[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 93 (Thursday, July 11, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4508-H4514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INLAND FLOOD FORECASTING AND WARNING SYSTEM ACT OF 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Pursuant to House Resolution 
473 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2486.

                              {time}  1118


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2486) to authorize the National Weather Service to conduct 
research and development, training, and outreach activities relating to 
tropical cyclone inland forecasting improvement, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Quinn in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2486, the Inland Flood 
Forecast and Warning System Act of 2002.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone talks about the weather, but no one does 
anything about it. That is a famous statement I remember from my youth, 
but I am here today to talk about a way that we are going to do 
something about the weather.
  When it comes to hurricanes, wind speeds do not tell the whole story. 
Hurricanes produce storm surges, tornadoes, and often the most deadly 
of all, inland flooding. While storm surge is always a potential 
threat, more than half of all deaths associated with tropical cyclones 
during the last 30 years are due to inland flooding.
  Inland flooding can be a major threat to communities hundreds of 
miles from the coast. In 1999, Hurricane Floyd killed 48 people and 
caused nearly $3 billion in property damage, primarily because of 
flooding of inland communities. The severity was quite unexpected 
because these communities are 50 to 100 miles inland from hurricane 
landfall. However, this type of flooding has become all too common.
  While the National Weather Service has the ability to accurately 
predict most flood events, it has difficulty in forecasting inland 
flooding events that are caused by tropical cyclones.
  In addition, the flood warning index currently used by the National 
Weather Service for all flood events does not include enough 
information about the potential risks and dangers posed by expected 
floods. This index defines floods as minor, moderate, or major. 
Sometimes the category is accompanied by a warning of a comparable 
flood from another year. However, most major floods happen several 
years or even decades apart, so this information may not be very 
helpful. We need only to watch the news during the past few weeks as 
flooding in Texas has caused the deaths of many people.
  It is time for a new warning system that will provide more 
information to emergency managers and the public and will save lives in 
the process.
  This bill, H.R. 2486, the Inland Flood Forecasting and Warning System 
Act of 2002, provides the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, lovingly known as NOAA, an authorization of $5.75 
million over 5 years to do several things: first, improve the 
capability to accurately forecast inland flooding, including flooding 
influenced by coastal and ocean storms, through research and modeling; 
second, develop, test, and deploy an inland flood-warning index that 
will give the public, the media, and emergency management officials 
more accurate information about the risks and dangers posed by expected 
floods; third, train emergency management officials, National Weather 
Service personnel, meteorologists, and others regarding the improved 
forecasting techniques for inland flooding, risk-management techniques, 
and the use of the new flood-warning index; and, fourth, conduct 
research, outreach, and education activities for local meteorologists, 
media, and the public regarding the dangers and risks associated with 
inland flooding, as well as the use and understanding of the new inland 
flood-warning index.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge) for introducing this important bill. It was my pleasure to 
work closely with him in perfecting it.
  I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the two bills before us this day 
coming from my subcommittee were both authored by Democrats, and in 
both cases I worked very closely with them. That is a good example of 
the bipartisanship that one experiences on the Committee on Science, 
and I believe is a model for other committees, as well.
  It was the district of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge) that suffered the loss of 48 people in 1999 because of the 
unexpected severe inland flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd. I 
appreciate his leadership by responding with this legislation, which 
will help communities to more fully understand the risks and dangers of 
floods. We worked together closely during consideration of the bill in 
the Committee on Science to ensure that the new flood-warning index 
would help all our States, whether landlocked or coastal.
  But, more importantly, I am confident that training managers in the 
use of this new index and educating the public on its meaning and 
importance will save lives.
  This bill received strong bipartisan support in the Committee on 
Science, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
important and timely piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2486, the Inland Flood 
Forecasting and Warning System Act of 2002. This legislation was 
developed by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who has 
done a good job on it. He has worked on it for quite some time. I have 
great admiration for the gentleman. He is from the home State of my 
father and most of my family. He is a gentleman, and good to work with.
  This bill has strong bipartisan support, not only on the committee 
but among Members from coastal areas, as well. The gentleman from 
Michigan (Chairman Ehlers) has already outlined the provisions of this 
bill, so I just want to take a few minutes to talk about the need for 
this legislation.
  Flooding affects, of course, every part of the country; and although 
we have improved our flood forecasting capabilities, we still lack an 
effective means of transmitting to the public the nature and severity 
of a flood.
  Mr. Chairman, one day this country will capture and hold the 
devastating flood waters to fight future droughts in additional lakes, 
above-ground giant containers, and some underwater storage. Water and 
fire, fearful enemies, could become wonderful friends for the future to 
allow these devastating floods to fight the droughts.
  One of the least-understood flood patterns is related to tropical 
storms. For

