. Perfect. Thank you. 

Ms. ROCHMAN. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to speak with you today regarding the importance of 

enacting and enforcing strong statewide building codes. Chairman 

Denham and Ranking Member Norton, thank you for being from 

jurisdictions with good, strong building codes. 

I am Julie Rochman. I am the president and CEO of the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, or IBHS. IBHS is a 

501(c)(3) organization wholly supported by the property insurance 

industry. Our mission is to conduct objective research to identify 

24 

and promote effective actions and strengthen homes, businesses 

and communities against natural disasters and other causes of loss. 

We believe that because every region of this country is vulnerable to one or more potentially devastating natural hazard, improving disaster mitigation, preparedness response and recovery must 

be a national priority. 

The centerpiece of our research program is our unique IBHS Research Center in South Carolina. Using a massive 105-fan array, 

and each of these fans has 350 horsepower, and other specialized 

equipment, we can recreate a variety of highly realistic wind, rain, 

fire and hail events. Only IBHS can look at full-scale structures as 

a system. The ability to mimic Mother Nature in a controlled, repeatable environment allows IBHS to do several things: to demonstrate the effectiveness and financial value of stronger building 

codes and better built structures; to identify different kinds of solutions to building vulnerabilities; to strengthen the relationship between theoretical and real building performance; and to validate 

and improve current scientific bases for designing and installing 

building products and systems. 

In addition to laboratory research, IGHS conducts post disaster 

field research. In one such study following Hurricane Charlie, 

which has been referenced a few times here today already, we 

found that homes built to then modern codes suffered 40 percent 

less severe damage and 60 percent less frequent damage than 

homes built to older codes. 

These are not marginal rates of return on a relative modest investment in codes. These are huge rates of return. Unfortunately, 

disasters such as Hurricane Andrew have shown that lax code enforcement of otherwise effective building codes needlessly and 

greatly increases total damage. Strong safety requirements were in 

place in southeast Florida in 1992, but local officials failed to make 

sure that they actually were followed during the construction process. 

Recognizing the importance of comprehensive building code safety systems, IBHS recently completed a first of its kind Rating the 

States Report, examining regulations and processes governing residential construction in the 18 States most vulnerable to hurricanes 

from Texas to Maine. The report looks at adoption, enforcement of 

strong statewide building codes, as well as code official certification 

and training, and contractor and subcontractor licensing. 

Employing a 100-point scale with 100 being the best, the quality 

of code systems ranged from Florida and Virginia up at 95 points 

down to Mississippi which scored only 4 points. The purpose of this 

analysis was to shine a much needed spotlight on how States can 

take specific steps to better protect their citizens. 

In order to fully understand how real world performance compares to technical requirements, IBHS has conducted several 

unique, full-scale tests in our laboratory of houses. These tests examine the way structures work as a system either to withstand or 

to succumb to natural forces. 

Mr. Chairman, now I would like to show the subcommittee a 

quick video. It is about 40 seconds, from one of these tests. This 

is from the fall of 2010, where we put two full-scale wood frame 

houses into our test chamber and created a highly realistic storm 

25 

with wind speeds and gusts up to 120 miles an hour. In this test, 

as you can see, the roof of one of the homes built using conventional constructional practices as they exist in central Illinois, 

where by the way there is no statewide building code, lifted off entirely under the force of 95-mile-an-hour winds. The loss of the roof 

caused total destruction of the home only moments later. 

It is simply inexcusable that we do not ensure that houses in 

areas subject to moderate and severe high wind events, which is 

much of this country, do not have strong connections between the 

walls and the roof, between each floor, and between the walls and 

the foundation. Most of the roofs in this country are held on by 

nothing more than gravity. 

The strapping needed to provide a continuous chain of connections from roof to foundation costs less than $1,500 to $2,000 for 

a home or small business, yet greatly increases building strength 

and safety in the face of a variety of wind events, including hurricanes, tornadoes and straight line wind storms. 

Fortunately, there are States like Florida where this chain of 

connections is an integral part of the building code. A continuous 

load path should be a feature of residential and commercial construction everywhere and can be through building codes. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

We urge the subcommittee to advance H.R. 2069. It is important 

legislation that provides a vehicle to put important knowledge 

about proven benefits of building codes to work by significantly improving our Nation’s safety and resilience. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Matthews. 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton, 

members of the subcommittee, the BuildStrong Coalition thanks 

you for holding this hearing to examine the vital role that strong 

building codes can play in mitigating the damage and costs associated with natural disasters. 

