[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23816-23820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                                  2003

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2608) to reauthorize the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2608

       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 ``National Earthquake Hazards 
     Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

        Section 4 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 
     (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(8) The term `Interagency Coordinating Committee' means 
     the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Earthquake Hazards 
     Reduction established under section 5(a).
       ``(9) The term `Advisory Committee' means the Advisory 
     Committee established under section 5(a)(5).''.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.

        Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 
     (42 U.S.C. 7704(b)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established the National 
     Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
       ``(2) Program activities.--The activities of the Program 
     shall be designed to--
       ``(A) develop effective measures for earthquake hazards 
     reduction;
       ``(B) promote the adoption of earthquake hazards reduction 
     measures by Federal, State, and local governments, national 
     standards and model code organizations, architects and 
     engineers, building owners, and others with a role in 
     planning and constructing buildings, structures, and 
     lifelines through--
       ``(i) grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and 
     technical assistance;
       ``(ii) development of standards, guidelines, and voluntary 
     consensus codes for earthquake hazards reduction for 
     buildings, structures, and lifelines; and
       ``(iii) development and maintenance of a repository of 
     information, including technical data, on seismic risk and 
     hazards reduction; and
       ``(C) improve the understanding of earthquakes and their 
     effects on communities, buildings, structures, and lifelines, 
     through interdisciplinary research that involves engineering, 
     natural sciences, and social, economic, and decisions 
     sciences.
       ``(3) Interagency coordinating committee on earthquake 
     hazards reduction.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is established an Interagency 
     Coordinating Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
     chaired by the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology (referred to in this subsection as 
     the `Director').
       ``(B) Membership.--The committee shall be composed of the 
     directors of--
       ``(i) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
       ``(ii) the United States Geological Survey;
       ``(iii) the National Science Foundation;
       ``(iv) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and
       ``(v) the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(C) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet not less than 3 
     times a year at the call of the Director.
       ``(D) Purpose and duties.--The Interagency Coordinating 
     Committee shall oversee the planning, management, and 
     coordination of the Program. The Interagency Coordinating 
     Committee shall--
       ``(i) develop, not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and update periodically--

       ``(I) a strategic plan that establishes goals and 
     priorities for the Program activities described under 
     subsection (a)(2); and
       ``(II) a detailed management plan to implement such 
     strategic plan; and

