H. Rept. 112-666 - 112th Congress (2011-2012)
September 12, 2012, As Reported by the Science, Space, and Technology Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 112-666 - NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011




[House Report 112-666]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


112th Congress                                            Rept. 112-666
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

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



 
               NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011

                                _______
                                

 September 12, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Hall, from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3479]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 3479) to reauthorize Federal 
natural hazards reduction programs, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose and Summary.............................................8
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................8
  IV. Hearing Summary................................................10
   V. Committee Consideration........................................10
  VI. Committee Votes................................................11
 VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................19
VIII. Committee Views................................................20
  IX. Committee Oversight Findings...................................22
   X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........22
  XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditur22
 XII. Advisory on Earmarks...........................................22
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................22
 XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................22
  XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................25
 XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................25
XVII. Applicability to Legislative Branch............................25
XVIII.Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................25

 XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........28
  XX. Exchange of Committee Correspondence...........................47
 XXI. Dissenting Views...............................................51
XXII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup.........................53
XXIII.Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup......................170


                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                          TITLE I--EARTHQUAKES

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
Sec. 104. Post-Earthquake Investigations Program.
Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations.

                             TITLE II--WIND

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
Sec. 204. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction.
Sec. 205. Authorization of appropriations.

                  TITLE III--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Sec. 301. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk 
Reduction.
Sec. 302. Coordination of Federal disaster research, development, and 
technology transfer.
Sec. 303. Authorizations.

                    TITLE IV--FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Sec. 401. Fire research program.

                          TITLE I--EARTHQUAKES

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

  Section 4 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
7703) is amended by striking paragraphs (8) and (9).

SEC. 103. NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.

  Section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
7704) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``to be 
                administered, as provided under this section, by the 
                National Institute of Standards and Technology, the 
                Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States 
                Geological Survey, and the National Science 
                Foundation'' after ``Reduction Program'';
                  (B) in paragraph (2)--
                          (i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as 
                        follows:
                  ``(A) research and develop effective methods, tools, 
                and technologies to reduce the risk posed by 
                earthquakes to the built environment, especially to 
                lessen the risk to existing structures and 
                lifelines;'';
                          (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and 
                        retrofitting'' after ``planning and 
                        constructing'';
                          (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
                        subparagraph (C);
                          (iv) in subparagraph (D), by striking the 
                        period at the end and inserting ``, as 
                        appropriate; and''; and
                          (v) by adding at the end the following new 
                        subparagraph:
                  ``(E) support public education and outreach to assist 
                different populations, including individuals and 
                households with special needs, in preparing for and 
                responding to earthquake-related disasters.''; and
                  (C) by striking paragraphs (3) through (5);
          (2) in subsection (b)--
                  (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
          ``(1) Lead agency.--The 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 shall--
                  ``(A) ensure that the Program includes the necessary 
                components to promote the implementation of earthquake 
                hazards risk reduction measures by Federal, State, and 
                local governments, national standards and model 
                building code organizations, architects and engineers, 
                and others with a role in planning, constructing, and 
                retrofitting structures and lifelines;
                  ``(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 model building codes, 
                voluntary standards, and construction best practices;
                  ``(C) request the assistance of Federal agencies 
                other than the Program agencies, as necessary to assist 
                in carrying out this Act;
                  ``(D) work with the Federal Emergency Management 
                Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the United 
                States Geological Survey, to develop a comprehensive 
                plan for earthquake engineering research to effectively 
                use existing testing facilities and laboratories 
                (existing at the time of the development of the plan), 
                upgrade facilities and equipment as needed, and 
                integrate new, innovative testing approaches to the 
                research infrastructure in a systematic manner; and
                  ``(E) when warranted by research or investigative 
                findings, issue recommendations to assist in informing 
                the development of model codes, and provide information 
                to Congress on the use of such recommendations.'';
                  (B) in paragraph (3)--
                          (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking 
                        ``seismic microzonation'' and inserting 
                        ``detailed seismic hazard and risk'';
                          (ii) by amending subparagraphs (F) and (G) to 
                        read as follows:
                  ``(F) operate, in cooperation with the National 
                Science Foundation, a Global Seismographic Network for 
                detection of earthquakes around the world and research 
                into fundamental earth processes;
                  ``(G) support the operation of regional seismic 
                networks in areas of higher seismic risk;'';
                          (iii) by striking the period at the end of 
                        subparagraph (H) and inserting a semicolon; and
                          (iv) by amending subparagraph (I) to read as 
                        follows:
                  ``(I) work with other Program agencies to maintain 
                awareness of, and where appropriate coordinate with, 
                earthquake risk reduction efforts in other countries to 
                ensure that the Program benefits from relevant 
                information and advances in those countries; and'';
                  (C) in paragraph (4)(D), by striking ``of the 
                George'' and all that follows through ``Reduction 
                Program'' and inserting ``of institutions engaged in 
                research and the implementation of the National 
                Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which may include 
                the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake 
                Engineering Simulation''; and
                  (D) in paragraph (5)--
                          (i) in subparagraph (C)--
                                  (I) by inserting ``and other 
                                stakeholders with relevant expertise'' 
                                after ``standards organizations''; and
                                  (II) by inserting ``and'' after the 
                                semicolon at the end;
                          (ii) by striking ``; and'' at the end of 
                        subparagraph (D) and inserting a period; and
                          (iii) by striking subparagraph (E);
          (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
          (4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
        subsection:
  ``(c) Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of 
        Standards and Technology shall establish an Advisory Committee 
        on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, which shall be composed of at 
        least 11 members, none of whom may be employees of the Federal 
        Government, including representatives of research and academic 
        institutions, industry standards development organizations, 
        emergency management agencies, State and local government, and 
        business communities who are qualified to provide advice on 
        earthquake hazards reduction and represent all related 
        scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines. The 
        recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be considered 
        by Federal agencies in implementing the Program.
          ``(2) Assessments.--The Advisory Committee on Earthquake 
        Hazards Reduction shall offer assessments on--
                  ``(A) trends and developments in the natural, social, 
                and engineering sciences and practices of earthquake 
                hazards impact mitigation;
                  ``(B) the priorities of the Program's Strategic Plan;
                  ``(C) the coordination of the Program; and
                  ``(D) any revisions to the Program which may be 
                necessary.
          ``(3) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory Committee 
        established under this subsection shall serve without 
        compensation.
          ``(4) Reports.--At least every 2 years, the Advisory 
        Committee shall report to the Director of the National 
        Institute of Standards and Technology on the assessments 
        carried out under paragraph (2) and its recommendations for 
        ways to improve the Program.
          ``(5) Termination.--The Advisory Committee established under 
        this subsection shall terminate not later than 5 years after 
        the date of enactment of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act 
        of 2011.''; and
          (5) in subsection (d)(1), as so redesignated by paragraph (3) 
        of this section, by inserting ``on Natural Hazards Risk 
        Reduction established under section 301 of the Natural Hazards 
        Risk Reduction Act of 2011'' after ``Interagency Coordinating 
        Committee''.

SEC. 104. POST-EARTHQUAKE INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.

  Section 11 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
7705e) is amended by inserting ``and utilizing the coordination 
expertise of the lead Program agency'' after ``consultation with each 
Program agency''.

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Section 12 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act 
of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7706) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  ``(a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying 
out this Act--
          ``(1) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          ``(2) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          ``(3) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  ``(b) United States Geological Survey.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the United States Geological Survey for carrying out 
this Act--
          ``(1) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          ``(2) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          ``(3) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  ``(c) National Science Foundation.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this 
Act--
          ``(1) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          ``(2) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          ``(3) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  ``(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology for carrying out this Act--
          ``(1) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          ``(2) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          ``(3) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2014.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 14 of the Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7708) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``(a) Establishment.--''; and
          (2) by striking subsection (b).

                             TITLE II--WIND

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Act Reauthorization of 2011''.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

  Section 203(1) of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 
(42 U.S.C. 15702(1)) is amended by striking ``Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy'' and inserting ``Director of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology''.

SEC. 203. NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM.

  Section 204 of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 
(42 U.S.C. 15703) is amended--
          (1) by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c) and inserting 
        the following:
  ``(a) Establishment.--There is established the National Windstorm 
Impact Reduction Program, the purpose of which is to achieve major 
measurable reductions in the losses of life and property from 
windstorms through a coordinated Federal effort, in cooperation with 
other levels of government, academia, and the private sector, aimed at 
improving the understanding of windstorms and their impacts and 
developing and encouraging the implementation of cost-effective 
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.
  ``(b) Responsibilities of Program Agencies.--
          ``(1) Lead agency.--The National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology shall have the primary responsibility for planning 
        and coordinating the Program. In carrying out this paragraph, 
        the Director shall--
                  ``(A) ensure that the Program includes the necessary 
                components to promote the implementation of windstorm 
                risk reduction measures by Federal, State, and local 
                governments, national standards and model building code 
                organizations, architects and engineers, and others 
                with a role in planning and constructing buildings and 
                lifelines;
                  ``(B) support the development of performance-based 
                engineering tools, and work with appropriate groups to 
                promote the commercial application of such tools, 
                including through wind-related model building codes, 
                voluntary standards, and construction best practices;
                  ``(C) request the assistance of Federal agencies 
                other than the Program agencies, as necessary to assist 
                in carrying out this Act;
                  ``(D) coordinate all Federal post-windstorm 
                investigations; and
                  ``(E) when warranted by research or investigative 
                findings, issue recommendations to assist in informing 
                the development of model codes, and provide information 
                to Congress on the use of such recommendations.
          ``(2) National institute of standards and technology.--In 
        addition to the lead agency responsibilities described under 
        paragraph (1), the National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology shall be responsible for carrying out research and 
        development to improve model building codes, voluntary 
        standards, and best practices for the design, construction, and 
        retrofit of buildings, structures, and lifelines.
          ``(3) National science foundation.--The National Science 
        Foundation shall support research in engineering and the 
        atmospheric sciences to improve the understanding of the 
        behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, 
        structures, and lifelines.
          ``(4) National oceanic and atmospheric administration.--The 
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall support 
        atmospheric sciences research and data collection to improve 
        the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their 
        impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines.
          ``(5) Federal emergency management agency.--The Federal 
        Emergency Management Agency shall support the development of 
        risk assessment tools and effective mitigation techniques, 
        windstorm-related data collection and analysis, public 
        outreach, information dissemination, and implementation of 
        mitigation measures consistent with the Agency's all-hazards 
        approach.'';
          (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c);
          (3) in subsection (c), as so redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
        this section, amend paragraph (4)(A) to read as follows:
                  ``(A) development of improved outreach and 
                implementation mechanisms to translate--
                          ``(i) existing information and research 
                        findings into cost-effective and affordable 
                        practices for design and construction 
                        professionals, and State and local officials; 
                        and
                          ``(ii) research, including social science 
                        research, into windstorm risk mitigation and 
                        preparedness strategies for individuals and 
                        households, including individuals and 
                        households with special needs, and 
                        businesses;''; and
          (4) by striking subsections (e) and (f).