My name is Rod Matthews, and I am the property and casualty 

operations vice president for the State Farm Insurance Companies 

based in Bloomington, Illinois. 

State Farm is proud to be a founding member of the BuildStrong 

Coalition, a group of national business and consumer organizations, 

insurance companies, firefighters, emergency managers and building professionals dedicated to promoting stronger building codes. 

The BuildStrong Coalition shares the subcommittee’s goal of helping communities to prepare for and recover from natural disasters 

while saving taxpayer money in the process. 

But our fist consideration must always be the safety of our communities and the American people. Our thoughts and prayers go 

out to the victims of natural disasters, events which compel us to 

advance legislation to help fortify the Nation’s defenses against 

similar events in the future. Stronger, safer homes and businesses 

save lives and better protect people’s biggest investment. 

Not only is the cost of natural disasters measured in the loss of 

precious lives. It is also measured in the dollar cost to our economy. 

2011 was the fifth most expensive year on record for insured catastrophe losses in the United States. Only 50 percent of the almost 

26 

$73 billion overall cost of disasters in the United States in 2011 

was covered by insurance. 

For decades Congress has authorized insufficient funding for disaster relief, and then needed to pass a supplemental disaster funds 

in 18 of the last 23 budget years. 

Natural disasters are inevitable, and while budgeting for disaster 

cost is not a perfect science, the Federal Government needs to better plan for the financial impact. Merely hoping the weather cooperates and relying on luck is not enough. 

There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the conclusion that minimum statewide building codes save lives and greatly 

reduce property damage and the subsequent need for Federal disaster aid. The National Institute of Building Sciences found that 

for every dollar spent to make buildings stronger, the American 

taxpayer saves $4 in Federal disaster assistance. 

The Louisiana State University Hurricane Center estimated that 

stronger building codes would have reduced wind damage in Louisiana from Katrina by 80 percent, saving $8 billion. 

More recently, FEMA assessed the damage from the 2011 spring 

tornadoes in the Southeast and Midwest, identifying model building codes as the top recommendation to improve public safety. 

Standardized building codes promote a level and consistent playing 

field for design professionals, suppliers, and builders, and create a 

minimum standard upon which consumers can rely. 

To alleviate the financial pressure from natural disasters, Congress should encourage building stronger, safer homes and businesses. The BuildStrong Coalition strongly endorses H.R. 2069, the 

Safe Building Code Incentive Act, as a forward thinking investment to build stronger, safer homes and businesses that will save 

lives and reduce damage. 

Under the proposed law, States that adopt and enforce nationally 

recognized model building codes for residential and commercial 

structures would qualify for an additional 4 percent of funding 

available for post disaster grants, which will be administered by 

FEMA through the Stafford Act. Currently about 20 States would 

qualify or could with minor changes to their laws and regulations. 

This legislation will not require any additional appropriation to 

FEMA since it draws funds from the existing Disaster Relief Fund. 

Furthermore, H.R. 2069 does not mandate the adoption of statewide building codes by any State that wishes to maintain their current patchwork structure. 

Qualifying States have learned the expensive lessons of building 

code effectiveness usually after an ill-prepared experience with 

names, such as Andrew, Katrina, Charlie or Northridge. Unfortunately, many States still refuse to adopt these minimum standards 

in building safety, thereby putting their citizens’ lives and property 

at higher risk and increasing the liability of all U.S. taxpayers. 

A 2012 Milliman study found that H.R. 2069 would have saved 

U.S. taxpayers $11 billion in hurricane relief payments alone from 

1988 to present had it been in place. That is almost $500 million 

a year in taxpayer savings. It is time for our Nation to have a long 

overdue, robust conversation about building safety and its intersection with natural disasters. 

27 

This subcommittee can ignite that debate by moving forward 

with consideration of this Safe Building Code Incentive Act. The 

overwhelming evidence supporting the widespread adoption of 

statewide building codes proves that H.R. 2069 is a fiscally responsible way to make our country stronger, safer, and better prepared 

for natural disasters. 