       ``(ii) develop a coordinated interagency budget for the 
     Program that will ensure appropriate balance among the 
     Program activities described under subsection (a)(2), and 
     submit such budget to the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget at the time designated by that office 
     for agencies to submit annual budgets.
       ``(4) Annual report.--The Interagency Coordinating 
     Committee shall transmit, at the time of the President's 
     budget request to Congress, an annual report to the Committee 
     on Science and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate. Such report shall include--
       ``(A) the Program budget for the current fiscal year for 
     each agency that participates in the Program, and for each 
     major goal established for the Program activities under 
     subparagraph (3)(A);
       ``(B) the proposed Program budget for the next fiscal year 
     for each agency that participates in the Program, and for 
     each major goal established for the Program activities under 
     subparagraph (3)(A);
       ``(C) a description of the activities and results of the 
     Program during the previous year, including an assessment of 
     the effectiveness of the Program in furthering the goals 
     established in the strategic plan under (3)(A);
       ``(D) a description of the extent to which the Program has 
     incorporated the recommendations of the Advisory Committee;
       ``(E) a description of activities, including budgets for 
     the current fiscal year and proposed budgets for the next 
     fiscal year, that are carried out by Program agencies and 
     contribute to the Program, but are not included in the 
     Program; and
       ``(F) a description of the activities, including budgets 
     for the current fiscal year and proposed budgets for the 
     following fiscal year, related to the grant program carried 
     out under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i).
       ``(5) Advisory committee.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director shall establish an Advisory 
     Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction consisting of non-
     Federal members, including representatives of research and 
     academic institutions, industry standards development 
     organizations, State and local government, and financial 
     communities who are qualified to provide advice on earthquake 
     hazards reduction. The recommendations of the Advisory 
     Committee shall be considered by Federal agencies in 
     implementing the Program.
       ``(B) Assessment.--The Advisory Committee shall assess--
       ``(i) trends and developments in the science and 
     engineering of earthquake hazards reduction;
       ``(ii) effectiveness of the Program in carrying out the 
     activities under (a)(2);
       ``(iii) the need to revise the Program; and
       ``(iv) the management, coordination, implementation, and 
     activities of the Program.
       ``(C) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and at least once every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Advisory Committee shall report to the 
     Director on its findings of the assessment carried out under 
     subparagraph (B) and its recommendations for ways to improve 
     the Program. In developing recommendations, the Committee 
     shall consider the recommendations of the United States 
     Geological Survey Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory 
     Committee.
       ``(D) Federal advisory committee act application.--Section 
     14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C. 14) 
     shall not apply to the Advisory Committee.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and 
     all that follows through ``of the Agency'' and inserting 
     ``National Institute of Standards and Technology shall have 
     the primary responsibility for planning and coordinating the 
     Program. In carrying out this paragraph, the Director of the 
     Institute'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and 
     redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (C) 
     and (D), respectively;
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) support the development of performance-based seismic 
     engineering tools, and work with appropriate groups to 
     promote the commercial application of such tools, through 
     earthquake-related building codes, standards, and 
     construction practices;'';
       (iv) by striking ``The principal official carrying out the 
     responsibilities described in this paragraph shall be at a 
     level no lower than that of Associate Director.''; and
       (v) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by clause (ii), by 
     striking ``National Science Foundation, the National 
     Institutes of Standards and Technology'' and inserting 
     ``Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science 
     Foundation'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``In addition to the lead'' and all that 
     follows through ``Agency'' and inserting ``The Director of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in this Act referred 
     to as the `Agency')''; and
       (ii) by amending clause (iii) to read as follows:
       ``(iii) assist the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, other Federal agencies, and private sector groups 
     in the preparation and wide dissemination of building codes 
     and practices for structures and lifelines, and aid in the 
     development of performance based codes for buildings, 
     structures, and lifelines that are cost effective and 
     affordable;'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting ``and other activities'' after ``shall 
     conduct research'';
       (ii) in subparagraphs (C) and (D), by striking ``the 
     Agency'' both places it appears and inserting ``the Director 
     of the Federal Emergency

[[Page 23817]]