[[Page H4509]]

example, we still do not fully understand the interaction between storm 
surges and flooding caused by precipitation. As a result, our flood 
forecasting is often inaccurate. In addition, tropical storms impact 
not only coastal areas, but can have devastating and disastrous effects 
as they continue to move inland.
  For example, Tropical Storm Allison dumped more than 35 inches of 
rain on my State of Texas. There were 50 deaths. The flood damage to 
Houston and surrounding areas was estimated in the several billions of 
dollars. Just last week, parts of central Texas received more than 30 
inches of rain.
  In Texas, we have firsthand knowledge about the damaging effects of 
floods, so I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I 
strongly support the efforts of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge) to develop an improved inland flood-forecasting index. I 
also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Ehlers) and 
the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for their strong 
support of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the so-called Etheridge bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), who has firsthand experience with the 
problems this bill is designed to address, because, as we know, there 
have been some disastrous floods in Texas the past week.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
leadership as subcommittee chairman on this important issue to our 
region and the Nation as well. I also especially appreciate the 
leadership of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge), as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), who have 
taken such a lead role in this legislation.
  When flood waters come through our homes, destroy our businesses, 
knock out our local hospitals, it does not care if we are Republican or 
Democrat; it just does the damage. In Houston, Tropical Storm Allison, 
we are told, was the costliest tropical storm. We lost 50 lives, 50 
neighbors in that storm.
  We have lost some $5 billion in our damage to our homes and 
businesses; and in our medical research center, we lost just tons of 
research in so many areas, from cancer to genetics, in some of our 
life-saving research that is being done. Some of the experiments that 
we lost were 10 years in the making. Scientific experts tell us that 
there was not a single discipline of science that was not in some way 
set back from the loss of research from Tropical Storm Allison.
  What we heard over and over in our community was that people, 
families and businesses, were saying, if we only had some notice; if we 
only had some warning about this devastation, we could have prevented 
it, or we could have lessened the damage. This is why I appreciate the 
lead of the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is so commonsense. It says, let us invest in 
the research which tells us why this flooding is coming and how quickly 
it is coming, and then let us do an early warning system for us, for 
those of us in the community, so we know how severe this storm would be 
on inland flooding and how it could affect us, so we can take those 
preventive steps.
  Then it goes another step and works with our local emergency response 
people to train them how to respond so they can assist us in leaving 
that area and preventing that damage, that loss of lives and loss of 
property.
  I am convinced that in our region, which is very experienced in 
flooding, we were watching for flooding from the coast. We were 
prepared for the punch from the right; we did not see the punch from 
the left, from inland flooding. That is what I appreciate so much about 
this bill.