We must continue to work together across industries, Government agencies and organizations to find better ways to protect 

lives, home, businesses, and personal property. Based on scientific 

data and supported by Federal incentives, we can align our efforts 

to promote modern and effectively enforced statewide building 

codes across our country. 

I look forward to your questions, and thank you for your time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Thank you to all of our witnesses for 

your opening testimonies. 

We will now have 5 minutes from each Member for questioning. 

I will start with myself. 

Mr. Matthews, in each of the different States that have already 

implemented their building codes, have you seen a lower insurance 

premium in those States? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. What happens, Congressman and Chairman, is 

that those reduced expenses, lost costs find their ways into the 

rates, and over time that should create a more competitive environment. Our industry is highly competitive. There are several hundred insurance companies. So the combination of reduce lost cost 

and the competitive environment works to the benefit of customers. 

Mr. DENHAM. And I come from one of those States that has quite 

a few earthquakes. In your testimony, you talk about Haiti and the 

lack of building codes there. Could you go into greater detail about 

some of the impacts and some of the things that could have been 

mitigated or could be mitigated in the future if they had a standard 

building code? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes. Actually, as Ms. Rochman said in her testimony, California is one of the better States in terms of building 

codes. Much of the seismic code that you see that has been adopted 

around the country comes out of research and experience from the 

building codes in California. 

California has been a leader around fire protection in their codes 

as well, with residential sprinkler systems as well as mitigating 

the hazard of wildfire, which is a large exposure, natural disaster 

exposure in California. 

So actually, Mr. Chairman, your State has done a very good job 

and it would be one of the States that would already qualify for 

this incentive. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

And, Ms. Rochman, if you could briefly talk about that as well 

as we are very intrigued about your test facility and want to take 

a group of Members down there to see firsthand some of the things 

that you can exemplify with your testing facility. If you could, talk 

about both please. 

Ms. ROCHMAN. Sure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

One of the things that we know from the rash of earthquakes 

that we had last year, not so much the one here, although the 

Washington Monument is truly even today a testimony to the 

28 

power of what even a small earthquake can do; when you look at 

Haiti versus Chile versus Japan and California, we know that 

where there are good, strong seismic codes in place, we see much 

less loss of life and much less damage in property. 

The issue we have in this country is that California is not the 

only State with seismic exposure. There is a substantial area in the 

midwestern part of the country call the New Madrid Zone, and the 

New Madrid Zone has actually experienced 200 years ago the worst 

earthquake recorded in the history of this country. At that time 

there was very little population. Now, there are about 35 million 

people living in the New Madrid Zone, and those building codes are 

not what they need to be when it comes to residential construction. 

So there are a lot of things we can do. At our facility, we look 

at wind, water, fire, and hail. We do not have a shake table. The 

University of California at San Diego has an excellent research facility for earthquake, as does the University of Illinois. 

But we would love to have you come down and look. The video 

that I showed a little while ago, the difference between those two 

houses was less than $3,000, and the house that had the continuous strapping, again, holding the roof on by more than gravity 

stands strong. We ran that house through several tests against 

houses that were not built as well, that were more brittle, and each 

and every time the house that was not built to what it should have 

been went away. 

And we always look at those houses, even though we are in a 

safe observation area as you could be if you would come to watch 

the test, but it is startling how quickly a house comes apart and 

how it is absolutely reduced to rubble. That is no longer somebody’s 

home at that point. It is just a pile of debris. 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, thank you. We look forward to seeing that 

first hand. 

Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I am not mistaken, only about a third, and correct me if I am 

wrong, of States seem to have building codes. I am trying to understand what it takes particularly given, as you might have heard, 

my disappointment that the incentives bill met a roadblock here in 

the Congress, a technical roadblock. 

Are States that have building codes, those that had been disaster 

prone, flood prone, hurricane prone, those States did not have any 

incentives. How did you discuss the States? Does Louisiana now 

have a statewide building code? Did it have one before? 

Ms. ROCHMAN. No. 

Ms. NORTON. Uh-oh. Does that tell me that you need a disaster 

in order to get a building code? Would that not be terrible? 