SEC. 204. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION.

  Section 205 of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 
(42 U.S.C. 15704) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 205. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION.

  ``(a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology shall establish an Advisory Committee on 
Windstorm Impact Reduction, which shall be composed of at least 7 
members, none of whom may be employees of the Federal Government, 
including representatives of research and academic institutions, 
industry standards development organizations, emergency management 
agencies, State and local government, and business communities who are 
qualified to provide advice on windstorm impact reduction and represent 
all related scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines. The 
recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be considered by 
Federal agencies in implementing the Program.
  ``(b) Assessments.--The Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact 
Reduction shall offer assessments on--
          ``(1) trends and developments in the natural, social, and 
        engineering sciences and practices of windstorm impact 
        mitigation;
          ``(2) the priorities of the Program's Strategic Plan;
          ``(3) the coordination of the Program; and
          ``(4) any revisions to the Program which may be necessary.
  ``(c) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory Committee 
established under this section shall serve without compensation.
  ``(d) Reports.--At least every 2 years, the Advisory Committee shall 
report to the Director on the assessments carried out under subsection 
(b) and its recommendations for ways to improve the Program.
  ``(e) Termination.--The Advisory Committee shall terminate not later 
than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Natural Hazards Risk 
Reduction Act of 2011.''.

SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  Section 207 of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004 
(42 U.S.C. 15706) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  ``(a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying 
out this title--
          ``(1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          ``(2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          ``(3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  ``(b) National Science Foundation.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this 
title--
          ``(1) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          ``(2) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          ``(3) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  ``(c) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology for carrying out this title--
          ``(1) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          ``(2) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          ``(3) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  ``(d) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration for carrying out this title--
          ``(1) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          ``(2) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          ``(3) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2014.''.

                  TITLE III--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

SEC. 301. INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL HAZARDS RISK 
                    REDUCTION.

  (a) Establishment.--There is established an Interagency Coordinating 
Committee on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction, chaired by the Director of 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  (b) Membership.--In addition to the chair, the Committee shall be 
composed of--
          (1) the heads of--
                  (A) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
                  (B) the United States Geological Survey;
                  (C) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
                Administration;
                  (D) the National Science Foundation;
                  (E) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and
                  (F) the Office of Management and Budget; and
          (2) the head of any other Federal agency the chair considers 
        appropriate.
  (c) Meetings.--The Committee shall meet not less than 1 time a year 
at the call of the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology.
  (d) General Purpose and Duties.--The Committee shall oversee the 
planning and coordination of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and shall 
make proposals for planning and coordination of any other Federal 
research for natural hazard mitigation that the Committee considers 
appropriate.
  (e) Strategic Plans.--The Committee shall develop and submit to 
Congress, not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
Act--
          (1) a Strategic Plan for the National Earthquake Hazards 
        Reduction Program that includes--
                  (A) prioritized goals for such Program that will 
                mitigate against the loss of life and property from 
                future earthquakes;
                  (B) short-term, mid-term, and long-term research 
                objectives to achieve those goals;
                  (C) a description of the role of each Program agency 
                in achieving the prioritized goals;
                  (D) the methods by which progress towards the goals 
                will be assessed;
                  (E) an explanation of how the Program will foster the 
                transfer of research results into outcomes, such as 
                improved model building codes;
                  (F) a description of how the George E. Brown, Jr. 
                Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation and the 
                Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring 
                System may be used in achieving the prioritized goals 
                and research objectives; and
                  (G) an explanation of how the Program will coordinate 
                its activities with other Federal agencies performing 
                activities relevant to the Program; and
          (2) a Strategic Plan for the National Windstorm Impact 
        Reduction Program that includes--
                  (A) prioritized goals for such Program that will 
                mitigate against the loss of life and property from 
                future windstorms;
                  (B) short-term, mid-term, and long-term research 
                objectives to achieve those goals;
                  (C) a description of the role of each Program agency 
                in achieving the prioritized goals;
                  (D) the methods by which progress towards the goals 
                will be assessed;
                  (E) an explanation of how the Program will foster the 
                transfer of research results into outcomes, such as 
                improved model building codes; and
                  (F) an explanation of how the Program will coordinate 
                its activities with other Federal agencies performing 
                activities relevant to the Program.
  (f) Progress Reports.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Committee shall submit to the Congress--
          (1) a report on the progress of the National Earthquake 
        Hazards Reduction Program that includes--
                  (A) a description of the activities funded under the 
                Program, a description of how these activities align 
                with the prioritized goals and research objectives 
                established in the Strategic Plan, and the budgets, per 
                agency, for these activities;
                  (B) the outcomes achieved by the Program for each of 
                the goals identified in the Strategic Plan;
                  (C) a description of any recommendations made to 
                change existing building codes that were the result of 
                Program activities;
                  (D) a description of activities carried out under 
                section 11 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
                1977 (42 U.S.C. 7705e), including a description of 
                agency activities and the amount of funding provided 
                for each investigation; and
                  (E) a description of the extent to which the Program 
                has incorporated recommendations from the Advisory 
                Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction; and
          (2) a report on the progress of the National Windstorm Impact 
        Reduction Program that includes--
                  (A) a description of the activities funded under the 
                Program, a description of how these activities align 
                with the prioritized goals and research objectives 
                established in the Strategic Plan, and the budgets, per 
                agency, for these activities;
                  (B) the outcomes achieved by the Program for each of 
                the goals identified in the Strategic Plan;
                  (C) a description of any recommendations made to 
                change existing building codes that were the result of 
                Program activities; and
                  (D) a description of the extent to which the Program 
                has incorporated recommendations from the Advisory 
                Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction.
  (g) Coordinated Budget.--The Committee shall develop a coordinated 
budget for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and a 
coordinated budget for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 
These budgets shall be submitted to the Congress at the time of the 
President's budget submission for each fiscal year.

SEC. 302. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL DISASTER RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                    TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.

  Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction of the Committee on Environment and 
Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council shall 
submit a report to the Congress detailing--
          (1) current Federal research, development, and technology 
        transfer activities, including those of the National 
        Laboratories, that address hazard mitigation for natural 
        disasters, including earthquakes, windstorms, wildfires, 
        floods, and the current budgets for these activities;
          (2) areas of research that are common to two or more of the 
        hazards identified in paragraph (1);
          (3) opportunities to create synergies between the research 
        activities for the hazards identified in paragraph (1); and
          (4) the status of coordination of Federal disaster research, 
        development, and technology transfer activities including those 
        of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the 
        National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.

SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATIONS.

  No additional funds are authorized to carry out this title. This 
title shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized or 
appropriated.

                    TITLE IV--FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM

SEC. 401. FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

  Section 16(a)(1) of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278f(a)(1)) is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``fires at the 
        wildland-urban interface that are the result of natural 
        causes,'' after ``but not limited to,''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (E), by inserting ``fires at the 
        wildland-urban interface that are the result of natural 
        causes,'' after ``types of fires, including''.

                        II. Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk 
Reduction Act of 2011, sponsored by Representative Biggert (R-
IL-13), is to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program (NWIRP) through Fiscal Year 2014. NEHRP and 
NWIRP are two multi-agency programs that support efforts to 
mitigate the impacts of natural hazards through targeted 
research and development to better understand and prepare for 
earthquakes and windstorms.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Portions of all 50 states are vulnerable to earthquake 
hazards, although risks vary across the country and within 
individual states. According to the United States Geologic 
Survey (USGS), twenty-six urban areas in fourteen U.S. states 
face significant seismic risk.\1\ Though infrequent, 
earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they 
strike without warning. Earthquakes proceed as cascades, in 
which the primary effects of faulting and ground shaking induce 
secondary effects such as landslides, liquefaction, and 
tsunamis. These secondary effects set off destructive processes 
within the built environment: structures collapse; people are 
injured or killed; infrastructure is disrupted; and business 
interruption begins.\2\ The socioeconomic effects of large 
earthquakes can reverberate for decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3016/2006-3016.pdf.
    \2\National Earthquake Resilience: Research, Implementation, and 
Outreach, National Research Council of the National Academies, 2011, 
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Millions of Americans live in areas vulnerable to storms 
with damaging winds. Windstorms take lives, destroy homes and 
businesses, and cause billions of dollars of damage every year. 
2011 was an exceptionally destructive year--the deadliest year 
for tornadoes in the U.S. since 1936. There were an estimated 
550 fatalities attributed to tornadoes alone in 2011\3\ 
(compared to 564 American deaths in the 10 years prior 
combined).\4\ As populations continue to grow in areas prone to 
hurricanes, tornadoes, and windstorms, vulnerability to severe 
weather will only increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html.
    \4\http://www.norman.noaa.gov/2009/03/us-annual-tornado-death-
tolls-1875-present/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

    Congress created the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program (NEHRP) in 1977 with the passage of the Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Act (P.L. 95-124). Created largely in 
response to the 1964 Alaska Earthquake and the San Fernando 
Earthquake of 1971, the original program called on 10 federal 
agencies to coordinate research and development activities to 
implement an earthquake prediction system; develop design and 
construction methods for earthquake resilience; identify 
seismic hazards, and make model building code and land-use 
recommendations; increase the understanding of earthquake 
risks; and educate the public about earthquakes. The 1980 
reauthorization of the program designated the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency.
    The 2004 reauthorization of NEHRP (P.L. 108-360) changed 
the lead agency from FEMA to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST). This change reflected concern 
that FEMA, newly located in the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), was focused on broader threats, rather than natural 
hazard mitigation. In addition, the legislation established an 
Interagency Coordinating Committee composed of the directors of 
NIST, FEMA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the United 
States Geological Survey (USGS), the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP), and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). To ensure coordination, the Interagency Committee 
was required to meet annually and to develop a strategic plan 
and a coordinated inter-agency budget.
    Over the past 30 years, NEHRP activities have been 
instrumental in developing and advancing earthquake knowledge, 
seismic building codes, and raising the awareness of officials 
and the general public about earthquake hazards.