                              {time}  1130

  It takes the inland flooding, provides the research, gives us the 
warning, trains the communities to prevent. And I am convinced this 
will save lives, it will save properties, it will save tax dollars to 
us in the end. It is a compassionate, smart, intelligent investment and 
the very best next step in preventing inland flooding.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall) for yielding me time. I also want to take this opportunity to 
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and others who have been on the Committee on 
Science, who have helped so much with this piece of legislation. As the 
gentleman said earlier, the Committee on Science has a tradition of 
bipartisanship and this bill is another indication of that 
bipartisanship at work.
  Mr. Chairman, as the 2002 hurricane season begins to heat up, I am 
pleased that we were able to get H.R. 2486, a bill to improve the 
forecasting of inland flooding and develop an inland flooding index on 
the floor of the House, and hopefully we can get it through quickly to 
the Senate and on to the President.
  I know it seems a bit strange, and if the folks back home happen to 
be watching this morning, to be talking about flooding when my State 
and many other States across this country are facing some extreme 
drought conditions, some of the worst we have seen certainly in our 
State in almost 100 years. But much of my district desperately needs 
rain today, and right now they would like to have a little rain to 
bring some of the plants to life and replenish our falling water 
supplies.
  However, we in North Carolina know all too well how devastating 
tropical storms and hurricanes can be. As you have already heard, just 
3 years ago in 1999, Hurricane Floyd killed 48 of our citizens. Almost 
all of them lived hundreds of miles from the coast, and died not from 
storm surge as we have heard, not from hurricane wind forces, but from 
flooding caused by the torrential rains associated with the tropical 
storms. And as we have already heard this morning, the one thing they 
did not have was time because this storm hit at night. People lost 
their lives, they lost their property, and many people lost everything 
they had because they did not have the one thing that would have made 
all the difference in the world, which was time.
  Last year Tropical Storm Allison, as we have heard others talking 
about already, demonstrated all too effectively the power of these 
floods, killing more than 50 people in several States, starting in 
Texas and moving up the eastern coast; and more recently torrential 
rains have caused major flooding in Texas all over again, killing 12 
people. These and other storms clearly indicate that current methods of 
predicting whether storm rains will produce heavy flooding are 
insufficient and that flood warnings are tragically inadequate.
  Last year, the House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and 
Standards of the Committee on Science heard testimony as to the need of 
improving the inland flooding forecasting and developing a better 
warning system that raises public awareness on the destructiveness of 
inland flooding so people can protect themselves, their property and 
their families.
  Ever since Floyd hit my State with such devastating power, I have 
been working with experts in storm predictions to help develop an 
effective piece of legislation to respond, and H.R. 2486 is the result 
of that effort with my colleagues here in the House.
  This bill authorizes a small sum in the terms of the dollars we 
produce, only $5.75 million over 5 years to provide the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with additional resources to 
enhance the science of flood prediction and, more importantly, develop 
an improved, effective flood warning index that really will save lives 
and warn people. NOAA's forecast for this year calls for the potential 
of nine to 13 tropical storms in the Atlantic, including six to eight 
hurricanes with two to three of them to be classified as major 
hurricanes, Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson scale.
  William Gray, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State 
University and a leading hurricane expert, predicts a 75 percent chance 
of a Category 3 or higher hurricane striking land in the United States 
this year. In an average year, that chance is only 52

[[Page H4510]]

