[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7037-7045]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 142 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 142

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1184) to authorize appropriations for carrying 
     out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal 
     years 2000 and 2001, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order 
     against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with 
     clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Science. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each section of 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of the rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Dayton, Ohio 
(Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded will be for 
the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 142 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Authorization Act of 1999.
  The purpose of the bill is to reauthorize the Federal government's 
earthquake research and hazard mitigation programs. The rule provides 
for the customary 1 hour general debate, equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Science.
  The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of 
the committee report against consideration of the bill because the 
report could not be filed in the House until 2 days ago.
  The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Science as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment which will be open to amendment by section. The 
rule further encourages priority recognition of Members who preprinted 
their amendments in the Congressional Record, and allows the Chair to 
postpone votes.
  Mr. Speaker, in my State of California and in too many other regions 
of the United States, earthquakes are a fact of life. They are 
something we accept and work through. Thankfully, most are not 
devastating occurrences. We clean up, rather than rebuild. However, we 
cannot overlook the fact that the average annual cost from earthquakes 
in the United States is about $4.4 billion. Of course, the toll imposed 
by a major earthquake can be much greater.
  In California, we have suffered two major quakes in the past decade. 
In 1999, the Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area cost $6 
billion, and then in 1994 in Los Angeles what was known as the 
Northridge earthquake, which I felt and was horrible,

[[Page 7038]]

cost $40 billion. Of course, major earthquakes cost a lot more than 
dollars and cents.
  In both cases, both of those earthquakes in California in the last 
decade, the Loma Prieta and the Northridge quakes, people were killed 
and lives were very, very disrupted. An earthquake can wreak havoc on a 
community. During the 1987 earthquake in Whittier, an area that I used 
to represent, I saw firsthand how unreinforced buildings can fail.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the attention of my California 
colleagues who are in the back, and I know this is of great importance 
to them.
  During that 1987 earthquake in Whittier, I saw how unreinforced 
buildings can fail. I saw how faults can act in a random manner and 
cause complete devastation to one block while leaving untouched another 
block that is right nearby.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, the Boy Scout motto is ``Be Prepared.'' This legislation 
is crafted in that spirit. H.R. 1184 authorizes the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program, the Advanced National Seismic Research and 
Monitoring System, and the Network for Earthquake Engineering 
Simulation. These programs will modernize the existing seismic network, 
which is both outdated and disjointed, and interconnect earthquake 
engineering research facilities.
  We all know that we cannot stop earthquakes from happening. However, 
we can plan for them and improve our readiness. We can improve our 
detection and warning systems and build roads and buildings to better 
serve so that we can survive them. In short, we can be better prepared. 
This bipartisan legislation clearly moves us in that direction.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on Science, the members of 
his committee for their efforts.
  The payoff will be in lives saved, homes and businesses protected, 
and communities preserved. We cannot afford to do anything less for the 
people of California or the 39 other States that are inclined towards 
earthquakes.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support both this open rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the 
time.
  This is an open rule. It will allow full and fair debate on H.R. 
1184. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has described, this 
rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Science.
  The rule permits amendments under the 5-minute rule, which is the 
normal amendment process in the House. All Members on both sides of the 
aisle will have the opportunity to offer germane amendments.
  According to the National Earthquake Information Center, about 12,000 
to 14,000 earthquakes take place each year. That is 35 each day. Of 
these, we can expect about 18 major earthquakes in a year.
  Earthquakes can cause enormous loss of life, injury, and destruction. 
They can occur almost anywhere at any time. They cannot be prevented. 
However, damage, destruction, and loss of life can be significantly 
reduced if we are prepared.
  That is why this bill is important. This bill establishes a system to 
organize earthquake monitoring systems in the United States. It makes 
other improvements to help our Nation plan for earthquakes. It 
authorizes funds for the existing Federal programs that study and 
provide information about earthquakes.
  The rule waives the requirement for a 3-day layover of the committee 
report. This is necessary because the report was not filed until 
Monday. The purpose of the requirement is to give adequate time to all 
Members before a bill comes to the House floor. Because of the 
bipartisan support and the uncontroversial nature of the bill, waiving 
the requirement is appropriate in this case. However, I hope that 
waiving this rule does not become routine.
  This is an open rule. It was adopted unanimously by the Committee on 
Rules. I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any requests for time, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I mentioned the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, and I am very 
pleased that this will be very ably handled on the minority side by my 
very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), who has 
been intimately involved in these issues and has probably suffered 
through a number of earthquakes himself.
  I look forward to seeing bipartisan movement on this very important 
measure, and I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith) who has done a great deal of work on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I urge support for both the rule 
and the bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution 142 
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. 1184.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1220