Do any of you have any notion of what has encouraged some 

States somehow on their own to adopt building codes and others 

have hung back? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. Congresswoman Norton, I think you have 

touched on one of the things. One of the sad commentaries on what 

we have seen in this field is that many times they are very expensive experiences, and they have names called Andrew and 

Northridge and that sort of thing. 

Ms. NORTON. And Katrina. 

29 

Mr. MATTHEWS. And Katrina, that convince people to do the 

right thing after the fact. 

You know, what we are really trying to focus with H.R. 2069 is 

kind of the old adage of, you know, an ounce of prevention is worth 

a pound of cure. And if you go back and look at what Congress has 

done in 18 out of the last 23 years of having to vote supplemental 

funds for disaster aid, you know, it really makes sense that we deal 

with the issue before it actually happens. 

The Milliman study that I referenced, as well, and I appreciate 

what you are saying about the CBO scoring, but the Milliman 

study which showed that actually the Federal Government would 

net $40 million a month, $500 million a year from H.R. 2069 in 

terms of what building stronger, safer homes, stronger, safer building codes would mean to our country. 

Ms. NORTON. In my experience, you never get legislation passed 

in the Congress by showing dollars and cents saved. I mean I have 

always been amazed at it. It is one of the best arguments used, but 

somehow it does not quite matter. And, of course, I thought the incentives might help, and you see the problems as you indicated. 

Is there resistance in the States to building codes? Is there resistance from—I do not know—industry, from consumers, from the 

States themselves? Is there resistance or simply passivity? 

Mr. MATTHEWS. I think in some cases it is probably both, Congresswoman. In some cases I do not think people are necessarily 

aware of the exposure and what they are faced with. 

Sometimes there are groups that will vocalize opposition to building codes or they think, again, they are lulled into complacency 

thinking it can never happen here, until it happens, you know, unfortunately. 

To our knowledge, at least from the BuildStrong Coalition, no 

one has voiced any opposition to H.R. 2069, and it is a very broadbased coalition. 

Ms. ROCHMAN. Congressman, if I could just add to that for 1 second, we know from the insurance industry we have taught consumers how to demand safety in automobiles. We have showed 

them what safer vehicles look like, and now consumers shop on 

safety. 

Safety sells. I think one of the things we have to do is get citizens to understand that a building code is a minimum life safety 

threshold. It literally keeps the house from spontaneously combusting or falling down around your ears. This is the minimum 

level at which you can occupy a building. If people understood that 

the construction was not where it should be, we think that they 

would demand better, safer homes. It is one of the reasons the insurance industry built our lab, and we are working with home 

builders and we are working with the construction industry. 

Like every industry, there are good actors and people who want 

to do a good jobs, but in this housing market there is an increasing 

number of builders who understand that quality construction sells. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. But what I take away is that, you know, when 

you have a big disaster, you get a building code, and that really 

bothers me. 

Could you just call out the names of some of the States that have 

strong building codes so I can get some sense? 

30 

Ms. ROCHMAN. Sure. Well, you are right, Congressman. Unfortunately people do wait until disaster. So when Katrina hit, for example, Louisiana took 2 years to pass a statewide building code. 

Illinois and Texas are States where we have seen a lot of catastrophes, and they do not have statewide codes, or they do and they 

are not well enforced. But California, Virginia, South Carolina, we 

do see a number of States increasingly looking at codes because it 

also levels the playing field for all of the builders in the States. 

They all have to comply with the same standard. 

But we know that there are about 20 States right now that 

would comply with the legislation as it is written. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. Ranking member of the whole committee, Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gianato, you have described very well the financial losses 

that our State experienced and many other damages that occurred 

during the recent storms. You have also commended our National 

Guard, and I join you in that. I commend you and your staff, as 

well as our National Guard under the direction of Major General 

Jim Hoyer. I commend our emergency responders, our medics, our 

churches, our local officials, our 911 directors in each of the counties, our American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, AmeriCorps, 

Vista volunteers, power company workers who worked under very 

strenuous conditions in tough terrain carrying heavy equipment to 

try to repair a lot of the power lines, our public service districts, 

our water companies, et cetera. 

Our committee has advanced legislation to reauthorize FEMA 

disaster assistance, including the requirement that FEMA review 

the individual assistance program regulations. Do you think that is 

sufficient or should Congress do more to ensure that the program 

is flexible enough and fast enough, given that many families have 

suffered losses that they cannot afford and no Government agency 

seems able to assist them? 

