[House Report 106-99]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Rept. 106-99
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Part 1
=======================================================================
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
_______
April 19, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on Sceince, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1184]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1184) to authorize appropriations for carrying out the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal years 2000
and 2001, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
Contents
Page
I. Amendment.......................................................2
II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................4
III. Background and Need for Legislation.............................5
IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................6
V. Committee Actions...............................................8
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................10
VII. Section-By-Section Analysis....................................12
VIII. Committee Views................................................15
IX. Cost Estimate..................................................20
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................21
XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................23
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............23
XIII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight................................23
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................23
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................23
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................24
XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........24
XVIII.Committee Recommendations......................................31
XIX. Committee Correspondence.......................................31
XX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup...........................31
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--Section 12(a) of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(1) General.--'' and all that follows
through ``(7) There'' and inserting ``General.--There'';
(2) by striking ``1998, and'' and inserting ``1998,''; and
(3) by inserting ``, $19,800,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and $20,400,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001'' after ``September 30, 1999''.
(b) United States Geological Survey.--(1) Section 12(b) of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(b)) is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of the Interior for purposes of carrying out,
through the Director of the United States Geological Survey,
the responsibilities that may be assigned to the Director under
this Act $46,100,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which $3,500,000
shall be used for the Global Seismic Network and $100,000 shall
be used for the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee established under section 6 of the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Authorization Act of 1999; and $47,500,000 for fiscal
year 2001, of which $3,600,000 shall be used for the Global
Seismic Network and $100,000 shall be used for the Scientific
Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee established under section
6 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of
1999.'' after ``operated by the Agency.'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(C) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraphs:
``(3) $9,000,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2000; and
``(4) $9,500,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2001,''.
(2) Section 2(a)(7) of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize
appropriations for carrying out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977 for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes'' is
amended by inserting ``, $1,600,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$1,650,000 for fiscal year 2001'' after ``1998 and 1999''.
(c) National Science Foundation.--Section 12(c) of the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1998, and'' and inserting ``1998,''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, and
(5) $19,000,000 for engineering research and $10,900,000 for
geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000. There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Science Foundation $19,600,000 for engineering research and
$11,200,000 for geosciences research for fiscal year 2001.''.
(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--Section 12(d) of
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(d)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``1998, and''; and inserting ``1998,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$2,265,000 for fiscal year 2001'' after ``September 30, 1999''.
SEC. 3. REPEALS.
Section 10 and subsections (e) and (f) of section 12 of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7705d and 7706 (e)
and (f)) are repealed.
SEC. 4. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING SYSTEM.
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 13. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING SYSTEM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the United States Geological
Survey shall establish and operate an Advanced National Seismic
Research and Monitoring System. The purpose of such system shall be to
organize, modernize, standardize, and stabilize the national, regional,
and urban seismic monitoring systems in the United States, including
sensors, recorders, and data analysis centers, into a coordinated
system that will measure and record the full range of frequencies and
amplitudes exhibited by seismic waves, in order to enhance earthquake
research and warning capabilities.
``(b) Management Plan.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of
1999, the Director of the United States Geological Survey shall
transmit to the Congress a 5-year management plan for establishing and
operating the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System.
The plan shall include annual cost estimates for both modernization and
operation, milestones, standards, and performance goals, as well as
plans for securing the participation of all existing networks in the
Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System and for
establishing new, or enhancing existing, partnerships to leverage
resources.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Expansion and modernization.--In addition to amounts
appropriated under section 12(b), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior, to be used by
the Director of the United States Geological Survey to
establish the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring
System--
``(A) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $33,700,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(C) $35,100,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(D) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(E) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2004.
``(2) Operation.--In addition to amounts appropriated under
section 12(b), there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior, to be used by the Director of the
United States Geological Survey to operate the Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System--
``(A) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
``(B) $10,300,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
SEC. 5. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION.
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 14. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION.
``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science Foundation
shall establish a Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation that
will upgrade, link, and integrate a system of geographically
distributed experimental facilities for earthquake engineering testing
of full-sized structures and their components and partial-scale
physical models. The system shall be integrated through networking
software so that integrated models and databases can be used to create
model-based simulation, and the components of the system shall be
interconnected with a computer network and allow for remote access,
information sharing, and collaborative research.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts
appropriated under section 12(c), there are authorized to be
appropriated, out of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated to
the National Science Foundation, $7,700,000 for fiscal year 2000 for
the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. In addition to
amounts appropriated under section 12(c), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation--
``(1) $28,200,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(2) $24,400,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(3) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(4) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
SEC. 6. SCIENTIFIC EARTHQUAKE STUDIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--The Director of the United States Geological
Survey shall establish a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee.
(b) Organization.--The Director shall establish procedures for
selection of individuals not employed by the Federal Government who are
qualified in the seismic sciences and other appropriate fields and may,
pursuant to such procedures, select up to ten individuals, one of whom
shall be designated Chairman, to serve on the Advisory Committee.
Selection of individuals for the Advisory Committee shall be based
solely on established records of distinguished service, and the
Director shall ensure that a reasonable cross-section of views and
expertise is represented. In selecting individuals to serve on the
Advisory Committee, the Director shall seek and give due consideration
to recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, professional
societies, and other appropriate organizations.
(c) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at such times and
places as may be designated by the Chairman in consultation with the
Director.
(d) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall advise the Director on
matters relating to the United States Geological Survey's participation
in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, including the
United States Geological Survey's roles, goals, and objectives within
that Program, its capabilities and research needs, guidance on
achieving major objectives, and establishing and measuring performance
goals. The Advisory Committee shall issue an annual report to the
Director for submission to Congress on or before September 30 of each
year. The report shall describe the Advisory Committee's activities and
address policy issues or matters that affect the United States
Geological Survey's participation in the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program.
SEC. 7. BUDGET COORDINATION.
Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7704) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating
subparagraphs (B) through (F) as subparagraphs (A)
through (E), respectively; and
(B) by moving subparagraph (E), as so redesignated by
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, so as to appear
immediately after subparagraph (D), as so redesignated;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Budget Coordination.--
``(1) Guidance.--The Agency shall each year provide guidance
to the other Program agencies concerning the preparation of
requests for appropriations for activities related to the
Program, and shall prepare, in conjunction with the other
Program agencies, an annual Program budget to be submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget.
``(2) Reports.--Each Program agency shall include with its
annual request for appropriations submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a report that--
``(A) identifies each element of the proposed Program
activities of the agency;
``(B) specifies how each of these activities
contributes to the Program; and
``(C) states the portion of its request for
appropriations allocated to each element of the
Program.''.
SEC. 8. REPORT ON AT-RISK POPULATIONS.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and after a period for public comment, the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall transmit to the Congress a report
describing the elements of the Program that specifically address the
needs of at-risk populations, including the elderly, persons with
disabilities, non-English-speaking families, single-parent households,
and the poor. Such report shall also identify additional actions that
could be taken to address those needs, and make recommendations for any
additional legislative authority required to take such actions.
SEC. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS TO EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION.
Section 5(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977 (42 U.S.C. 7704(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``, and
development of means of increasing public access to available locality-
specific information that may assist the public in preparing for or
responding to earthquakes'' after ``and the general public''.
SEC. 10. LIFELINES.
Section 4(6) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7703(6)) is amended by inserting ``and infrastructure'' after
``communication facilities''.
II. Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 for the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program, a multi-agency program involving the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National
Science Foundation, and National Institute of Standards and
Technology. In addition, it provides five-year authorizations
for the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring
System and the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation.
The bill authorizes: $145.3 million for Fiscal Year 2000;
$174.815 million for Fiscal Year 2001; $59.5 million for Fiscal
Year 2002; $39.5 million for Fiscal Year 2003; and $50.5
million for Fiscal Year 2004.
III. Background and Need for Legislation
Congress created the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP) in P.L. 95-124, the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act of 1977, in response to a recognized national
threat posed by earthquakes and to reduce losses in life and
property from seismic events. Over the years, NEHRP activities
have led to significant advances in our knowledge of the
geologic and engineering aspects of earthquake risk reduction.
Since its inception, NEHRP has focused on seismic research,
engineering research, and mitigation through various
activities. NEHRP is executed by four separate federal
agencies--the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), National Science Foundation (NSF),
and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
As the designated lead agency for NEHRP, FEMA is charged
with the responsibility of coordinating the activities of the
other principal agencies, conducting planning for and managing
of federal responses to earthquakes, and funding state and
local preparedness activities. USGS conducts and supports earth
science investigations to understand the origins of
earthquakes, characterize earthquake hazards, and predict the
geologic effects of earthquakes. USGS also operates, through
partnerships, seismic monitoring networks. NSF funds earthquake
engineering research, basic earth sciences research, and
earthquake-related social sciences research. Earthquake
engineering research includes assessing the impact of
earthquakes on buildings and lifelines. NIST conducts and
supports engineering studies to improve seismic provisions of
standards, codes, and practices for buildings and lifelines.
(Additional federal agencies contribute to NEHRP through
research activities consistent with their primary missions. For
example, the Department of Energy has studied the seismic
safety of nuclear reactor designs as part of their nuclear
energy research program.)
In the 103rd Congress, NEHRP was authorized for Fiscal
Years 1996 and 1997 (P.L. 103-374). In addition to
authorizations of $103 million for Fiscal Year 1995 and $106
million for Fiscal Year 1996, this Act directed the President
to conduct an assessment of earthquake engineering research and
testing facilities in the United States. NSF and NIST
commissioned the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
(EERI) to conduct the assessment. A report released by EERI
made findings and recommendations regarding the state of the
nation's earthquake engineering testing facilities. Chief among
these was a recommendation advocating a comprehensive plan for
upgrading existing earthquake engineering research and testing
facilities be developed and implemented.
NEHRP was last authorized in the 105th Congress and was
signed into law on October 1, 1997. P.L. 105-47 provides
authorizations totaling $108.8 million for Fiscal Year 1998 and
$111.9 million for Fiscal Year 1999. It also authorizes the
development of real-time seismic hazard warning systems through
the use of prototypes, requests an assessment of regional
seismic networks in the United States, and requires NSF,
working with the other Program agencies, to develop a plan to
upgrade and integrate earthquake engineering research
facilities. The authorizations for appropriations for NEHRP
expire at the end of Fiscal Year 1999.
IV. Summary of Hearings
The Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on
Science held a hearing on February 23, 1999 to heart testimony
on the Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for
NEHRP and to examine issues related to a two-year authorization
for the Program. Appearing as witnesses before the Subcommittee
were: Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Director, Mitigation
Directorate, FEMA; P. Patrick Leahy, Chief Geologist, USGS;
Joseph Bordogna, Acting Deputy Director, NSF; Raymond G.
Kammer, Director, NIST; Daniel P. Abrams, Hanson Engineers
Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign and Director, Mid-America Earthquake Center;
and Christopher Arnold, President, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute.
Mr. Armstrong began his testimony by stating that FEMA, in
concert with the other NEHRP agencies, has developed a draft
strategic plan. Informing this plan is a vision of a future in
which all seismically-vulnerable regions of the United States
shall have practices and policies in place that minimize the
impact of earthquakes. Four specific goals are part of the
plan: They are: (1) to accelerate the implementation of
earthquake loss-reduction practices and policies; (2) to
improve techniques to reduce seismic vulnerability at
facilities and systems; (3) to improve the quality and use of
seismic hazard identification and risk-assessment methods; and
(4) to improve the understanding of earthquakes and their
effects.
Mr. Armstrong mentioned many of the successes of the
Program over the past two years and highlighted the interagency
cooperation that made them possible. The creation of the NEHRP
strategic plan, he said, was another good example of
interagency cooperation and participation.
Regarding FEMA, Mr. Armstrong noted its work in
establishing code guidelines for new and existing buildings
through the uniform and model code organizations,
rehabilitation and retrofitting guidelines, the steel moment
frame study, the wood frame study, the lifelines initiative,
the hazards U.S. loss estimation methodology, and other
activities.