percent, so you can see this year we stand a chance of really getting 
hit. Let me repeat that. Experts say there is a 75 percent chance the 
United States could experience another Floyd, another Fran, another 
Andrew, or another devastating storm hitting the U.S. coast.
  When you consider that more than 50 percent of America's population 
lives in coastal areas around this country, that makes it a frightening 
prediction. That is why, along with 23 of my colleagues, I have 
sponsored H.R. 2486, because as our Nation enters what appears to be a 
period of increasing storm activity, we need to better understand the 
damages these storms can cause and better inform our citizens of the 
danger that these storms pose.
  I am pleased that this measure has won the bipartisan support of so 
many of my colleagues on the Committee on Science, including the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and others. I want to 
thank the gentlemen, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Barcia), for their help on the subcommittee, for their assistance in 
moving this legislation forward.
  I want to express my appreciation to the staff of the full Committee 
on Science and the subcommittee on both the majority and the minority 
side, in particular Mike Quear, Eric Webster, Bob Palmer, Mark Harkins, 
and Dave Goldston and others who have worked to get this bill to the 
floor.
  I also want to acknowledge the help of the staff of NOAA and the 
National Weather Service, and cite the work of Dr. Leonard Pietrafesa, 
a professor at North Carolina State University, who helped in the 
crafting of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, at this very moment a storm is brewing in the Gulf of 
Mexico that may or may not develop into a tropical storm. Time is of 
the essence. I encourage my colleagues to pass this with haste, get it 
to the Senate so the President can sign this legislation as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the gentleman from North Carolina 
in commending the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for his good work, and also the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), as well as the staff. They 
have made the Committee on Science into a smoothly working machine, one 
of the most productive committees in the House, and I commend all of 
them for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I too rise in support of this legislation. I remember very well being 
a witness to one of the most devastating floods that ever hit 
Pennsylvania, and I was reminded of the fact that in Hurricane Floyd, 
which was just referred to by the previous speaker, many Pennsylvanians 
went down to help in that disaster; and they did so because they 
remembered, did these Pennsylvanians, what happened to us in central 
Pennsylvania in 1972. Agnes, the mother of all hurricanes, swept over 
Pennsylvania and lingered on top of that topographical area for a long 
period of time.
  We learned many, many different lessons at that time. And one of them 
was, of course, what is common sense: that the more ability we have to 
forecast and prepare, the less risk there is to human life and the less 
risk there is to destruction of property. And that is what the essence 
is of this piece of legislation.
  We are all eager to put into place the highest form of technology 
possible so that we can have these early warnings and be able to give 
the warnings that are necessary to residents, to businesses, to 
everyone concerned, and thereby minimize the damage.
  Since Agnes, we have formed a task force with the Susquehanna River 
Basin in which flood warning is the key element. So we are becoming 
more and more aware of the new science that can help in flood 
forecasting and also in the quick recovery from damage and flooding 
that may occur.
  So I rise with great enthusiasm to support this legislation. If it is 
a matter of common sense, we ought to have a unanimous vote in the 
Chamber for this piece of legislation. It will reap numbers of 
thousands of dollars and millions of dollars in savings as we proceed 
down the line of preparing our populaces for natural disasters in the 
most scientific way possible.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for their leadership and, of 
course, my friend and colleague from North Carolina, the distinguished 
Congressman who has come forward with an enormously important 
legislative initiative that deals with inland flooding forecasting and 
warning system.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important with the changes, climatic 
changes that we are facing, so many of us who come from very warm 
climates are used to what the Northeast and the Midwest are facing now 
over the last couple of years with intense heat over the summer and, in 
fact, intense heat during some of the winter and fall months.
  We know that the weather and prediction of such is coming upon a new 
turn. And this legislation will be an indicator, a predictor of saving 
lives and saving property and saving local government. Having come from 
a local government situation, being a member of the Houston city 
council, I am very close to our local officials, both county and city.
  Mr. Chairman, if I can express to you a phenomenon that none of us 
expected to happen, that was the occurrence of June 10 approximately, 
2001, where a few days of rain turned into the largest storm that we 
had ever seen and one that the Gulf Coast had never experienced. There 
were areas in our communities that were under the 500-year flood 
warning, under the 100-year flood warning and, unfortunately, received 
enormous amounts of water in the inner city and surrounding areas.
  I remember that morning. It was a Saturday morning. I remember being 
here at the United States Congress earlier in the week, and as it began 
to rain and I checked on my constituents in Houston, all they said was, 
it was heavy rain and I am sure things will be well. It stopped and 
then started again on Friday night. And, lo and behold, when we arose 
early that morning, the medical center, hundreds of billions of 
dollars, under water. Millions and millions of dollars of research 
lost. Thousands upon thousands of research mice lost. Individuals in 
that medical center having to be or patients having to be, en masse, 
evacuated. Literally, the medical center was shut down. Universities 
shut down. Thousands of homes under water. Twenty plus deaths and all 
because of Tropical Storm Allison.
  The concept of forecasting is imperative. It is imperative for saving 
dollars in the Federal Government. It is imperative for planning for 
local governments. It is imperative for helping in our local 
communities; and, yes, in causing or decreasing the amount of pain 
experienced by those impacted by these floods.
  Right now, as we speak, we know that the Guadalupe River is 
overflowing in areas that many of the residents in that area never 
expected. This legislation will go throughout the country to not only 
areas that are used to flooding in some of the outlying areas, but in 
the inland areas.
  My area happens to be 50 miles inland, but it is also 50 feet under 
sea level; and it is by a port, it is by waters that might overflow. 
The idea of forecasting is imperative. So I would ask my colleagues to 
be particularly sensitive to the importance of this legislation. I look 
forward to presenting an amendment that will complement this 
legislation in its structure. I will be looking for long-term 
forecasting as this legislation has short-term forecasting.
  I am very delighted to be able to work with my colleague who had a 
brilliant idea in seeing this legislation come to fruition. I look 
forward again to discussing the proposal I have and would ask my 
colleagues to consider it as I will be giving my enthusiastic support 
to this legislation.