Mr. GIANATO. Congressman, I think you have hit dead on that 

flexibility is the key to any of these programs. No two disasters are 

alike, and when we try to develop rules and policies for one disaster to fit another, this latest storm that impacted West Virginia, 

as I said, is not like anything we have ever seen, and the impact 

on the citizens is not like a traditional disaster where you can go 

out and count the number of homes, as you said earlier, that are 

destroyed. 

So I think the key is having the flexibility in the law and the 

open dialogue with FEMA and the administration to be able to 

work through the different problems as we come to them. 

Mr. RAHALL. Can you describe how our power companies and 

water companies responded to the extended power outage? 

And how can FEMA mitigation grants be used to prevent a recurrence of such an extended power outage periods? 

Mr. GIANATO. Well, I think with the power outages we have, in 

my written testimony it talks about there were 226 transmission 

lines that were destroyed by this storm, almost 1.6 million miles 

of line that were down as a result of the storm. Again, this was 

an unprecedented storm, but I think we have to take the steps to 

31 

minimize the ability of the trees to come down on those lines that 

pulled those down. So those are some of the things that we have 

to look at that are outside the FEMA realm. 

As it relates to the water companies, one of the things that we 

are doing in West Virginia is we are partnering with the West Virginia National Guard to go out and do assessments of every critical 

facility, which includes the water and sewer plants, and we are 

identifying with those facilities what their power generation needs 

are so that if a situation like this were to occur again and those 

facilities do not have generators, that we will have in a couple of 

secure databases the information to allow us to move quickly and 

place a generator on that site. 

I think we need to look at using mitigation funds to install generators on some of the critical facilities and look at how the programs that we currently have can be utilized and look at what 

changes may need to be made in the future to allow that. 

Mr. RAHALL. How can we get gas stations to install backup generators? That was one of the most shocking facts that came out of 

this recent storm to me, was that gas stations do not have backup 

power generators, and you would think in times of emergency that 

is the first thing you need to keep open, is the supply of gas to customers. 

We had the gas. It is just the gas stations did not have the power 

to run those pumps. 

Mr. GIANATO. That is correct. The service stations did not have 

power to run their pumps or in a lot of cases even if they had 

power to run their pumps and did not have their other systems tied 

to it, they could not pump gasoline. 

So most of those are privately owned, and that is going to be 

something that we are going to have to work through at the State 

level, and we plan to. If you look at my written testimony, it also 

says that Governor Tomblin has ordered a top to bottom review of 

this event and the impacts that it had and how we can minimize 

some of the issues in the future, and that is one of the key things 

that we are looking at, as well as backup power for radio stations 

because one of the real problems that we had, the traditional 

means of communicating to the public that we have always utilized 

in the past failed. When the radio stations and the TV stations 

went off the air without power, it did not matter if citizens had battery powered radios. They simply could not get the signal. 

So we have got to go back to the basics. 

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but it 

looks like there is nobody else waiting to ask questions. May I ask 

one final question? 

Mr. HANNA. [presiding.] Go ahead. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

And I would give the entire panel a chance to respond to anything that has been discussed already, but my question to the entire panel would be: do you believe that H.R. 2069 requires States 

to adopt entire model building codes, or can States pick and choose 

from certain model provisions? 

Chief CLEMMENSEN. Well, I will start. 

Mr. RAHALL. Yes. 

32 

Chief CLEMMENSEN. I do not see it as a mandate whatsoever. I 

know there has been other testimony to that. It is an incentive program that I believe will incentivize States to adopt these codes. It 

is just important that there are the model codes, which we consider 

a minimum code. 

Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate it. Anyone else wish to respond? Ms. 

Rochman. 

Ms. ROCHMAN. Sir, it is clearly not a mandate. It is optional. 

I did want to respond to the Congresswoman’s questions and just 

read into the record if it is all right with you, sir—— 

Mr. RAHALL. Sure. 

Ms. ROCHMAN [continuing]. The States that would currently 

qualify. They would be California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Utah, Virginia, and Washington. 