USGS's Dr. Leahy reprised the three roles that his agency
plays in NEHRP: (1) to produce products for earthquake-loss
reduction, such as earthquake hazards assessments, national
seismic hazard maps, and ``getting the geology into the
codes''; (2) to provide timely and accurate notifications of
earthquakes and information on their location, size, and damage
potential; and (3) to conduct and support research on the
occurrence and effects of earthquakes. USGS also plays an
important role in the Global Seismograph Network, maintaining
71 of the 107 stations comprising the system.
Dr. Leahy's testimony also included a discussion of three
areas of concern. First, although the 1998 NEHRP bill
authorized $3.0 million in each of Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999
for real-time seismic warning system development,
appropriations matching these authorizations did not
materialize. Nevertheless, USGS has continued to push ahead
with the Tri-Net pilot project inSouthern California and for
Fiscal Year 2000 requests $1.6 million to initiate similar projects in
San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City. Second, USGS is nearing
completion of an assessment of the U.S. seismic monitoring system. The
current system is based on 1960s technology and was developed ad hoc.
It is USGS's view that the entire seismic monitoring infrastructure is
in need of attention. Third, because of the scientific complexity of
the technical issues involved in fulfilling USGS's role within NEHRP,
USGS would benefit from the advice of an external advisory committee.
Dr. Bordogna discussed NSF'S NEHRP-related research
activities, highlighting two of them. The first is NSF's
proposal for a Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation--
or NEES--which grew out of the 1998 NEHRP language calling for
modernization of the Nation's earthquake engineering research
facilities. The National Science Board gave NSF approval to
include the costs for initiating this five-year, $81.8 million
project in its Fiscal year 2000 budget. When completed, the
Network will be an integrated system of new and upgraded
experimental research facilities for testing full-size
structures and their components in partial-scale physical
models. The components of the system will be distributed at
various sites across the country and include such items as
shake tables, large-reaction walls for psuedo-dynamic testing,
centrifuges for testing soils and earthquake loads, and new
testing facilities (e.g., mobile shakers). These components
will be inter-connected with a computer network allowing for
remote access, data-sharing, and collaborative research.
The second is NSF's support for the Incorporated Research
Institutes in Seismology (IRIS), a consortium of universities
conducting seismological research. NSF's support provides
facilities necessary to monitor earthquakes worldwide, study
the tectonic structure of active seismic zones, and provide
rapid response to after-shock of major earthquakes. IRIS, in
cooperation with USGS, operates the Global Seismic Network, the
primary means of locating and characterizing, in near real
time, seismic events around the world. Dr. Bordogna also noted
that tests are being conducted on the deep ocean floor to
determine the best technology for monitoring ocean areas.
Mr. Kammer's testimony began with a discussion of NIST's
role in the Program. Primarily, NIST conducts research to
improve practices, codes, and standards for buildings and
lifelines that, when in place, will allow a building or
lifeline to survive an earthquake. Additionally, NIST: (1)
promotes better building practices among architects and
engineers; (2) works with national standards and model building
code organizations to encourage implementation of research
results; and (3) works with national standards organizations to
develop seismic standards for new and existing lifelines.
Mr. Kammer stated that, in support of the NEHRP Strategic
Plan, NIST's activities would contribute principally to the
goals of accelerating the implementation of earthquake loss-
reduction practices and improving techniques to reduce seismic
vulnerability at facilities through three activities: (1)
leadership and participation in the Interagency Committee on
Seismic Safety in Construction; (2) problem-focused research to
improve codes, standards, and practices; and (3) leadership and
participation in standards and international activities.
The focus of Dr. Abrams' testimony was on the engineering
aspects of earthquake loss reduction. He argued that funding
for earthquake research was justified, pointing to the
difference in damage between the Armenia, Columbia earthquake,
where damage was severe, and the Loma Prieta and Northridge
earthquakes in California, where the damage was much less
severe. He attributed the difference to the advanced seismic
integrity of U.S. buildings, the result of earthquake
engineering research. He also cited the accomplishments of
NEHRP since 1977, particularly investigations that led to
improvements in three areas: (1) knowledge of how constructed
facilities respond to earthquakes; (2) national standards and
practices for planning, design, and construction of earthquake
resistant facilities and lifelines; and (3) methods for
assessing vulnerability, retrofit, and repair of existing
facilities to earthquakes. Looking to the future, Dr. Abrams
stated that earthquake losses can be reduced greatly by
adapting technologies from other disciplines. He said that
research will follow new perspectives driven by the needs of
the public and private sectors, new findings from future
earthquakes, new systems-orientated approaches, and the
occurrence of related natural hazards.
Mr. Arnold also reviewed NEHRP accomplishments and
commented that while we may be winning the war against death
and injury, the war against destruction caused by earthquakes
is far from over. Engineers have learned in the past few years
that the process of building design and construction must
undergo significant change. Performance-based design is
intended to achieve this. He also suggested that the main
threat remains the Nation's stock of existing buildings. This
realization led to FEMA issuing a guidance document providing
rehabilitation approaches to existing structures.
Mr. Arnold also spoke in favor of NSF's NEES project. He
further noted that while basic research provides knowledge,
problem-focused research provides solutions. In the latter
context, he mentioned the FEMA-led studies on steel-frame and
wood-frame buildings, which in his view represent a new
dimension for the Program. He also spoke to how social science
research can promote loss reduction by improving our knowledge
of the social and economic scope of the earthquake problem.
V. Committee Actions
As summarized above, the Subcommittee on Basic Research of
the Committee on Science heard testimony relevant to NEHRP at a
hearing held on February 23, 1999.
On March 18, 1999, Mr. Nick Smith, Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Basic Research, joined by Mrs. Constance
Morella, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology,
introduced H.R. 1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 1999, a bill to authorize appropriations
for NEHRP for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001.
The Full Science Committee met to consider H.R. 1184 on
Thursday, March 25, 1999, and entertained the following
amendments and report language.
Amendment 1.--Mr. Wu (OR) offered an amendment to add to
the authorizations for equipment for the Advanced National
Seismic Research and Monitoring System an additional $1.4
million for each of Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 for portable
seismic arrays. This amendment corrected a mistake in the
equipment funding profile made available to the Committee by
USGS. It was adopted by voice vote.
Amendment 2.--Mr. Wu (OR) offered an amendment that would
have authorized $15.9 million for Fiscal Year 2002, $22.6
million for Fiscal Year 2003, and $28.9 million for Fiscal Year
2004 for operating the Advanced National Seismic Research and
Monitoring System. However, in offering the amendment Mr. Wu
noted that fully funding the operation of the Advanced Seismic
System would require extending the base USGS authorization an
additional three years. He therefore withdrew his amendment
and, in so doing, urged the Committee to include report
language stating its intention to authorize full funding for
the operation of the Advanced Seismic System in future
authorization bills.
Amendment 3.--Ms. Woolsey (CA) offered an amendment that
would require FEMA to submit to Congress within one year a
study on elements of NEHRP that address the needs of at-risk
populations. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Amendment 4.--Mr. Larson (CT) offered an amendment to
require FEMA, as part of its responsibilities laid out in the
1977 Act, to develop the means to increase public access to
locality-specific information that may assist the public in
preparing for earthquakes. The amendment was adopted by voice
vote.
Amendment 5.--Mr. Larson (CT) offered an amendment to add
the phrase ``and infrastructure'' to that part of the
definition of lifelines concerning ``electric power and
communications facilities'' to make it clear that the Internet
is considered a critical lifeline. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
Report Language.--Mr. Smith (MI) offered report language
with respect to re-invigorating FEMA's coordination activities
among NEHRP agencies, state and local governments, and research
facilities. The language was agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Weldon (PA) also raised the issue of coordination
between the Department of Defense and USGS earthquake
monitoring programs, and Chairman Sensenbrenner instructed
Committee staff to inquire as to the extent of coordination
between the programs in these agencies.
With a quorum present, Mr. Brown moved that the Committee
report the bill, H.R. 1184, as amended, to the House, that the
staff prepare the legislative report and make technical and
conforming changes, and that the Chairman take all necessary
steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. The
motion was approved by voice vote.
Mr. Sensenbrenner asked and received unanimous consent that
Committee Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to
submit supplemental, minority or additional views on the
measure, and that, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule XX of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee authorize the
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House
to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 1184 or a similar
Senate bill.
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
H.R. 1184 authorizes: $145.3 million for Fiscal Year 2000;
$174.815 million for Fiscal Year 2001; $59.5 million for Fiscal
Year 2002; $39.5 million for Fiscal Year 2003; and $50.5
million for Fiscal Year 2004 (see Table 1). These
authorizations include the Advanced National Seismic Research
and Monitoring System and the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation, both of which are five-year projects.
For Fiscal Year 2000, H.R. 1184 authorizes $99.6 million
for the base earthquake programs at four agencies--the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National
Science Foundation, and National Institute of Standards and
Technology--just slightly above the Administration request.
This includes: $3.5 million for the Global Seismic Network;
$100,000 for the USGS Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee; and $1.6 million for the Real-Time Seismic Warning
System pilot program. At least $9.0 million of the funds
authorized for Fiscal Year 2000 are to be used for external
research at USGS.
TABLE 1.--H.R. 1184, THE EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
Agency request authorization authorization authorization authorization authorization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA\1\...................................................... 19,800 19,800 20,400 NA NA NA
==========================================================================================
USGS:
General Activities \2\................................... 45,996 46,100 47,500 NA NA NA
Real-Time Seismic Warning System......................... 1,600 1,600 1,650 NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adv. Nat'l Seismic Research & Monitoring System:
Equipment............................................ 0.0 33,500 33,700 35,100 35,000 33,500
Operation............................................ 0.0 4,500 10,300 NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Adv. Nat'l Seismic Research & Monitoring 0.0 38,000 44,000 35,100 35,000 33,500
System............................................
==========================================================================================
Total, USGS........................................ 47,596 85,700 93,150 35,100 35,000 33,500
==========================================================================================
NSF:
Engineering & Geosciences Research....................... 29,900 29,900 30,800 NA NA NA
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation............ 7,700 7,700 28,200 24,400 4,500 17,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NSF............................................. 37,600 37,600 59,000 24,400 4,500 17,000
==========================================================================================
NIST......................................................... 2,198 2,200 2,265 NA NA NA
==========================================================================================
Total, NEHRP........................................... 107,194 145,300 174,815 59,500 39,500 50,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Figures include $4.4 million for the NEHRP contribution to the Executive Direction for Emergency Management Performance Grant program.
\2\ For Fiscal Year 2000, the figure includes: $3.5 million for the Global Seismic Network; $100,000 for the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee; and a minimum of $9.0 million for external research. For Fiscal Year 2001, the figure includes: $3.6 million for the Global Seismic
network; $100,000 for the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee; and a minimum of $9.5 million for external research.
For Fiscal Year 2001, H.R. 1184 authorizes $102.615 million
for the base earthquake programs, a three percent increase over
the Fiscal Year 2000 authorization. This includes: $3.6 million
for the Global Seismic Network; $100,000 for the USGS
Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee; and $1.65
million for the Real-Time Seismic Warning System pilot program.
At least $9.5 million of the funds authorized for Fiscal Year
2000 are to be used for external research at USGS.
The bill also authorizes USGS to establish and operate an
Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System,
providing a five-year authorization (Fiscal Years 2000-2004)
totaling $170.8 million for the purchase of monitors and
communications equipment and a two-year authorization (Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001) totaling $14.8 million to cover the
incremental costs of operating the advanced system.
In addition, H.R. 1184 authorizes NSF to establish a
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, which will
interconnect earthquake engineering research facilities and
upgrade and expand major earthquake testing facilities. The
bill provides for a five-year authorization (Fiscal Years 2000-
2004) totaling $81.8 million.
Finally, the bill: repeals obsolete provisions of the 1977
Act; provides a two-year authorization for USGS to establish a
Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee; requires
greater coordination in the formulation and presentation of the
NEHRP budget; directs FEMA to submit to Congress a study on how
the Program serves at-risk populations; and directs FEMA to
make publicly available locality-specific earthquake
information.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
H.R. 1184 authorizes appropriations for carrying out the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Act of 1977) as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title
Cites the Act as the ``Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 1999.''