     Management Agency and the Director of the National Institute 
     of Standards and Technology'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``establish, using 
     existing facilities, a Center for the International Exchange 
     of Earthquake Information'' and inserting ``operate, using 
     the National Earthquake Information Center, a forum for the 
     international exchange of earthquake information'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``Network'' and 
     inserting ``System''; and
       (v) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(I) work with other Program agencies to coordinate 
     Program activities with similar eathquake hazards reduction 
     efforts in other countries, to ensure that the Program 
     benefits from relevant information and advances in those 
     countries; and
       ``(J) maintain suitable seismic hazard maps in support of 
     building codes for structures and lifelines, including 
     additional maps needed for performance based design 
     approaches.'';
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (E), (F), and (H), respectively;
       (ii) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) support research that improves the safety and 
     performance of buildings, structures, and lifeline systems 
     using large-scale experimental and computational 
     facilities;'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (F) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``; and'' and inserting a semicolon; and
       (iv) by inserting after subparagraph (F) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       ``(G) include to the maximum extent practicable diverse 
     institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities and those serving large proportions of 
     Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, and 
     other underrepresented populations; and''; and
       (E) in paragraph (5), by striking ``The National'' and 
     inserting ``In addition to the lead agency responsibilities 
     described under paragraph (1), the National''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``Agency'' and 
     inserting ``Interagency Coordinating Committee''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Section 12 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding after paragraph (7) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(8) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out this Act 
     $19,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; $21,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2005; and $23,000,000 for fiscal year 2006. Of such amounts 
     appropriated, not less than $3,000,000 shall be made 
     available each such fiscal year for supporting the 
     development of performance-based, cost-effective, and 
     affordable codes for buildings, structures, and lifelines.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the United 
     States Geological Survey for carrying out this Act 
     $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, of which not less than 
     $30,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the 
     Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System 
     established under section 13; $83,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2005, of which not less than $30,000,000 shall be made 
     available for completion of the Advanced National Seismic 
     Research and Monitoring System established under section 13; 
     $93,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not less than 
     $36,000,000 shall be made available for completion of the 
     Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System 
     established under section 13; such sums as may be necessary 
     for fiscal year 2007, of which not less than $36,000,000 
     shall be made available for completion of the Advanced 
     National Seismic Research and Monitoring System established 
     under section 13; and such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal year 2008, of which not less than $36,000,000 shall be 
     made available for completion of the Advanced National 
     Seismic Research and Monitoring System established under 
     section 13.'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Science Foundation for carrying out this Act $39,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004; $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and 
     $47,500,000 for fiscal year 2006.''; and
       (4) in subsection (d) by adding at the end the following: 
     ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology for carrying out this 
     Act $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; $9,600,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005; and $12,500,000 for fiscal year 2006. Of such 
     amounts appropriated, not less than $2,000,000 shall be made 
     available each such fiscal year for supporting the 
     development of performance-based, cost-effective, and 
     affordable codes for buildings, structures, and lifelines.''.
       (b) Section 13 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977 (42 U.S.C. 7707) is amended by striking subsection (c).
       (c) Section 14(b) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act 
     of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7708(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, all of which shall 
     be available for operations and maintenance; and
       ``(6) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, all of which shall 
     be available for operations and maintenance.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks, and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2608, the 
bill now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know that I am a fiscal conservative; so 
in evaluating this bill, we looked at the justification for an 
authorized spending that is going to move us closer to being able to 
deal with earthquakes, to mitigate their damage.
  There is no question that damaging earthquakes are inevitable however 
infrequent they may be. Some of our evaluation reported that annual 
damages from earthquakes in the United States are about $4.4 billion. 
This is annual. What we did in this bill is a slight reduction in the 
authorization; from the prior years. In California, the 1994 Northridge 
earthquake, the magnitude was 6.7; and it was the most costly 
earthquake in history, amounting to over $40 billion.
  Of course, even though the State of California is very aggressive in 
trying to work with earthquakes and paying for some of the damages and 
working in their research to mitigate those damages; through FEMA, our 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, all of the taxpayers in the United 
States contribute to paying for some of the damage by earthquakes. So 
if we can mitigate that damage through research, which helps us 
engineer buildings and bridges and roadways that are less vulnerable to 
earthquakes, we are going to, by far, save more money than we are 
spending on this authorization bill.
  The west coast, California, and certainly that area of the country, 
is assumed to be the location of earthquakes. But that is not the only 
part of the country that is very vulnerable. In fact, Alaska is more 
vulnerable than California in terms of the risk from earthquakes. The 
recent massive earthquake of 7.9 magnitude in Alaska was right where 
the Alaskan oil transline went through.
  We heard testimony before our Committee on Science earlier this year 
that that quake went relatively unnoticed simply because of the extra 
precautions and wisdom of people like Lloyd Cluff, who recognized that 
this pipeline was being built over a vulnerable earthquake area and so 
he, in effect, built a flexable cradle for that pipeline. So when the 
earthquake happened, the pipeline was not so rigid and it withstood 
that huge quake. Without current technology and foresight damage to 
that pipeline could have cost billions.
  There are 39 States that are within zones where the probability of an 
earthquake occurring is great, and recent research indicates that areas 
in the eastern and central United States are at greater risk than we 
ever thought. A 19th century quake in Missouri actually rang church 
bells in Boston. So the threat is there and the justification to be 
better prepared, to even possibly with new seismic technology increase 
the alert time by maybe 8 or 9 or 10 seconds can help us to be better 
prepared such as immediately shutting off gas lines, et cetera.
  We are moving ahead in NEHRP, and so I commend the Democrats and 
Republicans for working with all of the agencies and organizations 
involved to develop this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume, and I rise in