                     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. 1184) to authorize appropriations for carrying out the Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Sessions (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I come before the House today to urge its support for 
H.R. 1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a common complaint that we cannot control the 
weather, neither can we control earthquakes, nor after years of effort 
can we even forecast them with any confidence. But we can prepare for 
them, and that is the main purpose of the National Earthquake Hazard 
Reduction Program, known as NEHRP.
  According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 39 States are subject to 
serious earthquake risk, and 75 million people live in urban areas with 
moderate to high earthquake risk. The Federal Emergency Management 
Agency estimates the annual loss resulting from earthquakes is $4.4 
billion. The Northridge earthquake of 1994 alone resulted in damages of 
$40 billion.
  Still, to date we have been fortunate that an earthquake with the 
destructive force of the Tangshan, China event

[[Page 7039]]

of 1976 or the Kobe, Japan event of 1995 has not struck a large U.S. 
city. But if history is any guide, the U.S. will be hit by violent 
shocks sometime in the not too distant future. Indeed, major 
earthquakes have been recorded throughout our Nation's history: in 
southern Missouri in 1811 and 1812, southern California in 1857, Hawaii 
in 1868, South Carolina in 1886, Alaska in 1899, and northern 
California in 1906.
  The same geologic processes that led to these cataclysmic events are 
still at work today. That we know. What we do not know is when and 
where these forces will be unleashed.
  Earthquakes may be inevitable, but catastrophic losses of life and 
property need not be if we use science to help communities prepare. The 
provisions in H.R. 1184 do just that.
  Four agencies participate in NEHRP: the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, 
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  For fiscal year 2000, H.R. 1184 authorizes $99.6 million for the base 
activities in these agencies, including specific authorizations for the 
U.S. Geological Survey for the Global Seismic Network, the Real-Time 
Seismic Warning System pilot program, external research, and an 
advisory committee. For fiscal year 2001, the bill authorizes $102.6 
million for these base earthquake programs, an increase of 3 percent.
  In addition, H.R. 1184 includes multiyear authorizations for two new 
projects, each of which grew out of congressional direction in the last 
NEHRP bill. The Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring 
System will update the Nation's existing seismic monitoring network, 
which is based on 30-year-old technology.
  The bill authorizes $170.8 million over 5 years for the U.S. 
Geological Survey for equipment, and a further $14.8 million over 2 
years for the incremental costs of system operation.
  The Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation will link more than 
30 earthquake engineering research facilities and upgrade and expand 
major earthquake testing facilities. H.R. 1184 provides the National 
Science Foundation with a 5-year authorization totaling $81.8 million 
for this program.
  Finally, the bill authorizes a Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory 
Committee at the U.S. Geological Survey, requires greater interagency 
coordination in formulating the Program's budget, requests a report on 
how the Program meets the needs of at-risk populations, and repeals 
obsolete provisions of the statute.
  With earthquakes, it is not a question of if, but when the next one 
will strike. Through its emphasis on monitoring, research, and 
mitigation, H.R. 1184 will help the Nation prepare for the inevitable 
and save lives and property.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, for drafting such a 
fine bill; the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the minority 
ranking member of the Committee on Science, for his continued support 
of the program; and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson) for her valued input in the consideration of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1184 represents the sensible, long-term investment 
that will pay for itself many times over and save lives and reduce 
property costs. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record:
                                         House of Representatives,