The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

    The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) was 
established in the last reauthorization of NEHRP. The 
legislation directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), NIST, NSF, and FEMA to support 
activities to improve the understanding of windstorms and their 
impacts, and to develop and encourage the implementation of 
cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. The 
program was authorized for three years through Fiscal Year 
2008.
    OSTP submitted a NWIRP implementation plan in April 2006, 
which assessed programs relevant to the goals of NWIRP across 
eight federal agencies and identified important areas of 
research that were not covered by current activities. Knowledge 
gaps were identified in the three broad categories of research 
authorized in the original NWIRP Act: understanding windstorms; 
assessing the impacts of windstorms; and mitigation against the 
effects of windstorms. The implementation plan also recommended 
a continued role for the Interagency Working Group within the 
National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on 
Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Disaster 
Reduction.

                          IV. Hearing Summary

    On April 7, 2011, the Subcommittee on Technology and 
Innovation of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
held a hearing in anticipation of the reauthorization of NEHRP 
to examine earthquake risk in the United States and to review 
efforts supporting the development of earthquake hazard 
reduction measures, and the creation of disaster-resilient 
communities. The hearing examined various elements of the 
Nation's level of earthquake preparedness and resiliency 
including the U.S. capability to detect earthquakes and issue 
notifications and warnings, coordination between federal, state 
and local stakeholders for earthquake emergency preparation, 
and research and development measures supported by the federal 
government to improve the scientific understanding of 
earthquakes.
    The Committee received testimony from Dr. Jack Hayes, the 
Director of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 
(NEHRP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology; 
Mr. Jim Mullen, the Director of the Washington State Emergency 
Management Division and the President of the National Emergency 
Management Association; Mr. Chris Poland, the Chairman and 
Chief Executive Officer of Degenkolb Engineers and the Chairman 
of the NEHRP Advisory Committee; and Dr. Vicki McConnell, 
Oregon State Geologist and the Director of the Oregon 
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

                       V. Committee Consideration

    On November 15, 2011 the Subcommittee on Technology and 
Innovation met to consider the Committee Print of the Natural 
Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 and ordered it favorably 
forwarded to the Full Committee, as amended, by a record vote 
of 10 yeas and 4 nays.
    On November 18, 2011, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) along with 
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), Rep. 
Lamar Smith (R-TX), and Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) introduced 
the text of the amended Committee Print as H.R. 3479, the 
Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. H.R. 3479 was 
referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the 
Committee on Natural Resources.
    On December 1, 2011, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 3479, as 
amended, by a record vote of 21 yeas to 12 nays. A motion to 
order H.R. 3479, favorably reported to the House, as amended, 
was agreed to by voice vote.

                          VI. Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
Committee adopted H.R. 3479, as amended, by a record vote of 21 
yeas to 12 nays. A motion to order H.R. 3479, favorably 
reported to the House, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
    During Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 
consideration of the Committee Print of the Natural Hazards 
Risk Reduction Act of 2011, the following amendments were 
considered:

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 3479 the 
following amendments were considered:

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

              VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill


                          TITLE I--EARTHQUAKES

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

    H.R. 3479 identifies the four agencies that make up 
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the United States 
Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Science Foundation 
(NSF). The bill defines the responsibilities of NIST as the 
lead Program agency and updates the responsibilities of the 
Program agencies, further detailing current activities.
    H.R. 3479 amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
1977 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee 
for NEHRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to offer 
recommendations and assessments on program developments, 
priorities, coordination, and revisions as necessary. This 
section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the 
Director of NIST on the assessment and its recommendations at 
least every two years.
    The bill amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
1977 to direct USGS to utilize the coordination expertise of 
the lead program agency in organizing post-earthquake 
investigations.
    Title I of H.R. 3479 authorizes a total of $366,000,000 for 
the NEHRP agencies (NIST, FEMA, USGS, and NSF) for Fiscal Years 
2012 through 2014.

                             TITLE II--WIND

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

    H.R. 3479 identifies the four agencies that make up the 
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NIST, NSF, 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and 
FEMA. The bill defines NIST as the new lead program agency; and 
assigns it the responsibilities including: planning and 
coordinating the Program; supporting the development of 
performance-based engineering tools; requesting the assistance 
of Federal agencies other than Program agencies as necessary; 
coordinating all Federal post-windstorm investigations; and 
issuing recommendations related to model building codes as 
warranted based on research or investigative findings.
    H.R. 3479 amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Act of 2004 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory 
Committee for NWIRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to 
offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, 
priorities, coordination, and revisions, as necessary. This 
section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the 
Director of NIST on the assessment and its recommendations at 
least every two years.
    Title II of H.R. 3479 authorizes a total of $64,200,000 for 
the NWIRP agencies (NIST, FEMA, NOAA, and NSF) for fiscal years 
2012 through 2014.

                  TITLE III--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction

    H.R. 3479 combines the Interagency Coordinating Committee 
on Earthquake Hazards Reduction and the National Windstorm 
Impact Reduction Program Interagency Working Group into one 
Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk 
Reduction, chaired by the Director of NIST and comprised of the 
heads of FEMA, USGS, NOAA, NSF, the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), and the head of any other Federal agency the chair of 
the Committee considers appropriate.

Coordination of Federal Disaster Research, Development, and Technology 
        Transfer

    The bill requires the existing Subcommittee on Disaster 
Reduction of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources 
of the National Science and Technology Council, to submit a 
report to Congress 18 months after the date of enactment 
identifying the current Federal research, development, and 
technology transfer activities that address mitigation for all 
types of natural hazards, and how such activities are being 
coordinated to reduce duplication among the various research 
programs.

                    TITLE IV--FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Fire Research Program

    This section amends the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Act to include research into fires at the wildland-
urban interface that are the result of natural causes.

                         VIII. Committee Views


National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

    NEHRP is an important resource for improving public safety. 
The research and development efforts of the program have led to 
improved understanding of the location and effects of 
earthquake hazards as well as how to build and design 
structures to withstand earthquakes. In many earthquake-prone 
communities, the existing built environment would not withstand 
a strong earthquake, and developing tools and methods to 
retrofit existing structures should be a high priority for 
NEHRP.
    The Advisory Committee of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program has recommended that the coordination of post-
earthquake investigations be transferred from USGS to NIST.\5\ 
The Interagency Coordinating Committee responded to the 
recommendation with a number of prerequisites before such a 
transfer should take place, including providing additional 
staffing and research resources to NIST to take on the 
additional responsibility.\6\ The Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee did not believe adequate resources were 
available at NIST to lead the earthquake investigations program 
within the current budget constraints, and therefore, found the 
transfer unadvisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/may_2009_letter2.pdf.
    \6\http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/2009ACEHRReportResponse.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

    Although the program was created in 2004, the NWIRP program 
implementation and coordination has been insufficient. NIST 
leadership will ensure agency efforts for wind-hazard 
mitigation research, development, and technology transfer are 
coordinated, transparent, and effective. As with the earthquake 
program, developing measures to cost-effectively retrofit 
existing structures is of high importance, as is developing 
methods to mitigate the impacts of windstorms on infrastructure 
and lifelines.

Interagency coordination

    The Interagency Coordinating Committee for NEHRP has been 
effective and should continue to ensure the agencies' 
activities are well-coordinated through strategic planning. The 
members of this committee should give the same attention and 
consideration to the NWIRP as well. Federal agencies should 
take advantage of opportunities for more coordination of 
research and development (R&D) across different natural 
hazards. An important initial step is to identify specific 
types of R&D efforts where coordination and collaboration 
across different natural hazards is possible. The Committee 
believes that the National Science and Technology Council's 
Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction can build on its previous 
efforts in the Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction and 
identify areas where current federal natural hazards R&D 
efforts can be better coordinated.

Authorizations

    For the NEHRP program, funding levels were set for each 
participating agency at the fiscal year 2012 request from the 
Administration. This collective amount is approximately six 
percent below the enacted level of funding in fiscal year 2011.
    The Congress recognized the country's fiscal challenges and 
passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 in August. This 
legislation is expected to result in automatic reductions in 
discretional programs in fiscal year 2013 of 7.8 percent. 
Furthermore, cuts to discretionary spending are in addition to 
those cuts resulting from the discretionary spending caps. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, after taking 
those two provisions into account, total discretionary spending 
is not expected to regain its 2011 level until 2021 in nominal 
terms.
    The Committee commends the Administration for recognizing 
the realities of the discretionary budget in its request for 
the NEHRP program. We believe both NEHRP and NWIRP are critical 
programs that need to be reauthorized, and therefore, provided 
for a three year reauthorization for both programs. However, 
the Committee believes that authorizing them at levels higher 
than the President's request would not be appropriate in this 
instance, and likely to result in the agencies having to reduce 
funding for other important research programs.

                    IX. Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight 
hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report.