[[Page 23818]]

support of H.R. 2608. H.R. 2608 is the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2003.
  This legislation will strengthen a valuable Federal program which has 
the important goal of improving public safety. I want to acknowledge 
the leadership of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and my colleague, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird), in introducing H.R. 2608. I also want to 
thank the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), for working in a bipartisan manner with this side 
of the aisle to further develop the bill and to move it expeditiously 
through the committee and to the floor.
  The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, often called 
NEHRP, was established 25 years ago to address a serious seismic hazard 
in the United States. The program has the major goal of determining how 
to lower the risk to people and to the built environment.
  Today, 75 million Americans in 39 States are directly vulnerable to a 
serious earthquake. The potential economic losses in a large 
metropolitan area due to a major earthquake could be over $100 billion. 
These facts alone make the justification for NEHRP self-evident, and 
even after 25 years the relevance of the program continues.
  Most observers of NEHRP believe it has made many valuable 
contributions. In particular, it has increased our understanding of 
earthquake processes and has provided detailed information about the 
geographic distribution of earthquake risk. Equally important, the 
program has helped to improve engineering design and practice for 
structures and lifelines suitable for earthquake-prone regions.
  Nevertheless, much work remains to be done. The NEHRP can be improved 
and made more effective, which became evident from the hearings before 
the Committee on Science. More can be done on technology transfer that 
will bring into practice what has been learned from the research 
activities about the most effective and economical ways for enhancing 
seismic safety of the built environment.
  Also, some deficiencies needed to be addressed regarding the planning 
and administration of the program. In 1993, the former chairman of the 
Committee on Science, Mr. George Brown, wrote the President to express 
concerns about NEHRP. He cited the lack of strategic planning, 
insufficient coordination and implementation of research results and a 
lack of emphasis on mitigation. Unfortunately, most of these concerns 
are still valid.
  H.R. 2608 focuses on two aspects of the program most in need of 
improvement: program leadership and increased emphasis on transitioning 
the results of research into practice.
  Leadership is addressed by designating the National Institutes of 
Standard and Technology, the lead agency for planning and coordinating 
the implementation of the interagency program. NIST is charged to 
convene a process to develop a strategic plan and work jointly with the 
other NEHRP agencies to prepare a detailed implementation plan and 
budget for the program for submittal to OMB during the budget 
formulation process.
  The bill also creates an advisory committee of nongovernment experts 
to help guide implementation of the program and to assist the agencies 
in defining program priorities. Thus, H.R. 2608 puts in place 
mechanisms that will provide the leadership needed to ensure a well-
coordinated, carefully planned, and effectively executed National 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
  In addition, the legislation authorizes the resources needed to 
enable NEHRP to achieve its goals. It authorizes full funding for the 
Advanced National Seismic System. This distributed national facility, 
which has been the highest priority of the earthquake hazards reduction 
community, was first authorized in the year 2000, but has been funded 
at only 10 percent of the level required. I hope that with this 
authorization adequate appropriations will follow so that the Advanced 
National Seismic System may be completed without further delay.
  The bill also specifies funding needed to complete the George E. 
Brown Network for Engineering Simulation and to support its operation. 
Moreover, the funding increases authorized will enable NEHRP agencies 
to expand their research activities so that this powerful new research 
tool can be fully employed.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2608 is a bill of national importance and will help 
improve public safety and mitigate earthquake hazards. I commend the 
bill to my colleagues and ask for passage by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to just urge that our appropriators and the Senate look 
carefully and hopefully will quickly adequately fund the efforts that 
we have put forth in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Today I rise in support of H.R. 2608, the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2003.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and 
Standards of the Committee on Science, with jurisdiction over the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, more familiarly known 
as NIST, I want to comment on the interagency coordinating committee in 
section 3 of H.R. 2608.
  This section designates NIST as the Chair of the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program Coordinating Committee. While I believe that 
NIST is more than capable of carrying out these responsibilities, and 
should have this position, I am concerned that the institute will not 
receive adequate funding to perform these duties. In the past, NIST's 
earthquake research activities have not received the full funding 
authorized for them, and this section designates additional 
responsibilities for NIST.
  Adequate funding for NIST labs continues to be a concern. The funding 
levels for NIST labs in the fiscal year 2004 House Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill are $30 
million below the administration's request and flat compared to the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriations.
  For the building and fire research lab, where NIST's NEHRP activities 
are based, the funding level in the fiscal year 2004 House bill is $3 
million less than fiscal year 2003 levels.
  The Senate Committee on Appropriations' representations for these 
labs are at the administration's request level. Given that the final 
number will likely be somewhere between these two, this budget 
situation could leave many of NIST's vital initiatives underfunded. Any 
funding level less than the President's request would result in a 
reduction in force of up to 50 scientists and staff from NIST labs.