Sec. 2. Authorization of appropriations
Provides two-year authorizations for the agencies
participating in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program as follows:
(a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--Amends subsection
12(a) of the Act of 1977 to authorize $19.8 million for Fiscal
Year 2000 and $20.4 million for Fiscal Year 2001.
(b) U.S. Geological Survey.--
(1) Amends subsection 12(b) of the Act of 1977 to authorize
$46.1 million for Fiscal Year 2000 (which includes $3.5 million
for the Global Seismic Network and $100,000 for the Advisory
Committee on External Earthquake Research) and $47.5 million
for Fiscal Year 2001 (which includes $3.6 million for the
Global Seismic Network and $100,000 for the Advisory Committee
on External Earthquake Research). Of these amounts, $9.0
million for Fiscal Year 2000 and $9.5 million for Fiscal Year
2001 are to be used for external research;
(2) Amends section 2(a)(7) of the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 to authorize $1.6
million for Fiscal Year 2000 and $1.65 million for Fiscal Year
2001 for the Seismic Hazard Warning System pilot program.
(c) National Science Foundation.--Amends subsection 12(c)
of the Act of 1977 to authorize out of sums otherwise
authorized $29.9 million ($19.0 million for engineering and
$10.9 million for geosciences research) for Fiscal Year 2000
and to authorize without reference to existing authorizations
$30.8 million ($19.6 million for engineering and $11.2 million
for geosciences research) for Fiscal Year 2001.
(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--Amends
subsection 12(d) of the Act of 1977 to authorize out of sums
otherwise authorized $2.2 million for Fiscal Year 2000 and
$2.265 million for Fiscal Year 2001.
Sec. 3. Repeals
Repeals section 10 and subsections 12(e) and (f) of the
1977 Act, each of which is obsolete.
Sec. 4. Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System
Amends the Act of 1977 by adding the following Section:
``Sec. 13. Advanced National Seismic Research and
Monitoring System.
``(a) Authorizes the Director of USGS to establish an
Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System.
``(b) Requires within 120 days of enactment a five-year
management plan for deploying and operating the Advanced
Seismic System.
``(c) Authorizes for USGS: $33.5 million for Fiscal Year
2000; $33.7 million for Fiscal Year 2001; $35.1 million for
Fiscal Year 2002; $35.0 million for Fiscal Year 2003; and $33.5
million for Fiscal Year 2004 for expansion and modernization of
the monitoring system.
``(d) Authorizes for USGS: $4.5 million for Fiscal Year
2000 and $10.3 million for Fiscal Year 2001 for operating the
Advanced Seismic System.
Sec. 5. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
Amends the Act of 1977 by adding the following section:
``Sec. 14. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation.
``(a) Defines terms and authorizes NSF to establish a
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation that will
upgrade, link, and integrate a complete system of test
facilities in earthquake engineering.
``(b) Authorizes out of funds otherwise authorized to be
appropriated to NSF $7.7 million for Fiscal Year 2000 and
authorizes without reference to existing authorizations $28.2
million for Fiscal Year2001; $24.4 million for Fiscal Year
2002; $4.5 million for Fiscal Year 2003; and $17.0 million for 2004 for
the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation.
Sec. 6. Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee
(a) Authorizes the Director of USGS to establish a
Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee to provide
USGS with scientific advice regarding its participation in the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
(b) Directs the USGS Director to establish procedures for
the selection of up to ten qualified individuals not employed
by the Federal Government, one of whom shall be designated
Chairman, to serve on the Advisory Committee. Individuals shall
be selected solely on established records of distinguished
service, and the Director shall ensure that the Advisory
Committee represents a cross-section of views and expertise.
The Director also shall seek and give due consideration to
recommendations from the National Academy of Science,
professional societies, and other appropriate organizations.
(c) Establishes procedures for calling meetings of the
Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall meet at such
times and places as may be designated by the Chairman in
consultation with the Director.
(d) Explains the duties of the Advisory Committee. It shall
provide advice to the Director on matters relating to the USGS
earthquake program--including USGS's roles, goals and
objectives, capabilities and research needs, and performance
goals--and shall issue an annual report to the Director for
submission to Congress on or before September 30 of each year.
The report shall describe the Advisory Committee's activities
and address policy issues or matters that affect the Geological
Survey's participation in the Program.
Sec. 7. Budget coordination
Amends section 5 of the Act of 1977 by:
(1) Striking the language on budget responsibilities in
subjection 5(b)(1)(A) (which subsequently is incorporated in
new subsection 5(c)).
(2) Adding the following at the end of section 5:
``(c) Budget Coordination.--
``(1) Requires greater coordination on the budget for
the Program. Instructs FEMA, the lead agency, to
provide guidance to each Program agency in preparing
annual budget requests.
``(2) Requires FEMA, in conjunction with the other
Program agencies, to prepare an annual budget to submit
to OMB.''
Sec. 8. Report on at-risk populations
Requires FEMA, within one year after the date of enactment,
to transmit to Congress a report describing elements of the
Program that specifically address the needs of at-risk
populations, including the elderly, the disabled, non-English
speaking people, single-parent households, and the poor. The
report also shall identify additional actions to address these
needs and recommend legislative language that may be needed.
Sec. 9. Public access to earthquake information
Amends subsection 5(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 1977 Act to require
FEMA to develop the means to make available locality-specific
information that may assist the public in preparing for
earthquakes.
Sec. 10. Lifelines
Amends subsection 4(6) of the 1977 Act to add the phrase
``and infrastructure'' to that part of the definition of
lifelines concerning ``electrical power and communications
facilities.''
VIII. Committee Views
General
In the report accompanying H.R. 2249, the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 Reauthorization, in the 105th
Congress, the Committee voiced its concern about level or
declining funding for NEHRP. The Committee is pleased to note
that for Fiscal Year 2000, when changes in accounting structure
are taken into account, the Administration has proposed an
increase of $11.063 million over the amount enacted for Fiscal
Year 1999.
Details of the authorizations in H.R. 1184 are provided in
Table 1. For the base earthquake programs, H.R. 1184 authorizes
appropriations slightly above the Administration request. In
addition, the bill provides authorizations for two new
projects--the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring
System and the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES)--the former of which was not included in the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 request for the Program. When
these projects are included, total authorizations in H.R. 1184
for Fiscal Year 2000 are 40.7 percent above the level enacted
for Fiscal Year 1999 and 35.5 percent above the Administration
request for Fiscal Year 2000 (see Table 2).
For Fiscal Year 2001, H.R. 1184 authorizes a three percent
increase in funding for the base program and additional funding
for the Advanced Seismic System and NEES, consistent with the
funding profiles for the two projects. In total, the Fiscal
Year 2001 authorization is $29.515 million, or 20.3 percent,
above the Fiscal Year 2000 authorization, largely because of
increased authorizations for NEES and the Advanced Seismic
System.
The Committee supports increasing NEHRP funding by the
amounts authorized in H.R. 1184. Its main concern is to reduce
the loss of life associated with major earthquakes. The results
of these events can be devastating. In 1976, and earthquake
measuring 8.0 on the Richter scale struck the city of Tangshan,
China, killing over 600,000 people. The Mexico City earthquake
of 1985 killed an estimated 3,500 people, and, more recently,
the Armenia, Columbia earthquake killed an estimated 1,000
people. A strong earthquake in a heavily-populated area of the
United States could result in catastrophic losses.
TABLE 2.--H.R. 1184, THE EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999: COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 ENACTED, FISCAL YEAR 2000 REQUEST, AND FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2001 AUTHORIZATIONS
[in thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 authorization change + or - from FY 2001 authorization
-------------------------------------------- change (+ or - from
Agency FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2000 FY 2001 --------------------------
enacted request authorization authorization FY 1999 Percent FY 2000 Percent FY 2000
enacted request authorization Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA............................................................... 18,900 19,800 19,800 20,400 900 4.8 0 0.0 600 3.0
USGS............................................................... 52,391 47,596 85,700 93,150 33,309 63.6 41,585 94.3 7,450 8.7
NSF................................................................ 29,900 37,600 37,600 59,000 7,700 25.8 0 0.0 21,400 56.9
NIST............................................................... 2,060 2,198 2,200 2,265 140 6.8 2 0.1 65 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 103,251 107,194 145,300 174,815 42,049 40.7 38,106 35.5 29,515 20.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic losses associated with earthquakes also
provide ample justification for increased funding. Annually,
the average loss from earthquakes in the United States is about
$4.4 billion, but these losses can sometimes be much greater.
For example, the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 and the
Northridge earthquake of 1994 resulted in damages of $6 billion
and $40 billion, respectively.
If history is any guide, powerful earthquakes are in store
for many parts of the country. Missouri (1811 and 1812),
Southern California (1857), Hawaii (1868), South Carolina
(1886), Alaska (1899), and Northern California (1906) all have
experienced violent earthquakes that, if they occurred today,
would be very destructive.
It is the Committee's view that the Federal Government has
an appropriate role in play in using science to protect lives
and property. Through improved preparedness, NEHRP represents a
long term investment that will pay for itself many times over
in saved lives and reduced property losses. Earthquakes may be
inevitable, but catastrophic losses in life and property need
not be if we use science to help communities prepare.
global seismic network
For the Global Seismic Network, H.R. 1184 includes
authorizations of $3.5 million for Fiscal Year 2000, slightly
above the requested level of $3.481, and $3.6 million for
Fiscal Year 2001, an increase of 2.9 percent over the Fiscal
Year 2000 authorization.
external grants
The Committee recognizes that USGS has made a great
progress in its external grants program. The Committee places a
high priority on competitive external grants programs, which is
the reason it placed in statute language establishing an
external grants program at USGS in the 1997 earthquake bill
(P.L. 105-47). For Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, H.R. 1184
requires a minimum of $9.0 million and $9.5 million,
respectively, for external research. As USGS currently spends
in excess of these amounts for external research, this
requirement should not affect other programs at USGS, nor
should it affect staffing levels. Indeed, the Committee expects
that USGS will be able to maintain, if not increase, the amount
currently going towards external research.
advanced national seismic research and monitoring system
The seismic monitoring system now in operation is comprised
of 41 individual networks, which range in size from networks of
three or four stations to networks of hundreds of seismographs.
Most of the monitors used in these networks, the majority of
which are based on outdated technology, are unable to capture
the full range of frequencies and amplitudes of seismic waves.
Indeed, modern broad-band instruments capable of recording both
very small and fairly large earthquakes on-scale make up only
about 6 percent of the instruments currently in operation. Many
also lack digital recording capability. As seismic monitoring
is the foundation upon which all earthquake warning and
mitigation efforts are based, the importance of accurate,
complete, and timely information cannot be overstated.
Advances in electronics, computers, networking, and seismic
sensors have made it possible to improve the collection and
processing of earthquake data. Recognizing this, P.L. 105-47
requiredUSGS to examine the status of current seismic
monitoring systems and the need for upgrading them. This assessment was
furnished in a recently-issued USGS report, An Assessment of Seismic
Monitoring in the United States: Requirement for an Advanced Seismic
System. In the Committee's view, the report makes a compelling case for
an Advanced Seismic System. Such a system will improve warning times
and provide a wealth of information to scientists and engineers. Direct
applications of the Advanced Seismic System include: earthquake,
volcano, and tsunami warning and emergency response; seismic hazard
assessment; earthquake engineering; scientific research; and public
information and education.
H.R. 1184 authorizes for USGS $170.80 million over Fiscal
Years 2000-2004 for equipment--including $2.8 million for
portable seismic arrays--and a further $14.8 million over
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 for the incremental costs of
operating the system. It should be noted that the
authorizations for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 for operating the
Advanced Seismic System are in addition to the approximately
$18 million USGS spends annually on systems operations (and
which is included in USGS's base funding).