        X. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and 
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report, including the goal to reauthorize the 
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the 
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) to support 
efforts to mitigate the impacts of natural hazards through 
targeted research and development to better understand and 
prepare for earthquakes and windstorms.

 XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                       XII. Advisory on Earmarks

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, 
the Committee finds that H.R. 3479, the ``Natural Hazards Risk 
Reduction Act of 2011'', contains no earmarks.

                     XIII. Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts, as its own, the cost estimate 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.

               XIV. Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                                  January 10, 2012.
Hon. Ralph M. Hall,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3479, the Natural 
Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3479--Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011

    Summary: H.R. 3479 would reauthorize federal programs aimed 
at developing methods to reduce damage caused by earthquakes 
and windstorms. The bill also would reauthorize an interagency 
advisory committee to coordinate those programs. Assuming 
appropriation of the authorized and necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing the legislation would cost $285 
million over the 2012-2017 period and $10 million after 2017. 
Enacting H.R. 3479 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 3479 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 3479 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 250 
(general science, space, and technology), 300 (natural 
resources and environment), 370 (commerce and housing credit), 
and 450 (community and regional development).
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
3479 will be enacted early in 2012 and that the authorized and 
necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. 
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for 
similar activities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017   2012-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Title I: National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
 Program:
    Estimated Authorization Levela.............        1      122      122        0        0        0       245
    Estimated Outlays..........................        0       52       91       57       25       11       236
Title II: National Windstorm Impact Reduction
 Program:
    Estimated Authorization Levela.............        8       21       21        0        0        0        50
    Estimated Outlays..........................        4       10       16       12        5        2        49
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Authorization Level..........        9      143      143        0        0        0       295
    Estimated Outlays..........................        4       63      107       68       30       13       285
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe estimated authorization level for fiscal year 2012 reflects the difference between the amounts authorized
  under the bill for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National Windstorm Impact
  Reduction Program and the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for those programs. Because some of the
  affected agencies have not allocated their fiscal year 2012 appropriations, CBO estimated the amounts that
  would be allocated to the program based on information from the agencies.

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

    Over the 2012-2014 period, title I would authorize the 
appropriation of $57.7 million a year for the United States 
Geological Survey (USGS), $53.8 million a year for the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), $6.4 million a year for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and $4.1 million a year for 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 
carry out the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
    The affected agencies have received appropriations for 
fiscal year 2012; however, some of those agencies have not 
allocated those funds to specific programs. Based on 
information provided by USGS, FEMA, and NIST, CBO estimates 
that those agencies' allocations for the National Earthquake 
Hazards Reduction Program will exceed the amounts authorized 
under the bill and, therefore, no additional funds would be 
required for those agencies in 2012. Because CBO estimates that 
NSF's allocation of fiscal year 2012 appropriations for the 
program will be $1 million less than the amount that would be 
authorized by H.R. 3479, we estimate that the agency would 
receive an additional appropriation of $1 million in 2012, 
assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts.
    In total, CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of 
title I would cost $236 million over the 2012-2017 period and 
$9 million after 2017.

National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

    Over the 2012-2014 period, title II would authorize the 
appropriation of $9.4 million a year for NSF, $5.3 million a 
year for NIST, $4 million a year for FEMA, and $2.7 million a 
year for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) to carry out the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Program.
    The affected agencies have received appropriations for 
fiscal year 2012; however, some of those agencies have not 
allocated those funds to specific programs. Based on 
information provided by NSF, CBO estimates that the agency's 
allocation for activities carried out under the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program will exceed the amount 
authorized under the bill and, therefore, no additional funds 
would be required for the agency in 2012. Because CBO estimates 
that allocations of fiscal year 2012 appropriations by FEMA, 
NIST, and NOAA for the program will total $8 million less than 
the amounts that would be authorized by H.R. 3479, we estimate 
that those agencies would receive additional appropriations 
totaling $8 million in 2012, assuming appropriation of the 
authorized amounts.
    In total, CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of 
title II would cost $49 million over the 2012-2017 period and 
$1 million after 2017.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3479 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Previous CBO estimate: On June 20, 2011, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for S. 646, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction 
Act of 2011, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation on May 5, 2011. That bill 
would authorize appropriations totaling $846 million over the 
2012-2015 period, whereas H.R. 3479 would authorize 
appropriations totaling $430 million over the 2012-2014 period 
for similar activities. In addition, because the cost estimate 
for S. 646 was completed before the affected agencies received 
their fiscal year 2012 appropriations, the estimate for that 
bill did not account for amounts received in 2012 prior to the 
bill's assumed enactment date. The cost estimates for S. 646 
and H.R. 3479 reflect those differences.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Jeff LaFave; Impact on 
state, local, and tribal governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on 
the private sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                     XV. Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                   XVI. Advisory Committee Statement

    No new advisory committees within the meaning of section 
5(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by the 
legislation. H.R. 3479 reauthorized an Advisory Committee on 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction and a National Advisory Committee 
on Windstorm Impact Reduction. Both terminate 5 years after the 
date of enactment of H.R. 3479.

               XVII. Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                   XVIII. Section-by-Section Analysis


             The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011


Section 1. Short title

    This section sets forth the short title as the ``Natural 
Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.''

Section 2. Table of Contents

    This section provides a table of contents.

                          TITLE I. EARTHQUAKES

Section 101. Short title

    This section sets forth the short title for Title I as the 
``National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization 
Act of 2011.''

Section 102. Definitions

    This section removes the definitions of the ``Interagency 
Coordination Committee'' and the ``Advisory Committee'' from 
Section 4 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.

Section 103. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

    This section identifies the four agencies that make up 
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the United States 
Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Science Foundation 
(NSF). This section also amends the Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Act of 1977 to detail NEHRP activities, which include 
research and development into effective methods, tools, and 
technologies to reduce the risk posed by earthquakes to the 
built environment and to lessen the risk to existing structures 
and lifelines.
    Section 103 defines the responsibilities of NIST as the 
lead Program agency, which include: planning and coordinating 
the Program; supporting the development of performance-based 
seismic engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal 
agencies other than Program agencies as necessary; working with 
Program agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake 
engineering research to use existing facilities and 
laboratories; and issuing recommendations related to model 
codes when warranted by research or investigative findings. 
This section also updates the responsibilities of the Program 
agencies, further detailing current activities.
    Finally, this section amends the Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Act of 1977 to reauthorize and update an existing 
Advisory Committee for NEHRP of relevant non-Federal employee 
experts to offer recommendations and assessments on program 
developments, priorities, coordination, and revisions, as 
necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to 
report to the Director of NIST on the assessment and its 
recommendations at least every two years.

Section 104. Post-Earthquake Investigation Program

    This section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
1977 to direct USGS to utilize the coordination expertise of 
the lead program agency in organizing post-earthquake 
investigations.

Section 105. Authorization of appropriations

    This section provides authorizations of appropriations as 
follows:
    For FEMA: $6,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 
2014.
    For USGS: $57,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 
2014.
    For NSF: $53,800,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 
2014.
    For NIST: $4,100,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 
2014.

                             TITLE II. WIND

Section 201. Short title

    This section establishes the short title for this Title of 
the bill as the ``National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act 
Reauthorization of 2011.''

Section 202. Definitions

    This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Act of 2004 to define the ``Director'' of the Program as the 
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
rather than the Director of the White House Office of Science 
and Technology Policy (OSTP).

Section 203. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

    This section identifies the four agencies that make up the 
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NIST, NSF, 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and 
FEMA; defines NIST as the lead program agency; and assigns 
responsibilities to the four program agencies.
    As the new lead agency, NIST's activities include planning 
and coordinating the Program; supporting the development of 
performance-based engineering tools; requesting the assistance 
of Federal agencies other than Program agencies, as necessary; 
coordinating all Federal post-windstorm investigations; and 
issuing recommendations related to model building codes when 
warranted by research or investigative findings. In addition to 
the lead agency responsibilities, NIST shall also conduct 
research and development to improve model building codes, 
voluntary standards, and best practices for the design, 
construction, and retrofit of buildings, structures, and 
lifelines.
    NSF activities include research in engineering and the 
atmospheric sciences to improve the understanding of the 
behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, 
structures, and lifelines.
    NOAA activities include the support of atmospheric science 
research and data collection to improve the understanding of 
the behavior of windstorms and the impact on buildings, 
structures, and lifelines.
    FEMA activities include the development of risk assessment 
tools and effective mitigation techniques; data collection and 
analysis; and public outreach, information dissemination, and 
implementation of mitigation measures.

Section 204. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction

    This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Act of 2004 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory 
Committee for NWIRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to 
offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, 
priorities, coordination, and revisions, as necessary. This 
section requires the Advisory Committee to report to the 
Director of NIST on the assessment and its recommendations at 
least every two years.

Section 205. Authorization of appropriations

    This section provides authorizations of appropriations as 
follows:
    For FEMA: $4,000,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 
2014.
    For NSF: $9,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.
    For NIST: $5,300,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 
2014.
    For NOAA: $2,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 
2014.

                  TITLE III. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Sec. 301. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk 
        Reduction

    This section combines the Interagency Coordinating 
Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction and the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Interagency Working Group 
into one Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards 
Risk Reduction, chaired by the Director of NIST and comprised 
of the heads of FEMA, USGS, NOAA, NSF, the Office of Science 
and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), and the head of any other Federal agency the 
chair of the Committee considers appropriate. The section 
instructs the Committee to plan and coordinate NEHRP and NWIRP, 
including the development of a strategic plan for each program, 
a progress report on each program, and a coordinated budget for 
both NEHRP and NWIRP.

Sec. 302. Coordination of Federal disaster research, development, and 
        technology transfer

    This section requires the existing Subcommittee on Disaster 
Reduction, of the Committee on Environment and Natural 
Resources of the National Science and Technology Council, to 
submit a report to Congress identifying the current Federal 
research, development, and technology transfer activities that 
address mitigation for all types of natural hazards, and how 
such activities are being coordinated to reduce duplication 
among the various research programs.