                              {time}  1130

  NIST is a world-class science institution, home to two Nobel 
Laureates and scores of other experts who diligently provide the 
scientific expertise and measurements and standards that is the basis 
of technologies we use every day. This Chamber has passed laws giving 
NIST new responsibilities for programs including voting standards, 
building safety, and nanotechnology. Yet, given the difficult budget 
climate, it has been a challenge to ensure NIST receives adequate 
funding to carry out these important duties. You simply cannot keep 
piling on additional duties without providing funding for them. I am 
very concerned about that trend.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that I do support this 
legislation with NIST taking the lead on earthquake leadership 
activities. However, I intend to work with the other members of the 
NEHRP Interagency Coordinating Committee, the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
chairman and members of the Subcommittee on

[[Page 23819]]

Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies 
to ensure that NIST receives adequate funding and support for these 
additional responsibilities. I ask my colleagues to join me in this 
effort and in supporting H.R. 2608.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the committee totally agrees with the concerns of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). What we did in this bill is we 
increased the authorization of NIST from $2.5 million up to $8 million; 
but we will work with NIST, we will work with the appropriators because 
adequate funding is necessary.
  The management, moving the management from FEMA, the lead agency 
management from FEMA to NIST, was a difficult decision in our 
committee; but we ended up with unanimous agreement because of the new 
obligations that have been put on FEMA as they go into Homeland 
Security. We felt that as the lead agency NIST could dedicate the kind 
of time and organization needed. So there is somewhat of an increased 
responsibility.
  In conclusion, we will work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) to try to make sure that adequate funding is available.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) 
for all of their hard work to bring this bill to the floor today.
  I represent an area in California that has been affected in the past 
by earthquakes. In fact, I remember very well the 6.9 Loma Prieta 
earthquake that shook the Bay Area in 1989. It was really an awesome 
experience, and I think anyone who has been through an earthquake like 
that can remember exactly what they were doing and how it felt. And to 
know that that level of earthquake is not the big one really does 
emphasize the need to take this whole area very seriously. That is what 
this bill does.
  The bill is to make sure that the Federal Government provides the 
necessary resources and support needed by those in the earthquake 
research community who have dedicated much of their life's work trying 
to understand the causes of earthquakes, to anticipate when and where 
an earthquake may happen, and, most importantly, how we can best 
prepare ourselves to survive the potentially devastating results of 
earthquakes.
  The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was first created 
in 1977 in response to growing concerns about the threat of damaging 
earthquakes. Initially, the program focused on research in the areas of 
geotechnical and structural engineering and earthquake prediction. Over 
time, researchers acknowledging that earthquake prediction was a huge 
challenge and began to emphasize activities like seismic retrofitting 
and rehabilitation, risk assessment, public education, and outreach and 
code development. And the fact that San Jose, California, did not fall 
down in the Loma Prieta earthquake is testimony that good code 
enforcement and structural engineering does work and does save lives.
  The program has achieved great progress since its inception and is 
considered by most to be a very successful undertaking. Through the 
efforts of those involved, we have seen a substantial decrease in the 
loss of life and injury. The capabilities of seismic risk assessment 
have improved greatly. We have learned important lessons in mitigating 
earthquake hazards as a result of technological advances in areas like 
performance-based engineering, information technology, sensing and 
imaging.
  In the Committee on Science we were faced with many challenges in 
order to make this program even more helpful in our understanding of 
and our ability to mitigate the effects of earthquakes. Some have 
argued that the new knowledge and tools have not translated into a 
decreased overall vulnerability. The adoption by end-users of NEHRP 
