    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   A REVIEW OF BUILDING CODES AND MITIGATION
                       EFFORTS TO HELP MINIMIZE THE COSTS
                       ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISASTERS

    =======================================================================

                                    (112-94)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 24, 2012

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    75-290 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey            Columbia
    GARY G. MILLER, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 BOB FILNER, California
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire       RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota             MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         LAURA RICHARDSON, California
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
    JEFF DENHAM, California
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
        Tennessee
                                    ------                                7

     Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
                                   Management

                       JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,               Columbia
        Arkansas,                        HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
      Vice Chair                         MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         BOB FILNER, California
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,      (Ex Officio)
        Tennessee
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

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

                                   TESTIMONY
                                   Panel One

    Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Florida...............................................     5
    David Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and
      Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency.     5

                                   Panel Two

    Jim Mullen, President, National Emergency Management Association.    16
    James J. Gianato, Director of Homeland Security and Emergency
      Management, State of West Virginia.............................    16
    Chief Hank C. Clemmensen, First Vice President, International
      Association of Fire Chiefs.....................................    16
    Chad Berginnis, CFM, Executive Director, Association of State
      Floodplain Managers............................................    16
    Julie A. Rochman, President and CEO, Insurance Institute for
      Business and Home Safety (IBHS)................................    16
    Rod Matthews, CPCU, P&C Operations Vice President, State Farm
      Insurance Companies, testifying on behalf of the BuildStrong
      Coalition......................................................    16

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Hon. Billy Long, of Missouri.....................................    37
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia..........    39
    Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, of West Virginia.........................    42

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart...........................................    47
    David Miller.....................................................    50
    Jim Mullen.......................................................    55
    James J. Gianato.................................................    60
    Chief Hank C. Clemmensen.........................................    68
    Chad Berginnis, CFM..............................................    72
    Julie A. Rochman.................................................    87
    Rod Matthews, CPCU...............................................    91

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    American Public Works Association, written statement of Diane
      Linderman, PE, PWLF, President.................................    99
    International Code Council, written statement....................   102
    National Association of Home Builders, written statement.........   105
    National Institute of Building Sciences, written statement of
      Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA, President............................   108

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         A REVIEW OF BUILDING CODES AND
                      MITIGATION EFFORTS TO HELP MINIMIZE
                           THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
                               NATURAL DISASTERS