                                         Committee on Science,

                                   Washington, DC, April 20, 1999.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of April 16, 
     regarding H.R. 1184, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1999.
       I understand that your waiver of Resources Committee 
     jurisdiction should not be construed to affect any future 
     referrals of bills dealing with the same subject matter. I 
     also will support the Resources Committee request to be 
     represented on any conference on H.R. 1184 or related bill.
       H.R. 1184 is scheduled for Floor consideration on April 21 
     and I will include this letter as part of the floor 
     proceedings.
       I, as well as my staff, look forward to working with you if 
     H.R. 1184 should go to conference and also, collaborating 
     with you on any legislation on which we may share 
     jurisdiction in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1184, the 
reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, 
NEHRP. It has been over 20 years since the Congress first authorized 
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act; and, during the intervening two 
decades, the program has made tremendous strides in combating these 
natural disasters.
  We now have maps that inform engineers, architects, and builders of 
seismic hazards, model building codes, and greater understanding of the 
science of earthquake hazards and the response of buildings to seismic 
movement.
  In practical terms, federally funded research in geosciences, social 
sciences, and engineering has saved countless lives, in addition to 
saving personal property and critical infrastructures. I am certain 
that with continued support we can make even greater strides in the 
innovative areas that FEMA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National 
Seismic Foundation, and NIST are currently exploring.
  Advances such as early warning of seismic events, more structurally 
sound buildings, regional analysis of seismic risk, mobile research 
centers, and widespread use of the Internet and our other 
telecommunication capabilities are going to make marked reductions in 
the impacts of not just earthquakes, but almost all natural and man-
made disasters.
  But the story does not end there. While our increased understanding 
of earthquake kinematics and the mitigation procedures proves that we 
have made progress, there are still challenges we must face and 
assessments that must be made periodically to make sure that we are 
doing everything that we can to ensure the safety and security of the 
American people.
  There are still earthquake-prone communities that have not adopted 
appropriate building codes. Monitoring in earthquake-prone areas is 
still done with less than state-of-the-art equipment, and disparities 
in earthquake losses due to age and socioeconomic status and physical 
limitations still exist.
  For these reasons and more, the earthquake programs must continue to 
evolve to address these new challenges.