Sec. 303. Authorizations

    This section clarifies that no additional funding is 
authorized to carry out the title.

                    TITLE IV. FIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Sec. 401. Fire Research Program

    This section amends the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Act to include research into fires at the wildland-
urban interface that are the result of natural causes.

       XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION ACT OF 1977




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

  As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(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. 5. NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment.--
          (1) In general.--There is established the National 
        Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program to be 
        administered, as provided under this section, by the 
        National Institute of Standards and Technology, the 
        Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States 
        Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation.
          (2) Program activities.--The activities of the 
        Program shall be designed to--
                  [(A) develop effective measures for 
                earthquake hazards reduction;]
                  (A) research and develop effective methods, 
                tools, and technologies to reduce the risk 
                posed by earthquakes to the built environment, 
                especially to lessen the risk to existing 
                structures and lifelines;
                  (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 and 
                retrofitting buildings, structures, and 
                lifelines through--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (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; [and]
                  (D) develop, operate, and maintain an 
                Advanced National Seismic Research and 
                Monitoring System established under section 13 
                of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 
                (42 U.S.C. 7707), the George E. Brown, Jr. 
                Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation 
                established under section 14 of that Act (42 
                U.S.C. 7708), and the Global Seismographic 
                Network[.], as appropriate; and
                  (E) support public education and outreach to 
                assist different populations, including 
                individuals and households with special needs, 
                in preparing for and responding to earthquake-
                related disasters.
          [(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 the 
                        National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
                        Program Reauthorization Act of 2004 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, in accordance 
                        with the plans developed under clause 
                        (i), 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 of at least 11 members, none 
                of whom may be an employee (as defined in 
                subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 
                7342(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
                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 and represent all related 
                scientific, architectural, and engineering 
                disciplines. 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 the National Earthquake 
                Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act 
                of 2004 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.]
  (b) Responsibilities of Program Agencies.--
          [(1) Lead agency.--The 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 shall--
                  [(A) ensure that the Program includes the 
                necessary steps to promote the implementation 
                of earthquake hazard reduction measures by 
                Federal, State, and local governments, national 
                standards and model building code 
                organizations, architects and engineers, and 
                others with a role in planning and constructing 
                buildings and lifelines;
                  [(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;
                  [(C) request the assistance of Federal 
                agencies other than the Program agencies, as 
                necessary to assist in carrying out this Act; 
                and
                  [(D) work with the Federal Emergency 
                Management Agency, the National Science 
                Foundation, and the United States Geological 
                Survey, to develop a comprehensive plan for 
                earthquake engineering research to effectively 
                use existing testing facilities and 
                laboratories (existing at the time of the 
                development of the plan), upgrade facilities 
                and equipment as needed, and integrate new, 
                innovative testing approaches to the research 
                infrastructure in a systematic manner.]
          (1) Lead agency.--The 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 
        shall--
                  (A) ensure that the Program includes the 
                necessary components to promote the 
                implementation of earthquake hazards risk 
                reduction measures by Federal, State, and local 
                governments, national standards and model 
                building code organizations, architects and 
                engineers, and others with a role in planning, 
                constructing, and retrofitting structures and 
                lifelines;
                  (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 model building codes, voluntary 
                standards, and construction best practices;
                  (C) request the assistance of Federal 
                agencies other than the Program agencies, as 
                necessary to assist in carrying out this Act;
                  (D) work with the Federal Emergency 
                Management Agency, the National Science 
                Foundation, and the United States Geological 
                Survey, to develop a comprehensive plan for 
                earthquake engineering research to effectively 
                use existing testing facilities and 
                laboratories (existing at the time of the 
                development of the plan), upgrade facilities 
                and equipment as needed, and integrate new, 
                innovative testing approaches to the research 
                infrastructure in a systematic manner; and
                  (E) when warranted by research or 
                investigative findings, issue recommendations 
                to assist in informing the development of model 
                codes, and provide information to Congress on 
                the use of such recommendations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) United states geological survey.--The United 
        States Geological Survey shall conduct research and 
        other activities necessary to characterize and identify 
        earthquake hazards, assess earthquake risks, monitor 
        seismic activity, and improve earthquake predictions. 
        In carrying out this paragraph, the Director of the 
        United States Geological Survey shall--
                  (A) conduct a systematic assessment of the 
                seismic risks in each region of the Nation 
                prone to earthquakes, including, where 
                appropriate, the establishment and operation of 
                intensive monitoring projects on hazardous 
                faults, [seismic microzonation] detailed 
                seismic hazard and risk studies in urban and 
                other developed areas where earthquake risk is 
                determined to be significant, and engineering 
                seismology studies;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  [(F) operate a National Seismic System;
                  [(G) support regional seismic networks, which 
                shall complement the National Seismic Network; 
                and]
                  (F) operate, in cooperation with the National 
                Science Foundation, a Global Seismographic 
                Network for detection of earthquakes around the 
                world and research into fundamental earth 
                processes;
                  (G) support the operation of regional seismic 
                networks in areas of higher seismic risk;
                  (H) work with the National Science 
                Foundation, the Federal Emergency Management 
                Agency, and the National Institute of Standards 
                and Technology to develop a comprehensive plan 
                for earthquake engineering research to 
                effectively use existing testing facilities and 
                laboratories (in existence at the time of the 
                development of the plan), upgrade facilities 
                and equipment as needed, and integrate new, 
                innovative testing approaches to the research 
                infrastructure in a systematic manner[.];
                  [(I) work with other Program agencies to 
                coordinate Program activities with similar 
                earthquake hazards reduction efforts in other 
                countries, to ensure that the Program benefits 
                from relevant information and advances in those 
                countries; and]
                  (I) work with other Program agencies to 
                maintain awareness of, and where appropriate 
                coordinate with, earthquake risk reduction 
                efforts in other countries to ensure that the 
                Program benefits from relevant information and 
                advances in those countries; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) National science foundation.--The National 
        Science Foundation shall be responsible for funding 
        research on earth sciences to improve the understanding 
        of the causes and behavior of earthquakes, on 
        earthquake engineering, and on human response to 
        earthquakes. In carrying out this paragraph, the 
        Director of the National Science Foundation shall--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (D) support research that improves the safety 
                and performance of buildings, structures, and 
                lifeline systems using large-scale experimental 
                and computational facilities [of the George E. 
                Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering 
                Simulation and other institutions engaged in 
                research and the implementation of the National 
                Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program] of 
                institutions engaged in research and the 
                implementation of the National Earthquake 
                Hazards Reduction Program, which may include 
                the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake 
                Engineering Simulation;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) National institute of standards and technology.--
        In addition to the lead agency responsibilities 
        described under paragraph (1), the National Institute 
        of Standards and Technology shall be responsible for 
        carrying out research and development to improve 
        building codes and standards and practices for 
        structures and lifelines. In carrying out this 
        paragraph, the Director of the National Institute of 
        Standards and Technology shall--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) work closely with national standards 
                organizations and other stakeholders with 
                relevant expertise to develop seismic safety 
                standards and practices for new and existing 
                lifelines; and
                  (D) support the development and commercial 
                application of cost effective and affordable 
                performance-based seismic engineering by 
                providing technical support for seismic 
                engineering practices and related building 
                code, standards, and practices development[; 
                and].
                  [(E) work with the National Science 
                Foundation, the Federal Emergency Management 
                Agency, and the United States Geological Survey 
                to develop a comprehensive plan for earthquake 
                engineering research to effectively use 
                existing testing facilities and laboratories 
                (in existence at the time of the development of 
                the plan), upgrade facilities and equipment as 
                needed, and integrate new, innovative testing 
                approaches to the research infrastructure in a 
                systematic manner.]
  (c) Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction.--
          (1) In general.--The Director of the National 
        Institute of Standards and Technology shall establish 
        an Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, 
        which shall be composed of at least 11 members, none of 
        whom may be employees of the Federal Government, 
        including representatives of research and academic 
        institutions, industry standards development 
        organizations, emergency management agencies, State and 
        local government, and business communities who are 
        qualified to provide advice on earthquake hazards 
        reduction and represent all related scientific, 
        architectural, and engineering disciplines. The 
        recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be 
        considered by Federal agencies in implementing the 
        Program.
          (2) Assessments.--The Advisory Committee on 
        Earthquake Hazards Reduction shall offer assessments 
        on--
                  (A) trends and developments in the natural, 
                social, and engineering sciences and practices 
                of earthquake hazards impact mitigation;
                  (B) the priorities of the Program's Strategic 
                Plan;
                  (C) the coordination of the Program; and
                  (D) any revisions to the Program which may be 
                necessary.
          (3) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory 
        Committee established under this subsection shall serve 
        without compensation.
          (4) Reports.--At least every 2 years, the Advisory 
        Committee shall report to the Director of the National 
        Institute of Standards and Technology on the 
        assessments carried out under paragraph (2) and its 
        recommendations for ways to improve the Program.
          (5) Termination.--The Advisory Committee established 
        under this subsection shall terminate not later than 5 
        years after the date of enactment of the Natural 
        Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.
  [(c)] (d) Budget Coordination.--
          (1) Guidance.--The Interagency Coordinating Committee 
        on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction established under 
        section 301 of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act 
        of 2011 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 11. POST-EARTHQUAKE INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM.