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Economic Development,
             Public Buildings and Emergency Management,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Denham. The committee will come to order.
        Today's hearing will focus on building codes and mitigation
    efforts to help minimize the cost associated with disaster.
        I want to thank our witnesses and, in particular,
    Representative Diaz-Balart, former Republican ranking member of
    this subcommittee and a leader on these issues. Last June
    Representative Diaz-Balart introduced H.R. 2069, the Safe
    Building Code Incentive Act. That legislation would provide
    States with an incentive to adopt statewide building codes by
    providing additional mitigation assistance.
        Why encourage mitigation in building codes? As a Member
    from California, I know firsthand the difference building codes
    can have in saving lives and reducing costs. With the threats
    of wildfires and earthquakes, good building code can mean the
    difference between life and death or whether homes remain
    standing or are completely destroyed.
        But it is not just anecdotal evidence that shows mitigation
    saves lives and reduces costs. Study after study has shown that
    investment in mitigation projects directly results in lower
    Federal disaster payments. For example, a study completed by
    the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 concluded that of
    nearly $500 million invested by pre-disaster mitigation grants
    between 2004 and 1007, $1.6 billion in future losses was
    avoided. That is, for every dollar spent three dollars were
    saved.
        The National Institute of Building Sciences also studied
    this issue and concluded that for each dollar spent four
    dollars were saved, and more recently, just this year a study
    commissioned by the National Association of Mutual Insurance
    Companies examined hurricane damages dating back to 1988. That
    study showed that since that time $67 billion of the $125
    billion paid by FEMA for disaster grants were related to
    hurricane and wind damage. That study concluded that had model
    building codes been in place, FEMA disaster payments would have
    been $13 billion, or almost 20 percent less.
        Mitigation of building codes, in particular, has proven to
    save lives and taxpayer money. It makes sense for FEMA to
    encourage such mitigation measures so that the costs of
    disasters are reduced. And for families and communities facing
    a disaster, minimizing the damage and protecting lives is
    critical.
        Again, I want to thank Representative Diaz-Balart for his
    work on this issue and the other witnesses here with us today.
        I now call on Ms. Norton for a brief introduction
    statement.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And good morning. I want to join the chairman in welcoming
    today's witnesses to discuss the benefits of mitigation, and
    our building codes, in particular, may reduce costs associated
    with natural disasters.
        Over the past several years, the subcommittee has held
    several hearings on the importance and benefits of mitigation,
    including building codes. The committee has referred to studies
    by the National Institute of Building Sciences and the
    Congressional Budget Office, both of which found that
    mitigation saves taxpayers three to four dollars of every
    dollar invested.
        Mitigation does far more than save money. It reduces
    injuries and saves lives. The underlying question is what
    should Congress do to encourage more mitigation activities.
        FEMA has two mitigation programs, the Pre-disaster
    Mitigation Program and the Hazard Mitigation Program. Both
    programs are essential to saving lives and saving tax dollars
    by decreasing the amount of damage resulting from disasters.
        Over the past several years this subcommittee has explored
    other avenues for strengthening our Nation's efforts to limit
    future damages. One such avenue is strong building codes. It
    seems logical that if State and local communities have
    enforceable building codes in place when construction occurs,
    disaster related damages could decrease.
        I look forward to hearing from our colleagues and the
    former member of this committee, who was ranking member when I
    chaired the committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and I am pleased to be
    a co-sponsor of his bill, H.R. 2069, the Safe Building Code
    Incentive Act of 2011. This bill would provide an incentive for
    States to adopt and enforce model building codes that will
    result in less damage from disasters.
        Recently, the National Association of Mutual Insurance
    Companies released a study finding that FEMA would have saved
    $11 billion in hurricane damage payouts since 1988 if those
    damaged structures had been built to a model building code.
    While disasters always expose new avenues for mitigation after
    the fact, given the potential savings, Congress must do more to
    try to limit or prevent damage before it happens.
        An important benefit of mitigation that is often overlooked
    is the investment in communities. Mitigation can help stimulate
    the economy through increased economic development. Communities
    benefit when the effects of disasters can be eliminated and
    prevented. Providing disaster resilient structures and
    infrastructure will encourage communities, residents and
    businesses to stay or return to a community after a disaster.
        Finally, I must note that like the rest of the east coast,
    the District of Columbia was hit hard by the June storm with
    hurricane force winds that downed many power lines. I am
    interested in hearing more about mitigation and best practices
    to prevent or limit future power outages, particularly
    considering that the June storm was not the first time that
    this region had suffered mass power outages and, unfortunately,
    will probably not be the last if mitigation activities are not
    performed and if we do not learn more about how to mitigate
    these outages.
        I appreciate today's witnesses preparing testimony to help
    the committee think through this issue.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Rahall for an opening statement.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate this opportunity, and I certainly welcome all
    of our witnesses to today's hearing, and particularly extend a
    special welcome to my friend and the head of our homeland
    security in West Virginia, Mr. Jimmy Gianato.
        Jimmy has a well-deserved reputation in West Virginia as a
    crisis manager, having served as a West Virginia Director of
    Homeland Security and Emergency Management since 2005. His
    dedication and expertise were critically important in helping
    our State to organize its response to the June 29th derecho
    storm that left residences and businesses in every county of my
    State, 680,000 electrical customers in total without power.
        Jimmy's tireless efforts are even more remarkable, given
    the loss of his own home in this came massive storm due to a
    lightning strike.
        Mr. Chairman, it should be disconcerting to this committee
    that more than 2 weeks after that monstrous storm has passed
    thousands of West Virginia residents and businesses were still
    without power. That means 2 weeks without air conditioning in
    extreme heat; 2 weeks without refrigeration, as food spoiled in
    family kitchens and grocery stores; 2 weeks of relying on
    battery powered radios, flashlights, candles, canned goods, and
    the generosity of friends and neighbors.
        But that is what we are about in West Virginia, coming
    together, helping each other, friends helping friends,
    neighbors helping neighbors, family helping family, strangers
    helping strangers. That is what we are about.
        In addition, the lack of generators, gas stations created
    fuel shortages, leaving many in long, panicking lines that
    lasted for days. The lack of generators at hospitals and
    nursing homes, along with disruptions of power to water and
    sewage treatment facilities left elderly and vulnerable
    residents sweltering and caretakers struggling to provide food,
    water and medicine, and in some cases oxygen.
        Small businesses were forced to close their doors for days,
    losing critical sales. Workers were unable to do their jobs,
    losing pay, and these already financially strapped families and
    business owners were hit with multiple unexpected costs, like
    the purchase of generators, if they could be found, made worse
    by the inability to get cash at banks that had no power.
        The Governor of West Virginia estimates that residents and
    businesses combined lost a total of at least $340 million.
    Emergency response officials, all of whom I commend for the
    manner in which they responded, are appropriately asking
    questions about the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
    burying power lines and considering the potential need for
    generators to be locally available at gas stations, health care
    facilities, and other public and private locations.
        Concerns have been raised about the electrical grid and its
    capacity to endure emergencies like that devastating story, and
    I certainly associate with the comments just made by the
    gentlelady from DC. We must search for future methods of
    mitigating such power outages.
        Since 1995 over $58 million has been invested in West
    Virginia mitigation activities, primarily for flood prevention.
    In 2005 and 2007, two separate studies confirmed that hazard
    mitigation activities reduced future losses by three to four
    dollars for every dollar spent.
        This morning I am interested to learn about the types of
    mitigation activities that can be undertaken to prevent future
    power outages like that experienced on June 29th. Equally
    important, I want to know about potential steps that Congress
    should take to allow or encourage more mitigation activities to
    present future widespread power losses.
        So I look forward to Jimmy's testimony and the other
    witnesses this morning on how risk assessment, planning and
    construction may help reduce further damage and limited some of
    the turmoil caused by the massive power outages.
        Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, let me remind the committee
    that just yesterday the President did issue a disaster
    declaration to help communities, including every county in my
    district, with recovery expenses resulting from the June 29th
    story, making it the third such declaration for my State this
    year. While I am grateful that the administration acted so
    expeditiously and I commend FEMA for the manner in which they
    have reacted to this circumstance, as well as many others in
    the past, this declaration has opened the way for the public
    assistance.
        And I must note that the State is now in the process of
    seeking that individual assistance to help families and
    businesses hard hit by the storm. It is certainly my hope that
    this part of the process has moved along just as quickly so
    that West Virginians can soon receive the full measure of help
    they so badly need to recover from this devastating storm.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to today's
    witnesses.
        Mr. Denham. I ask unanimous consent that written testimony
    by Representative Billy Long, a member of the Transportation
    and Infrastructure Committee, be entered into the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [Please refer to the table of contents section entitled,
    ``Prepared Statements Submitted by Members of Congress'' for
    Hon. Long's statement.]
        Mr. Denham. I want to just read one brief paragraph of his
    statement. ``Joplin's tragedies should serve as a warning to
    all of our Nation's communities that despite modern technology
    advancement, we are still very much at the mercy of extreme
    natural events like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and
    floods. It is important that we continually work to improve the
    strength of our Nation's building, especially critical
    infrastructure in large buildings in order to reduce the damage
    and loss of life which can be caused by natural disasters. A
    little common sense should help take us a long way.''
        We will have two panels today. The first panel includes the
    Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart from Florida, Member of Congress,
    and Mr. David Miller, associate administrator, Federal
    Insurance and Mitigation Administration under FEMA.
        I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
    be included in the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Since your written testimony has been made part of the
    record, the subcommittee would ask you to limit your testimony
    to 5 minutes.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart, you may proceed.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARIO DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE
       IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA; AND DAVID MILLER,
       ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION
          ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member Holmes Norton, for holding this important
    meeting. It is a privilege to be back at the T&I Committee.
        I served on this committee for 8 years, including the last
    2 as ranking member. So, again, I appreciate the work that you
    are doing.
        And as you said, my entire statement is in the record. So I
    will just hit some highlights if that is all right with you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Let me first piggyback on what you just read from
    Congressman Billy Long. He is absolutely right. We know what
    the problem is, and we know that there are a number of things
    that we can do to help. Whether it is the wildfires in Colorado
    this summer, whether it is the tornadoes that wreaked havoc in
    Missouri, whether it is Hurricane Irene which pounded and
    flooded big parts of the east coast, Mother Nature continuously
    sends us telegrams, sends up wake up calls.
        The economic losses just this year, the first part of this
    year, of 2012, are already estimated to be at $14.6 billion. I
    mean, it is mind boggling. So given those facts and given also
    the fiscal climate that we face, it, frankly, does not make any
    sense just after a big storm just do another emergency
    supplemental.
        We know that these storms are going to continue to happen,
    and we also know that there are meaningful steps that we can
    take to promote sound strategies that save lives, that mitigate
    the devastation of future disasters, and by the way, ultimately
    also save taxpayers money.
        A commonsense approach, as the ranking member said just a
    little while ago, should be to adopt model building codes that
    will make our homes and our businesses more resistant to the
    forces of nature. Strong building codes are widely accepted in
    the emergency management community as being our best line of
    defense against these storms, these natural disasters.
        So while the evidence is overwhelming, most States have yet
    to either adopt strong building codes or, frankly, do not have
    mechanisms to enforce them if they have. So because of this, my
    colleagues, Representative Albio Sires, Mr. Richard Hanna from
    this committee, Steve Southerland and I have introduced H.R.
    2069, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act. It provides
    financial incentives for States to voluntarily adopt and
    enforce the model building codes, for the construction of new
    commercial and residential properties.
        This legislation, frankly, Mr. Chairman, just simply
    rewards good behavior. It rewards States that have those
    building codes and that enforces those building codes and
    provides incentives to do so for the States that have not done
    so. It is important to note, however, that this bill does not
    place mandates on States that do not currently or do not
    enforce statewide building codes.
        Mr. Chairman, next month is the 20th anniversary of