                              {time}  1230

  I feel that the bill before us today will help us meet these new 
needs.
  In addition to authorizing increased funding for these base NEHRP 
programs, the bill authorizes the Network for Earthquake Engineering 
Simulation, an effort by the National Science Foundation to modernize 
earthquake engineering research facilities; the Advanced Seismic 
Research and Monitoring System, which will enable the Geological Survey 
to upgrade and expand our seismic monitoring networks to reflect the 
needs across the Nation, and a study on elements of NEHRP that address 
the needs of at-risk populations.
  Today's bill will not solve all of these challenges that remain, but 
it will move us in the right direction.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that while natural disasters are 
inevitable, the extent of the damage is not. We must attack the problem 
from all sides with renewed efforts to implement seismically safe 
building standards, to increase our pool of data on natural disasters, 
to respond rapidly to disasters when they strike, and, in general, to 
understand the risks associated with earthquakes in whatever form they 
may manifest themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), our 
subcommittee chair, for their work; and certainly our leader, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
  I also note that this bill is the product of a bipartisan effort, and 
I urge passage of this bill, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 7040]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and also thank him for his leadership on this 
legislation; of course, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Brown) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1184 is legislation to reauthorize what is called 
the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, NEHRP. It is a bill I 
am pleased to sponsor on behalf of the Committee on Science.
  The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, this NEHRP, has 
long enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the Committee on Science. The 
primary purpose of NEHRP is simple: To save lives and to reduce 
property damage. But while the goal may be stated simply, getting a 
grip on this problem of earthquakes poses a greater dilemma.
  Since its inception in 1977, NEHRP has done a credible job of 
contributing to our store of knowledge about the causes and effects of 
earthquakes, and it has reduced our vulnerability to them through 
engineering research and new building designs. The program's monitoring 
component also holds the promise of providing real-time warning to 
citizens and a wealth of data to researchers.
  Indeed, improving earthquake warning by just a few seconds can mean 
the difference between life and death. It can mean those few seconds 
where we might send a signal to shut off the gas going through gas 
mains and many other areas which can significantly reduce the damage of 
earthquakes.
  The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program also has an 
international and humanitarian aspect. Because of the almost tens of 
thousands of earthquakes around the world, all of these countries look 
to our research and information to help reduce their damage to property 
and save lives. Many countries around the world continually monitor and 
use the information that will develop through the authorization in this 
bill.
  The advanced national seismic research and monitoring system, 
authorized in this bill, is important. Not only will it improve warning 
times, but the data it collects will provide researchers with 
information that will lead to safer buildings and designs and a greater 
understanding of how earthquakes propagate.
  The periodic nature of earthquakes can often lead to complacency. 
Probably that is human nature. But that kind of complacency can carry 
great risk. Let me just hold up this map a minute, Mr. Chairman, to 
give my colleagues an idea. If we can see sort out the dark images of 
little spots across this globe, tens of thousands of earthquakes happen 
every year. In fact, in the United States last year there were over 
1,000 earthquakes. Some modest, some very severe.
  Certainly the earthquake that struck Kobe, Japan in early 1995 caused 
nearly 6,000 deaths and over $100 billion in damages. And of course, 
more recently, the tragedy in Armenia, Colombia, in which well over 
1,000 people lost their lives I think are stern reminders of the 
destructive power of earthquakes. The Loma Prieta earthquake caused $6 
billion in damage, Northridge earthquake caused $40 billion in damages, 
and provide, I think, a glimpse of what could happen here if we are not 
adequately prepared.
  As the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), noted in his statement, 39 States in this country are 
exposed to a significant earthquake risk, and about 75 million people 
live in urban areas with a moderate to high earthquake risk. 
Thankfully, in my home State of Michigan, earthquakes are very rare, 
but even Michigan is vulnerable to earthquakes.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would again certainly like to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), and the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on 
Basic Research of the Committee on Science, for their assistance in 
preparing this important bill and for their efforts in bringing it to 
the floor, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, first let me indicate my very strong 
support for H.R. 1184, which will reauthorize the National Earthquake 
Hazard Reduction Program, NEHRP.
  Since its inception in 1977, and particularly in the last decade, 
NEHRP has been successful in assessing how earthquakes affect us and 
what we can do to prepare for the next one. Too bad they cannot prevent 
earthquakes from happening in the first place.
  NEHRP has been reaching out to State and local officials, improving 
building codes, and assessing the level of seismic risk in different 
areas across the country. This is a very important program, especially 
in my Congressional District, which has the San Andreas Fault running 
through it.
  During the Committee on Science markup of this bill, I was pleased 
that my amendment to H.R. 1184 was unanimously accepted and is in the 
bill today. My amendment directs FEMA to report on the element that 
addresses the needs of at-risk populations. Specifically, this includes 
the elderly, the non-English speaking, persons with disabilities, 
single parent households and the poor.
  There are risk factors that cannot be determined by seismological or 
engineering research and analysis. These risks deal with the social 
culture and the economic factors that are presented nationwide when 
there is a disaster. I am aware that the National Science Foundation, 
which is a part of NEHRP, supports social sciences research, and I am 
aware how this research relates to at-risk populations. This would be 
addressed in our report.
  Not only will this report provide valuable information on what has 
been accomplished to date, it also will bring into focus what needs to 
be done in the future to reach those populations that incur more damage 
in disaster because of their age or their economic status or their 
physical limitations.
  Because disasters affect us all, this bill is one that Congress, as a 
whole, should be very interested in and totally supportive of. I ask 
that everyone support H.R. 1184.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
yielding me this time, and I rise today to support this bill, the 
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act.
  A few weeks ago we approved this bill unanimously in the Committee on 
Science. This bill, as before mentioned by my colleagues, would 
reauthorize nearly $40 million in funding over the next 2 years for 
earthquake preparedness and programs.
  I would also like to thank our esteemed chairman, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his help, and the venerable ranking 
member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Brown), and my colleagues, of course, who have sponsored and introduced 
this legislation, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for graciously accepting two 
amendments I offered during the markup.
  My amendments were aimed at making sure information generated under 
the program is localized and available on the Internet, and 
specifically that the backbone of the Internet communication system be 
considered part of the Nation's critical infrastructure. The original 
law cites communication facilities as lifeline, but not communications 
infrastructure.
  Today, as we all know, there are fiber-optic links dedicated solely 
to the transfer of information over the Internet. Data traffic is 
currently increasing about 10 times the rate of phone traffic, 
therefore creating this need.

[[Page 7041]]