  There is established within the United States Geological 
Survey a post-earthquake investigations program, the purpose of 
which is to investigate major earthquakes, so as to learn 
lessons which can be applied to reduce the loss of lives and 
property in future earthquakes. The United States Geological 
Survey, in consultation with each Program agency and utilizing 
the coordination expertise of the lead Program agency, shall 
organize investigations to study the implications of the 
earthquake in the areas of responsibility of each Program 
agency. The investigations shall begin as rapidly as possible 
and may be conducted by grantees and contractors. The Program 
agencies shall ensure that the results of investigations are 
disseminated widely. The Director of the Survey is authorized 
to utilize earthquake expertise from the Agency, the National 
Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, other Federal agencies, and private contractors, on 
a reimbursable basis, in the conduct of such earthquake 
investigations. At a minimum, investigations under this section 
shall include--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  [(a)(1) General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the President to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of 
this Act (in addition to any authorizations for similar 
purposes included in other Acts and the authorizations set 
forth in subsections (b) and (c) of this section), not to 
exceed $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1979, and not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1980.
  [(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director 
to carry out the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of this Act for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981--
          [(A) $1,000,000 for continuation of the Interagency 
        Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction and the 
        Building Seismic Safety Council programs,
          [(B) $1,500,000 for plans and preparedness for 
        earthquake disasters,
          [(C) $500,000 for prediction response planning,
          [(D) $600,000 for architectural and engineering 
        planning and practice programs,
          [(E) $1,000,000 for development and application of a 
        public education program,
          [(F) $3,000,000 for use by the National Science 
        Foundation in addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated under subsection (c), which amount 
        includes $2,400,000 for earthquake policy research and 
        $600,000 for the strong ground motion element of the 
        siting program, and
          [(G) $1,000,000 for use by the Center for Building 
        Technology, National Bureau of Standards in addition to 
        the amount authorized to be appropriated under 
        subsection (d) for earthquake activities in the Center.
  [(3) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, $2,000,000 to 
carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act.
  [(4) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director, 
to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act, 
$1,281,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983.
  [(5) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director, 
to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act, for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984, $3,705,000 and for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985, $6,096,000.
  [(6) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director, 
to carry out the provisions of section 5 and 6 of this Act, for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, $5,596,000, and for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, $5,848,000.
  [(7) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Director 
of the Agency, to carry out this Act, $5,778,000 for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1988, $5,788,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1989, $8,798,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1990, $14,750,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1991, $19,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1992, $22,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1993, $25,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, $25,750,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, $20,900,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, $21,500,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999; $19,861,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, of which $450,000 is for National 
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program-eligible efforts of an 
established multi-state consortium to reduce the unacceptable 
threat of earthquake damages in the New Madrid seismic region 
through efforts to enhance preparedness, response, recovery, 
and mitigation; $20,705,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002; and $21,585,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2003.
  [(8) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency for carrying out this title--
          [(A) $21,000,000 for fiscal year 2005,
          [(B) $21,630,000 for fiscal year 2006,
          [(C) $22,280,000 for fiscal year 2007,
          [(D) $22,950,000 for fiscal year 2008, and
          [(E) $23,640,000 for fiscal year 2009,
of which not less than 10 percent of available program funds 
actually appropriated shall be made available each such fiscal 
year for supporting the development of performance-based, cost-
effective, and affordable design guidelines and methodologies 
in codes for buildings, structures, and lifelines.
  [(b) Geological Survey.--(1) There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior for purposes for 
carrying out, through the Director of the United States 
Geological Survey, the responsibilities that may be assigned to 
the Director under this Act not to exceed $27,500,000 for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1978; not to exceed 
$35,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979; not 
to exceed $40,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1980; $32,484,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1981; $34,425,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1982; $31,843,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1983; $35,524,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1984; $37,300,200 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985 
$35,578,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986; 
$37,179,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987; 
$38,540,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988; 
$41,819,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989; 
$55,283,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, of 
which $8,000,000 shall be for earthquake investigations under 
section 11; $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1991; $54,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1992; $62,500,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1993; $49,200,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1995; $50,676,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1996; $52,565,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1998, of which $3,800,000 shall be used for the Global Seismic 
Network operated by the Agency; and $54,052,000 for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1999, of which $3,800,000 shall be 
used for the Global Seismic Network operated by the Agency. 
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the 
Interior for purposes of carrying out, through the Director of 
the United States Geological Survey, the responsibilities that 
may be assigned to the Director under this Act $48,360,000 for 
fiscal year 2001, of which $3,500,000 is for the Global Seismic 
Network and $100,000 is for the Scientific Earthquake Studies 
Advisory Committee established under section 210 of the 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 2000; 
$50,415,000 for fiscal year 2002, of which $3,600,000 is for 
the Global Seismic Network and $100,000 is for the Scientific 
Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee; and $52,558,000 for 
fiscal year 2003, of which $3,700,000 is for the Global Seismic 
Network and $100,000 is for the Scientific Earthquake Studies 
Advisory Committee. Of the amounts authorized to be 
appropriated under this paragraph, at least--
          [(A) $8,000,000 of the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1998;
          [(B) $8,250,000 of the amount authorized for the 
        fiscal year ending September 30, 1999;
          [(C) $9,000,000 of the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated for fiscal year 2001;
          [(D) $9,250,000 of the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated for fiscal year 2002; and
          [(E) $9,500,000 of the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated for fiscal year 2003,
shall be used for carrying out a competitive, peer-reviewed 
program under which the Director, in close coordination with 
and as a complement to related activities of the United States 
Geological Survey, awards grants to, or enters into cooperative 
agreements with, State and local governments and persons or 
entities from the academic community and the private sector.
  [(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the United 
States Geological Survey for carrying out this title--
          [(A) $77,000,000 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;
          [(B) $84,410,000 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;
          [(C) $85,860,000 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;
          [(D) $87,360,000 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; and
          [(E) $88,900,000 for fiscal year 2009, 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.
  [(c) National Science Foundation.--(1) To enable the 
Foundation to carry out responsibilities that may be assigned 
to it under this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated 
to the Foundation not to exceed $27,500,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1978; not to exceed $35,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1979; not to exceed 
$40,000,000 for the first year ending September 30, 1980; 
$26,600,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981; 
$27,150,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30 1982; 
$25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983; 
$25,800,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984; 
$28,665,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985 
$27,760,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986; 
$29,009,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987; 
$28,235,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988; 
$31,634,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1989; 
$38,454,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990. Of 
the amounts authorized for Engineering under section 
101(d)(1)(B) of the National Science Foundation Authorization 
Act of 1988, $24,000,000 is authorized for carrying out this 
Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991, and of the 
amounts authorized for Geosciences under section 101(d)(1)(D) 
of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988, 
$13,000,000 is authorized for carrying out this Act for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1991. Of the amounts 
authorized for Research and Related Activities under section 
101(e)(1) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act 
of 1988, $29,000,000 is authorized for engineering research 
under this Act, and $14,750,000 is authorized for geosciences 
research under this Act, for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1992. Of the amounts authorized for Research and Related 
Activities under section 101(f)(1) of the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 1988, $34,500,000 is authorized 
for engineering research under this Act, and $17,500,000 is 
authorized for geosciences research under this Act, for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1993. There are authorized to 
be appropriated, out of funds otherwise authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation: (1) 
$16,200,000 for engineering research and $10,900,000 for 
geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1995, (2) $16,686,000 for engineering research and $11,227,000 
for geosciences research for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1996, (3) $18,450,000 for engineering research and 
$11,920,000 for geosciences research for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, (4) $19,000,000 for engineering research 
and $12,280,000 for geosciences research for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999. There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation $19,000,000 for 
engineering research and $11,900,000 for geosciences research 
for fiscal year 2001; $19,808,000 for engineering research and 
$12,406,000 for geosciences research for fiscal year 2002; and 
$20,650,000 for engineering research and $12,933,000 for 
geosciences research for fiscal year 2003.
  [(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
Science Foundation for carrying out this title--
          [(A) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          [(B) $39,140,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          [(C) $40,310,000 for fiscal year 2007;
          [(D) $41,520,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
          [(E) $42,770,000 for fiscal year 2009.
  [(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--(1) To 
enable the National Institute of Standards and Technology to 
carry out responsibilities that may be assigned to it under 
this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated $425,000 for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981; $425,000 for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1982; $475,000 for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1983; $475,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1984; $498,750 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1985 $499,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1986; $521,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1987; $525,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1988; $525,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1989; $2,525,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1990; $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1991; $3,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1992; and $4,750,000 for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1993. There are authorized to be appropriated, 
out of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, $1,900,000 for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, $1,957,000 for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, $2,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, $2,060,000 for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, $2,332,000 for fiscal 
year 2001, $2,431,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $2,534,300 for 
fiscal year 2003.
  [(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology for carrying out this 
title--
          [(A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005,
          [(B) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2006,
          [(C) $12,100,000 for fiscal year 2007,
          [(D) $13,310,000 for fiscal year 2008, and
          [(E) $14,640,000 for fiscal year 2009,
of which $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.]

SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency for carrying out this Act--
          (1) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          (2) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          (3) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  (b) United States Geological Survey.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the United States Geological Survey for 
carrying out this Act--
          (1) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          (2) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          (3) $57,700,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  (c) National Science Foundation.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying 
out this Act--
          (1) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          (2) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          (3) $53,800,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  (d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There 
are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology for carrying out this Act--
          (1) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          (2) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          (3) $4,100,000 for fiscal year 2014.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 14. NETWORK FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SIMULATION.

  [(a) Establishment.--]The Director of the National Science 
Foundation shall establish the George E. Brown, Jr. 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 to the National Science Foundation for the George 
E. Brown, Jr. 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;
          [(4) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
          [(5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, all of which 
        shall be available for operations and maintenance;
          [(6) $20,400,000 for fiscal year 2006, all of which 
        shall be available for operations and maintenance;
          [(7) $20,870,000 for fiscal year 2007, all of which 
        shall be available for operations and maintenance;
          [(8) $21,390,000 for fiscal year 2008, all of which 
        shall be available for operations and maintenance; and
          [(9) $21,930,000 for fiscal year 2009, all of which 
        shall be available for operations and maintenance.]
                              ----------                              


            NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION ACT OF 2004



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

  In this title:
          (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the 
        [Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
        Policy] Director of the National Institute of Standards 
        and Technology.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 204. NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM.