    Hurricane Andrew. That was a turning point for many of us in
    south Florida. It killed dozens. It was $26.5 billion in
    damage. In those days it is hard to believe, but in south
    Florida what we thought about when a hurricane was coming is we
    would tape our windows. We would put tape on the windows and we
    thought that would solve the problem.
        Well, we learned the hard way. After that, Florida became a
    leader in building codes, and because of that, research
    conducted by the Insurance Institute of Business and Home
    Safety, because of Florida's building codes, it reduced the
    severity of property damage resulting from Hurricane Charlie in
    2004 by more than 40 percent, 40 percent. And so think of what
    that means in money and also in disruption of people's lives
    and potentially saving people's lives.
        So the evidence is clear, Mr. Chairman. Building codes
    work. It is vital that we seize this opportunity to encourage
    States to adopt their building codes in a manner that will save
    lives, that will protect property, and ultimately also reduce
    taxpayers' exposure to natural disasters.
        I want to thank the BuildStrong Coalition for their
    advocacy on this important issue. They have been an incredible
    partner in promoting the needs for stronger building codes.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, sir, for
    your leadership, for this committee's leadership. This is a
    commonsense issue. We, I think, have a good piece of
    legislation that would go a long way.
        With that I yield back.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
        Mr. Miller, you proceed.
        Mr. Miller. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member
    Norton, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is
    David Miller, and I am the associate administrator of the
    Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration for the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency.
        In my testimony I will share an overview of FEMA's role in
    building codes and discuss current programs and initiatives
    used by the Agency to encourage mitigation efforts. Mitigation
    is the thread that permeates emergency management and links
    together preparedness response and recovery to reduce the loss
    of lives and damage to property resulting from disasters.
    Mitigation is about building stronger and more resilient
    communities.
        Mitigation efforts like building codes, flood-proofing
    requirements and earthquake design standards support rapid
    recovery from disasters and lessen the financial impact of
    disasters on the Nation. To achieve FIMA's vision of a Nation
    committed to a disaster resilient and sustainable future, we
    engage and partner with a broad spectrum of whole community
    stakeholders that include Federal, State, tribal, territorial,
    local, nonprofit and private sector organizations.
        FEMA works side by side with organizations like the
    International Code Council to support development of the
    International Codes, I-Codes, a family of building and fire
    safety codes which provide a complete set of coordinated,
    comprehensive and contemporary building and fire safety
    standards available for adoption by jurisdictions.
        Over the past 30 years, FEMA has worked with stakeholders
    from across the whole community to propose and gain adoption of
    numerous disaster-resistant provisions for earthquake, wind,
    and flood hazards in the Nation's model codes and standards.
    The Agency has championed hundreds of provisions now published
    by the American Society of Civil Engineers in their publication
    ``Flood Resistant Design and Construction,'' which serves as
    the core reference standard for the International Building Code
    flood provisions.
        FEMA's role in building codes is likely to evolve given the
    recent passage of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
    of 2012, which directs the Agency to conduct a study and submit
    a report to Congress regarding the impact, effectiveness and
    feasibility of amending sections of the National Flood
    Insurance Act of 1968, to include widely used and nationally
    recognized building codes as part of the flood plain management
    criteria in that section of the Act.
        FEMA helps thousands of communities and tens of thousands
    of individuals avoid the suffering and economic loss associated
    with disaster damage through mitigation efforts like strong
    building codes and grants to strengthen the build environment.
    We encourage construction of safe rooms through grant programs
    such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and since 1999,
    have helped fund 1,334 community safe rooms in 20 States. This
    includes 235 safe rooms in 2011, a nearly 90-percent increase
    from the 124 rooms constructed with FEMA funding during 2010.
        According to a 2005 report by the Multihazard Mitigation
    Council, a public-private partnership designed to reduce the
    economic and social costs of natural hazards, FEMA grants
    disbursed between 1993 and 2003 to mitigate the effects of
    floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes are expected to
    save more than 220 lives and almost 4,700 injuries over
    approximately 50 years.
        Mitigation programs save the American public an estimated
    $3.4 billion annually through a strategic approach to natural
    hazard risk management. In 2011, FEMA's Hazard Mitigation
    Assistance (HMA) Programs helped local communities across the
    United States prepare for future disasters by providing up to
    $252 million in flood grant funds for mitigation activities
    affecting more than 1,300 properties. These measures are
    expected to result in potential losses avoided of approximately
    $502 million for flood programs.
        FEMA's HMA Programs are one way FEMA supports mitigation
    through a whole community approach. We are also working to
    implement Presidential Policy Directive 8, which aims to
    strengthen the security and resilience of the United States
    through systemic preparation for threats that pose the greatest
    risk to the security of the Nation. As part of PPD-8, FEMA and
    its interagency partners are developing the National Mitigation
    Framework and its companion, Federal Interagency Operation
    Plan, which support efforts to create a nationwide, holistic,
    integrated model for mitigation.
        In an effort to support development of building codes and
    engage State and local partners, FEMA has collaborated
    nationally to bring attention to the importance of the codes
    through a number of activities, including a Presidential
    proclamation declaring the month of May as National Building
    Safety Month in both 2011 and 2012; publishing articles
    highlighting the importance of disaster resistant building
    codes in technical journals and magazines; blog posts and
    postings on the FEMA Web site; and the creation of a Building
    Codes 101 toolkit for communities to use to adopt and enforce
    effective building codes.
        FEMA also uses a variety of programs to reach members of
    the whole community, including Risk Mapping, Assessment, and
    Planning, our Risk MAP Program, which strengthens State,
    tribal, territorial and local government capability by
    providing actionable risk information, mitigation planning
    tools, and risk communication outreach support. Risk MAP is the
    intelligence function that helps us better inform and reduce
    risk, and it's critical to our toolkit.
        FEMA coordinates with communities to use data identified
    through the Risk MAP processes to inform communities and
    citizens about their risk so they can take effective actions to
    reduce their risk. As you are aware, the Disaster Mitigation
    Act of 2000, as written by the committee, requires the
    development of State-approved hazard mitigation plans to pre-
    identify projects for execution once funding becomes available
    through the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
        The programs and initiatives I described here today help
    FEMA help our Nation to save lives and property through
    mitigation. Adoption and enforcement of effective building
    codes in local ordinances can further mitigation efforts and
    preserve lives and property that would otherwise be lost.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me this opportunity
    to appear before you today. I look forward to answering any
    questions you or other members of the committee may have.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Diaz-Balart, in your testimony you
    highlight some of the issues that you saw with Hurricane
    Andrew. I remember very vividly after returning home from
    Desert Storm that was one of our deployments, was to send help
    from California. I know how devastating that was for your
    State.
        Can you describe the process Florida went through in
    evaluating the need for building codes and the work that you
    have done on this issue?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Actually I was involved in the statewide building code
    effort when I was in the State legislature, and I will tell you
    that it was a heavy lift. There were some that because they had
    not gotten hit by a hurricane in recent years just said they
    did not want to do that. However, we succeeded, and I worked on
    that.
        We succeeded in first having a very strong building code in
    south Florida and southeast Florida. Then we were able to get
    the State to pretty much do the same thing.
        I will tell you, by the way, a little anecdote about that.
    There was a wonderful member of the Florida Senate who,
    frankly, I was working with in trying to get a statewide
    building code, and he refused to have his part of the State be
    part of it because he said that it was not necessary. They had
    not gotten hit by a storm in, you know, 100 years or whatever.
        So we exempted that part of the State, frankly. So we had a
    statewide building code with a gap.
        Well, then we had that year, I think, five hurricanes that
    hit the State of Florida. The legislature right after that
    closed that gap, and now we have one of the strongest building
    codes in the entire country.
        So it is a heavy lift, but I will tell you, as I think
    Congressman Billy Long said it very well, better than I could:
    Look. These things are going to happen, and the question is are
    we ready beforehand. Can we take some commonsense measures to
    avoid loss of life, loss of property damage, and also to save
    taxpayer money?
        Yes, we can, and this is one of those. I think the
    legislation that a number of us have is a commonsense approach
    because it is not punitive to the States. It encourages the
    States to do so. So that is one way to do that.
        Now, is it a heavy lift in some cases? Yes. That changes as
    soon as they get hit by a flood or a fire or a tornado. All of
    a sudden, the States realize that they can do better.
        Mr. Denham. And from your personal experience, do you have
    examples of homes or buildings that are compliant versus maybe
    in the same area or in different parts of the State where you
    did not have compliant homes, the differences in the damage and
    the assessment after the fact?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Sure. Actually the Insurance Institute has
    a facility where they test different buildings. Florida
    International University has a similar facility, what they call
    the Wall of Wind, I believe, where they test different
    facilities and different mitigations to see what works and what
    does not work.
        But we saw that very clearly in south Florida after
    Hurricane Andrew, and we have seen it after other storms. Those
    buildings, whether it is residential or commercial, that were
    built under higher standards, frankly, withstand the damage,
    and those that are not, well, they disappear.
        And so they rebuild. They have to be rebuilt. It costs
    insurers. It costs the taxpayers. It costs everyone a lot more
    money. So, look, this saves money and it saves lives in the
    long term.
        And what we do know is that every time one of these things
    happen, Congress gets together and we will then do a bill to
    make sure that we can fund whatever we need to fund to try to
    get those communities back and running. Does it not make sense
    if that is going to happen that we at least encourage those
    States to have stronger building codes so that we do not have
    to do that time after time after time? It is throwing good
    money after bad or bad money after good, however you want to
    call it.
        Yes, we have seen it in south Florida. It works. It has
    made a huge difference, and it is part of my statement today
    that after a recent storm, after looking at that, we were told
    that the stronger building codes reduced the damage by 40
    percent. That just pays for itself right there, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for returning to
    this subcommittee about your bill. I liked the way your bill
    was framed. That is why I was a co-sponsor, because it does
    seem to me that particularly in light of federalism, if the
    Federal Government wants you to do something, you offer
    incentives, as I recall. You get more hazard mitigation funds
    if you did a building code.
        I understand that there was a score on it. Somehow the CBO
    does not get it, this extraordinary saving, three to four
    dollars for every dollar invested. Is there a way to somehow
    enact your bill?
        I would hate to take the incentive out, but you and I know
    what happens when a bill gets scored. Is there some way to move
    your bill through the CBO scoring process so that it does not
    get stopped dead in its tracks, despite all of the information
    that has been collected. I mean, it is just the way scoring
    works.
        So have you considered another way to get our bill passed
    or to the floor?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. We understand why CBO has
    scored it the way they do. They do static scoring. They do not
    look at the savings. They look at what potentially more money
    could go out.
        Now, you know, all of this is subject to appropriations
    anyway, obviously, like most things. We are looking at ways
    that we can try to, again use the word ``mitigate'' that
    scoring; the problem being, however, that we do need to have an
    incentive for States to do so, and we are always looking at
    ways of doing that.
        Again, we understand the scoring problem, but the issue is
    this: We have actual evidence that this saves money. It
    actually saves money, but the ranking member knows and I know
    the frustration that she has had over the years with issues of
    leasing versus buying properties and how that is scored, and we
    know that that is, frankly, also a static score.
        We have to deal with that reality. We are looking at ways
    to do that. We have not yet come up with a good answer for
    that.
        Ms. Norton. Well, I think it is worth our trying to think
    of a way. If not incentives, I do not know. If we said you
    would not get any hazard mitigation funds if you did not do it,
    I guess that would not score. That is pretty draconian. Instead
    your bill is framed as a win-win, and we need a score.
        I do not know what to do about it, but I very much think it
    is worth thinking through, and I certainly would like to work
    with you to.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. If I may, you know, it is interesting. If
    we were to do that obviously, you know, we would read about it.
        Ms. Norton. Yes.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. However, you are right. It would score
    then with huge savings, and we all know that that would not
    happen; that after a storm, Congress would get together and we,
    of course, would fund that, which I think highlights how
    sometimes the scoring issue can be very frustrating.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Miller, I had a question about this
    National Mitigation Framework because we have been sitting in
    the committee talking about this framework for almost 10 years,