While the Committee is reasonably comfortable with the out-
year figures for equipment, it has less confidence in the out-
year figures for operations. The Committee believes, therefore,
that at this time it is premature to provide a five-year
authorization for operating the system, which would require
extending the authorization for USGS base funding for five-
years, as well. To avoid the need for separate authorizations
for operations in future bills, the Committee expects USGS to
roll together the operating funds for the old and new systems
in its FY 2002 and subsequent budget requests.
The Committee also would draw attention to the bill
language requiring USGS, in its implementation plan, to
establish new, or enhance existing, partnerships to leverage
resources. It is the Committee's hope that operating costs can
be reduced significantly through partnerships with industry and
state and local governments, and it expects USGS to look for
creative ways to reduce operating costs.
While it is the Committee's intention to see that system
operations are authorized in future authorizations, it believes
the two-year authorization in H.R. 1184 is fiscally prudent and
provides incentives to leverage resources and reduce costs. The
Committee will re-examine operating costs for this system when
NEHRP next comes up for reauthorization in two years.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
For the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, H.R.
1184 provides NSF a five-year authorization totaling $81.8
million. NEES will interconnect earthquake engineering research
facilities and upgrade and expand major earthquake testing
facilities.
The idea for NEES developed from provisions in P.L. 105-47,
which required NSF to work with the other NEHRP agencies to
develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering
research,
including upgrades of existing facilities and equipment and
integration of new, innovative testing approaches to the
research infrastructure. More than 30 institutions operate
earthquake engineering facilities. NEES funds will be used to:
purchase new and upgrade existing shaketables; build
centrifuges and tsunami testing tanks; build new reaction
walls, load simulators, and response modifiers; and create
field test facilities, such as mobile equipment, field sites,
and post-earthquake laboratories. In addition, using existing
software and high-speed networking infrastructure, NEES will
provide remote access and make available to the earthquake
engineering community a complete, integrated system of testing
and experimental facilities.
The Committee supports full funding for NEES. Once
completed, NEES should revolutionize the way earthquake
engineering research is conducted and advance our understanding
and capabilities considerably.
Budget Coordination
The Committee is concerned at the seeming inability to get
timely, accurate budget figures from some of the agencies
participating in NEHRP; in some cases, elements of the Program
were not even apparent in the detailed budget justifications
submitted to Congress by the agencies. The Committee expects a
greater degree of interagency coordination in preparing the
Program's budget and more information than is currently
available in budget justifications. H.R. 1184 contains language
that would make FEMA, the Lead Agency, responsible for
preparing a NEHRP budget for submission to the Office of
Management and Budget. The Committee expects that future agency
budget submissions will lay out clearly the elements of the
Program, and it will look to FEMA to provide the necessary
coordination.
Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee
H.R. 1184 provides authorizations of $100,000 for each of
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 for a Scientific Earthquake Studies
Advisory Committee at USGS. The Advisory Committee was sought
by USGS, which would benefit from the perspectives, advice, and
guidance of a standing panel of external experts. H.R. 1184
provides authorizations of $100 thousand for each of Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001. When NEHRP is considered for
reauthorization in two years, the Committee will revisit this
issue and assess the need to extend the authorization of the
Advisory Committee beyond the two years provided in the bill.
Coordination Activities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Committee expects FEMA to reinvigorate its coordination
activities among NEHRP agencies. Additionally, FEMA, as the
lead agency shall identify a list of federal, state, and local
agencies and research institutions that have earthquake-related
programs that contribute towards the goals of NEHRP. An
associate agency would be defined as a Federal agency other
than a NEHRP agency that administers program(s) that either
perform earthquake-related research or develop standards, codes
or other material related earthquake losses. FEMA will convene
a series of meetings of senior level officials (Assistant
Secretary or equivalent level), establish points of contact,
and determine avenues of mutual cooperation with respective
associate agencies. If agreeable to the parties, the NEHRP
``core'' will be expanded to include broader participation by
associate agencies. These agencies will participate, at a
minimum, at the Interagency Coordination Committee level as set
forth in the statute.
coordination of defense and usgs seismic monitoring programs
The Committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
operates seismic monitoring systems as part of its mission to
ensure compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty. The Committee fully supports this mission and
recognizes its importance to our national security. However,
the Committee also is mindful of the potential for overlap
between DOD and USGS monitoring programs.
The seismic monitoring programs at DOD and USGS should be
coordinated to the greatest extent possible and should
complement, not duplicate, each other. The Committee believes
that the Memorandum of Agreement between DOD and USGS,
``Concerning Cooperation on Matters Pertaining to the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,'' which was signed by the
agencies in September 1997, provides a good framework for
reaffirming the roles and responsibilities of DOD and USGS in
carrying out their respective missions. For USGS, these
responsibilities include monitoring, analyzing, and reporting
on seismic events in the United States and overseas, in
accordance with P.L. 95-124, as amended.
The Committee will conduct oversight and work with the
Armed Services Committee to ensure that DOD and USGS observe
the particular roles and responsibilities laid out for each
agency in the Memorandum of Agreement.
IX. Committee Cost Estimate
Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report accompanying each bill or joint
resolution of a public character to contain: (1) an estimate,
made by such committee, of the costs which would be incurred in
carrying out such bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year
in which it is reported, and in each of the five fiscal years
following such fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of
any program authorized by such bill or joint resolution, if
less than five years); (2) a comparison of the estimate of
costs described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by
such committee with an estimate of such costs made by any
Government agency and submitted to such committee; and (3) when
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level
for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate
levels under current law. However, House Rule XIII, clause
3(d)(3)(B) provides that this requirement does not apply when a
cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted
prior to the filing of the report and included in the report
pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). A cost estimate
and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of this
report and is included in Section IX of this report pursuant to
House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report that accompanies a measure
providing new budget authority (other than continuing
appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures to
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when practicable with
respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of
the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or
programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R.
1184 does not contain any new budget authority, credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R.
1184 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the
bill, which is contained in Section IX of this report.
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 12, 1999.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1184, the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts for federal
costs are Megan Carroll, Gary Brown, Kathy Gramp, and Mark
Hadley. The contact for the state and local impact is Lisa Cash
Driskill.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 1184--Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999
Summary: H.R. 1184 would authorize the appropriation of
$537 million over the 2000-2004 period (including $38 million
that is already authorized under current law) for programs
aimed at the potential reduction of earthquake hazards.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates
that the bill would result in additional discretionary spending
of $477 million over the 2000-2004 period. The bill would not
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply. H.R. 1184 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 1184 would authorize appropriations totaling $202
million over the 2000-2001 period for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to carry out
provisions of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977
(Public Law 95-124). In addition, the bill would authorize a
total of $253 million over the 2000-2004 period for a new
system of seismic research and monitoring to be administered by
USGS. H.R. 1184 also would authorize appropriations totaling
$82 million over the 2000-2004 period for NSF to establish a
network for engineering simulations of earthquakes. The amounts
authorized for NSF include $38 million that was previously
authorized in Public Law 105-207 for fiscal year 2000. (H.R.
1184 would amend that existing authorization to earmark $38
million for reducing earthquake hazards.)
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For the purposes
of this estimate, CBO assumes that all amounts authorized in
H.R. 1184 will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year
and that outlays will follow the historical spending patterns
for these and similar programs. The estimated cost of the bill
is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget functions 250 (general science, space, and
technology), 300 (natural resources and environment), 370
(commerce and housing credit), and 450 (community and regional
development).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
-----------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority/Authorization Level \1\........ 103 38 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 69 32 25 8 2 1
Proposed Changes:
FEMA:
Authorization Level......................... 0 20 20 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 11 17 8 3 1
USGS:
Authorization Level......................... 0 86 93 51 58 62
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 76 98 53 57 62
NSF:
Authorization Level......................... 0 0 59 24 5 17
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 0 13 34 25 14
NIST:
Authorization Level......................... 0 2 2 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 2 2 1 (\2\) 0
Total:
Authorization Level......................... 0 108 174 75 63 79
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 89 130 96 85 77
Spending Under H.R. 1184:
Authorization Level............................. 103 146 174 75 63 79
Estimated Outlays............................... 69 121 155 104 87 78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year. The amount for 2000 is part of an NSF authorization
under Public Law 105-207. H.R. 1184 would amend that law to earmark $30 million specifically for the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and $8 million for Earthquakes Engineering Simulation.
\2\ Less than $500,000.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1184
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. The bill would authorize funds to USGS,
FEMA, NIST, and NSF, some of which would fund earthquake
research grants to public universities. It also would set aside
$18.5 million of funds authorized for USGS over the next two
fiscal years for grants that could go to state and local
governments. Finally, state and local governments would benefit
from technical assistance and hazard mitigation planning grants
provided by FEMA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll, Gary
Brown, Kathy Gramp, Mark Hadley; Impact on State, Local, and
Tribal Governments: Lisa Cash Driskill.
Estimate approved by: Paul N. Va de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4
H.R. 1184 contains no unfunded mandates.
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include oversight findings
and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule
X. The Committee has no oversight findings.
XIII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight
Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to contain a summary of the
Oversight findings and recommendations made by the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee pursuant to clause
4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such findings and recommendations
have been submitted to the Committee in a timely fashion. The
Committee on Science has received no such findings or
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement
Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the House of Representatives
requires each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character to include a statement citing
the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution
to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States
grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1184.
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement
The functions of the advisory committee, Scientific
Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee, authorized in H.R. 1184,
are not currently being nor could they be performed by one or
more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing
advisory committee.
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act
The Committee finds that H.R. 1184 does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).
XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION ACT OF 1977
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) The term ``lifelines'' means public works and
utilities, including transportation facilities and
infrastructure, oil and gas pipelines, electrical power
and communication facilities and infrastructure, and
water supply and sewage treatment facilities.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 5. NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
(b) Responsibilities of Program Agencies.--
(1) Lead agency.--The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Agency'') shall have the primary responsibility for
planning and coordinating the Program. In carrying out
this paragraph, the Director of the Agency shall--
[(A) prepare, in conjunction with the other
Program agencies, an annual budget for the
Program to be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget;]
[(B)] (A) ensure that the Program includes
the necessary steps to promote the
implementation of earthquake hazard reduction
measures by Federal, State, and local
governments, national standards and model
building code organizations, architects and
engineers, and others with a role in planning
and constructing buildings and lifelines;
[(C)] (B) prepare, in conjunction with the
other Program agencies, a written plan for the
Program, which shall include specific tasks and
milestones for each Program agency, and which
shall be submitted to the Congress and updated
at such times as may be required by significant
Program events, but in no event less frequently
than every 3 years;
[(D)] (C) prepare, in conjunction with the
other Program agencies, a biennial report, to
be submitted to the Congress within 90 days
after the end of each even-numbered fiscal
year, which shall describe the activities and
achievements of the Program during the
preceding two fiscal years;
[(E)] (D) request the assistance of Federal
agencies other than the Program agencies, as
necessary to assist in carrying out this Act;
and
[(F)] (E) work with the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, and the United States
Geological Survey, to develop a comprehensive
plan for earthquake engineering research to
effectively use existing testing facilities and
laboratories (existing at the time of the
development of the plan), upgrade facilities
and equipment as needed, and integrate new,
innovative testing approaches to the research
infrastructure in a systematic manner.
The principal official carrying out the
responsibilities described in this paragraph shall be
at a level no lower than that of Associate Director.
* * * * * * *
(c) Budget Coordination.--
(1) Guidance.--The Agency shall each year provide
guidance to the other Program agencies concerning the
preparation of requests for appropriations for
activities related to the Program, and shall prepare,
in conjunction with the other Program agencies, an
annual Program budget to be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget.
(2) Reports.--Each Program agency shall include with
its annual request for appropriations submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget a report that--
(A) identifies each element of the proposed
Program activities of the agency;
(B) specifies how each of these activities
contributes to the Program; and
(C) states the portion of its request for
appropriations allocated to each element of the
Program.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 10. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS.