  [(a) Establishment.--There is established the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
  [(b) Objective.--The objective of the Program is the 
achievement of major measurable reductions in losses of life 
and property from windstorms. The objective is to be achieved 
through a coordinated Federal effort, in cooperation with other 
levels of government, academia, and the private sector, aimed 
at improving the understanding of windstorms and their impacts 
and developing and encouraging implementation of cost-effective 
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.
  [(c) Interagency Working Group.--Not later than 90 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish 
an Interagency Working Group consisting of representatives of 
the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and 
other Federal agencies as appropriate. The Director shall 
designate an agency to serve as Chair of the Working Group and 
be responsible for the planning, management, and coordination 
of the Program, including budget coordination. Specific agency 
roles and responsibilities under the Program shall be defined 
in the implementation plan required under subsection (e). 
General agency responsibilities shall include the following:
          [(1) The National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology shall support research and development to 
        improve building codes and standards and practices for 
        design and construction of buildings, structures, and 
        lifelines.
          [(2) The National Science Foundation shall support 
        research in engineering and the atmospheric sciences to 
        improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms 
        and their impact on buildings, structures, and 
        lifelines.
          [(3) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration shall support atmospheric sciences 
        research to improve the understanding of the behavior 
        of windstorms and their impact on buildings, 
        structures, and lifelines.
          [(4) The Federal Emergency Management Agency shall 
        support the development of risk assessment tools and 
        effective mitigation techniques, windstorm-related data 
        collection and analysis, public outreach, information 
        dissemination, and implementation of mitigation 
        measures consistent with the Agency's all-hazards 
        approach.]
  (a) Establishment.--There is established the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, the purpose of which is to 
achieve major measurable reductions in the losses of life and 
property from windstorms through a coordinated Federal effort, 
in cooperation with other levels of government, academia, and 
the private sector, aimed at improving the understanding of 
windstorms and their impacts and developing and encouraging the 
implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce 
those impacts.
  (b) Responsibilities of Program Agencies.--
          (1) Lead agency.--The National Institute of Standards 
        and Technology shall have the primary responsibility 
        for planning and coordinating the Program. In carrying 
        out this paragraph, the Director shall--
                  (A) ensure that the Program includes the 
                necessary components to promote the 
                implementation of windstorm risk reduction 
                measures by Federal, State, and local 
                governments, national standards and model 
                building code organizations, architects and 
                engineers, and others with a role in planning 
                and constructing buildings and lifelines;
                  (B) support the development of performance-
                based engineering tools, and work with 
                appropriate groups to promote the commercial 
                application of such tools, including through 
                wind-related model building codes, voluntary 
                standards, and construction best practices;
                  (C) request the assistance of Federal 
                agencies other than the Program agencies, as 
                necessary to assist in carrying out this Act;
                  (D) coordinate all Federal post-windstorm 
                investigations; and
                  (E) when warranted by research or 
                investigative findings, issue recommendations 
                to assist in informing the development of model 
                codes, and provide information to Congress on 
                the use of such recommendations.
          (2) National institute of standards and technology.--
        In addition to the lead agency responsibilities 
        described under paragraph (1), the National Institute 
        of Standards and Technology shall be responsible for 
        carrying out research and development to improve model 
        building codes, voluntary standards, and best practices 
        for the design, construction, and retrofit of 
        buildings, structures, and lifelines.
          (3) National science foundation.--The National 
        Science Foundation shall support research in 
        engineering and the atmospheric sciences to improve the 
        understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their 
        impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines.
          (4) National oceanic and atmospheric 
        administration.--The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration shall support atmospheric sciences 
        research and data collection to improve the 
        understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their 
        impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines.
          (5) Federal emergency management agency.--The Federal 
        Emergency Management Agency shall support the 
        development of risk assessment tools and effective 
        mitigation techniques, windstorm-related data 
        collection and analysis, public outreach, information 
        dissemination, and implementation of mitigation 
        measures consistent with the Agency's all-hazards 
        approach.
  [(d)] (c) Program Components.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Windstorm impact reduction.--Activities to reduce 
        windstorm impacts shall include--
                  [(A) development of improved outreach and 
                implementation mechanisms to translate existing 
                information and research findings into cost-
                effective and affordable practices for design 
                and construction professionals, and State and 
                local officials;]
                  (A) development of improved outreach and 
                implementation mechanisms to translate--
                          (i) existing information and research 
                        findings into cost-effective and 
                        affordable practices for design and 
                        construction professionals, and State 
                        and local officials; and
                          (ii) research, including social 
                        science research, into windstorm risk 
                        mitigation and preparedness strategies 
                        for individuals and households, 
                        including individuals and households 
                        with special needs, and businesses;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) Implementation Plan.--Not later than 1 year after date 
of enactment of this title, the Interagency Working Group shall 
develop and transmit to the Congress an implementation plan for 
achieving the objectives of the Program. The plan shall 
include--
          [(1) an assessment of past and current public and 
        private efforts to reduce windstorm impacts, including 
        a comprehensive review and analysis of windstorm 
        mitigation activities supported by the Federal 
        Government;
          [(2) a description of plans for technology transfer 
        and coordination with natural hazard mitigation 
        activities supported by the Federal Government;
          [(3) a statement of strategic goals and priorities 
        for each Program component area;
          [(4) a description of how the Program will achieve 
        such goals, including detailed responsibilities for 
        each agency; and
          [(5) a description of plans for cooperation and 
        coordination with interested public and private sector 
        entities in each program component area.
  [(f) Biennial Report.--The Interagency Working Group shall, 
on a biennial basis, and not later than 180 days after the end 
of the preceding 2 fiscal years, transmit a report to the 
Congress describing the status of the windstorm impact 
reduction program, including progress achieved during the 
preceding two fiscal years. Each such report shall include any 
recommendations for legislative and other action the 
Interagency Working Group considers necessary and appropriate. 
In developing the biennial report, the Interagency Working 
Group shall consider the recommendations of the Advisory 
Committee established under section 205.]

[SEC. 205. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION.

  [(a) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a National 
Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction, consisting of 
not less than 11 and not more than 15 non-Federal members 
representing a broad cross section of interests such as the 
research, technology transfer, design and construction, and 
financial communities; materials and systems suppliers; State, 
county, and local governments; the insurance industry; and 
other representatives as designated by the Director.
  [(b) Assessment.--The Advisory Committee shall assess--
          [(1) trends and developments in the science and 
        engineering of windstorm impact reduction;
          [(2) the effectiveness of the Program in carrying out 
        the activities under section 204(d);
          [(3) the need to revise the Program; and
          [(4) the management, coordination, implementation, 
        and activities of the Program.
  [(c) Biennial Report.--At least once every two years, the 
Advisory Committee shall report to Congress and the Interagency 
Working Group on the assessment carried out under subsection 
(b).
  [(d) Sunset Exemption.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act shall not apply to the Advisory Committee 
established under this section.]

SEC. 205. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION.

  (a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology shall establish an Advisory Committee 
on Windstorm Impact Reduction, which shall be composed of at 
least 7 members, none of whom may be employees of the Federal 
Government, including representatives of research and academic 
institutions, industry standards development organizations, 
emergency management agencies, State and local government, and 
business communities who are qualified to provide advice on 
windstorm impact reduction and represent all related 
scientific, architectural, and engineering disciplines. The 
recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be considered 
by Federal agencies in implementing the Program.
  (b) Assessments.--The Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact 
Reduction shall offer assessments on--
          (1) trends and developments in the natural, social, 
        and engineering sciences and practices of windstorm 
        impact mitigation;
          (2) the priorities of the Program's Strategic Plan;
          (3) the coordination of the Program; and
          (4) any revisions to the Program which may be 
        necessary.
  (c) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory Committee 
established under this section shall serve without 
compensation.
  (d) Reports.--At least every 2 years, the Advisory Committee 
shall report to the Director on the assessments carried out 
under subsection (b) and its recommendations for ways to 
improve the Program.
  (e) Termination.--The Advisory Committee shall terminate not 
later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Natural 
Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  [(a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency for carrying out this title--
          [(1) $8,700,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          [(2) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          [(3) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  [(b) National Science Foundation.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying 
out this title--
          [(1) $8,700,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          [(2) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          [(3) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  [(c) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There 
are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology for carrying out this title--
          [(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          [(2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          [(3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  [(d) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--There 
are authorized to be appropriated to the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration for carrying out this title--
          [(1) $2,100,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          [(2) $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          [(3) $2,200,000 for fiscal year 2008.]

SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Federal Emergency Management Agency.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency for carrying out this title--
          (1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          (2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          (3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  (b) National Science Foundation.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying 
out this title--
          (1) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          (2) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          (3) $9,400,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  (c) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There 
are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology for carrying out this title--
          (1) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          (2) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          (3) $5,300,000 for fiscal year 2014.
  (d) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--There 
are authorized to be appropriated to the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration for carrying out this title--
          (1) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2012;
          (2) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
          (3) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2014.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


           NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
  Sec. 16. (a) There is hereby established within the 
Department of Commerce a Fire Research Center which shall have 
the mission of performing and supporting research on all 
aspects of fire with aim of providing scientific and technical 
knowledge applicable to the prevention and control of fires. 
The content and priorities of the research program shall be 
determined in consultation with the Administrator of the United 
States Fire Administration. In implementing this section, the 
Secretary is authorized to conduct, directly or through 
contracts or grants, a fire research program, including--
          (1) basic and applied fire research for the purpose 
        of arriving at an understanding of the fundamental 
        processes underlying all aspects of fire. Such research 
        shall include scientific investigations of--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (D) the early stages of fires in buildings 
                and other structures, structural subsystems and 
                structural components in all other types of 
                fires, including, but not limited to, fires at 
                the wildland-urban interface that are the 
                result of natural causes, forest fires, brush 
                fires, fires underground, oil blowout fires, 
                and waterborne fires, with the aim of improving 
                early detection capability;
                  (E) the behavior of fires involving all types 
                of buildings and other structures and their 
                contents (including mobile homes and highrise 
                buildings, construction materials, floor and 
                wall coverings, coatings, furnishings, and 
                other combustible materials), and all other 
                types of fires, including fires at the 
                wildland-urban interface that are the result of 
                natural causes, forest fires, brush fires, 
                fires underground, oil blowout fires, and 
                waterborne fires;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