    and when we passed the Homeland Security Act, there is a
    section in there that calls for strategies, mitigation
    strategies.
        Then in 2005, we had this extraordinary result. Congress
    mandated the study. We have the extraordinary results, and now
    we are 10 years later, and you are speaking about a National
    Mitigation Framework. I mean, it looks to me as though this has
    been 10 years in the development. So I have to ask you when
    will we have a framework.
        Mr. Miller. Well, ma'am, the framework is not in
    development, but is going through the final concurrence
    processes now. We hope to have it out in the next few days and
    be able to publish that.
        But I think as importantly as the framework itself, and
    getting that published after it goes through the concurrence
    process, is the Federal Interagency Operational Plan. We are
    putting that together now.
        The approach that we are taking is to look at a
    ``mitigation all the time'' strategy instead of just after
    disasters, and look at the role all of Government can play
    along with our other partners in taking effective mitigation
    action. So it is not just a single focuse on the largest
    disaster. It is not just the flood focus we have seen in the
    past. We really want to broaden that, talk about the role all
    Government can play, not just the----
        Ms. Norton. Well, your testimony is that your National
    Mitigation Framework is about to be published.
        Mr. Miller. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. In addition, you are calling on other agencies.
    What agencies? What kinds of agencies' help would FEMA elicit?
        Mr. Miller. Well, ma'am, we go across the broad Federal
    spectrum. When we look at mitigation activities and we really
    look at it writ large, all of the things that are possible, we
    involve agencies like USDA, the Department of Transportation,
    the Department of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development,
    Public Health. There are a number of mitigative actions that
    can be taken both in their current authorities as they exist
    and then what comes to play during a disaster declaration.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Crawford.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have got a question for Mr. Miller. From your personal
    experience at FEMA and previously in Iowa, could you share some
    examples of some specific cases in which building codes made a
    difference in terms of lives saved and damages reduced?
        Mr. Miller. I think there are any number of those. As we
    walk through it, in my own experience in Iowa, we looked at
    building code and building code enforcement. It is sporadic in
    Iowa. There is not a statewide building code enforcement. The
    various communities have adopted building codes but do not have
    a statewide enforcement.
        But as we looked at those that have done that, have built
    to that environment, and we looked at wind damage, we looked at
    damages from floodings; we have seen the benefits of that code
    and code enforcement. As far as specific lives saved, that I
    cannot talk to, but again, we look at the forensics of it.
        In FEMA, one of the things that interests me is that we
    actually go out with a mitigation assistance team to go out and
    look at the forensics and the performance of buildings after a
    disaster to see how well they perform. And the truth is that
    those that have been built to code perform much better than
    those that have not.
        So not only do we have the testing facility that
    Congressman Diaz-Balart talked about, but we actually have
    forensic testimony that tells us buildings have performed and
    performed well, especially those that are built to code.
        Mr. Crawford. Do you think that this bill would reduce
    Federal disaster costs and actually save taxpayer dollars?
        Mr. Miller. I do. I think time and time again as we go
    through this and, again, look at the forensics and the proof
    before us, look at the testing that is done, the testimony of
    others, we see time and again that the adoption of building
    codes and the enforcement of building codes is a good value
    statement to our communities. It makes them more resilient. It
    saves lives, and it protects property and people.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
        The last question to Congressman Diaz-Balart.
        Just to be clear, and if I am repeating myself forgive me,
    does the Safe Building Code Incentive Act place mandates on
    States?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. It does not. It gives incentives to the
    States.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. And that is one of the issues that we have
    with the scoring, but yes, I think I am one of those who does
    not like mandating things to the State. So this is a different
    approach to that.
        Mr. Crawford. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Rahall.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Miller, let me begin by highly complimenting
    you and FEMA for the manner in which you have responded to our
    crises in West Virginia, not only the recent storm, but many in
    the past. You know, you have been in our State. You have
    partnered with our State after numerous storms, been there
    within days after a disaster has hit, and many in the past have
    grateful words of praise for FEMA. Many parents sometimes say
    they want to have the nickname of FEMA for their newborn child
    that has been born out of the storm. So we do compliment you
    and thank you for all that assistance.
        You heard my opening comments, and I was on the ground
    after this recent disaster, as I am after every one that
    occurs, personally experiencing with each family the damages
    and the turmoil through which they are traveling.
        This latest one in which we had such severe power outages
    does not fit the classical definition of traditional sources of
    damage like a food would. A flood destroys one's home. You have
    figures immediately you can put on the value of that home. When
    you have power outages, as you know, it is a little different.
    You have families that have to go to hotels in order to
    maintain their dialysis machine to keep their medical supply
    going, and oftentimes these families are in the middle class.
    They have no other form of assistance available. Their income
    is above a certain level, and they are certainly not in the
    upper class. So they are in that middle class where they often
    fall through the crack as far as receiving help that they need
    after such a disaster.
        We thank you for what you have declared just yesterday in
    providing public assistance to our communities. That will help
    a great deal, and my question is headed toward the individual
    assistance that we now need. Even though we may not fit the
    traditional criteria or figures for such an individual disaster
    declaration, will you give that same sense of urgency to this
    individual request that our Governor and you will hear from our
    Homeland Security Director in a few moments, when all of the
    figures will be before you?
        But will you give that the same sense of urgency that you
    have, and we thank you for, the Community Assistance
    Declaration?
        Mr. Miller. I believe we will, sir. I have not talked to
    Administrator Fugate about this issue, but knowing his feelings
    about how we respond to and how we help the survivors of
    disasters, I am sure it will receive our full consideration as
    we move it forward.
        You know, it is the part that we look at. It is one thing
    to affect communities, but how it affects individuals I know
    weighs on his mind considerably, and he will give it the
    fullest consideration.
        Mr. Rahall. I appreciate that because, as I said, you know,
    you sometimes have to look beyond the cold, hard figures as to
    what the suffering was really all about.
        While it is up to each State, of course, to prepare and
    submit a hazard mitigation plan to address such State hazards,
    what type of outreach does FEMA do to distribute best practices
    to the States?
        Mr. Miller. Actually, we do it in a number of areas, and we
    are looking at broadening that dialogue. When I spoke in my
    testimony of Risk MAP, the first thing that we really want to
    do is enter a dialogue with the community about risk. Risk MAP
    is based primarily on flooding, but it is not the only dialogue
    we want to have.
        We have talked about how we brought in other sectors of
    FEMA to talk about overall risk. One of the things that is
    going to drive the process as we issue our grants and as we do
    mapping is what we call THIRA, the threats and hazards
    identification and risk assessment, that will happen.
        It is another opportunity to have a conversation about the
    total risk facing a community and what they can do to buy down
    that risk either by effective building codes or by taking other
    measures in their community. We think there is some real
    opportunity there, and we look forward to engaging the whole
    community.
        I think in the past we have focused oftentimes on talking
    to emergency managers and not talking to everybody in the
    community. I think the real effort here will be to talk about
    it in terms of the value to the community of taking effective
    measures before the disaster to enforce codes and standards
    that will help them mitigate against the next event. That has a
    benefit over a broad array, not just the direct benefit about
    avoiding disaster loss.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
        Mr. Hanna.
        Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Chairman.
        Currently there is 15 percent allowance for mitigation. We
    are going to raise it to 19 percent. The Government is full of
    incentive plans for hiring people, filling any number of things
    that look good on paper and work well in our imaginations, but
    what specifically makes anybody think, and I am on board for
    this incidentally; what tools do we have to make us believe
    that municipalities and State governments after they have done
    their cost-benefit analysis will actually pull that lever to
    direct this money towards building codes as opposed to other
    things?
        So the question is: did they do it very well at 15 percent
    and will 19 percent increase that in your opinion? And
    generally do States look at changes in their codes as a way to
    use mitigation money?
        Anybody.
        Mr. Miller. From my experience they do, and they are
    looking for the incentives to allow them to move forward. As
    you stated in the Hazard Mitigation Plan, we offer 15 percent
    for those that have a plan in force. We offer 20 percent to
    those who have an enhanced plan, and there are a handful of
    States that have enhanced plans.
        But I think as we move forward in communities and we look
    at that 4 percent adjustment and an incentive, anything that
    allows us to move to building codes, I think those that have
    lived in the margins and question the values of building codes,
    perhaps this will push them over the edge.
        We have done the other efforts. We have done the community
    outreach, the things that that we need to do. We have worked
    with the code councils. We have talked to a number of groups
    about the performance of building codes, and right now I think
    we are at about 51 percent of the communities that have
    building codes.
        What I do not know is the level of enforcement, the energy
    by which they enforce those codes across the United States, but
    we do know they perform and they perform well. I think an
    incentive that allows them to move forward is certainly
    something that States would entertain and need, especially in
    these tough economic times. To tip that edge.
        Mr. Hanna. Do you feel as though you may need it within the
    context of this bill a way to formalize that incentive?
        I think part of it is the discussion, and I will defer a
    little bit to the States. I know they are on your panel today,
    on what tips them and moves over the edge. I have some
    experience in our own State. I know part of the question is the
    cost of compliance and moving forward and what it does to the
    overall economic stability of an area and how they develop and
    compete.
        But I think, again, for us it becomes the value judgment.
    As far as implementing it, should the law pass, I think that is
    a fairly straightforward implementation for us, much like we do
    the other incentives in the bill, including the enhanced
    planning status.
        I think the question is, as I recall, the bill asked for
    those codes to be submitted to the State. We would have to work
    with the code and other committees to insure that it is the
    newest, up-to-date code. There are some things that we would
    have to do to administer the program within FEMA.
        Mr. Hanna. And you think 4 percent is a reasonable place to
    go with this?
        Mr. Miller. I would not question that, sir. I mean, we have
    not done an effective study to say what the real incentive
    should be and what the tipping point is. You know, we will have
    some costs for administration, but again, I think moving in a
    direction that allows us to move building codes forward is the
    right direction.
        Mr. Hanna. Have you seen some marginal changes in behavior
    before as the incentives changed?
        Mr. Miller. We have, but with incentives a lot of times
    comes requirement, and I think there needs to be some balance
    there. I do not know that we will know the full effect of that
    until we try it out.
        I will give you the for-instance. As we looked at it in
    enhanced States, and we talked about the 5-percent increase
    between 15 and 20 percent for States that have an enhanced
    plan, frankly, we have held, I think, in about 10 States that
    incentive for a long time. It is a fairly arduous requirement
    on States to have an enhanced plan and to administer that.
        So as we look at these things and at incentives, the
    question will be relative to building codes how arduous are
    they; what is our implementation; what is the cost of
    compliance; how do we move forward. Again, the general feeling
    is incentives work, but to the degree that they will work, I am
    sure all of these questions will have to be answered.
        Mr. Hanna. My time has expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. I would like to thank this first panel for your
    testimony today, and specifically Representative Diaz-Balart
    for your efforts not only on the State level but the fact that
    you are able to save your State money and save lives. But now
    certainly with your bill here being able to stretch our FEMA
    dollar and save lives from a national perspective is something
    that you should be commended for.
        So thank you for your efforts and thank you for your
    testimony today.
        And if our second panel would take the witness stand here,
    today's witnesses include Mr. Jim Mullen, president, National
    Emergency Management Association; Mr. Jimmy Gianato, director
    of homeland security and emergency management, State of West
    Virginia; Chief Hank C. Clemmensen, first vice president,
    International Association of Fire Chiefs; Mr. Chad Berginnis,
    executive director, Association of State Floodplain Managers;
    Ms. Julie Rochman, president and CEO, Insurance Institute for
    Business and Home Safety; and Mr. Rod Matthews, CPCU, P&C
    operations vice president, State Farm Insurance Companies.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses here with us today. I
    ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements be
    included in the record.
        Without objection so ordered.
        Since your written testimony has been made part of the
    record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your
    testimony to 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mullen, you may proceed. If you could, pull your
    microphone a little closer to you and push the on button.