[A grant under this Act to a State from the Agency that is
made with funds appropriated under the Fiscal Year 1990 Dire
Emergency Supplemental to Meet the Needs of Natural Disasters
of National Significance (Public Law 101-130; 103 Stat. 775)
shall not include a requirement for cost sharing in an amount
greater than 25 percent of the cost of the project for which
the grant is made, and any cost sharing requirement may be
satisfied through in-kind contributions.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a)[(1) General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the President to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of
this Act (in addition to any authorizations for similar
purposes included in other Acts and the authorizations set
forth in subsections (b) and (c) of this section), not to
exceed $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscalyear ending
September 30, 1979, and not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1980.
[(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director
to carry out the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of this Act for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981--
[(A) $1,000,000 for continuation of the Interagency
Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction and the
Building Seismic Safety Council programs,
[(B) $1,500,000 for plans and preparedness for
earthquake disasters,
[(C) $500,000 for prediction response planning,
[(D) $600,000 for architectural and engineering
planning and practice programs,
[(E) $1,000,000 for development and application of a
public education program,
[(F) $3,000,000 for use by the National Science
Foundation in addition to the amount authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (c), which amount
includes $2,400,000 for earthquake policy research and
$600,000 for the strong ground motion element of the
siting program, and
[(G) $1,000,000 for use by the Center for Building
Technology, National Bureau of Standards in addition to
the amount authorized to be appropriated under
subsection (d) for earthquake activities in the Center.
[(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, $2,000,000 to
carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act.
[(4) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director,
to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act,
$1,281,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983.
[(5) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director,
to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act, for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984, $3,705,000 and for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985, $6,096,000.
[(6) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director,
to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act, for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, $5,596,000, and for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, $5,848,000.
[(7) There] General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Director of the Agency, to carry out this Act,
$5,778,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988,
$5,788,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989,
$8,798,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990,
$14,750,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991,
$19,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1992,
$22,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993,
$25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995,
$25,750,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996,
$20,900,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998,
[and] $21,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1999, $19,800,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, and $20,400,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001.
(b) Geological Survey.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes for
carrying out, through the Director of the United States
Geological Survey, the responsibilities that may be assigned to
the Director under this Act not to exceed $27,500,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1978; not to exceed
$35,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979; not
to exceed $40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1980; $32,484,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1981; $34,425,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1982; $31,843,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1983; $35,524,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1984; $37,300,200 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985
$35,578,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986;
$37,179,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987;
$38,540,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988;
$41,819,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989;
$55,283,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, of
which $8,000,000 shall be for earthquake investigations under
section 11; $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1991; $54,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1992; $62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1993; $49,200,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1995; $50,676,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1996; $52,565,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998, of which $3,800,000 shall be used for the Global Seismic
Network operated by the Agency; and $54,052,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1999, of which $3,800,000 shall be
used for the Global Seismic Network operated by the Agency.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the
Interior for purposes of carrying out, through the Director of
the United States Geological Survey, the responsibilities that
may be assigned to the Director under this Act $46,100,000 for
fiscal year 2000, of which $3,500,000 shall be used for the
Global Seismic Network and $100,000 shall be used for the
Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee established
under section 6 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 1999; and $47,500,000 for fiscal year
2001, of which $3,600,000 shall be used for the Global Seismic
Network and $100,000 shall be used for the Scientific
Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee established under section
6 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of
1999. Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under this
subsection, at least--
(1) $8,000,000 of the amount authorized to be
appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998; [and]
(2) $8,250,000 of the amount authorized for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1999[,];
(3) $9,000,000 of the amount authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2000; and
(4) $9,500,000 of the amount authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2001,
shall be used for carrying out a competitive, peer-reviewed
program under which the Director, in close coordination with
and as a complement to related activities of the United States
Geological Survey, awards grants to, or enters into cooperative
agreements with, State and local governments and persons or
entities from the academic community and the private sector.
(c) National Science Foundation.--To enable the Foundation to
carry out responsibilities that may be assigned to it under
this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Foundation not to exceed $27,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1978; not to exceed $35,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1979; not to exceed $40,000,000 for
the first year ending September 30, 1980; $26,600,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1981; $27,150,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30 1982; $25,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1983; $25,800,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1984; $28,665,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1985 $27,760,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1986; $29,009,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1987; $28,235,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1988; $31,634,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1989; $38,454,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1990. Of the amounts
authorized for Engineering under section 101(d)(1)(B) of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988,
$24,000,000 is authorized for carrying out this Act for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1991, and of the amounts
authorized for Geosciences under section 101(d)(1)(D) of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988,
$13,000,000 is authorized for carrying out this Act for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1991. Of the amounts
authorized for Research and Related Activities under section
101(e)(1) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act
of 1988, $29,000,000 is authorized for engineering research
under this Act, and $14,750,000 is authorized for geosciences
research under this Act, for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1992. Of the amounts authorized for Research and Related
Activities under section 101(f)(1) of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 1988, $34,500,000 is authorized
for engineering research under this Act, and $17,500,000 is
authorized for geosciences research under this Act, for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1993. There are authorized to
be appropriated, out of funds otherwise authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation: (1)
$16,200,000 for engineering research and $10,900,000 for
geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1995, (2) $16,686,000 for engineering research and $11,227,000
for geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1996, (3) $18,450,000 for engineering research and
$11,920,000 for geosciences research for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, [and] (4) $19,000,000 for engineering
research and $12,280,000 for geosciences research for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1999[.], and (5) $19,000,000
for engineering research and $10,900,000 for geosciences
research for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. There
are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science
Foundation $19,600,000 for engineering research and $11,200,000
for geosciences research for fiscal year 2001.
(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--To
enable the National Institute of Standards and Technology to
carry out responsibilities that may be assigned to it under
this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated $425,000 for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981; $425,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1982; $475,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1983; $475,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1984; $498,750 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1985 $499,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1986; $521,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1987; $525,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1988; $525,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1989; $2,525,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1990; $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1991; $3,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1992; and $4,750,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1993. There are authorized to be appropriated,
out of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, $1,900,000 for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, $1,957,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, $2,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, [and] $2,060,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, $2,200,000 for fiscal
year 2000, and $2,265,000 for fiscal year 2001.
[(e) Funds for Certain Required Adjustments.--For each of the
fiscal years ending September 30, 1982, September 30, 1983,
September 30, 1984, and September 30, 1985, there are
authorized to be appropriated such further sums as may be
necessary for adjustments required by law in salaries, pay,
retirement, and employee benefits incurred in the conduct of
activities for which funds are authorized by the preceding
provisions of this section.
[(f) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated for fiscal
years 1991, 1992, and 1993 pursuant to this section shall
remain available until expended.]
SEC. 13. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING SYSTEM.
(a) Establishment.--The Director of the United States
Geological Survey shall establish and operate an Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System. The purpose of
such system shall be to organize, modernize, standardize, and
stabilize the national, regional, and urban seismic monitoring
systems in the United States, including sensors, recorders, and
data analysis centers, into a coordinated system that will
measure and record the full range of frequencies and amplitudes
exhibited by seismic waves, in order to enhance earthquake
research and warning capabilities.
(b) Management Plan.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 1999, the Director of the United States
Geological Survey shall transmit to the Congress a 5-year
management plan for establishing and operating the Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System. The plan shall
include annual cost estimates for both modernization and
operation, milestones, standards, and performance goals, as
well as plans for securing the participation of all existing
networks in the Advanced National Seismic Research and
Monitoring System and for establishing new, or enhancing
existing, partnerships to leverage resources.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Expansion and modernization.--In addition to
amounts appropriated under section 12(b), there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the
Interior, to be used by the Director of the United
States Geological Survey toestablish the Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System--
(A) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(B) $33,700,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(C) $35,100,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(D) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(E) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2004.
(2) Operation.--In addition to amounts appropriated
under section 12(b), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior, to be
used by the Director of the United States Geological
Survey to operate the Advanced National Seismic
Research and Monitoring System--
(A) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
(B) $10,300,000 for fiscal year 2001.
SEC. 14. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION.
(a) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall establish a Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation that will upgrade, link, and integrate a system of
geographically distributed experimental facilities for
earthquake engineering testing of full-sized structures and
their components and partial-scale physical models. The system
shall be integrated through networking software so that
integrated models and databases can be used to create model-
based simulation, and the components of the system shall be
interconnected with a computer network and allow for remote
access, information sharing, and collaborative research.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts
appropriated under section 12(c), there are authorized to be
appropriated, out of funds otherwise authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation, $7,700,000 for
fiscal year 2000 for the Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation. In addition to amounts appropriated under section
12(c), there are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Science Foundation for the Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation--
(1) $28,200,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(2) $24,400,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(3) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(4) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
----------
SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 1, 1997
AN ACT To authorize appropriations for carrying out the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for
other purposes.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF REAL-TIME SEISMIC HAZARD WARNING SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES.
(a) Automatic Seismic Warning System Development.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to
the amounts made available to the Director under
section 12(b) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(b)), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of the Interior, to be
used by the Director to carry out paragraph (2),
$3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999,
$1,600,000 for fiscal year 2000, and $1,650,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
* * * * * * *
XVIII. Committee Recommendations
On March 25, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee
favorably reported H.R. 1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 1999, by a voice vote, and recommended its
enactment.
XIX. Committee Correspondence
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1999.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: H.R. 1184, to authorize appropriations
for carrying out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1997
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, was referred to the Committee
on Science and additionally to the Committee on Resources. The
Committee on Resources has jurisdiction over the ``Geological
Survey'' under Rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, and major portions of the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act are implemented by the Director of the United
States Geological Survey (USGS).
I have reviewed the bill as ordered reported from the
Committee on Science on March 25, 1999, and have no objection
to the provisions affecting USGS. Therefore, I would be happy
to waive the Committee on Resources' jurisdiction over H.R.
1184 to allow it to be scheduled for Floor consideration as
soon as possible. Representing a State that has been devastated
by earthquakes in the past, I know first hand the need for this
program.
This waiver of Committee jurisdiction should not be
construed to affect any future referrals of bills dealing with
the same subject matter. I also receive the right to request
that the Committee on Resources be represented on any
conference on this bill or related legislation if a conference
becomes necessary. Finally, I ask that this letter be made part
of the report on the bill.
Thank you for keeping me and my staff apprised of the
progress on H.R. 1184 and I look forward to its enactment.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
XX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup
Thursday, March 25, 1999
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next bill on the agenda is H.R.
1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1999. Briefly,
this bill authorizes the existing earthquake programs at FEMA,
USGS, NSF, and NIST for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, and
authorizes two new projects, the Advanced National Seismic
Research and Monitoring Network, and the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation. I believe this is an excellent bill
that will revolutionize earthquake and engineering research.
I yield to the gentleman from California for whatever
opening statement he would like to make.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I think I will waive an opening
statement right at this point.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Subcommittee Chair, the
gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
The Ranking Member noted earlier the possibility that we are
moving quickly ahead. Because of the importance of the
California delegation, we thought it was appropriate to move
speedily with the earthquake reduction bill. This bill, H.R.
1184, authorizes $145.3 million for Fiscal Year 2000, an
increase over the President's request, and $174.8 million for
2001 for the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program.
In addition, it provides authorization for three additional
years for two new projects. Four agencies participate in NEHRP:
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological
Survey, and the National Science Foundation, and the National
Institute for Standards and Technology. For the year 2000, this
bill authorizes $99.6 million for the base earthquake program,
slightly above the requested level. This authorization includes
a $3.5 million for the operation of the global seismic network,
$1.6 million for the real-time seismic warning system pilot
program, and $100,000 for the advisory committee at the U.S.
Geological Survey.
The bill promotes external research, authorizing at least
$9 million for USGS external grants program, and for Fiscal
2001, the bill authorizes a 3 percent increase in base funding.
That would be $102.6 million.
As the Chairman mentioned, the bill also includes multi-
year authorization for what we are calling the Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System, and the
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, both of which
were started in the 1998 NEHRP bill. The case for Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System was laid out in
the USGS report that was required by the Committee two years
ago. It will improve warning times, replace some 30-year old
equipment, and provide a wealth of information to scientists
and engineers. The bill authorizes $168 million to USGA over
five years.
For the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, the
bill provides NSF a five-year authorization totaling $81.8
million. The NEES will interconnect earthquake engineering
research facilities and upgrade and expand earthquake testing
the facilities. Once completed, it should advance our
earthquake engineering capabilities considerably.