  We should also be concerned about routers and servers managing and 
storing this traffic. Disaster recovery plans must account for 
restoring high-speed links and for backing up critical databases. This 
increasingly critical data infrastructure should be recognized as part 
of the bill language and, as amended, is.
  Again, I wish to thank my colleagues on the committee for supporting 
the amendment and encourage all of my colleagues in the House to 
support this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today of H.R. 1184, 
the reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction 
Program. I particularly applaud the farsightedness of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Science, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the ranking 
member, in authorizing $168 million over the next 5 years for expansion 
and modernization of the seismic monitoring infrastructure of the 
United States.
  Oregon is, unfortunately, at great risk for earthquakes, and I am 
looking forward to the benefits that will flow from such a 
modernization effort in Oregon and nationwide. My amendment, which has 
been incorporated into the bill, will add an additional $2.8 million 
over 2 years to the seismic network to procure two portable seismic 
networks.
  Seismologists routinely deploy temporary mobile networks to monitor 
aftershocks or to better understand the impact of an earthquake in a 
particular region. The two networks supported by my amendment would be 
a natural supplement to the permanent monitoring networks.
  The chairman has been conscientious in authorizing the elements of a 
seismic monitoring system contained in a plan that will be forwarded to 
us shortly by the administration. I believe these portable networks 
will also be part of that plan.
  These portable networks are very necessary to a comprehensive 
capability for post-earthquake monitoring. I would hate to see any 
delay in developing them, and I urge adoption of this amendment.
  In closing, I would like to commend the chair and ranking member of 
the Committee on Science and the chair and ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Basic Research for facilitating bipartisan cooperation 
in this bill within the committee and here. With that, Mr. Chairman, I 
urge passage of this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time. I am enthusiastic about rising to support H.R. 
1184 and, of course, it has been a favorite piece of legislation of 
mine for many years.
  I also note that one of our colleagues, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson), has used, I think for the first time on the 
floor, the description of an elderly member as being venerable. 
Normally that is an ecclesiastical term, and this is not an 
ecclesiastical body, but I appreciate the intent.
  The point that I wanted to make, I think most strongly, is that in 
the first 22 years of the existence of this act we actually had a 
stable and declining funding for this program, much to my regret.

                              {time}  1245

  In real terms, the amount authorized for the program decreased by 26 
percent over that period of time. Consider the fact that, as has 
already been mentioned, that in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake alone, 
estimates of the cost of damage and business interruptions were more 
than $10 billion. I think it now becomes clear that the U.S. needs to 
invest more than it has to date in earthquake hazards reduction.
  I would like to congratulate the two committees, Science and 
Resources, that enjoy joint jurisdiction over this legislation for 
recognizing that this is an area and now is the time in which we should 
invest more heavily for the benefit of all the people of this country.
  As has been mentioned, I was involved with the passage of the 
original bill in 1977, which focused almost exclusively on the research 
necessary for earthquake prediction. We were motivated at the time by 
rumors that the Chinese had developed novel ways of predicting 
earthquakes, and we were intrigued by the fact that they could be ahead 
of us in this regard.
  It did not turn out to be true, but it did lead us to some focus on 
the research necessary for prediction, which is still of great interest 
but unlikely to bear the economic return that reducing hazards would 
bear.
  The current act which we are considering still contains provisions 
for research but has been broadened to include seismic safety 
standards, coordination with State and local governments, dissemination 
of information, and public education and awareness. And all of these 
features will add new value to this important piece of legislation.
  Looking back at the evolution of the act of 1977, I believe that with 
its renewed focus on mitigation and preparedness, Congress is now on 
the right path to reducing the risk to life and property caused by 
earthquakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank all of those who have participated in bringing 
the bill to the floor, and I urge the passage of this important bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I support the legislation. There is some 
money in here for procurement. I will offer a buy-American amendment. 
It has been standard language.
  I remind the Congress that the last month quantified was February 
1999 and we set another record trade deficit, close to $20 billion. 
China and Japan alone accounted for $10 billion in February of 1999.
  So it is just a simple, straightforward amendment and says any money 
expended under this, if they possibly could find it in their heart to 
buy American, we encourage that. But if they affix a fraudulent made-
in-America laden label, then they would have trouble with the further 
contract.
  It is not a major thing, we passed it before, and I would appreciate 
the support for it.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection 
to this amendment; and I have no further requests for time, so I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 1184, a bill to reauthorize the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program--a multi-agency effort to reduce the terrible 
effects of earthquakes on life and property.
  Of particular interest to the Resources Committee, the bill would 
authorize appropriations for FY 2000 and 2001 to the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) to carry out its responsibilities under the Act, 
including a related USGS grant program and another program to develop a 
prototype real-time seismic warning system. Finally the bill would 
require the USGS Director to establish a Scientific Earthquake Studies 
Advisory Committee.
  The Clinton Administration has testified in strong support of 
reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 
This program has made significant progress and contributions in the 
reduction of earthquake risks during its 23-year history. While the 
Resources Committee's jurisdiction in this matter is limited to 
activities of the USGS, the effort to reduce earthquake risks is shared 
among other federal agencies including the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology. As a native Californian, I am grateful to the 
fine work done by all of these agencies.
  Under this critical program, USGS produces earthquake hazard 
assessments and national seismic hazard maps for earthquake loss 
reduction; provides timely and accurate notifications of earthquakes 
and information on their location, size, and damage potential, and 
carries out studies and research on earthquake occurrence and effects.
  For example, during 1999-2001, USGS will develop more detailed, 
larger scale products that depict variations in the expected ground 
shaking across the San Francisco Bay urban