        TESTIMONY OF JIM MULLEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EMERGENCY
    MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; JAMES J. GIANATO, DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND
      SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA;
     CHIEF HANK C. CLEMMENSEN, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
      ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS; CHAD BERGINNIS, CFM, EXECUTIVE
     DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS; JULIE A.
     ROCHMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS
    AND HOME SAFETY (IBHS); AND ROD MATTHEWS, CPCU, P&C OPERATIONS
     VICE PRESIDENT, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, TESTIFYING ON
                  BEHALF OF THE BUILDSTRONG COALITION

        Mr. Mullen. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Norton,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Jim
    Mullen, and I am the director of Washington State Emergency
    Management Division. Thank you for the opportunity to present
    testimony today as the president of the National Emergency
    Management Association.
        NEMA represents State Emergency Management Director of the
    50 States, District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories.
        Few professions lend themselves to sports metaphors like
    the emergency management does. One that I think is particularly
    appropriate is offense wins games, defense wins championships.
    In our case, response and recovery addresses short-term goals
    following a disaster, but mitigation, like defense, is critical
    to winning in the long-term battle for disaster resistant
    communities.
        The emergency management community plays a large role in
    communicating the message of mitigation, and what is that
    message? We mitigate so that preparedness is based on the best
    assessment of threats and hazards. We prepare because we cannot
    mitigate every threat, and we respond because mitigation and
    preparedness cannot completely eliminate risk, and we recover
    because it is important that we return to what our new normal
    has become.
        In the wake of a disaster we then resume mitigation efforts
    all over again. The cycle of emergency management begins and
    ends with mitigation.
        At its core, mitigation is easy to justify, and it seems
    like common sense. In practice, however, challenges still
    exist. The current funding structure for mitigation limits full
    integration and implementation of a National Mitigation
    Strategy.
        FEMA has mitigation assistance grant programs to provide
    funding for pre and post disaster mitigation. While funding
    levels for the other HMA grants are set, Hazard Mitigation
    Grant Program funds are only available to jurisdictions that
    experience a major disaster declaration and levels are
    determined as a percentage of their overall Federal assistance.
        In examining funding history over the past 10 years, it
    becomes evident that HMGP funding far outweighs investment in
    the four other programs. It cannot be overstated how crucial
    mitigation is post disaster to address critical points of
    failure, but instead of capitalizing on the 1 to 3 ratio of
    dollars invested to dollars saved on recovery costs, the
    Federal Government is missing the opportunity to focus money on
    the frontend instead of on the backend.
        Lack of effective communication is also a barrier to
    mitigation. For example, the private sector makes mitigation
    decisions all the time, but they do not always call it
    mitigation. Businesses take actions to invest in long-term
    profitability and eliminate or lessen future losses. Mitigation
    makes good business sense, and the private sector is able to
    communicate their motives to corporate and community
    stakeholders.
        In order to achieve the goals of mitigation as a national
    strategy, there are actions that must be taken. First, we must
    imbed mitigation and policy development as broadly as possible.
    Risk reduction policies and specific hazard mitigation measures
    are not the sole domain of any single agency, discipline, or
    profession. Policymakers in many domains could advance the
    reduction of risk in ways outside their traditional scope of
    responsibility.
        Secondly, we must educate Federal, State and local
    officials. Local elected and appointed officials make tough
    decisions and weigh costs versus benefits every day to make
    wise policy decisions where mitigation investments are
    concerned. They deserve to be educated about the threats,
    risks, benefits, and costs as fully as possible.
        Third, we should emphasize incentive, not punitive
    mitigation policies. Mitigation can be encouraged and rewarded
    or it can be mandated with punishment for the noncompliant.
        Policymakers should consider funding programs designed to
    reward effective land use and building design actions,
    including building codes and ordinances, and flexibility is
    needed to realize that one size does not fit all.
        And, lastly, there should be a focus on measuring and
    capturing success, along with some enhanced ability to measure
    the effectiveness of mitigation. Strategies that publicize
    those successes must also be developed, exploring ways to
    measure the long-term benefits of mitigation on tourism, the
    environment and economy, and enhance the attractiveness of
    mitigation efforts.
        In order to encourage investment and promote the goals of
    mitigation activities on the State and local level, specific
    recommendations should be considered. Better coordination is
    needed between Federal agencies with roles in mitigation. No
    single agency or level of Government sector of business or
    individual community can achieve successful mitigation on its
    own. Mitigation must be connected to other programs. Mitigation
    objectives for specific projects can differ among individuals,
    but if the same project supports multiple desired outcomes,
    success and achievement are increased.
        To support a National Mitigation Strategy, we must rethink
    the Federal grant structure. The current mitigation structure
    is centered on the Federal Government. Local governments and
    communities must find a way to illustrate their commitment to
    mitigation and demand partnerships to leverage their
    investment.
        The funding that comes down from the Federal Government
    must supplement, not supplant the work already being done at
    the State and local level. The path to successful
    implementation of a national strategy is filled with
    challenges, but there are numerous opportunities for effective
    collaboration between all mitigation stakeholders.
        NEMA and our partners remain committed to advancing the
    message of mitigation and furthering the core goals of risk
    reduction and loss avoidance.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        Mr. Gianato. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Congresswoman
    Norton, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to appear before before you today on behalf of
    the citizens of West Virginia and all Americans that were so
    affected by this devastating storm known as the derecho.
        I have been the director of homeland security and emergency
    management in the State of West Virginia since 2005 and
    previously served for 22 years as a local county and State
    official dealing with numerous disasters. I can honestly report
    to you that I have never witnessed anything of this magnitude
    with the impact it had on our State. The widespread devastation
    the storm produced in West Virginia was without precedent.
        The June 29th derecho was one of the most destructive, fast
    moving severe thunder storms in North American history. The
    massive storm brought straight line winds of over 100 miles per
    hour and traveled close to 700 miles in just 10 hours. It
    devastated 10 States, left over 4 million homes and businesses
    without electricity, and resulted in the deaths of at least 22
    people.
        In West Virginia we realized almost immediately that the
    damage would be particularly heavy. Before 10:00 p.m. on June
    29th, 2012, Governor Tomblin had already declared a state of
    emergency for the entire State of West Virginia. I had
    activated the State Emergency Operations Center and Adjutant
    General Hoyer had activated the West Virginia National Guard's
    Joint Operations Center and the first complement of our
    soldiers and airmen.
        For West Virginia the major impact from the storm was the
    loss of electrical power, which at its peak included almost
    700,000 customers or roughly 1.6 million citizens. The power
    outages result in as many as 87 public community water systems
    going offline, as well as hundreds of families depending on
    privately owned water wells without power to run their pumps,
    leaving tens of thousands of mountaineers without water.
        The suffering from this lack of power and water was
    compounded by the record heat wave that swept the country
    during this outage period. With high humidity and a heat index
    touching 110 degrees, our most vulnerable populations were
    particularly at risk.
        The lack of power impacted much more than the comfort of an
    air conditioner. With most gas stations inoperable, the few
    that had power saw lines of over 2 hours long. Grocery stores
    lost the ability to keep perishable foods and lost most
    business for over a week.
        Pharmacies were unable to dispense badly needed
    medications. Cell phone towers became inoperative, and at least
    50 percent of the State's hospitals were on generator power.
        Immediately we set to coordinate one of the largest
    response efforts in West Virginia history. Governor Tomblin
    took swift action in activating the State Emergency Operations
    Plan and requested Federal assistance as soon as the magnitude
    of the storm was realized. Hundreds of State employees from
    almost every State agency reported for duty ready to assist
    their fellow citizens. At least 50 percent of our Division of
    Highways' support was solely dedicated to disaster response,
    clearing 1,846 roads and delivering fuel to all of our
    counties.
        Our Department of Health and Human Resources activated its
    Health Command Center to assist at one time during the storm up
    to 50 percent of the hospitals reporting on generator power.
    Thirty-eight long-term health care facilities were on backup
    power. Seventy-nine percent of the community water systems in
    the State were impacted by the storm, and at least 146 used
    generators in one or more water plants.
        Another major issue encountered during the event was the
    lack of our ability to acquire oxygen for patients who used
    concentrators. Lack of power caused them to switch to bottled
    oxygen, which was in short supply, and local home health
    providers were unable to meet the demand.
        FEMA also assisted us in acquiring additional oxygen. I
    have attached copies of the DHHR report to my written
    testimony, but as with many agencies, they are still gathering
    data related to this event.
        The FEMA response to this disaster was immediate. From the
    time the Governor made the request to FEMA at about 3:00 in the
    morning, relief supplies and personnel began arriving within 6
    hours. Throughout the duration of the event, FEMA personnel
    were extremely helpful and responsive to our needs.
        To give you an idea of the supplies provided, almost 2.6
    million liters of water were provided by FEMA, over 669,000
    meals, 97 generators and 20 infant kits.
        The West Virginia Emergency Operations Center focused its
    immediate response on identifying initial impacts and to trying
    to determine what needs will be required. Even with the large
    volume of communications not functioning, our statewide Public
    Safety Radio Network provided us a solid and reliable
    communications backbone.
        By Saturday, June 30th, the next day of the storm, we knew
    that 53 of our 55 counties had been impacted. Among the most
    impressive response efforts came from our citizen soldiers and
    airmen of the West Virginia National Guard. Over 700 Guardsmen
    disbursed throughout the State to provide life sustaining
    supplies and even door-to-door checks.
        The support from the private sector was tremendous. Our
    interaction with agencies, such as the West Virginia Oil
    Marketers and Grocers Association, were a tremendous support
    system for our State. This was just one example of the private
    sector stepping up to assist.
        I appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of what
    we have done in West Virginia to deal with this event. I have
    submitted written testimony to you, and I will be glad to
    answer any questions at the end.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Chief Clemmensen.
        Chief Clemmensen. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking
    Member Norton and members of the subcommittee. I am Chief Hank
    Clemmensen of the Palatine Rural Fire Protection District
    located in Inverness, Illinois, and the first vice president of
    the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
        I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to
    represent the fire and emergency service's support for building
    codes and effective hazard mitigation.
        America suffers from one of the worst fire problems in the
    civilized world. In 2010, there were more than 1.3 million
    fires in America which resulted in the deaths of more than
    3,100 Americans and more than 17,000 injuries.
        The economic cost of these fires is equally compelling. For
    example, the economic loss due to fires in 2009 was $16.1
    billion. The total cost for fire that year, including insurance
    costs and local fire department expenditures, was $331 billion.
    This amount represents approximately 2.3 percent of the
    national gross domestic product.
        Model building codes and fire codes play a key role in
    mitigating the damage done by fires, windstorms, earthquakes
    and other disasters. They are designed using a consensus-driven
    process that includes all of the stakeholders. The fire service
    participates in the development of these codes to ensure that
    modern construction is safe for the public and first
    responders.
        There is strong evidence that building and fire codes
    prevent the tragic loss caused by extreme weather and national
    disasters. For example, a 2009 World Bank report demonstrated
    that the strict adherence to tough zoning and building codes
    resulted in greatly reduced fatalities in California as
    compared to earthquakes in other countries. A 2012 report by
    the IBHS found that the adoption of high wind provisions in
    residential buildings reduced the frequency of claims after a
    hurricane by 60 percent and the severity of such claims by 42
    percent.
        Unfortunately, some jurisdictions do not adopt model
    building codes or update them until after a natural disaster
    occurs. In Illinois, there was a greater focus on adopting
    sprinkler codes for schools after the Our Lady of Angels fire
    in 1958. Sadly, more than 90 students and teachers perished in
    that fire before sprinkler codes were changed.
        The IAFC believes that H.R. 2069 will encourage States to
    adopt the most current commercial and residential building
    codes proactively. By adding a 4-percent incentive to FEMA's
    Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the bill will create a
    virtuous cycle for States to receive more funds to protect
    their citizens.
        As the subcommittee begins to consider this legislation, we
    would like to raise three points for your consideration: (1) To
    qualify for the 4-percent incentive, States should not be able
    to opt out of or reduce substantial code requirements. For
    example, the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code
    included a requirement for residential sprinklers. Many States
    opted out of this requirement when adopting the code.
        The IAFC is greatly concerned about this decision since
    there is clear evidence that fire sprinklers save lives.
        A report by Scottsdale, Arizona, found that one or two
    sprinkler heads controlled or extinguished the fire 92 percent
    of the time. Because of their proven efficiency, the U.S. Fire
    Administration recommends the installation of fire sprinklers
    in residences.
        The decision to opt out of residential fire sprinkler