Finally, the bill authorizes the establishment of a
scientific earthquake studies advisory committee at the U.S.
Geological Survey. It requires greater coordination in the
formulation of NEHRP budget, and repeals obsolete provisions of
the law. Using science to protect lives and property is one of
the most important things this Committee does. With
earthquakes, it is not a question of if, but as I have learned
starting low on the learning curve for the problem of
earthquakes in this country, the question is when the next one
will strike and where, in what part of the country it might
happen.
Though its emphasis on monitoring research and mitigation,
H.R. 1184 will help the Nation prepare for the inevitable. I
would like to thank the Chairman for his efforts in preparing
this bill, certainly our Subcommittee staff that has done a
great deal of work, and I recommend it to my colleagues for
their approval.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time.
Does the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, have an
opening statement? The gentleman from California will make an
opening statement by proxy.
Mr. Brown. I would feel greatly remiss if I didn't say
something about an earthquake bill. [Laughter.]
This is a legislation again, that moved through the
Congress back in the mid-1970's, in which I and Senator
Cranston were the primary authors, as I recall. The legislation
has--the value of the legislation has been borne out from the
progress that has been made in saving lives and reducing damage
from earthquakes over this quarter of a century. I had that
called to my attention last Friday when I attended the opening
of a new $600 million advanced technology hospital in my
district, just a few miles from where I live, and of course
just a few miles from the San Andreas fault. This is built and
designed with the latest state-of-the-art equipment. It is a
county hospital, not a federal structure. It has gone far
further that the Federal Government has in using base
isolation, for example, and other divides to reduce damage and
save lives in the event of an earthquake.
We need to follow that kind of an example, and the Federal
Government needs to follow it. It hasn't been doing as well as
it should. Private builders of all kinds, particularly high
rise buildings, reinforced concrete buildings and so on, need
to put into practice what we now know about safe earthquake-
resistant construction.
We still don't know enough about the incidents of
earthquakes. For that reason, this bill is particularly
valuable because it provides for the funding Earthquake
Advanced Seismic Monitoring System, which I want to thank the
Chairman for including. It is something that will give us a
base of knowledge necessary to pinpoint the location of
earthquake faults. Whether you can believe it or not, we are
still discovering new faults in the southern California region
that we didn't even know existed before. We need to identify
these and to make sure that in the most serious cases, we
provide adequate zoning so that there is some protection from
the very start in terms of the type of buildings that can be
placed in certain locations to protect our communities.
So this bill is actually an extremely good bill. If
continues for another several years this very important
program. As I say, we continue both to develop scientific
knowledge about what is going on, and we continue to improve
the practice of siting and constructing buildings in such a
fashion that we gain many times more than the cost of this bill
in terms of damage to lives and structures.
So I am very commendatory of all those who worked on it,
and the Chairman's cooperation in moving this bill through
promptly.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back the
balance of his time?
Mr. Brown. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, further opening
statements will be placed in the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
Opening Statement of Congresswoman Debbie Stabenow of the 8th District,
State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brown, thank you for holding today's
markup and addressing this legislation. The bills before us today build
on recent House priorities concerning disaster mitigation, the
commercialization of federal research, and easing the regulatory burden
for business. I support all of these concepts and applaud the Committee
for its efforts.
Representing a district in Michigan which relies on the auto
industry, I am particularly interested in H.R. 1183, The Fastener
Quality Act Amendment of 1999. I have been monitoring the discussions
between the Committee staffs and the Fastener Reform Coalition, and am
pleased that all sides agree that the bill before us today and the
anticipated amendments are an important step forward. I understand that
the Commerce Committee still has some concerns with this legislation,
and I look forward to continuing our work to reach a final agreement.
While safety must always be our foremost concern, wherever possible we
must endeavor to give U.S. industries the most flexible environment to
work in to ensure global competitiveness.
The other bills for before us, H.R. 209, The Technology Transfer
Commercialization Act, and H.R. 1184, The Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act of 1999, are also important. Michigan State University is located
in the heart of my district and conducts a great deal of federally-
funded research. The health of the U.S. economy is greatly improved
when we take full advantage of the innovations fostered at our national
labs and universities, and H.R. 209 will help us optimize the
commercialization of these ideas. H.R. 1184 will reauthorize the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which will help mitigate
future damage from these natural disasters. This program also places a
focus on developing earth science teaching materials for elementary and
secondary schools, which fits nicely with the emphasis the Committee
places on science and math education.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for addressing these issues today. I
am sure we will have a productive session.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I ask unanimous consent that the
bill be considered as read, and open to amendment at any point.
[The information follows:]
A Bill to authorize appropriations for carrying out the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--Section 12(a) of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(1) General.--'' and all that follows
through ``(7) There'' and inserting ``General.--There'';
(2) by striking ``1998, and'' and inserting ``1998,''; and
(3) by inserting ``, $19,800,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and $20,400,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001'' after ``September 30, 1999''.
(b) United States Geological Survey.--(1) Section 12(b) of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(b)) is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of the Interior for purposes of carrying out,
through the Director of the United States Geological Survey,
the responsibilities that may be assigned to the Director under
this Act $46,100,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which $3,500,000
shall be used for the Global Seismic Network and $100,000 shall
be used for the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee established under section 6 of the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Authorization Act of 1999; and $47,500,000 for fiscal
year 2001, of which $3,600,000 shall be used for the Global
Seismic Network and $100,000 shall be used for the Scientific
Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee established under section
6 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of
1999.'' after ``operated by the Agency.'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(C) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraphs:
``(3) $9,000,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2000; and
``(4) $9,500,000 of the amount authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2001,''.
(2) Section 2(a)(7) of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize
appropriations for carrying out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977 for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes'' is
amended by inserting ``, $1,600,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$1,650,000 for fiscal year 2001'' after ``1998 and 1999''.
(c) National Science Foundation.--Section 12(c) of the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1998, and'' and inserting ``1998,''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, and
(5) $19,000,000 for engineering research and $10,900,000 for
geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000. There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Science Foundation $19,600,000 for engineering research and
$11,200,000 for geosciences research for fiscal year 2001.''.
(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--Section 12(d) of
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(d)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``1998, and''; and
(2) by inserting ``, $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$2,265,000 for fiscal year 2001'' after ``September 30, 1999''.
SEC. 3. REPEALS.
Section 10 and subsections (e) and (f) of section 12 of the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7705d and 7706 (e)
and (f)) are repealed.
SEC. 4. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING SYSTEM.
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 13. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING SYSTEM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the United States Geological
Survey shall establish and operate an Advanced National Seismic
Research and Monitoring System. The purpose of such system shall be to
organize, modernize, standardize, and stabilize the national, regional,
and urban seismic monitoring systems in the United States, including
sensors, recorders, and data analysis centers, into a coordinated
system that will measure and record the full range of frequencies and
amplitudes exhibited by seismic waves, in order to enhance earthquake
research and warning capabilities.
``(b) Management Plan.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of
1999, the Director of the United States Geological Survey shall
transmit to the Congress a 5-year management plan for establishing and
operating the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System.
The plan shall include annual cost estimates for both modernization and
operation, milestones,standards, and performance goals, as well as
plans for securing the participation of all existing networks in the
Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System and for
establishing new, or enhancing existing, partnerships to leverage
resources.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) Expansion and modernization.--In addition to amounts
appropriated under section 12(b), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior, to be used by
the Director of the United States Geological Survey to
establish the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring
System--
``(A) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $33,700,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(C) $33,700,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(D) $33,600,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(E) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2004.
``(2) Operation.--In addition to amounts appropriated under
section 12(b), there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Interior, to be used by the Director of the
United States Geological Survey to operate the Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System--
``(A) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
``(B) $10,300,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
SEC. 5. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION.
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 14. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION.
``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science Foundation
shall establish a Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation that
will upgrade, link, and integrate a system of geographically
distributed experimental facilities for earthquake engineering testing
of full-sized structures and their components and partial-scale
physical models. The system shall be integrated through networking
software so that integrated models and databases can be used to create
model-based simulation, and the components of the system shall be
interconnected with a computer network and allow for remote access,
information sharing, and collaborative research.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts
appropriated under section 12(c), there are authorized to be
appropriated, out of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated to
the National Science Foundation, $7,700,000 for fiscal year 2000 for
the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. In addition to
amounts appropriated under section 12(c), there are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation--
``(1) $28,200,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(2) $24,400,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(3) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(4) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
SEC. 6. SCIENTIFIC EARTHQUAKE STUDIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--The Director of the United States Geological
Survey shall establish a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee.
(b) Organization.--The Director shall establish procedures for
selection of individuals not employed by the Federal Government who are
qualified in the seismic sciences and other appropriate fields and may,
pursuant to such procedures, select up to ten individuals, one of whom
shall be designated Chairman, to serve on the Advisory Committee.
Selection of individuals for the Advisory Committee shall be based
solely on established records of distinguished service, and the
Director shall ensure that a reasonable cross-section of views and
expertise is represented. In selecting individuals to serve on the
Advisory Committee, the Director shall seek and give due consideration
to recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, professional
societies, and other appropriate organizations.
(c) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at such times and
places as may be designated by the Chairman in consultation with the
Director.
(d) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall advise the Director on
matters relating to the United States Geological Survey's participation
in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, including the
United States Geological Survey's roles, goals, and objectives within
that Program, its capabilities and research needs, guidance on
achieving major objectives, and establishing and measuring performance
goals. The Advisory Committee shall issue an annual report to the
Director for submission to Congress on or before September 30 of each
year. The report shall describe the Advisory Committee's activities and
address policy issues or matters that affect the United States
Geological Survey's participation in the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program.
SEC. 7. BUDGET COORDINATION.
Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7704) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating
subparagraphs (B) through (F) as subparagraphs (A)
through (E), respectively; and
(B) by moving subparagraph (E), as so redesignated by
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, so as to appear
immediately after subparagraph (D), as so redesignated;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Budget Coordination.--
``(1) Guidance.--The Agency shall each year provide guidance
to the other Program agencies concerning the preparation of
requests for appropriations for activities related to the
Program, and shall prepare, in conjunction with the other
Program agencies, an annual Program budget to be submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget.
``(2) Reports.--Each Program agency shall include with its
annual request for appropriations submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a report that--
``(A) identifies each element of the proposed Program
activities of the agency;
``(B) specifies how each of these activities
contributes to the Program; and
``(C) states the portion of its request for
appropriations allocated to each element of the
Program.''.
______
H.R. 1184--The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999:
Section-by-Section Summary
Sec. 1 Short title
Cities the Act as the ``Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization
Act of 1999.''
Sec. 2. Authorization of appropriations
Provides two-year authorizations for the agencies participating in
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program as follows:
(a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--Amends Act of 1977 to
authorize $19.8 million for FY 2000 and $20.4 million for FY 2001.
(b) U.S. Geological Survey.--
(1) Amends Act of 1977 to authorize $46.1 million for FY 2000,
which includes $3.5 million for the Global Seismic System and $100,000
for the Advisory Committee on External Earthquake Research, and $47.5
million for FY 2001, which includes $3.6 million for the Global Seismic
System and $100,000 for the Advisory Committee on External Earthquake
Research. Of these amounts, $9.0 million for FY 2000 and $9.5 million
for FY 2001 are to be used for external research.
(2) Amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act for FYs 1998 and
1999 to authorize $1.6 million for FY 2000 and $1.65 million for FY
2001 for the Seismic Hazard Warning System pilot program.
(c) National Science Foundation.--Amends Act of 1977 to authorize
out of sums otherwise authorized $29.9 million ($19 million for
engineering and $10.9 million for geosciences research) for FY 2000 and
to authorize without reference to other authorizations $30.8 ($19.6
million for engineering and $11.2 million for geosciences research) for
FY 2001.
(d) National Institute for Standards and Technology.--Amends Act of
1977 to authorize out of sums otherwise authorized $2.2 million for FY
2000 and $2.265 million for FY 2001.