[[Page 7042]]

area. The data compiled will enable local officials and planners to see 
probabilities of earthquake occurrence, amplification or extension of 
shaking caused by geologic deposits and structures, and susceptibility 
of these deposits to liquefy and slide during an earthquake.
  In another major partnership authorized by this program, the USGS, 
National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, and the Southern California Earthquake Center are 
installing a state-of-the-art geodetic network to monitor fault 
movements and Earth strain in Southern California. Utilizing a 
satellite navigation system operated by the Department of Defense, 
which permits points on the Earth's surface to be located to a 
precision of a millimeter, the network will track the movement of 250 
stations concentrated along a corridor through the Los Angeles basin, 
but also extending south to the Mexican border and east to the Colorado 
River. Basically, the data derived from this effort will not only 
improve general understanding of large-scale tectonic processes 
responsible for earthquakes but will also provide indications where 
earthquakes might occur in the near future.
  Earthquakes are one of the most devastating natural hazards known to 
man and pose a severe threat to life and property in many regions of 
our Nation and around the world--and in particular in my home state of 
California. The United States has a fundamental responsibility and 
self-interest in reducing the risks associated with earthquakes. 
Mitigation and finding new applications should continue to be an 
integral factor in efforts to lessen the terrible consequences of 
earthquakes on our populace.
  At the same time, we must continue to develop a strong scientific 
understanding of where earthquakes will occur, why they occur, how big 
they can be, and to learn more about the effects that they will 
generate. Basic research and monitoring have contributed significantly 
to our improved mitigation capacity. Good science has also led to 
application and informed decision-making. The USGS Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program addresses many of the more serious earthquake risks, 
and I am pleased to support its reauthorization.
  I recommend an ``aye'' vote on its passage.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1184, the National 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. In addition to authorizing 
funding for basic earthquake programs, H.R. 1184 provides 5-year 
authorizations for a new program--the Advanced National Seismic 
Research and Monitoring System. H.R. 1184 authorizes USGS to spend 
$170.8 million over the next 5 years to modernize the current 
antiquated system.
  The Utah Geological Survey estimates that my district, Salt Lake 
County, Utah is due for a magnitude 7 earthquake. The UGS estimates 
that a major quake of this magnitude could kill up to 7,600 people, 
injure 44,000 more and cause nearly $20 billion in damages.
  With this new monitoring system we could send out early warning of 
impending earthquakes that utilities could use to shut off valves, and 
schools to rush our children to safety. There also is additional money 
for the University of Utah to continue their earthquake research on the 
Wasatch Front. The Wasatch Front is the newest range in the Rocky 
Mountains and it is getting bigger. It was created by earthquakes and 
it will continue to grow with the help of earthquakes. Earthquakes 
occur regularly in my district and we need to be prepared for them. 80% 
of Utah's population resides on top of active earthquake faults. The 
University of Utah is one of our nation's leading earthquake research 
centers. This money will also be used to collect information needed to 
deploy resources after an earthquake. We will be able to map the 
severity and location of an earthquake to know how and where to send 
emergency response teams. This bill is a good investment in protecting 
our citizens from a disaster that we know is coming. It would be a 
disaster for the American people for Congress to run away from their 
responsibilities and not prepare our country for earthquakes.
  I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1184.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  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 pursuant to the rule, 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 Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the 
Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 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 ``Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
     Authorization Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--Section 12(a) of 
     the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7706(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) General.--'' and all that follows 
     through ``(7) There'' and inserting ``General.--There'';
       (2) by striking ``1998, and'' and inserting ``1998,''; and
       (3) by inserting ``, $19,800,000 for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2000, and $20,400,000 for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001'' after ``September 30, 1999''.
       (b) United States Geological Survey.--(1) Section 12(b) of 
     the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7706(b)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes of carrying 
     out, through the Director of the United States Geological 
     Survey, the responsibilities that may be assigned to the 
     Director under this Act $46,100,000 for fiscal year 2000, of 
     which $3,500,000 shall be used for the Global Seismic Network 
     and $100,000 shall be used for the Scientific Earthquake 
     Studies Advisory Committee established under section 6 of the 
     Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999; and 
     $47,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, of which $3,600,000 shall 
     be used for the Global Seismic Network and $100,000 shall be 
     used for the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee 
     established under section 6 of the Earthquake Hazards 
     Reduction Authorization Act of 1999.'' after ``operated by 
     the Agency.'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (C) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(3) $9,000,000 of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2000; and
       ``(4) $9,500,000 of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2001,''.
       (2) Section 2(a)(7) of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     authorize appropriations for carrying out the Earthquake 
     Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 
     and for other purposes'' is amended by inserting ``, 
     $1,600,000 for fiscal year 2000, and $1,650,000 for fiscal 
     year 2001'' after ``1998 and 1999''.
       (c) National Science Foundation.--Section 12(c) of the 
     Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706(c)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1998, and'' and inserting ``1998,''; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, and 
     (5) $19,000,000 for engineering research and $10,900,000 for 
     geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000. There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Science Foundation $19,600,000 for engineering research and 
     $11,200,000 for geosciences research for fiscal year 2001.''.
       (d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--
     Section 12(d) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 
     (42 U.S.C. 7706(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1998, and''; and inserting ``1998,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2000, and 
     $2,265,000 for fiscal year 2001'' after ``September 30, 
     1999''.