    requirements presents a serious problem for public safety.
    Sixty-six percent of all civilian fire injuries from 2008 to
    2010 resulted from fires in residential buildings. So, the
    decision to opt out of the residential sprinkler requirements
    will do nothing to mitigate two-thirds of the casualties caused
    by fires.
        (2) Local jurisdictions should be allowed the latitude to
    adopt more stringent codes than the State minimum code
    requires. Especially in large States, the various regions in a
    State may face different threats. For example, the wind
    resistance requirements for buildings in south Florida and the
    Panhandle vary due to the threat of hurricanes. When
    implementing H.R. 2069, local jurisdictions should be allowed
    to strengthen their requirements to address all hazards.
        (3) The legislation should also include both building codes
    and fire codes. Both building codes and fire codes work
    together in tandem. In many communities a building code
    addresses design and construction of a building while the fire
    codes address specific life safety hazards associated with the
    facility's use. The adoption of both building codes and fire
    codes at the State level will ensure that there is a minimum
    level of fire protection in local communities across the
    Nation.
        Finally, on behalf of the America's fire and EMS chiefs, I
    would like to thank you for holding today's hearing. Model
    building and fire codes play an important role in mitigating
    the effects of fire and other natural disasters. H.R. 2069
    proposes an incentive that will improve the safety of the
    American public and first responders.
        We urge Congress to consider this legislation and look
    forward to working with the subcommittee.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Berginnis.
        Mr. Berginnis. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking
    Member Norton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I
    am Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of
    State Floodplain Managers. We are pleased to offer our thoughts
    related to hazard mitigation and building codes.
        ASFPM's 14,000 members and 33 chapters are the country's
    practitioners who administer flood hazard mitigation programs,
    land use and building codes on a daily basis.
        2011 was a record-setting year in the United States. Data
    indicated that 2011 resulted in at least $10 billion in flood
    damages. The Nation experienced 14 disasters from natural
    hazards where the cost of each exceeded $1 billion, and
    President Obama issued a record 99 major disaster declarations.
        As the cost of disasters continues to rise, Governments and
    citizens must find ways to reduce cost from natural hazards.
    Hazard mitigation means taking a sustainable action to reduce
    or eliminate long-term risks from hazards and their effects.
    There is a variety of mitigation tools though, including
    planning, building codes, land use standards, planning, hazard
    insurance, mitigation grant programs, protection of critical
    facilities, infrastructure protection, and high engineered
    structural measures.
        Hazard mitigation also saves money. The 1993, Mississippi
    River flood affected hundreds of homes and caused several
    million dollars of damage in the small city of Arnold,
    Missouri. In 1995, a large number of at-risk homes were bought,
    demolished, and the remaining property was deed restricted as
    open space.
        By 2008, over 322 homes had been acquired. When flooding
    occurred that year, a total of $12,000 in damages resulted.
    Today flooding is mostly an inconvenience in Arnold, and the
    long-term cost to the U.S. taxpayer is essentially zero.
        Mitigation grant projects are an important tool used
    nationwide, especially in older communities that have existing
    inventories of at-risk buildings and infrastructure. Demand for
    these programs far exceeds available resources. A poll of State
    hazard mitigation officers found that current demand ranges
    anywhere from 3 to 10 times available funding.
        Mitigation practitioners in the Nation though are concerned
    about the administration's proposed FY 2013 budget to zero out
    the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program, and ASFPM appreciates
    Congress' expression of support of that program through
    restoration of some of those funds. PDM is a significant source
    of mitigation funds for mitigation planning, and it is not
    redundant to other sources that may be available after a
    declared disaster.
        In fact, over half of the States depend upon PDM for
    planning assistance.
        ASFPM also thinks that building codes can play an effective
    role in hazard mitigation, and there are six key considerations
    for any legislation addressing building codes and mitigations.
    First, State adoption does not necessarily equal all
    communities adopting the same code. As the previous panelists
    had indicated, there is the ability to opt out of codes, and
    the code adoption process is voluntary and variable.
        Many States do not require local jurisdictions to adopt
    building codes, and others allow communities to adopt a
    building code of their choice. Ohio serves to illustrate this
    point well. The States of Ohio adopted international codes. In
    fact, they are required in all communities. Those codes are
    required for three-plus family, residential, commercial and
    industrial buildings.
        However, the Ohio residential code is optional in
    communities for one to three family dwellings. Furthermore in
    2012, when the Ohio residential code was updated, controversial
    provisions of the International Residential Code were omitted.
        Second, State adoption does not necessarily equal
    enforcement of those codes. Over the past 25 years, FEMA post
    event reports find that the construction does not meet targeted
    building code performance. Anecdotally, many local flood plain
    managers indicate that code enforcement can be difficult.
    Everything from political pressure, misuse of the variance
    process, to other inadequate legal counsel can impact a
    community's ability to enforce its regulations.
        Third, model codes are consistent with minimum national
    standards, but do the standards achieve the needed amount of
    loss reduction? While flood provisions of the model building
    codes are consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program
    standards, minimum standards of the NFIP have not been updated
    in over 25 years, and much loss experience has been learned.
        Are these minimum standards enough? Steps should be taken
    to encourage or incent States and/or communities with unique
    hazards or long-term vision to implement standards beyond those
    in the international codes.
        An effective approach must include both incentives and the
    elimination of perverse disincentives. Today's communities and
    States get rewarded for doing little or nothing to increase
    their resiliency. If a community is not willing to do the day-
    to-day mitigation through codes and land use, why should even
    they be eligible for programs such as HMGP, public assistance
    or disaster assistance in general?
        Fifth, local capacity is key to successful implementation
    of building codes.
        And finally, effective land use and planning must work in
    concert with building codes to achieve overall community
    resiliency.
        ASFPM appreciates the committee's interest in and
    encouraging adoption and enforcement of statewide building
    codes. H.R. 2069 is a good step in the right direction through
    offering an incentive for adoption enforcement of nationally
    recognized building codes.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Ms. Rochman, and I understand you have a brief video.
        Ms. Rochman. We do, yes, sir. We will show it in the middle
    of the testimony if that is all right.
        Mr. Denham. Perfect. Thank you.
        Ms. Rochman. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you today regarding the importance of
    enacting and enforcing strong statewide building codes.
    Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Norton, thank you for being
    from jurisdictions with good, strong building codes.
        I am Julie Rochman. I am the president and CEO of the
    Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, or IBHS. IBHS
    is a 501(c)(3) organization wholly supported by the property
    insurance industry. Our mission is to conduct objective
    research to identify and promote effective actions and
    strengthen homes, businesses and communities against natural
    disasters and other causes of loss.
        We believe that because every region of this country is
    vulnerable to one or more potentially devastating natural
    hazard, improving disaster mitigation, preparedness response
    and recovery must be a national priority.
        The centerpiece of our research program is our unique IBHS
    Research Center in South Carolina. Using a massive 105-fan
    array, and each of these fans has 350 horsepower, and other
    specialized equipment, we can recreate a variety of highly
    realistic wind, rain, fire and hail events. Only IBHS can look
    at full-scale structures as a system. The ability to mimic
    Mother Nature in a controlled, repeatable environment allows
    IBHS to do several things: to demonstrate the effectiveness and
    financial value of stronger building codes and better built
    structures; to identify different kinds of solutions to
    building vulnerabilities; to strengthen the relationship
    between theoretical and real building performance; and to
    validate and improve current scientific bases for designing and
    installing building products and systems.
        In addition to laboratory research, IGHS conducts post
    disaster field research. In one such study following Hurricane
    Charlie, which has been referenced a few times here today
    already, we found that homes built to then modern codes
    suffered 40 percent less severe damage and 60 percent less
    frequent damage than homes built to older codes.
        These are not marginal rates of return on a relative modest
    investment in codes. These are huge rates of return.
    Unfortunately, disasters such as Hurricane Andrew have shown
    that lax code enforcement of otherwise effective building codes
    needlessly and greatly increases total damage. Strong safety
    requirements were in place in southeast Florida in 1992, but
    local officials failed to make sure that they actually were
    followed during the construction process.
        Recognizing the importance of comprehensive building code
    safety systems, IBHS recently completed a first of its kind
    Rating the States Report, examining regulations and processes
    governing residential construction in the 18 States most
    vulnerable to hurricanes from Texas to Maine. The report looks
    at adoption, enforcement of strong statewide building codes, as
    well as code official certification and training, and
    contractor and subcontractor licensing.
        Employing a 100-point scale with 100 being the best, the
    quality of code systems ranged from Florida and Virginia up at
    95 points down to Mississippi which scored only 4 points. The
    purpose of this analysis was to shine a much needed spotlight
    on how States can take specific steps to better protect their
    citizens.
        In order to fully understand how real world performance
    compares to technical requirements, IBHS has conducted several
    unique, full-scale tests in our laboratory of houses. These
    tests examine the way structures work as a system either to
    withstand or to succumb to natural forces.
        Mr. Chairman, now I would like to show the subcommittee a
    quick video. It is about 40 seconds, from one of these tests.
    This is from the fall of 2010, where we put two full-scale wood
    frame houses into our test chamber and created a highly
    realistic storm with wind speeds and gusts up to 120 miles an
    hour. In this test, as you can see, the roof of one of the
    homes built using conventional constructional practices as they
    exist in central Illinois, where by the way there is no
    statewide building code, lifted off entirely under the force of
    95-mile-an-hour winds. The loss of the roof caused total
    destruction of the home only moments later.
        It is simply inexcusable that we do not ensure that houses
    in areas subject to moderate and severe high wind events, which
    is much of this country, do not have strong connections between
    the walls and the roof, between each floor, and between the
    walls and the foundation. Most of the roofs in this country are
    held on by nothing more than gravity.
        The strapping needed to provide a continuous chain of
    connections from roof to foundation costs less than $1,500 to
    $2,000 for a home or small business, yet greatly increases
    building strength and safety in the face of a variety of wind
    events, including hurricanes, tornadoes and straight line wind
    storms.
        Fortunately, there are States like Florida where this chain
    of connections is an integral part of the building code. A
    continuous load path should be a feature of residential and
    commercial construction everywhere and can be through building
    codes.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here
    today. We urge the subcommittee to advance H.R. 2069. It is
    important legislation that provides a vehicle to put important
    knowledge about proven benefits of building codes to work by
    significantly improving our Nation's safety and resilience.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Matthews.
        Mr. Matthews. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton,
    members of the subcommittee, the BuildStrong Coalition thanks
    you for holding this hearing to examine the vital role that
    strong building codes can play in mitigating the damage and
    costs associated with natural disasters.
        My name is Rod Matthews, and I am the property and casualty
    operations vice president for the State Farm Insurance
    Companies based in Bloomington, Illinois.
        State Farm is proud to be a founding member of the
    BuildStrong Coalition, a group of national business and
    consumer organizations, insurance companies, firefighters,
    emergency managers and building professionals dedicated to
    promoting stronger building codes. The BuildStrong Coalition
    shares the subcommittee's goal of helping communities to
    prepare for and recover from natural disasters while saving
    taxpayer money in the process.
        But our fist consideration must always be the safety of our
    communities and the American people. Our thoughts and prayers
    go out to the victims of natural disasters, events which compel
    us to advance legislation to help fortify the Nation's defenses
    against similar events in the future. Stronger, safer homes and
    businesses save lives and better protect people's biggest
    investment.
        Not only is the cost of natural disasters measured in the
    loss of precious lives. It is also measured in the dollar cost
    to our economy. 2011 was the fifth most expensive year on
    record for insured catastrophe losses in the United States.
    Only 50 percent of the almost $73 billion overall cost of
    disasters in the United States in 2011 was covered by
    insurance.
        For decades Congress has authorized insufficient funding
    for disaster relief, and then needed to pass a supplemental
    disaster funds in 18 of the last 23 budget years.
        Natural disasters are inevitable, and while budgeting for
    disaster cost is not a perfect science, the Federal Government
    needs to better plan for the financial impact. Merely hoping
    the weather cooperates and relying on luck is not enough.
        There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the
    conclusion that minimum statewide building codes save lives and
    greatly reduce property damage and the subsequent need for
    Federal disaster aid. The National Institute of Building
    Sciences found that for every dollar spent to make buildings
    stronger, the American taxpayer saves $4 in Federal disaster
    assistance.
        The Louisiana State University Hurricane Center estimated
    that stronger building codes would have reduced wind damage in
    Louisiana from Katrina by 80 percent, saving $8 billion.
        More recently, FEMA assessed the damage from the 2011
    spring tornadoes in the Southeast and Midwest, identifying
    model building codes as the top recommendation to improve