All of those States would have to do nothing at this point to qualify for the extra funds under H.R. 2069. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, I am sorry. I did not mean to cut 

you off. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Oh, I just wanted to also say that, you know, 

something that might be instructional for H.R. 2069 is the way the 

National Flood Insurance Program works. I would argue that the 

NFIP, 21,000 communities in the country have building and land 

use codes. A lot of those do not actually have a building code. The 

only thing they have is the NFIP standards. 

It is an incentive program because the incentive is flood insurance is available, but there is a powerful disincentive tied to that 

because if flood insurance is not available, a lot of folks cannot get 

mortgages in those flood hazard areas, and so while H.R. 2069 does 

a very good job on the incentives portion, we need to make sure 

that within the array of programs that we offer to folks, whether 

it be post disaster programs and others, that there are some disincentives also tied to that. 

And I think that gets back to the question of how do we have 

more States and more communities actually then adopting these 

codes. That is a way to do that, by both having incentives and disincentives. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

I thank the panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

Chief Clemmensen, I absolutely believe that you are correct 

when you talk about sprinklers and the benefits of sprinklers. One 

of the problems with an incentive program though is that if it is 

not large enough or that it requires something that is so expensive, 

that what we design as an incentive becomes a disincentive as we 

add more requirements to it. 

So you must have an opinion about that, which I can almost 

guess what it is, but I would like to give you a chance to talk about 

it. 

Chief CLEMMENSEN. Well, it is basically just like any other code. 

There are costs involved, and Congresswoman Norton asked about 

33 

why States do not have model building codes. It is because there 

are lobbyists and people that would rather keep the codes very simplified so that the cost of the housing is less expensive. 

Fire sprinklers are the same thing. There is a code involved, obviously, but the cost is probably the same as putting carpeting into 

your home. However, it does add a bottom line cost to the home, 

and there are homebuilders who would prefer to keep that cost 

down so they can sell more homes. 

Over the long run through, the savings to the municipality or to 

the locals is incredible. As an example, I was the Fire Marshal and 

code official for a large suburban town just outside Chicago, and in 

1995, we passed a residential sprinkler code, and now that area of 

the community has 4,000 homes that are sprinklered. That allowed 

the community instead of having two fire stations to only have one, 

and that equates to roughly $1 million a year. 

So there is a large savings over the long run. 

Mr. HANNA. Sure. But you can see the obvious problem with it, 

whereas with Ms. Rochman’s point, where you simply strap from 

the foundation right over the top of the house, I assume that is basically what was done there. That is a very cheap, very effective 

tool. 

Incentives are an interesting lever to pull from Government because there is a point of diminishing returns and a point at which, 

like with sprinklers, it would ultimately disappear. 

Any other questions? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

The chairman has raised a question about cost, and some do not 

cost much, and you might expect the people would step up to it. 

Let me raise again what has happened here, and we have had 

similar things to happen across the country. 

As we go across the country, the manifestations may be different, 

but leave aside the discussion on climate change because we do not 

know why this is happening, but I can tell you as a native Washingtonian who grew up in this town when there was no air conditioning, we just had the hottest. I am glad that if it had to be the 

hottest, it was not when I was a child, that is, now that there is 

air conditioning. 

But what I really want to get to are the outages, and our ranking 

member, I think, spoke about West Virginia and some of what 

West Virginia went through. This entire region had storms the 

likes of which in this season have never been seen before. And, by 

the way, they keep coming. 

Now, the communities across the region are up in arms about 

outages. The last one was a full week. You can imagine at the 

height of the heat there was no air conditioning. People’s food melted. So people have some out and said, ‘‘OK. Bury the power lines.’’ 

Well, Mr. Chairman, nobody is going to bury those power lines 

because the same constituents would yell to high heaven for the 

added costs that buried power lines come forward with. So, you 

know, some mitigated understand that and they come and say, 

‘‘OK. Bury some of them.’’ 

I have a real question, an honest to goodness practical question. 

What they have done to mitigate, the power companies, they have 

begun to trim the trees. That is pretty obvious. Of course, there is 

34 

some throw-back on that because some people do not like the trees 

trimmed quite as much as they want to, but let’s take it that everybody agrees that that is a mitigation strategy. 