[[Page H4511]]

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the angel 
of NIST and NOAA.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for that wonderful introduction that I hardly 
deserve, but this has been a good week for the Committee on Science. It 
demonstrates again how we work together on both sides of the aisle to 
do what we believe is in the best interests of scientific research, 
development, education and what is best for the country.
  It is with pleasure that I rise in support of H.R. 2486, the Inland 
Flood Forecasting and Warning System Development Act of 2002. 
Congratulations to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) 
for his leadership on the issue, his willingness to work with members 
of the Committee on Science. Congratulations to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher), the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehlert), chairman, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), ranking 
member of the full committee, for having this piece of legislation come 
to the floor today.
  Together we have expanded the focus of the original bill to take it 
beyond North Carolina and other hurricane-prone regions to include the 
protection of all regions subject to inland flooding due to severe 
weather events. The Committee on Science has a strong history of 
bipartisan collaboration, and this bill, as I have said, is yet again 
another example of how working together we can forge a bill that is 
much stronger than the original intent.
  Each year hazardous weather causes thousands of fatalities and tens 
of billions of dollars in property damage, largely due to inland 
flooding. Moreover, the problem appears to be growing. Severe weather 
events, particularly hurricanes, appear to be cyclical, and we are 
recently coming off a period of low frequency. The Atlantic Ocean is 
beginning to enter another active period, and scientists tell us we can 
expect increasingly frequent events of greater and greater severity.
  In addition, the capacity for damage has increased dramatically, as 
coastal development has continued to boom for the last 20 years. More 
and more people are living near coastal, estuarian or inland waters, 
creating a heightened potential for disaster and loss of life.
  The improved ability to predict and prepare for severe storm events 
can have a substantial and immediate impact. Research dollars are 
desperately needed to protect both the lives and the livelihoods of the 
millions of Americans who live in regions susceptible to severe inland 
flooding.
  The purpose of this bill is simply to develop, test and deploy an 
effective inland flood warning index for use by public and emergency 
management officials. Managing disasters by predicting their occurrence 
is much more effective than reacting to their results.
  It is a modest bill with modest goals that will have a huge impact. I 
urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time.
  I actually seldom come to the floor to speak on a bill that I have 
not had any personal involvement in before it comes to the floor, that 
does not come through a committee that I sit on, but I wanted to take 
the opportunity today to come and praise this bill and say that it is a 
wonderful bill for North Carolina and for the Nation and to say some 
nice things about the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) who 
is the sponsor of this bill.
  I have been following him for quite a while. We started out in the 
State legislature together and in the State legislature sometimes, 
people come up to a person and say, there are people in this body who 
are destined for other things in life, and we all knew at that time 
that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) was one of those 
people.
  He went on, after serving in the State legislature, to serve as 
Superintendent of Public Construction in North Carolina and did an 
outstanding job there, and the thing that has been characteristic of 
him throughout this process is his ability to reach across party lines 
and understand that education and science and all of the issues that we 
deal with on an ongoing basis really are not Republican or Democrat, 
they are American issues, world issues, issues that are important to 
deal with on a bipartisan basis.
  This bill is another example of that, where he has recognized a need 
based on the experiences that we observed in North Carolina as a result 
of hurricanes, and used that same kind of bipartisan approach and added 
to try to solve a problem that existed and addressed that need.
  I want to applaud the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Science for putting aside, as they always do, the partisanship that so 
often can pervade this institution, and recognizing the importance of 
this bill to the people of our country. The problem of inland flooding, 
I am not sure we were as much aware of until we had a series of floods 
in North Carolina.
  I live in Charlotte, North Carolina, and that is about 150 miles from 
the coast. I grew up thinking that a hurricane was fed by the ocean and 
the water and that it really could not come that far inland to impact a 
community, until Hurricane Hugo came charging right through the center 
of the city that I lived in and did tremendous damage and devastation 
to the community.
  If we had had better warning systems and research available to detect 
that possibility, I think we would all have been better served. We 
would have saved substantial amounts of money, and whatever amount is 
going to be expended for this important purpose, I think we will more 
than benefit from it over time, and I applaud the Committee on Science 
for the work that it has done on this bill in recognition of that fact.
  I want to just thank my colleague again for the introduction of this 
bill, and I thank the gentleman for yielding time for me to say some 
nice things about my colleague and about the bill and about the 
Committee on Science.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I would observe that at one time my parents lived in 
Canada and the area north of Toronto suffered tremendously from a 
hurricane. So we are not safe from hurricanes almost anywhere inland.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will proceed to close.
  The preamble to our Constitution specifies as one of the major duties 
of government to promote the general welfare of its people. This bill 
is an example of what we can do to promote the general welfare of our 
people.
  This bill will save lives, it will save property, and it will cost 
very little. In fact, the cost per capita in this Nation of this bill 
is 10 cents per capita, and I think that is a good bargain. By 
developing an inland waterway and flooding bill of this nature, that 
will protect the people of this country, we will save undoubtedly at 
least 15, probably 100 lives per year and we pay only 10 cents apiece--
that is a good deal.
  So I strongly encourage this House to pass this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the Committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each section is 
considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Inland Flood Forecasting and 
     Warning System Act of 2002''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?