Sec. 3. Repeals
Repeals Section 10 and subsections 12(e) and (f) of the 1977 Act,
each of which is obsolete.
Sec. 4. Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System
Amends the 1977 Act by adding the following Section:
``Sec. 13. Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring
System.
``(a) Authorizes the Director of USGS to establish an Advanced
National Seismic Research and Monitoring System (ANSRMS).
``(b) Requires within 120 days of enactment a five-year management
plan for deploying and operating ANSRMS.
``(c) Authorizes in addition to sums authorized for USGS in section
12(b) of the 1977 Act: $33.5 million for FY 2000; $33.7 million for FY
2001; $33.7 million for FY 2002; $33.6 million for FY 2003; and $33.5
million for FY 2004 for expansion and modernization of the monitoring
system.
``(d) Authorizes in addition to sums authorized for USGS in Section
1 (Section 12(b)): $4.5 million for FY 2000 and $10.3 million for FY
2001 for operating the ANSRMS.''
Sec. 5. Network for earthquake engineering simulation
Amends the 1977 Act by adding the following section:
``Sec. 14. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation.
``(a) Defines terms and authorize NSF to establish a Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation that will upgrade, link, and
integrate a complete system of test facilities in earthquake
engineering.
``(b) Authorizes out of funds otherwise authorized to be
appropriated to NSF $7.7 million for FY 2000 and authorize without
reference to other authorizations $28.2 for FY 2001; $24.4 million for
FY 2002; $4.5 million for FY 2003; and $17.0 million for 2004 for the
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation.''
Sec. 6. Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee
(a) Authorizes the Director of USGS to establish a Scientific
Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee to provide USGS with scientific
advice regarding its participation in the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program.
(b) Directs the USGS Director to establish procedures for the
selection of up to ten qualified individuals not employed by the
Federal Government, one of whom shall be designated Chairman, to serve
on the Advisory Committee. Individuals shall be selected solely on
established records of distinguished service, and the Director shall
ensure that the Advisory Committee represent a cross-section of views
and expertise. The Director also shall seek and give due consideration
to recommendations from the National Academy of Science, professional
societies, and other appropriate organizations.
(c) Establishes procedures for calling meetings of the Advisory
Committee. The Advisory Committee shall meet at such times and places
as may be designated by the Chairman in consultation with the Director.
(d) Explains the duties of the Advisory Committee.--It shall
provide advice to the Director on matters relating to the USGS
earthquake program--including USGS's roles, goals, and objectives,
capabilities and research needs, and performance goals--and shall issue
an annual report to the Director for submission to Congress on or
before September 30 of each year. The report shall describe the
Advisory Committee's activities and address policy issues or matters
that affect the Geological Survey's participation in the Program.
Sec. 7. Budget coordination
Amends the 1977 Act by:
(1) Striking some language on budget responsibilities (which is
moved to new Section 5(c)) and by moving some stray language in the
law.
(2) Adding the following at the end of the Section 5:
``(c) Budget Coordination.--
``(1) Requires greater co-ordinance on the budget for the
Program. Instructs FEMA, the lead agency, to provide guidance
to each Program agency in preparing annual budget requests.
``(2) Requires FEMA, in conjunction with the other Program
agencies, to prepare an annual budget to submit to OMB.''
TABLE 1.--THE EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
Agency request authorization authorization authorization authorization authorization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA........................................................ 19.8 19.8 20.4 NA NA NA
===========================================================================================
USGS:
General Activities \1\.................................. 45.996 46.1 47.5 NA NA NA
Real-Time Seismic Warning System........................ 1.6 1.6 1.65 NA NA NA
Advanced National Seismic Monitoring System............. 0.0 38.0 44.0 33.7 33.6 33.5
Equipment......................................... 0.0 33.5 33.7 33.7 33.6 33.5
Operation......................................... 0.0 4.5 10.3 NA NA NA
Total, USGS....................................... 47.596 85.7 93.15 33.7 33.6 33.5
===========================================================================================
NSF:
Engineering & Geosciences Research...................... 29,9 29,9 30.8 NA NA NA
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation........... 7.7 7.7 28.2 24.4 4.5 17.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NSF............................................ 37.6 37.6 59.0 24.4 4.5 17.0
===========================================================================================
NIST........................................................ 2.198 2.2 2.265 NA NA NA
===========================================================================================
Total, NEHRP.......................................... 107.194 145.3 174.815 58.1 38.1 50.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Figure includes: (1) for FY 2000 authorization, $3.5 million for the Global Seismic Network, $100,000 for the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee, and a minimum of $9.0 million for external research; and (2) for FY 2001 authorization, $3.6 million for the Global Seismic Network,
$100,000 for the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee, and a minimum of $9.5 million for external research.
TABLE 2.--THE EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999: FY 1999 ENACTED, FY 2000 REQUEST, AND FY 2000 AND FY 2001 AUTHORIZATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 authorization change (+ or --) FY 2001 authorization
-------------------------------------------- change (+ or --)
Agency FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2000 FY 2001 --------------------------
enacted request authorization authorization FY 1999 Percent FY 2000 Percent FY 2000
enacted request authorization Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA............................................................... 18,900 19,800 19,800 20,400 900 4.8 0 0.0 600 3.0
USGS............................................................... 52,391 47,596 85,700 93,150 33,309 63.6 41,585 94.3 7,450 8.7
NSF................................................................ 29,900 37,600 37,600 59,000 7,700 25.8 0 0.0 21,400 56.9
NIST............................................................... 2,060 2,198 2,200 2,265 140 6.8 2 0.1 65 3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 103,251 107,194 145,300 174,815 42,049 40.7 38,106 35.5 29,515 20.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I ask that the members proceed with
amendments in their order on the roster.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, who has the
first amendment.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1184''----
Mr. Wu. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
AMENDMENT ROSTER--H.R. 1184, EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION AUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Sponsor Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ Mr. Wu................. Funding amendment
2................ M4. Wu................. Out-year funding amendment
3................ Ms. Woolsey............ Amendment to insert a new
section titled ``Report on
At-Risk Populations''
4................ Mr. Larson............. Amendment to insert a new
section titled ``Public
Access to Earthquake
Information''
5................ Mr. Larson............. Amendment to amend the
definition of ``Lifeline''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment to H.R. 1184 Offered by Mr. Wu
Page 6, line 16, strike ``$33,700,000'' and insert ``35,100,000''.
Page 6, line 17, strike ``$33,600,000'' and insert ``$35,000,000''.
______
Amendment to H.R. 1184 Offered by Mr. Wu
Page 7, line 1, strike ``and''.
Page 7, line 2, strike the period, close quotation marks, and
period at the end and insert a semicolon.
Page 7, after line 2, insert the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) $15,900,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(D) $22,600,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(E) $28,900,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
______
Amendment to H.R. 1184 Offered by Ms. Woolsey
Page 11, after line 5, insert the following new section:
SEC. 8. REPORT ON AT-RISK POPULATIONS.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and after a period for public comment, the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall transmit to the Congress a report
describing the elements of the Program that specifically address the
needs of at-risk populations, including the elderly, persons with
disabilities, non-English-speaking families, single-parent households,
and the poor. Such report shall also identify additional actions that
could be taken to address those needs, and make recommendations for any
additional legislative authority required to take such actions.
______
Amendment to H.R. 1184 Offered by Mr. Larson
Page 11, after line 5, insert the following new section:
SEC. 8. PUBLIC ACCESS TO EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION.
Section 5(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1966 (42 U.S.C. 7704(b)(2)(A)(ii) is amended by inserting ``, and
development of means of increasing public access to available locality-
specific information that may assist the public in preparing for or
responding to earthquakes'' after ``and the general public''.
______
Amendment to H.R. 1184 Offered by Mr. Larson
Page 11, after line 5, insert the following new section:
SEC. 8. LIFELINES.
Section 4(6) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42
U.S.C. 7703(6)) is amended by inserting ``and infrastructure'' after
``communication facilities''.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, let me
indicate my strong support for H.R. 1184. I particularly
applaud the Chairman's farsightedness in authorizing $168
million over the next five years for expansion and
modernization of the seismic monitoring infrastructure of the
United States.
Unfortunately, Oregon is at great risk from major
earthquakes. I am looking forward to the benefits that will
flow from such a modernization effort, both in Oregon and
nationwide. It is not just my colleagues in California who
suffer from this problem of earthquakes. In fact, I might like
to add at this point that I think as--I would like to thank my
colleagues from California because the first I did upon
arriving in Oregon was take a geology class. One of the things
I found, if you look at a map of Oregon, you see a rectangle.
The part of the rectangle, there is a little part of it that
goes up. There is a bump in the upper left hand corner of the
State of Oregon. That is a bend in the Columbia River. That is
the First Congressional District occupies that bend and that
bump. That bend in the Columbia River was actually created by
California ramming Oregon from the south over the last 20
million years. [Laughter.]
I would like to thank my colleagues from California for
their efforts in creating my Congressional district.
[Laughter.]
But like so many other things that start in California,
there are unintended side effects. [Laughter.]
One of them is that periodically every say 300 to 400
years, the recent research shows that we may have up to
magnitude 9.5 or magnitude 10 earthquakes, very, very
significant earthquakes. So I will be introducing two
amendments to the bill, both of which relate to the proposed
Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System. The
first amendment, which is now before us, would add an
additional $2.8 million over two years to the seismic network
to procure two portable seismograph networks. Seismologists
routinely deploy temporary portable networks to monitor after
shocks or to better understand the impact of an earthquake in a
particular region. The two networks supported by my amendment
would be a natural supplement to the permanent monitoring
networks.
The Chairman has been conscientious in authorizing the
elements of a seismic monitoring system. That will be contained
in a plan that will be forwarded to us shortly by the
Administration. I believe these portable networks will also be
part of that plan. These portable networks are very necessary
to a comprehensive capability for post-earthquake monitoring
and assessment of damage. I would hate to see any delay in
developing them. I urge adoption.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Wu. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I am pleased to accept this
amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon for
spotting the fact that the U.S. Geological Survey sent us the
wrong numbers when they asked us to draft this bill. The
numbers sent by the USGS omitted this very vital piece of
equipment which is necessary to make the new earthquake
monitoring system work the way it is planned. So I think that
he has spotted an omission. I think that it is a good
amendment, and I am pleased to support it.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. Is there further discussion on the
amendment by the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu?
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Smith.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. I would just also like to comment on
what appeared to be somewhat of a scolding for USGS. Since we
just heard of this mistake from USGS in the last few days, I
would just publicly hope that since we had the first hearing on
this bill back in February, that maybe it would be good to be
more timely, but I appreciate Mr. Wu's correction of this
mistake. Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. Is there further discussion on the
amendment?
[No response.]
If not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment
proposed by the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu.
All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
The second amendment is also by Mr. Wu. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I salute you for
including authorization.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Oregon
offer his amendment, and have the clerk report it. Then I will
recognize you.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Mr. Wu. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I salute you for
including authorization for an Advanced Seismic Monitoring
System in this bill. I think that this initiative deserves this
level of funding. I would go one step further to say that it
deserves additional funds for operations for the same five-year
period for which modernization and expansion have been
authorized.
The underlying bill supports operations for two years,
Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2001. The amendment before us
would extend the operational funds for the Advanced Seismic
Monitoring System by three additional years. Specifically, this
amendment would authorize an additional $67.4 million to cover
increased operational costs for the research and monitoring
system for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
However, I recognize that this would mean extending by
three years the base program authorization for USGS as well,
which may be a problem for you in this Committee. Therefore, I
will ask that my amendment be withdrawn. In so doing, however,
I would ask that you include report language stating the
Committee's intention to authorize system operations in future
legislation.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Wu. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. First of all, let me say I believe
that the gentleman's amendment is very well intentioned. The
problem that I have is not with seeing this system through to
completion. I do support that. But the USGS has not been all
that firm in its numbers, as we found out with the necessity
for the previous amendment that you offered. As you know, I am
very strong on oversight. This Committee has established a very
good record on oversight. I would like to make sure before we
go ask our colleagues to approve the rest of the money for this
system, that the USGS is able to have some firm numbers which
they don't have now.