When it comes to these outages, short of burying the lines which 

is cost prohibitive, in addition to trimming the trees, what do we 

do to mitigate another week without power—it could have happened here in the Congress, but I guess we would have had some 

backup. Some kind of backup I am sure occurs here—are people 

looking at mitigation in terms of the broader sense of that word? 

Sure, building codes are old-fashioned by now, but as you meet 

new and more expensive examples where there appear to be no 

strategies as to what to do to keep us from going through this 

again, my question is whether or not there is research being done 

so that people who honest to goodness would like to mitigate 

against a shutdown of their entire life for a week, for example, 

would go to some extra expense to do so. 

Are we leaving mitigation only with what we already have on the 

table and understand should be done, or is the research moving us 

where differences in climate may be taking us, such as when we 

had an earthquake here? 

I mean, I was sure it was something else. I would have thought 

it would have been a terrorist strike before I would have thought 

it would have been an earthquake. Now, I do not think everybody 

went out and bought earthquake insurance, but when you see those 

kinds of unusual occurrences, I would feel more comforted to know 

that those of you who are concerned with mitigation have some 

word for people trying to prevent these new occurrences. 

Does anyone advice for us? Yes, sir. 

Mr. MULLEN. Yes. I would say that while I would never kick any 

new research by the curb, I would think that would be valuable, 

but I think we know enough now, and if I may, let me tell you 

where I think there is kind of a contradiction in the sense that the 

best awareness and the best pressure for mitigation comes from the 

Federal grant programs down, and mitigation at its core, in my 

opinion, and I think NEMA believes this as well, that mitigation 

is a local issue which people need to embrace at the local level, the 

local decision making and the county planning meetings and those 

areas. That is where the level of knowledge and commitment has 

to come. 

The Nation has had a pretty good commitment to mitigation. 

There are a lot of people in this town who believe in mitigation. 

Ms. NORTON. But my question goes to what to do. 

Mr. MULLEN. OK. 

Ms. NORTON. New kinds of disasters or hazards to be mitigated. 

You know, do you have any examples of what to do with these outages which are occurring not only in this region but across the 

United States? 

Is anybody looking into ways to mitigate things like these outages or other changes that have not been seen before? 

Mr. MULLEN. Yes. In my State we just did a major earthquake 

exercise where the biggest problem we ran into was fuel, the same 

thing that Mr. Gianato was referring to. This was a revelation because we had private sector personnel in our EOC working with us 

probably more extensively than ever. 

35 

We have not got the answer, but the question is clear now. And 

I think that a lot of those—— 

Ms. NORTON. The problem was fuel and what else? 

Mr. MULLEN. Fuel for pumps, fuel to just have critical vehicles 

move around. We had a major scenario that broke a lot of things, 

and so for 2 or 3 days we were facing the prospect of not being able 

to do the things that needed to be done for life safety, for basic 

maintenance of life and comfort because medicines could not move. 

And a large part of the problem was the absence of fuel generation. 

So what we were trying to do and what we will do as part of our 

followup is begin to look at with our private sector partners how 

are we going to fix that. What is yours and what is ours? 

And I think that is the same point I was about to make in terms 

of what the Mitigation Alliance, which ASFPM and us and about 

18 other organizations are part of, is beginning to look at. How do 

we convince, persuade, cajole, educate people at the local level to 

begin addressing their problems and see if between the Federal incentives and push and the local and State awareness we can come 

to some kind of middle ground here where everyone is doing what 

they should be doing, and no one is being asked to do more than 

is appropriate. 

I have not got an answer for you, but I can tell you that those 

discussions in my State and some other States are going forward. 

I am sure they are going forward in West Virginia now. Experience 

teaches us unfortunately. The reason our codes are good is because 

we had earthquakes in the 1960s and people got smart. 

But we need to learn from the lessons, and if we do not learn 

our lessons, we will repeat the mistakes. 

Mr. BERGINNIS. Congressman, one of the things I want to mention is that one of the tools that is available now that this committee way back in 2000 really set the table for the Nation, and 

that is mitigation planning. There is a requirement at the local 

level and at the State level to update plans 5 years and 3 years, 

respectively. 

And in updating those plans, key aspects of that include a reanalysis of your hazards. Have they changed? Exactly as you talked 

about, the hazards change over time. They are never static, and we 

need to be prepared to respond and mitigate against those. So 

there is a risk assessment aspect that goes. 