[[Page H4512]]

  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

       The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     through the United States Weather Research Program, shall--
       (1) improve the capability to accurately forecast inland 
     flooding (including inland flooding influenced by coastal and 
     ocean storms) through research and modeling;
       (2) develop, test, and deploy a new flood warning index 
     that will give the public and emergency management officials 
     fuller, clearer, and more accurate information about the 
     risks and dangers posed by expected floods;
       (3) train emergency management officials, National Weather 
     Service personnel, meteorologists, and others as appropriate 
     regarding improved forecasting techniques for inland 
     flooding, risk management techniques, and use of the inland 
     flood warning index developed under paragraph (2); and
       (4) conduct outreach and education activities for local 
     meteorologists and the public regarding the dangers and risks 
     associated with inland flooding and the use and understanding 
     of the inland flood warning index developed under paragraph 
     (2).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill is as follows:

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for carrying out this 
     Act $1,150,000 for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 
     2007. Of the amounts authorized under this section, $250,000 
     for each fiscal year shall be available for competitive 
     merit-reviewed grants to institutions of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001)) to develop models that can improve the 
     ability to forecast the coastal and estuary-inland flooding 
     that is influenced by tropical cyclones. The models should 
     incorporate the interaction of such factors as storm surges, 
     soil saturation, and other relevant phenomena.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter through fiscal year 2007, 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall 
     transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report on its activities under 
     this Act and the success and acceptance of the inland flood 
     warning index developed under section 2(2) by the public and 
     emergency management professionals.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 2, line 24, strike ``and''.
       Page 3, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 3, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
       (5) assess, through research and analysis of previous 
     trends, among other activities--
       (A) the long-term trends in frequency and severity of 
     inland flooding; and
       (B) how shifts in climate, development, and erosion 
     patterns might make certain regions vulnerable to more 
     continual or escalating flood damage in the future.
       Page 3, lines 9 and 10, strike ``$1,150,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2007'' and insert ``$1,250,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005, of which $100,000 
     for each fiscal year shall be available for competitive 
     merit-reviewed grants to institutions of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001)) to carry out the activities described in 
     section 2(5), and $1,150,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     2006 and 2007''.
       Page 4, line 4, insert ``The National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration shall also, not later than January 
     1, 2006, transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report on the likely long-term 
     trends in inland flooding, the results of which shall be used 
     in outreach activities conducted under section 2(4), 
     especially to alert the public and builders to flood 
     hazards.'' after ``emergency management professionals.''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, again, let me rise, expressing my very 
strong support for H.R. 2486, the Inland Flood Forecasting and Warning 
System Development Act which will save lives and money by improving 
forecasting, education and by setting the stage to get timely and 
useful information to the people in the way of big storms and 
subsequent floods.
  Let me also add again my appreciation to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) and as well to the proponent of this bill, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who has firsthand experienced the 
devastation of flooding and has taken this issue up and worked this 
issue in a way that will help all of America.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, for 
his support on this legislation and as well his leadership and 
knowledge about these issues as he has continued to serve on the House 
Committee on Science.
  We come from an area, as I indicated earlier, that knows water and 
knows it in many ways. We enjoy it. We recreate in it. We make our 
livings from it in the Gulf Coast of Texas, but at the same time we 
know of its power. In Harris County, Texas, alone in the past 10 years, 
there have been five major flooding events, in 1992, 1994, mid-1998, 
late 1998 and the big one, Tropical Storm Allison of 2001, that 
individuals 80-years-plus had never seen a flood such as Tropical Storm 
Allison. Remember, I said a storm and not a hurricane.
  Flood waters in Tropical Storm Allison reached heights known as 
hundred-year flood levels. These five storms damaged or destroyed 
thousands of homes and businesses, and so it is imperative that this 
legislation be passed and that I would offer this amendment that would, 
in fact, provide a long-term study for a period of 3 years, costing 
$100,000.
  As it stands, the bill will improve short-term forecasting of 
cyclones and associated flooding and will provide for the development 
of a warning system to get minute-to-minute information to the public 
and to emergency management officials regarding flood dangers. These 
functions will operate on the time scales of days to weeks, for 
example, saying there will be a storm this weekend or evacuate our 
homes now.
  My amendment will simply add a long-term component to this important 
project. This will enable officials to warn people what they might 
expect over the next 5 years or even the next decades. A small amount 
of money I am proposing to spend on this long-term component could save 
billions of dollars and save many lives in the future by providing 
information to help people make prudent decisions today.
  We will have to look at other science in order to determine how we 
can provide a safe place for people to live and save lives 
prospectively, but as we move this legislation along, I think the idea 
of providing a long-term component will be very effective.
  In my home district alone in the past 10 years, as I indicated, we 
have had several storms, and as I indicated as well, the Tropical Storm 
Allison, the big one, caused an estimated $5 billion in damage, flooded 
almost 100,000 homes and killed at least 20 people in our community. 
Right now, Mr. Chairman, I am still living with those who are suffering 
from the damages of the flood.
  The questions I have are, after the first four floods, why are so 
many people and homes still in flood zones when the big one hit a year 
later?