    public safety. Standardized building codes promote a level and
    consistent playing field for design professionals, suppliers,
    and builders, and create a minimum standard upon which
    consumers can rely.
        To alleviate the financial pressure from natural disasters,
    Congress should encourage building stronger, safer homes and
    businesses. The BuildStrong Coalition strongly endorses H.R.
    2069, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act, as a forward
    thinking investment to build stronger, safer homes and
    businesses that will save lives and reduce damage.
        Under the proposed law, States that adopt and enforce
    nationally recognized model building codes for residential and
    commercial structures would qualify for an additional 4 percent
    of funding available for post disaster grants, which will be
    administered by FEMA through the Stafford Act. Currently about
    20 States would qualify or could with minor changes to their
    laws and regulations.
        This legislation will not require any additional
    appropriation to FEMA since it draws funds from the existing
    Disaster Relief Fund.
        Furthermore, H.R. 2069 does not mandate the adoption of
    statewide building codes by any State that wishes to maintain
    their current patchwork structure.
        Qualifying States have learned the expensive lessons of
    building code effectiveness usually after an ill-prepared
    experience with names, such as Andrew, Katrina, Charlie or
    Northridge. Unfortunately, many States still refuse to adopt
    these minimum standards in building safety, thereby putting
    their citizens' lives and property at higher risk and
    increasing the liability of all U.S. taxpayers.
        A 2012 Milliman study found that H.R. 2069 would have saved
    U.S. taxpayers $11 billion in hurricane relief payments alone
    from 1988 to present had it been in place. That is almost $500
    million a year in taxpayer savings. It is time for our Nation
    to have a long overdue, robust conversation about building
    safety and its intersection with natural disasters.
        This subcommittee can ignite that debate by moving forward
    with consideration of this Safe Building Code Incentive Act.
    The overwhelming evidence supporting the widespread adoption of
    statewide building codes proves that H.R. 2069 is a fiscally
    responsible way to make our country stronger, safer, and better
    prepared for natural disasters.
        We must continue to work together across industries,
    Government agencies and organizations to find better ways to
    protect lives, home, businesses, and personal property. Based
    on scientific data and supported by Federal incentives, we can
    align our efforts to promote modern and effectively enforced
    statewide building codes across our country.
        I look forward to your questions, and thank you for your
    time.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Thank you to all of our witnesses
    for your opening testimonies.
        We will now have 5 minutes from each Member for
    questioning. I will start with myself.
        Mr. Matthews, in each of the different States that have
    already implemented their building codes, have you seen a lower
    insurance premium in those States?
        Mr. Matthews. What happens, Congressman and Chairman, is
    that those reduced expenses, lost costs find their ways into
    the rates, and over time that should create a more competitive
    environment. Our industry is highly competitive. There are
    several hundred insurance companies. So the combination of
    reduce lost cost and the competitive environment works to the
    benefit of customers.
        Mr. Denham. And I come from one of those States that has
    quite a few earthquakes. In your testimony, you talk about
    Haiti and the lack of building codes there. Could you go into
    greater detail about some of the impacts and some of the things
    that could have been mitigated or could be mitigated in the
    future if they had a standard building code?
        Mr. Matthews. Yes. Actually, as Ms. Rochman said in her
    testimony, California is one of the better States in terms of
    building codes. Much of the seismic code that you see that has
    been adopted around the country comes out of research and
    experience from the building codes in California.
        California has been a leader around fire protection in
    their codes as well, with residential sprinkler systems as well
    as mitigating the hazard of wildfire, which is a large
    exposure, natural disaster exposure in California.
        So actually, Mr. Chairman, your State has done a very good
    job and it would be one of the States that would already
    qualify for this incentive.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        And, Ms. Rochman, if you could briefly talk about that as
    well as we are very intrigued about your test facility and want
    to take a group of Members down there to see firsthand some of
    the things that you can exemplify with your testing facility.
    If you could, talk about both please.
        Ms. Rochman. Sure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        One of the things that we know from the rash of earthquakes
    that we had last year, not so much the one here, although the
    Washington Monument is truly even today a testimony to the
    power of what even a small earthquake can do; when you look at
    Haiti versus Chile versus Japan and California, we know that
    where there are good, strong seismic codes in place, we see
    much less loss of life and much less damage in property.
        The issue we have in this country is that California is not
    the only State with seismic exposure. There is a substantial
    area in the midwestern part of the country call the New Madrid
    Zone, and the New Madrid Zone has actually experienced 200
    years ago the worst earthquake recorded in the history of this
    country. At that time there was very little population. Now,
    there are about 35 million people living in the New Madrid
    Zone, and those building codes are not what they need to be
    when it comes to residential construction.
        So there are a lot of things we can do. At our facility, we
    look at wind, water, fire, and hail. We do not have a shake
    table. The University of California at San Diego has an
    excellent research facility for earthquake, as does the
    University of Illinois.
        But we would love to have you come down and look. The video
    that I showed a little while ago, the difference between those
    two houses was less than $3,000, and the house that had the
    continuous strapping, again, holding the roof on by more than
    gravity stands strong. We ran that house through several tests
    against houses that were not built as well, that were more
    brittle, and each and every time the house that was not built
    to what it should have been went away.
        And we always look at those houses, even though we are in a
    safe observation area as you could be if you would come to
    watch the test, but it is startling how quickly a house comes
    apart and how it is absolutely reduced to rubble. That is no
    longer somebody's home at that point. It is just a pile of
    debris.
        Mr. Denham. Well, thank you. We look forward to seeing that
    first hand.
        Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        If I am not mistaken, only about a third, and correct me if
    I am wrong, of States seem to have building codes. I am trying
    to understand what it takes particularly given, as you might
    have heard, my disappointment that the incentives bill met a
    roadblock here in the Congress, a technical roadblock.
        Are States that have building codes, those that had been
    disaster prone, flood prone, hurricane prone, those States did
    not have any incentives. How did you discuss the States? Does
    Louisiana now have a statewide building code? Did it have one
    before?
        Ms. Rochman. No.
        Ms. Norton. Uh-oh. Does that tell me that you need a
    disaster in order to get a building code? Would that not be
    terrible?
        Do any of you have any notion of what has encouraged some
    States somehow on their own to adopt building codes and others
    have hung back?
        Mr. Matthews. Congresswoman Norton, I think you have
    touched on one of the things. One of the sad commentaries on
    what we have seen in this field is that many times they are
    very expensive experiences, and they have names called Andrew
    and Northridge and that sort of thing.
        Ms. Norton. And Katrina.
        Mr. Matthews. And Katrina, that convince people to do the
    right thing after the fact.
        You know, what we are really trying to focus with H.R. 2069
    is kind of the old adage of, you know, an ounce of prevention
    is worth a pound of cure. And if you go back and look at what
    Congress has done in 18 out of the last 23 years of having to
    vote supplemental funds for disaster aid, you know, it really
    makes sense that we deal with the issue before it actually
    happens.
        The Milliman study that I referenced, as well, and I
    appreciate what you are saying about the CBO scoring, but the
    Milliman study which showed that actually the Federal
    Government would net $40 million a month, $500 million a year
    from H.R. 2069 in terms of what building stronger, safer homes,
    stronger, safer building codes would mean to our country.
        Ms. Norton. In my experience, you never get legislation
    passed in the Congress by showing dollars and cents saved. I
    mean I have always been amazed at it. It is one of the best
    arguments used, but somehow it does not quite matter. And, of
    course, I thought the incentives might help, and you see the
    problems as you indicated.
        Is there resistance in the States to building codes? Is
    there resistance from--I do not know--industry, from consumers,
    from the States themselves? Is there resistance or simply
    passivity?
        Mr. Matthews. I think in some cases it is probably both,
    Congresswoman. In some cases I do not think people are
    necessarily aware of the exposure and what they are faced with.
        Sometimes there are groups that will vocalize opposition to
    building codes or they think, again, they are lulled into
    complacency thinking it can never happen here, until it
    happens, you know, unfortunately.
        To our knowledge, at least from the BuildStrong Coalition,
    no one has voiced any opposition to H.R. 2069, and it is a very
    broad-based coalition.
        Ms. Rochman. Congressman, if I could just add to that for 1
    second, we know from the insurance industry we have taught
    consumers how to demand safety in automobiles. We have showed
    them what safer vehicles look like, and now consumers shop on
    safety.
        Safety sells. I think one of the things we have to do is
    get citizens to understand that a building code is a minimum
    life safety threshold. It literally keeps the house from
    spontaneously combusting or falling down around your ears. This
    is the minimum level at which you can occupy a building. If
    people understood that the construction was not where it should
    be, we think that they would demand better, safer homes. It is
    one of the reasons the insurance industry built our lab, and we
    are working with home builders and we are working with the
    construction industry.
        Like every industry, there are good actors and people who
    want to do a good jobs, but in this housing market there is an
    increasing number of builders who understand that quality
    construction sells.
        Ms. Norton. Yes. But what I take away is that, you know,
    when you have a big disaster, you get a building code, and that
    really bothers me.
        Could you just call out the names of some of the States
    that have strong building codes so I can get some sense?
        Ms. Rochman. Sure. Well, you are right, Congressman.
    Unfortunately people do wait until disaster. So when Katrina
    hit, for example, Louisiana took 2 years to pass a statewide
    building code.
        Illinois and Texas are States where we have seen a lot of
    catastrophes, and they do not have statewide codes, or they do
    and they are not well enforced. But California, Virginia, South
    Carolina, we do see a number of States increasingly looking at
    codes because it also levels the playing field for all of the
    builders in the States. They all have to comply with the same
    standard.
        But we know that there are about 20 States right now that
    would comply with the legislation as it is written.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Norton. Ranking member of the whole committee, Mr.
    Rahall.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gianato, you have described very well the financial
    losses that our State experienced and many other damages that
    occurred during the recent storms. You have also commended our
    National Guard, and I join you in that. I commend you and your
    staff, as well as our National Guard under the direction of
    Major General Jim Hoyer. I commend our emergency responders,
    our medics, our churches, our local officials, our 911
    directors in each of the counties, our American Red Cross, the
    Salvation Army, AmeriCorps, Vista volunteers, power company
    workers who worked under very strenuous conditions in tough
    terrain carrying heavy equipment to try to repair a lot of the
    power lines, our public service districts, our water companies,
    et cetera.
        Our committee has advanced legislation to reauthorize FEMA
    disaster assistance, including the requirement that FEMA review
    the individual assistance program regulations. Do you think
    that is sufficient or should Congress do more to ensure that
    the program is flexible enough and fast enough, given that many
    families have suffered losses that they cannot afford and no
    Government agency seems able to assist them?
        Mr. Gianato. Congressman, I think you have hit dead on that
    flexibility is the key to any of these programs. No two
    disasters are alike, and when we try to develop rules and
    policies for one disaster to fit another, this latest storm
    that impacted West Virginia, as I said, is not like anything we
    have ever seen, and the impact on the citizens is not like a
    traditional disaster where you can go out and count the number
    of homes, as you said earlier, that are destroyed.
        So I think the key is having the flexibility in the law and
    the open dialogue with FEMA and the administration to be able
    to work through the different problems as we come to them.
        Mr. Rahall. Can you describe how our power companies and
    water companies responded to the extended power outage?
        And how can FEMA mitigation grants be used to prevent a
    recurrence of such an extended power outage periods?
        Mr. Gianato. Well, I think with the power outages we have,
    in my written testimony it talks about there were 226
    transmission lines that were destroyed by this storm, almost
    1.6 million miles of line that were down as a result of the
    storm. Again, this was an unprecedented storm, but I think we
    have to take the steps to minimize the ability of the trees to
    come down on those lines that pulled those down. So those are
    some of the things that we have to look at that are outside the
    FEMA realm.
        As it relates to the water companies, one of the things
    that we are doing in West Virginia is we are partnering with
    the West Virginia National Guard to go out and do assessments
    of every critical facility, which includes the water and sewer
    plants, and we are identifying with those facilities what their
    power generation needs are so that if a situation like this
    were to occur again and those facilities do not have
    generators, that we will have in a couple of secure databases
    the information to allow us to move quickly and place a
    generator on that site.
        I think we need to look at using mitigation funds to
    install generators on some of the critical facilities and look
    at how the programs that we currently have can be utilized and
    look at what changes may need to be made in the future to allow
    that.
        Mr. Rahall. How can we get gas stations to install backup
    generators? That was one of the most shocking facts that came
    out of this recent storm to me, was that gas stations do not
    have backup power generators, and you would think in times of
    emergency that is the first thing you need to keep open, is the
    supply of gas to customers.
        We had the gas. It is just the gas stations did not have
    the power to run those pumps.