     SEC. 3. REPEALS.

       Section 10 and subsections (e) and (f) of section 12 of the 
     Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7705d and 
     7706 (e) and (f)) are repealed.

     SEC. 4. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING 
                   SYSTEM.

       The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7701 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 13. ADVANCED NATIONAL SEISMIC RESEARCH AND MONITORING 
                   SYSTEM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the United States 
     Geological Survey shall establish

[[Page 7043]]

     and operate an Advanced National Seismic Research and 
     Monitoring System. The purpose of such system shall be to 
     organize, modernize, standardize, and stabilize the national, 
     regional, and urban seismic monitoring systems in the United 
     States, including sensors, recorders, and data analysis 
     centers, into a coordinated system that will measure and 
     record the full range of frequencies and amplitudes exhibited 
     by seismic waves, in order to enhance earthquake research and 
     warning capabilities.
       ``(b) Management Plan.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
     Authorization Act of 1999, the Director of the United States 
     Geological Survey shall transmit to the Congress a 5-year 
     management plan for establishing and operating the Advanced 
     National Seismic Research and Monitoring System. The plan 
     shall include annual cost estimates for both modernization 
     and operation, milestones, standards, and performance goals, 
     as well as plans for securing the participation of all 
     existing networks in the Advanced National Seismic Research 
     and Monitoring System and for establishing new, or enhancing 
     existing, partnerships to leverage resources.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Expansion and modernization.--In addition to amounts 
     appropriated under section 12(b), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior, to be used by 
     the Director of the United States Geological Survey to 
     establish the Advanced National Seismic Research and 
     Monitoring System--
       ``(A) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $33,700,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(C) $35,100,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(D) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(E) $33,500,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       ``(2) Operation.--In addition to amounts appropriated under 
     section 12(b), there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of the Interior, to be used by the Director of the 
     United States Geological Survey to operate the Advanced 
     National Seismic Research and Monitoring System--
       ``(A) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       ``(B) $10,300,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.

     SEC. 5. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION.

       The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7701 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 14. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall establish a Network for Earthquake 
     Engineering Simulation that will upgrade, link, and integrate 
     a system of geographically distributed experimental 
     facilities for earthquake engineering testing of full-sized 
     structures and their components and partial-scale physical 
     models. The system shall be integrated through networking 
     software so that integrated models and databases can be used 
     to create model-based simulation, and the components of the 
     system shall be interconnected with a computer network and 
     allow for remote access, information sharing, and 
     collaborative research.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts appropriated under section 12(c), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated, out of funds otherwise 
     authorized to be appropriated to the National Science 
     Foundation, $7,700,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the Network 
     for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. In addition to amounts 
     appropriated under section 12(c), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the National Science Foundation for the 
     Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation--
       ``(1) $28,200,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(2) $24,400,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(3) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(4) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.