                              {time}  1200

  It seems that the first four floods might have let us know that more 
may be coming soon and people should move to higher ground.
  And, two, why have there been so many devastating 100-year floods in 
rapid succession? In other words, are floods, indeed, becoming more 
severe over recent years?
  I have been asking these questions and cannot find anyone to give me 
an answer with even a modicum of confidence. It seems that no one knows 
exactly why this happens; and if they do, they have information that 
should be shared, whether it is simply a natural variation or if it is 
due to shifts in development or erosion patterns or climate. And no one 
knows whether there is a real long-term trend in such major flooding 
events.
  Right now, people in Texas are getting over yet another flood, and 
they

[[Page H4513]]

need to make informed decisions about whether to rebuild their homes. 
These are life-altering and costly decisions which can devastate 
communities, families, and neighborhoods, and also break down the 
spirit.
  Some of these people right now are deciding what to do and how to do 
it after losing their precious resources. It was hearing of their 
struggles last week that inspired me to write this amendment. The 
proposed act, as it stands, would have helped those people protect 
their lives and property before and during the floods, but my amendment 
would be helping them make tough decisions now by giving them an 
indication of whether they should expect more frequent or severe floods 
in the future. It is about planning.
  With this amendment, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration would receive an additional $100,000 only during the 
first 3 years of the program. This money would fund grants for research 
at higher institutions to study the long-term trends in flooding to 
help predict future risk in flood zones.
  May I first start by expressing my strong support for H.R. 2486. The 
Inland Flood Forecasting and Warning System Development Act will save 
lives and money by improving forecasting, and education, and by setting 
the stage to get timely and useful information to people in the way of 
big storms and subsequent floods. The Congressman from North Carolina 
has been a champion of this issue, and deserves great credit. I am 
pleased to have co-sponsored the proposed legislation with him.
  As it stands, the bill will improve short-term forecasting of 
cyclones and associated flooding, and will provide for the development 
of a warning system to get minute-to-minute information to the public, 
and to emergency management officials regarding flood dangers. These 
functions will operate on the time-scales of days to weeks, for example 
saying ``there will be a storm this weekend,'' or ``evacuate your homes 
now.''
  My bill will simply add a long-term component to this important 
project. This will enable officials to warn people of what they might 
expect over the next five years, or even the next decades. The small 
amount of money I am proposing to spend on this long-term component 
could save billions of dollars and save many lives in the future, by 
providing information to help people make prudent decisions today.
  In my home district alone, in the past 10 years there have been five 
major flooding events. In 1992, 1994, mid-98, late-98, and the big 
one--Tropical Storm Allison in 2001--flood waters reached heights known 
as ``100 year flood levels.'' These 5 storms damaged or destroyed 
thousands of homes and businesses. The last storm, Allison, alone 
caused an estimated five billion dollars in damage, flooded almost 
100,000 homes, and killed 41 people nationwide.
  The questions I have are (1) After the first four floods, why were so 
many people and homes still in flood zones when the big one hit a year 
later? It seems that the first four floods might have let us know that 
more may be coming soon and people should move to higher ground. And 
(2) Why have there been so many devastating ``100 year floods'' in 
rapid succession? In other words, are floods indeed becoming more 
frequent and severe over the years?
  I have been asking these questions, and cannot find anyone who can 
give me an answer with even a modicum of confidence. It seems that no 
one knows exactly why this happened--whether it is simply natural 
variation, or if it is due to shifts in development, or erosion 
patterns, or climate. And no one knows whether there is a real long-
term trend in such major flooding events.
  Right now people in Texas are getting over yet another flood, and 
they need to make informed decisions about whether to rebuild their 
homes or relocate to higher ground. These are life-altering and costly 
decisions, which can devastate neighborhoods or even entire towns.
  It was hearing of their struggles last week that inspired me to write 