So I believe the report language that is suggested by the
gentleman from Oregon is very constructive and very
meritorious, and I appreciate his offer to withdraw his
amendment, I know that we will be revisiting this in the
future, and I fully anticipate that when we do this bill two
years from now, we will have some much better numbers, and we
can have an authorization of this program through its
completion.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
The third amendment on the list is by the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1184 offered by Ms.
Woolsey''----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California for
five minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent to consider the bill as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Already done.
Ms. Woolsey. Oh, that's right. I wasn't listening. I'm
sorry.
First of all, I want to indicate my strong support for H.R.
1148. You do know that my district is directly north of San
Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge. I have the San
Andreas fault running through the western portion of my
district. We have earthquakes.
My amendment, however, goes in a little bit different
direction than talking totally about earthquakes. I would like
to talk about FEMA and directing FEMA to report on the elements
of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Programs that
address the needs of at-risk populations: the elderly, the
disabled, the non-English speaking, and single parent
households, those that often times are overlooked in times of
great need.
Since its inception in 1977 and particularly in the last
decade, NEHRP has done a superb job in reaching out to State
and local officials and improving building codes, and in
general, assessing the level of seismic risk across the
country. But there are other risk feature dealing with
thesocial, cultural, and economic situation of individuals and
individual groups that I suggest we consider in this bill.
I am aware of NSF supporting social science research, but
the extent of the research efforts and the findings of the
research in relationship to at-risk population must be
addressed, I believe, more clearly. Not only will this report
provide valuable information on what has been done to date, it
will bring into focus what we must do in the future to reach
those populations that incur more damage in a disaster due to
age, due to economic status or physical limitation.
This is an issue that I believe the Science Committee and
the Congress as a whole must have interest in. Therefore, I ask
for your support of this amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I am prepared to accept this
amendment with a caveat. That is, is that FEMA is not within
the jurisdiction of the Science Committee. The adoption of this
amendment may provoke a sequential referral of this legislation
to the committee that does have jurisdiction over FEMA.
I do think that your proposal, again, has merit. I think
that the more information that is passed around relative to
these problems to at-risk population and others, we will be
able to mitigate the damage that earthquakes cause when they do
hit. So again, I am prepared to accept the amendment. But just
remember, if the bill goes off to another committee and we have
to get our crow-bars out to pry it out of there, I told you so.
Ms. Woolsey. All right. I promise to follow it and go to
that committee with my same pleas.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the
balance of her time. Is there further discussion on the
amendment by the gentlewoman from California?
[No response.]
Hearing none, all those in favor will signify by saying
aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
The next amendment is by the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1184 offered by Mr.
Larson.''----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I request
permission to summarize and proceed.
I want to start by also indicating my strong support for
H.R. 1184, and also indicate that based on listening to my
colleague David Wu, that I know of nothing that California has
done to the State of Connecticut. [Laughter.]
But do also offer this amendment in the spirit of the
gentlewoman from California, recognizing that this also relates
to the dissemination of data. It calls for FEMA to develop a
means of increasing public access to locality-specific
information, that they may assist in preparing for and
responding to earthquakes. The bill should reflect our current
capabilities. We now have the ability to generate detailed
seismic maps in specific geographical regions. The maps are now
used for determining sites for increased monitoring, seismic
zoning, emergency response planning, and placement of
lifelines. But additionally, they can be used by the general
public to help them prepare and respond to earthquakes.
The Committee is supporting a 40-percent increase in the
NEHRP and also 93 of which is for modernization and expansion
of our earthquake infrastructure. This effort will undoubtedly
enhance our current ability to generate hazard maps which show
the severity of the expected shaking of ground and response to
earthquakes. These maps of course can be a great help to an
increasingly sophisticated public, but only if people are aware
of the resource. This amendment would ensure that FEMA would
aggressively make this information available to all Americans.
I understand the chairman's previous admonition with respect to
FEMA and its jurisdiction. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Larson. Yes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. First of all, I am prepared to
accept the amendment. It's a good one. This one does not
trigger a sequential referral because the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act is in the jurisdiction of this Committee. So you
don't have the same problem as the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Is there further discussion on the Larson amendment?
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will
be brief.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I do support the bill, and Ido
support the effort to include this amendment, as well as the other
amendments. I just want to raise a point that I think has been alluded
to. That is, that this bill is very laudable. I applaud the Committee
Chairman and Ranking Member for their leadership in this area. But it
reminds me that in the markup of our defense authorization bill in the
R&D account lines, we have at least $58 million for very similar
initiatives that are primarily--and much of this work, by the way, is
being done is California.
Our specific purpose from a security standpoint is not just
earthquakes, but seismic events like the illegal testing of
nuclear weapons underground, such as we saw in the past couple
of years reportedly at Novaya Zemlya in Russia.
I just want to make sure that we are coordinating the
activities of the various agencies because as you look at the
funding level here, which probably is not totally adequate,
maybe it is. But I look at the Defense budget, and we are
spending, to my best recollection off the top of my head, at
least $58 million of additional research money which is
designed to provide cutting-edge technology for quickly
detecting seismic activities around the world. We ought to have
some way of making sure that there is coordination between what
DOD is doing, such as you are referring with the FEMA
jurisdictional issue here, and the work that is being done by
the science agencies.
Mr. Weldon of Florida. Would the gentleman yield for a
question?
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Weldon of Florida. I was under the impression that for
national security reasons, a lot of the information that is
gathered by DOD is not shared with the scientific community. I
don't know if the Chairman can comment on that, but the
understanding that I had is that some of the information
gathered by DOD is not shared.
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. The gentleman's point is well
taken. I am only referring to the public unclassified amount of
money that we spend on systems that are available. In fact,
when I was out in California, I visited the research facility
where we are funding. There is another category of black budget
program work that is underway that is also in this area. What I
want to make sure of is that since the Science Committee has a
legitimate leadership role on the issue of preparing for and
dealing with earthquakes, that we ought to make sure that DOD
is in fact supporting and coordinating that effort with
research work that they are doing, with a very sizable amount
of money in the same technology area to make sure there is
coordination.
My fear is that, and maybe staff can comment on this, my
fear is that there is not coordination, and that in fact, we
are spending money in DOD and in the science agencies, that not
in fact is being fully understood.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I would be happy to yield.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I would hope that the staff would
be able to make inquiry to see what type of coordination there
is relative to the sharing and coordination of the unclassified
part of the DOD work.
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. That's fine. Thank you. I thank
the gentleman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Larson
amendment number 1?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I am----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Brown. I am in full support of the Larson amendment.
Let me point out some aspects of the amendment which I think
perhaps haven't been adequately elaborated on. This amendment
not only calls for the dissemination of earthquake data, which
is very important and we can do that, but it also calls for the
development of means of increasing public access to locality-
specific real time and other locality-specific information that
may assist them.
The point I am trying to make is in trying to evaluate the
consequences of an earthquake, you have to know both the
severity and location of the earthquake, which is available
from our seismic network. But you also need to know certain
geological information, which may or may not be readily
available, but is becoming increasingly available, and also
soil conditions.
We all know that the impact of an earthquake is accentuated
if you have liquefaction occurring, and that certain soils are
prime to liquefaction. I happen to live in a beautiful city
which has an ample supply of water located about two feet below
the surface. Any time there is an earthquake, that is likely to
cause a considerable amplification of the effects of the
earthquake itself.
We have a major problem now in trying to get rid of that
underground water, which I hope that we can ship to some desert
that needs it very badly. But the real trick here, and one that
we are very capable of resolving, is combining information from
different fields and calculating risk factors based upon that
combination of different kinds of knowledge.
This amendment speaks to that problem. I think it is very
important that we consider it fully.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. Further discussion on Larson amendment
number 1?
[No response.]
Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
The last amendment on the roster is also by the gentleman
from Connecticut, who is recognized to offer it.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1184''----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Connecticut is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second amendment,
which is now before us, would change the definition of
lifelines in the Earthquake Act to make it clear that in
today's society, the Internet is a critical lifeline. This may
not have been true in 1977, as Mr. Brown pointed out earlier,
when the law was first enacted, but it is certainly true today.
The original law cites communications facilities as a lifeline,
but not communications infrastructure. Today there are fiber
optic links dedicated solely to the transfer of information
over the Internet because data traffic is now currently
increasing at about 10 times the rate of phone traffic. This
makes this change necessary.
We also are concerned with the routers and servers managing
and storing this traffic. Disaster recovery plans must account
for restoring high speed links and for backup data bases. This
increasingly critical data infrastructure should be recognized
in the bill language. Therefore, I call for the changes of
definition of lifelines to refer to communication facilities
and infrastructure, just as the bill currently refers to
transportation facilities and infrastructure. I urge its
adoption.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Larson. Yes. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I am pleased to accept the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Larson. Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time.
Is there further discussion on the Larson amendment number
2?
[No response.]
Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have report language
at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Amendments first. Further amendment
to the bill?
[No response.]
If there are no further amendments, the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Smith, is recognized for report language.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. I have report language at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the proposed
report language.
The Clerk. ``Report language submitted by Mr. Nick Smith.
To address this issue''----
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move that the report
language be considered read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Report Language Offered by the Honorable Nick Smith
The Committee expects FEMA to reinvigorate its coordination
activities among NEHRP agencies. Additionally, FEMA, as the
lead agency shall identify a list of Federal agencies that
contain earthquake-related programs that contribute towards the
goals of the NEHRP. An associate agency would be defined as a
Federal agency other than a NEHRP agency that administers
program(s) that either perform earthquake-related research or
develop standards, codes or other material related to reducing
earthquake losses. FEMA will convene a series of meetings of
senior level officials (Assistant Secretary or equivalent
level), establish points of contact, and determine avenues of
mutual cooperation with respective associate agencies. If
agreeable to the parties, the NEHRP ``core'' will be expanded
to include broader participation by associate agencies. These
agencies will participate at a minimum at the Interagency
Coordination Committee level as set forth in the statute.
Chairman. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. This report language stems from some
of the agencies reporting a lack of coordination and
cooperation. We worked with Mr. James Lee Whit, the Director of
FEMA, in developing this language that calls for more
coordination between local, State, and Federal agencies that
have earthquake programs. In general, it better identifies the
gaps where Federal Government should be taking up a larger
role, and it provides a level of legitimacy to the respective
earthquake related work of their agency.
Taking the earthquake bill up in our Committee, one area
that is not addressed in this report language, and by the way,
this report language has been concurred with by the minority,
other areas that we'll be exploring over the next two years is
why insurance companies aren't willing to reduce the cost of
their insurance to those builders, home owners, commercial,
that have complied with the new engineering standards that will
better protect those facilities, those buildings, from damages
from earthquakes. So we are looking for more cooperation also
from the insurance industry, and we'll be pursuing that over
the next couple years. The report language, Mr. Chairman, I
think should not be objectionable, cleared by FEMA and the
minority staff as well as the majority.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time.
Is there further discussion on the gentleman from
Michigan's proposed report language?
[No response.]
Hearing none, all those in favor will signify by saying
aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
report language is agreed to.
Further proposals for report language?
[No response.]
Hearing none, the question is on the bill. Those in favor
will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The bill is
agreed to.
To make the motion to report the bill, the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. I am doing this in lieu of--because of the
absence of the Ranking Subcommittee Member. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee report the bill H.R. 1184 as amended.
Furthermore, I move to instruct the staff to prepare the
legislative report, make technical and conforming amendments,
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the
bill before the House for consideration.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on reporting the
bill favorably. The Chair notes the presence of a reporting
quorum. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The bill is
reported favorably.
All members will have two subsequent calendar days in which
to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on this
measure. Furthermore, without objection, pursuant to the clause
1 of rule 22 of the rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as may
be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate
on the bill. Without objection, so ordered.
Furthermore, without objection, the Chair requests
unanimous consent that H.R. 1184 and H.R. 209 be reported as a
single amendment in the nature of a substitute, reflecting the
amendments that have been agreed to heretofore. Hearing none,
so ordered.