     SEC. 6. SCIENTIFIC EARTHQUAKE STUDIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Director of the United States 
     Geological Survey shall establish a Scientific Earthquake 
     Studies Advisory Committee.
       (b) Organization.--The Director shall establish procedures 
     for selection of individuals not employed by the Federal 
     Government who are qualified in the seismic sciences and 
     other appropriate fields and may, pursuant to such 
     procedures, select up to ten individuals, one of whom shall 
     be designated Chairman, to serve on the Advisory Committee. 
     Selection of individuals for the Advisory Committee shall be 
     based solely on established records of distinguished service, 
     and the Director shall ensure that a reasonable cross-section 
     of views and expertise is represented. In selecting 
     individuals to serve on the Advisory Committee, the Director 
     shall seek and give due consideration to recommendations from 
     the National Academy of Sciences, professional societies, and 
     other appropriate organizations.
       (c) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at such 
     times and places as may be designated by the Chairman in 
     consultation with the Director.
       (d) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall advise the 
     Director on matters relating to the United States Geological 
     Survey's participation in the National Earthquake Hazards 
     Reduction Program, including the United States Geological 
     Survey's roles, goals, and objectives within that Program, 
     its capabilities and research needs, guidance on achieving 
     major objectives, and establishing and measuring performance 
     goals. The Advisory Committee shall issue an annual report to 
     the Director for submission to Congress on or before 
     September 30 of each year. The report shall describe the 
     Advisory Committee's activities and address policy issues or 
     matters that affect the United States Geological Survey's 
     participation in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
     Program.

     SEC. 7. BUDGET COORDINATION.

       Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 
     (42 U.S.C. 7704) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (B) through (F) as subparagraphs (A) through 
     (E), respectively; and
       (B) by moving subparagraph (E), as so redesignated by 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, so as to appear 
     immediately after subparagraph (D), as so redesignated; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Budget Coordination.--
       ``(1) Guidance.--The Agency shall each year provide 
     guidance to the other Program agencies concerning the 
     preparation of requests for appropriations for activities 
     related to the Program, and shall prepare, in conjunction 
     with the other Program agencies, an annual Program budget to 
     be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(2) Reports.--Each Program agency shall include with its 
     annual request for appropriations submitted to the Office of 
     Management and Budget a report that--
       ``(A) identifies each element of the proposed Program 
     activities of the agency;
       ``(B) specifies how each of these activities contributes to 
     the Program; and
       ``(C) states the portion of its request for appropriations 
     allocated to each element of the Program.''.

     SEC. 8. REPORT ON AT-RISK POPULATIONS.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and after a period for public comment, the Director 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall transmit to 
     the Congress a report describing the elements of the Program 
     that specifically address the needs of at-risk populations, 
     including the elderly, persons with disabilities, non-
     English-speaking families, single-parent households, and the 
     poor. Such report shall also identify additional actions that 
     could be taken to address those needs, and make 
     recommendations for any additional legislative authority 
     required to take such actions.

     SEC. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS TO EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION.

       Section 5(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
     Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7704(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, and development of means of increasing public 
     access to available locality-specific information that may 
     assist the public in preparing for or responding to 
     earthquakes'' after ``and the general public''.

     SEC. 10. LIFELINES.

       Section 4(6) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977 (42 U.S.C. 7703(6)) is amended by inserting ``and 
     infrastructure'' after ``communication facilities''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the bill?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and 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 gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill add the following new sections:

     SEC.   . COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       No funds authorized pursuant to this Act may be expended by 
     an entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the 
     assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 
     of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly 
     known as the ``Buy American Act'').

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall provide to each recipient of the 
     assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS.

       If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with 
     the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the 
     United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in section 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.


[[Page 7044]]

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment has been explained in the 
general debate time. It is a straighforward, buy-American amendment. It 
has passed on several other pieces of legislation. I encourage the 
committee to accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We are pleased to accept this constructive amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection 
to the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other 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. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bonilla) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman 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. 1184) to 
authorize appropriations for carrying out the Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 142, 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 amendment 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414, 
nays 3, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 95]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NAYS--3

     Duncan
     Paul
     Sanford

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Chenoweth
     Deal
     Gekas
     Hastings (FL)
     Klink
     Lantos
     Metcalf
     Miller, Gary
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Owens
     Oxley
     Radanovich
     Saxton
     Souder
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. DUNCAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, I 
attempted to return from lunch to vote; however, there was an accident 
and I arrived one minute after the vote was taken. This was unavoidable 
and beyond my control. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

[[Page 7045]]


  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, today, April 21, 1999, I was unavoidably 
detained during rollcall No. 95, and thus my vote on the passage of 
H.R. 1184 was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' in support of the legislation.

                          ____________________