But as important, and maybe this has not been focused on as 

much as it really needs to, and that is an analysis of mitigation options. I have gone to so many communities, especially after floods 

in Ohio where they have the ‘‘what next’’ moment. It is usually 

right after the event. It is the first council meeting that happens, 

and all of the leadership are saying, ‘‘My goodness, what is next? 

What do we do now?’’ 

If you have through mitigation planning in a nondisaster time 

identified the range of options that you can mitigate against a particular hazard, you are going to be set much more effectively in 

your recovery and ultimately in your resiliency. 

So I would offer that mitigation planning is really an effective 

tool, to answer your very question. 

Thank you. 

36 

Chief CLEMMENSEN. Congresswoman, I would just like to say 

that in the Chicago metro area, they have started a new power system called a smart grid. It is too new really to take effect yet, but 

we have always been trimming the trees. 

But to be proactive and the part of the mitigation testimony here 

is that we went out and we have created cooling shelters because 

we know that no matter how smart the grids are, how many trees 

they trim, the power is always going to go out. 

We just had an incident last month where over 100,000 customers were without power. So we set up cooling sites around the 

city and around the suburbs for these people to go to at least be 

cool in these very extreme temperatures. 

Ms. NORTON. I thank you for those examples, you know, and particularly for the notion of mitigation planning. I had not thought 

about that as a responsibility that the States already have. So that 

one of the things that I am going to do is to go back and see if the 

Federal Government and my own district and this region are planning for the next earthquake instead of saying, ‘‘Well, that was a 

once in a century matter. Now let’s go back to business as usual.’’ 

So thank you very much for your suggestions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous consent 

that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as 

our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be 

submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the 

record remain open for 15 legislative days for any additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be 

included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank the witnesses once again for your time here 

today and for your service to your communities. If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

37 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75290.006
38 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75290.007
39 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75290.008
40 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75290.009
41 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75290.010
42 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75290.011
43 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75290.012
44 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75290.013
45 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75290.014
46 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75290.015
47 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75290.016
48 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75290.017
49 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75290.018
50 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75290.019
51 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75290.020
52 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75290.021
53 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75290.022
54 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75290.023
55 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75290.024
56 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75290.025
57 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75290.026
58 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75290.027
59 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75290.028
60 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75290.029
61 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75290.030
62 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75290.031
63 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75290.032
64 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75290.033
65 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75290.034
66 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75290.035
67 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75290.036
68 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75290.037
69 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75290.038
70 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75290.039
71 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75290.040
72 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75290.041
73 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75290.042
74 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75290.043
75 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75290.044
76 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75290.045
77 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75290.046
78 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75290.047
79 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75290.048
80 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75290.049
81 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75290.050
82 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75290.051
83 


Insert offset folio 52 here 75290.052
84 


Insert offset folio 53 here 75290.053
85 


Insert offset folio 54 here 75290.054
86 


Insert offset folio 55 here 75290.055
87 


Insert offset folio 56 here 75290.056
88 


Insert offset folio 57 here 75290.057
89 


Insert offset folio 58 here 75290.058
90 


Insert offset folio 59 here 75290.059
91 


Insert offset folio 60 here 75290.060
92 


Insert offset folio 61 here 75290.061
93 


Insert offset folio 62 here 75290.062
94 


Insert offset folio 63 here 75290.063
95 


Insert offset folio 64 here 75290.064
96 


Insert offset folio 65 here 75290.065
97 


Insert offset folio 66 here 75290.066
98 


Insert offset folio 67 here 75290.067
99 


Insert offset folio 68 here 75290.068
100 


Insert offset folio 69 here 75290.069
101 


Insert offset folio 70 here 75290.070
102 


Insert offset folio 71 here 75290.071
103 


Insert offset folio 72 here 75290.072
104 


Insert offset folio 73 here 75290.073
105 


Insert offset folio 74 here 75290.074
106 


Insert offset folio 75 here 75290.075
107 


Insert offset folio 76 here 75290.076
108 


Insert offset folio 77 here 75290.077
109 


Insert offset folio 78 here 75290.078
110 


Insert offset folio 79 here 75290.079
111 


Insert offset folio 80 here 75290.080
112 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 81 here 75290.081