        Mr. Gianato. That is correct. The service stations did not
    have power to run their pumps or in a lot of cases even if they
    had power to run their pumps and did not have their other
    systems tied to it, they could not pump gasoline.
        So most of those are privately owned, and that is going to
    be something that we are going to have to work through at the
    State level, and we plan to. If you look at my written
    testimony, it also says that Governor Tomblin has ordered a top
    to bottom review of this event and the impacts that it had and
    how we can minimize some of the issues in the future, and that
    is one of the key things that we are looking at, as well as
    backup power for radio stations because one of the real
    problems that we had, the traditional means of communicating to
    the public that we have always utilized in the past failed.
    When the radio stations and the TV stations went off the air
    without power, it did not matter if citizens had battery
    powered radios. They simply could not get the signal.
        So we have got to go back to the basics.
        Mr. Rahall. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but
    it looks like there is nobody else waiting to ask questions.
    May I ask one final question?
        Mr. Hanna. [presiding.] Go ahead.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
        And I would give the entire panel a chance to respond to
    anything that has been discussed already, but my question to
    the entire panel would be: do you believe that H.R. 2069
    requires States to adopt entire model building codes, or can
    States pick and choose from certain model provisions?
        Chief Clemmensen. Well, I will start.
        Mr. Rahall. Yes.
        Chief Clemmensen. I do not see it as a mandate whatsoever.
    I know there has been other testimony to that. It is an
    incentive program that I believe will incentivize States to
    adopt these codes. It is just important that there are the
    model codes, which we consider a minimum code.
        Mr. Rahall. I appreciate it. Anyone else wish to respond?
    Ms. Rochman.
        Ms. Rochman. Sir, it is clearly not a mandate. It is
    optional.
        I did want to respond to the Congresswoman's questions and
    just read into the record if it is all right with you, sir----
        Mr. Rahall. Sure.
        Ms. Rochman [continuing]. The States that would currently
    qualify. They would be California, the District of Columbia,
    Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
    New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
    Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
        All of those States would have to do nothing at this point
    to qualify for the extra funds under H.R. 2069.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, I am sorry. I did not mean to
    cut you off.
        Mr. Berginnis. Oh, I just wanted to also say that, you
    know, something that might be instructional for H.R. 2069 is
    the way the National Flood Insurance Program works. I would
    argue that the NFIP, 21,000 communities in the country have
    building and land use codes. A lot of those do not actually
    have a building code. The only thing they have is the NFIP
    standards.
        It is an incentive program because the incentive is flood
    insurance is available, but there is a powerful disincentive
    tied to that because if flood insurance is not available, a lot
    of folks cannot get mortgages in those flood hazard areas, and
    so while H.R. 2069 does a very good job on the incentives
    portion, we need to make sure that within the array of programs
    that we offer to folks, whether it be post disaster programs
    and others, that there are some disincentives also tied to
    that.
        And I think that gets back to the question of how do we
    have more States and more communities actually then adopting
    these codes. That is a way to do that, by both having
    incentives and disincentives.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Rahall. Thank you.
        I thank the panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
        Chief Clemmensen, I absolutely believe that you are correct
    when you talk about sprinklers and the benefits of sprinklers.
    One of the problems with an incentive program though is that if
    it is not large enough or that it requires something that is so
    expensive, that what we design as an incentive becomes a
    disincentive as we add more requirements to it.
        So you must have an opinion about that, which I can almost
    guess what it is, but I would like to give you a chance to talk
    about it.
        Chief Clemmensen. Well, it is basically just like any other
    code. There are costs involved, and Congresswoman Norton asked
    about why States do not have model building codes. It is
    because there are lobbyists and people that would rather keep
    the codes very simplified so that the cost of the housing is
    less expensive.
        Fire sprinklers are the same thing. There is a code
    involved, obviously, but the cost is probably the same as
    putting carpeting into your home. However, it does add a bottom
    line cost to the home, and there are homebuilders who would
    prefer to keep that cost down so they can sell more homes.
        Over the long run through, the savings to the municipality
    or to the locals is incredible. As an example, I was the Fire
    Marshal and code official for a large suburban town just
    outside Chicago, and in 1995, we passed a residential sprinkler
    code, and now that area of the community has 4,000 homes that
    are sprinklered. That allowed the community instead of having
    two fire stations to only have one, and that equates to roughly
    $1 million a year.
        So there is a large savings over the long run.
        Mr. Hanna. Sure. But you can see the obvious problem with
    it, whereas with Ms. Rochman's point, where you simply strap
    from the foundation right over the top of the house, I assume
    that is basically what was done there. That is a very cheap,
    very effective tool.
        Incentives are an interesting lever to pull from Government
    because there is a point of diminishing returns and a point at
    which, like with sprinklers, it would ultimately disappear.
        Any other questions?
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        The chairman has raised a question about cost, and some do
    not cost much, and you might expect the people would step up to
    it. Let me raise again what has happened here, and we have had
    similar things to happen across the country.
        As we go across the country, the manifestations may be
    different, but leave aside the discussion on climate change
    because we do not know why this is happening, but I can tell
    you as a native Washingtonian who grew up in this town when
    there was no air conditioning, we just had the hottest. I am
    glad that if it had to be the hottest, it was not when I was a
    child, that is, now that there is air conditioning.
        But what I really want to get to are the outages, and our
    ranking member, I think, spoke about West Virginia and some of
    what West Virginia went through. This entire region had storms
    the likes of which in this season have never been seen before.
    And, by the way, they keep coming.
        Now, the communities across the region are up in arms about
    outages. The last one was a full week. You can imagine at the
    height of the heat there was no air conditioning. People's food
    melted. So people have some out and said, ``OK. Bury the power
    lines.''
        Well, Mr. Chairman, nobody is going to bury those power
    lines because the same constituents would yell to high heaven
    for the added costs that buried power lines come forward with.
    So, you know, some mitigated understand that and they come and
    say, ``OK. Bury some of them.''
        I have a real question, an honest to goodness practical
    question. What they have done to mitigate, the power companies,
    they have begun to trim the trees. That is pretty obvious. Of
    course, there is some throw-back on that because some people do
    not like the trees trimmed quite as much as they want to, but
    let's take it that everybody agrees that that is a mitigation
    strategy.
        When it comes to these outages, short of burying the lines
    which is cost prohibitive, in addition to trimming the trees,
    what do we do to mitigate another week without power--it could
    have happened here in the Congress, but I guess we would have
    had some backup. Some kind of backup I am sure occurs here--are
    people looking at mitigation in terms of the broader sense of
    that word?
        Sure, building codes are old-fashioned by now, but as you
    meet new and more expensive examples where there appear to be
    no strategies as to what to do to keep us from going through
    this again, my question is whether or not there is research
    being done so that people who honest to goodness would like to
    mitigate against a shutdown of their entire life for a week,
    for example, would go to some extra expense to do so.
        Are we leaving mitigation only with what we already have on
    the table and understand should be done, or is the research
    moving us where differences in climate may be taking us, such
    as when we had an earthquake here?
        I mean, I was sure it was something else. I would have
    thought it would have been a terrorist strike before I would
    have thought it would have been an earthquake. Now, I do not
    think everybody went out and bought earthquake insurance, but
    when you see those kinds of unusual occurrences, I would feel
    more comforted to know that those of you who are concerned with
    mitigation have some word for people trying to prevent these
    new occurrences.
        Does anyone advice for us? Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mullen. Yes. I would say that while I would never kick
    any new research by the curb, I would think that would be
    valuable, but I think we know enough now, and if I may, let me
    tell you where I think there is kind of a contradiction in the
    sense that the best awareness and the best pressure for
    mitigation comes from the Federal grant programs down, and
    mitigation at its core, in my opinion, and I think NEMA
    believes this as well, that mitigation is a local issue which
    people need to embrace at the local level, the local decision
    making and the county planning meetings and those areas. That
    is where the level of knowledge and commitment has to come.
        The Nation has had a pretty good commitment to mitigation.
    There are a lot of people in this town who believe in
    mitigation.
        Ms. Norton. But my question goes to what to do.
        Mr. Mullen. OK.
        Ms. Norton. New kinds of disasters or hazards to be
    mitigated. You know, do you have any examples of what to do
    with these outages which are occurring not only in this region
    but across the United States?
        Is anybody looking into ways to mitigate things like these
    outages or other changes that have not been seen before?
        Mr. Mullen. Yes. In my State we just did a major earthquake
    exercise where the biggest problem we ran into was fuel, the
    same thing that Mr. Gianato was referring to. This was a
    revelation because we had private sector personnel in our EOC
    working with us probably more extensively than ever.
        We have not got the answer, but the question is clear now.
    And I think that a lot of those----
        Ms. Norton. The problem was fuel and what else?
        Mr. Mullen. Fuel for pumps, fuel to just have critical
    vehicles move around. We had a major scenario that broke a lot
    of things, and so for 2 or 3 days we were facing the prospect
    of not being able to do the things that needed to be done for
    life safety, for basic maintenance of life and comfort because
    medicines could not move. And a large part of the problem was
    the absence of fuel generation.
        So what we were trying to do and what we will do as part of
    our followup is begin to look at with our private sector
    partners how are we going to fix that. What is yours and what
    is ours?
        And I think that is the same point I was about to make in
    terms of what the Mitigation Alliance, which ASFPM and us and
    about 18 other organizations are part of, is beginning to look
    at. How do we convince, persuade, cajole, educate people at the
    local level to begin addressing their problems and see if
    between the Federal incentives and push and the local and State
    awareness we can come to some kind of middle ground here where
    everyone is doing what they should be doing, and no one is
    being asked to do more than is appropriate.
        I have not got an answer for you, but I can tell you that
    those discussions in my State and some other States are going
    forward. I am sure they are going forward in West Virginia now.
    Experience teaches us unfortunately. The reason our codes are
    good is because we had earthquakes in the 1960s and people got
    smart.
        But we need to learn from the lessons, and if we do not
    learn our lessons, we will repeat the mistakes.
        Mr. Berginnis. Congressman, one of the things I want to
    mention is that one of the tools that is available now that
    this committee way back in 2000 really set the table for the
    Nation, and that is mitigation planning. There is a requirement
    at the local level and at the State level to update plans 5
    years and 3 years, respectively.
        And in updating those plans, key aspects of that include a
    reanalysis of your hazards. Have they changed? Exactly as you
    talked about, the hazards change over time. They are never
    static, and we need to be prepared to respond and mitigate
    against those. So there is a risk assessment aspect that goes.
        But as important, and maybe this has not been focused on as
    much as it really needs to, and that is an analysis of
    mitigation options. I have gone to so many communities,
    especially after floods in Ohio where they have the ``what
    next'' moment. It is usually right after the event. It is the
    first council meeting that happens, and all of the leadership
    are saying, ``My goodness, what is next? What do we do now?''
        If you have through mitigation planning in a nondisaster
    time identified the range of options that you can mitigate
    against a particular hazard, you are going to be set much more
    effectively in your recovery and ultimately in your resiliency.
        So I would offer that mitigation planning is really an
    effective tool, to answer your very question.
        Thank you.
        Chief Clemmensen. Congresswoman, I would just like to say
    that in the Chicago metro area, they have started a new power
    system called a smart grid. It is too new really to take effect
    yet, but we have always been trimming the trees.
        But to be proactive and the part of the mitigation
    testimony here is that we went out and we have created cooling
    shelters because we know that no matter how smart the grids
    are, how many trees they trim, the power is always going to go
    out.
        We just had an incident last month where over 100,000
    customers were without power. So we set up cooling sites around
    the city and around the suburbs for these people to go to at
    least be cool in these very extreme temperatures.
        Ms. Norton. I thank you for those examples, you know, and
    particularly for the notion of mitigation planning. I had not
    thought about that as a responsibility that the States already
    have. So that one of the things that I am going to do is to go
    back and see if the Federal Government and my own district and
    this region are planning for the next earthquake instead of
    saying, ``Well, that was a once in a century matter. Now let's
    go back to business as usual.''
        So thank you very much for your suggestions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
        If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous
    consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
    such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
    questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
    unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15
    legislative days for any additional comments and information
    submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
    of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I would like to thank the witnesses once again for your
    time here today and for your service to your communities. If no
    other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]