innovations has been incremental and slower than expected. The cost of 
rehabilitating existing structures to be more earthquake resistant has 
often proved to be too high as is the cost of building new facilities 
to minimize risk.
  We know that the private sector has not had adequate incentives and 
that most State and local governments lack adequate budgets to address 
these challenges.
  I will be following these issues with great interest particularly 
when it comes to ensuring that the Federal Government provides 
sufficient funding and leadership to meet the research needs of this 
program. That a future large earthquake in a major U.S. urban area 
could result in damages of $200 billion should provide us here in the 
Congress with sufficient incentive to encourage our research in this 
vital area. This is a historic case where we know that we must not be 
``penny wise and pound foolish.''
  I remain concerned as to whether or not NEHRP can be reasonably 
expected to meet its goals at the level of funding it currently 
receives. And I look forward to working to increase the level of 
funding.
  I was happy to work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) as 
well as the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) in a 
bipartisan manner to make sure that the funding in the fiscal year 2004 
was increased for the Advanced National Seismic System. I think they 
did a great job. And, actually, I think our committee worked well 
together to improve this bill. I look forward to continuing to work 
with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the rest of the committee to try 
to make certain that those who are doing research in the sciences have 
the funds and support they need from our Federal Government.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) for bringing us the kind of information and dedication that 
she has to try to make this a better bill and to try to have government 
do a better job in terms of mitigating the consequences of earthquakes.
  And I would mention that it is not just this country that NEHRP 
helps. We work worldwide in trying to share the research that we have 
done to help reduce the consequences of earthquakes all over the world. 
I think it is appropriate in terms of understanding that I just give a 
brief background on some of the agencies that are involved.
  NEHRP is a long-term comprehensive interagency earthquake hazard 
reduction mitigation program. It was established in Congress in 1977, 
and four agencies participate in this effort. We have FEMA, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency; the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS which has 
done a fantastic job in this area; the National Science Foundation, 
which is under the purview of our Subcommittee on Research because of 
the tremendous research efforts that we are making in this arena; and 
of course, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  Each agency has distinct responsibilities to undertake in support of 
the overall program goals. NSF, with the geoscience, the engineering, 
the economic and social aspects of earthquakes; USGS carries out both 
the basic and applied Earth science and seismic research and 
monitoring; and FEMA has been responsible for overall coordination of 
the program, education outreach and implementation of research results, 
and now we are asking NIST as the lead agency to take a little larger 
role to conduct the research and development in earthquake engineering 
aimed at improving building design codes and construction standards.
  Also, there needs to be additional support to reducing the damages 
from earthquakes. In addition to our efforts in government, I would 
call on the insurance industry to consider lowering

[[Page 23820]]

its insurance rates for those municipalities and for those individuals 
who comply and build their structures to be more resistant to 
earthquake damage. It seems logical that if there is extra spending of 
money to protect against earthquakes in the building structures, 
whether they are municipal bridges, highways, buildings, or residential 
structures, that the insurance industry should consider encouraging the 
effort with lower premiums.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time. I urge this bill be passed, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that we should appreciate the 
bipartisan support and the support of the government agencies that are 
involved in this program. Certainly we know that earthquakes cannot be 
prevented, but we can mitigate their impact; and that is what this bill 
does. I ask for all Members to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2608, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________