this amendment. The proposed Act as it stands would have helped these 
people protect their lives and property before and during the floods. 
But my amendment would be helping them make tough decisions now by 
giving them an indication of whether they should expect more frequent 
or severe floods in the future.
  In my proposed amendment, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration would receive an additional $100,000 per year, only 
during the first 3 years of the program. This money would fund grants 
for research at higher institutions, to study the long-term trends in 
flooding, to help predict future risk in flood zones.
  At the end of the 3 years, a report will be written that will be sent 
to Congress to report its findings. More importantly, the findings will 
be disseminated to the public, through the educational outreach already 
planned in the original bill. This will enable citizens, builders, and 
planners to make better-informed decisions about where people should 
live, or stop living.
  This amendment has quite a narrow scope. It is not a global warming 
amendment. It is small, and focuses only on the flooding associated 
with cyclones which affect a limited region of the country. However, my 
amendment has a very important target. The amendment is meant to get 
much-needed information to people who might be in continual danger from 
escalating flooding. It could also give assurance to those people whose 
risks of continual flooding might be low.
  If insights gleaned from these studies lead to a smarter distribution 
of homes and businesses, and prevent a tiny fraction of the damage in 
the next five billion dollar flood--this amendment will earn its pay. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud this legislation, as I close, because 
it has a great outreach provision, and this amendment will help with 
this outreach.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it is narrow in 
scope.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I 
thank the gentlewoman from Texas for it. This is something we have 
worked on together. It is something I had hoped that would happen 
anyway when this the bill reached NOAA; that they would interpret it 
this way. But it is good of her to point out that this must be done. 
This makes things very specific, and we have reached agreement on this 
amendment, so I am pleased to accept it.
  I would just comment that I will have to revise my cost estimate. I 
commented earlier this bill would cost us a grand total of 10 cents per 
person in this country. Because of this amendment I have to raise that 
to 11 cents per person in this country. But I should also make it 
clear, which I did not before, that that cost is spread over 5 years. 
So rounding off, it is still 2 cents per person per year for 5 years, 
and we are getting a lot for our money. But I am very pleased to accept 
this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. First, let me thank the gentleman very 
much, Mr. Chairman, for working with our office and, of course, working 
with the champion of this legislation, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  We come from different parts of the country, and I think it is 
important to note that Michigan, Texas, and North Carolina all worked 
together because these issues are far-reaching. And I would simply 
hope, as the gentleman has been so fiscally responsible, that they can 
see the amount of money that we will save in the future. Again, I thank 
the gentleman for supporting this amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and I support this 
gentlewoman. I think we have observed here representation at its very 
best. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) personally testified to the tragedies that 
they had experienced in their own hometowns of Houston and Charlotte, 
and I think it was refreshing to hear the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) express his admiration for a long-time, fellow public 
servant.
  This is the way it ought to be, and I certainly thank the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for going that extra mile, offering this 
study, a needed study, and I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) accepting it. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

[[Page H4514]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Biggert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida, Chairman 
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 2486), to authorize the National Weather Service to conduct 
research and development, training, and outreach activities relating to 
tropical cyclone inland forecasting improvement, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 473, he reported the bill back 
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________