                         XXI. Dissenting Views

    We strongly support the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program (NEHRP) and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program (NWIRP), but we must reluctantly oppose H.R. 
3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, because 
of the damage this bill will do to these vital programs.
    Americans face significant exposure to natural hazards, and 
each year natural hazards cause significant damage in 
communities throughout the U.S. It is estimated that the 
economic costs associated with the unprecedented number of 
disasters experienced in the U.S. this year alone will exceed 
$45 billion.
    We believe that the best way to minimize the loss of lives 
and property, as well as moderate disruptions to our economy, 
is by helping our communities become more resilient to 
disasters. NEHRP and NWIRP have proven track records in 
bolstering the resiliency of our communities through 
advancements in monitoring and building practices and increased 
awareness and preparation by the public.
    As the authorizing Committee with jurisdiction over these 
important programs, it is our responsibility to outline the 
objectives of the programs as well as the role and 
responsibilities of each of the agencies involved. 
Additionally, we have an obligation to authorize the funding 
that we believe is needed by the agencies to effectively carry 
out all of what we have required of them.
    Unfortunately, H.R. 3479 proposes drastic cuts to the 
authorization levels of these critical programs. It reduces the 
authorization level for NEHRP by 36 percent and NWIRP by 14 
percent when compared to the last year the programs were 
authorized. Furthermore, it weakens both programs by cutting 
the programs by 6 percent below fiscal year 2011 spending 
levels.
    We do not have any reason to believe, nor has the Committee 
received any testimony that would support the premise that 
these agencies need any less money to carry out their 
responsibilities than we determined was necessary when we last 
authorized these programs in 2004 under Republican leadership. 
Yet, H.R. 3479 fails to take a single step to reduce or 
minimize the obligations of these agencies to justify the 
reduction in authorized funding. Without a corresponding 
reduction in responsibilities, we are doing nothing less than 
setting these agencies up to fail.
    Democratic Members of the Committee attempted to reverse 
these proposed cuts and ensure that the agencies have the 
resources necessary to fulfill their Congressional mandates. 
One amendment would have restored funding authorizations to the 
levels included in the last authorization. Another amendment 
would have replaced the authorization numbers with the 
authorization numbers in the bipartisan bill that passed the 
House last Congress and is currently making its way through the 
Senate. These were both reasonable and informed amendments, and 
we are disappointed that they were rejected along party lines.
    In addition to our concerns about cutting funding for these 
important programs, we are disappointed that the bill fails to 
implement a 2008 NEHRP Advisory Committee recommendation that 
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) take 
over responsibility for coordinating post-earthquake 
investigations. In 2004, NIST was given the task of serving as 
the lead agency for NEHRP, and it follows that NIST should be 
responsible for coordinating all of the program's activities, 
including post-earthquake investigations.
    The bipartisan bill that passed the House last Congress 
included this transfer. The bipartisan bill currently moving 
through the Senate also includes this change. In fact, the 
original version of H.R. 3479 considered by the Technology and 
Innovation Subcommittee last month also included this change. 
Unfortunately, at the Subcommittee markup, a Republican 
amendment was accepted that reversed the transfer of this 
responsibility. We do not suspect that the Majority had a 
change of heart with respect to whether the transfer to NIST is 
the best policy. Instead, we believe they were constrained by 
their legislative protocols and could not provide NIST with the 
resources necessary to coordinate post-earthquake 
investigations without also slashing funding from the other 
NEHRP agencies that are already struggling to meet their 
responsibilities under the program.
    We believe that, as an authorizing Committee, our first and 
foremost concern should be establishing the best policy. That 
is why a Democratic amendment was offered to reinstate the 
transfer of responsibility for post-earthquake investigations 
to NIST and to increase NIST's authorization to accommodate 
this new responsibility. We are disappointed that this 
amendment was also rejected along party lines.
    We share the Majority's interest in getting a 
reauthorization of these important programs enacted into law as 
quickly as possible, but not at the cost of damaging the 
ability of these programs to effectively carry out their 
mission to save American lives and limit property damage. We 
sincerely hope that we will be able to work together in a 
bipartisan manner to accomplish these goals as we move forward.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Lynn Woolsey.
                                   Jerry F. Costello.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Terri Sewell.
                                   Jerry McNerney.
                                   Paul Tonko.
                                   Marcia L. Fudge.
                                   Hansen Clarke.
                                   Brad Miller.
                                   Donna F. Edwards.



                 XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
                     ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION'S
                       MARKUP ON COMMITTEE PRINT,
             THE NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, November 15, 2011

                  House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in 
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin 
Quayle [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman Quayle. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee of 
Technology and Innovation will come to order. Pursuant to 
notice the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation meets 
today to consider the following measure. Committee Print, the 
``Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.''
    We will now proceed with the markup beginning with opening 
statements. I am going to be brief as it is my intention to 
yield the balance of my time to Ms. Biggert.
    I am pleased to call the markup this morning for 
consideration of the Committee Print of the Natural Hazards 
Risk Reduction Act of 2011.
    As we have tragically witnessed this year, earthquakes and 
windstorms take lives, destroy homes and businesses, and cause 
billions of dollars of damage in the United States and around 
the world. The effects of these disasters can reverberate for 
decades. Portions of all 50 states are vulnerable to earthquake 
hazards, and according to the United States Geological Survey 
26 urban areas in 14 U.S. states face significant seismic risk.
    Though infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural 
hazards in that they strike without warning. Millions of 
Americans across the U.S. live in areas vulnerable to storms 
with damaging winds, and as populations continue to grow in 
areas prone to hurricanes, tornados, and windstorms, our 
vulnerability to severe weather will only increase.
    This past April our subcommittee held a hearing examining 
earthquake risks in the United States and our efforts to 
develop hazard reduction measures. I am pleased that 
Congresswoman Biggert plans to introduce the ``Natural Hazards 
Risk Reduction Act of 2011,'' which will address important 
research and development activities to reduce the risk and 
impact of earthquake and windstorm hazards.
    I want to thank Representative Biggert and Representative 
Neugebauer for collaborating on this effort. I look forward to 
moving this important legislation forward.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Quayle follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Ben Quayle
    I am pleased to call the markup this morning for consideration of a 
Committee Print of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.
    As we have tragically witnessed this year, earthquakes and 
windstorms take lives, destroy homes and businesses, and cause billions 
of dollars of damage in the United States and around the world. The 
effects of these disasters can reverberate for decades.
    Portions of all 50 states are vulnerable to earthquake hazards, and 
according to the United States Geologic Survey, twenty-six urban areas 
in fourteen U.S. states face significant seismic risk. Though 
infrequent, earthquakes are unique among natural hazards in that they 
strike without warning.
    Millions of Americans across the U.S. live in areas vulnerable to 
storms with damaging winds, and as populations continue to grow in 
areas prone to hurricanes, tornadoes, and windstorms, our vulnerability 
to severe weather will only increase.
    This past April, our Subcommittee held a hearing examining 
earthquake risk in the United States and our efforts to develop hazard 
reduction measures. I am pleased that Congresswoman Biggert plans to 
introduce the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, which will 
address important research and development activities to reduce the 
risk and impact of earthquake and windstorm hazards.
    The Committee Print we are considering today will reauthorize the 
activities of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP, 
"KNEE-hurp) and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP, 
"N-whirp"). Over the years, NEHRP has been instrumental in developing 
and advancing earthquake knowledge, seismic building codes, and raising 
the awareness of both officials and the general public to earthquake 
hazards. NWIRP has supported activities to improve the understanding of 
windstorms and their impacts, and to develop and encourage the 
implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce these 
effects. Both programs are targeted federal research and development 
efforts to mitigate the loss of life and property due to wind and 
earthquake related hazards.
    I want to thank Representatives Biggert and Neugebauer for 
collaborating on this effort, and I look forward to moving this 
important legislation forward. I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentle lady from Illinois, for any comments she may have.

    Chairman Quayle. I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlelady from Illinois for any comments she may have.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
scheduling this important markup today, I haven't had the 
opportunity to congratulate the Ranking Member Edwards for 
taking over this important Subcommittee.
    The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 reauthorizes 
two important multi-agency programs that address hazards faced 
by millions of Americans. The National Earthquake Hazard 
Reduction Program, also known as NEHRP, whose name should be 
very difficult to talk about, and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program, known as NWIRP, support research and 
development to better understand and prepare for earthquakes 
and windstorms.
    Briefly, the committee print includes a few changes to 
NEHRP Program that improves its mission and reduces duplicity. 
These changes include reauthorizing the program for three 
years, further detailing the role of NIST as the lead program 
agency, updating the existing advisory committee for NEHRP to 
offer recommendations and assessments on programs, 
developments, priorities, and coordination. The committee print 
also directs an interagency coordinating committee chaired by 
the director of NIST with overseeing the planning and 
coordination of both the earthquake and wind hazard programs.
    The single interagency coordinating committee replaces two 
separate interagency committees overseeing the current 
earthquake and windstorm programs and provides a framework for 
coordination of a multi-hazards approach to mitigating national 
disasters.
    As co-chair of the High Performance Building Caucus we 
frequently hold briefings on building safety and security, a 
defining attribute of a high-performing building. In fact, we 
held a briefing in April on seismic readiness of the U.S. 
building inventory and the importance of updating building 
codes and standards to mitigate our risks in communities.
    The NEHRP data and monitoring information is the foundation 
for those safety codes and standards. Without it we wouldn't 
understand what areas of our country are most risk prone and 
what areas are least prepared. That is why I believe the 
reauthorization of this program is important for all of us. A 
little knowledge and improvement in earthquake risk measures go 
a long way in protecting life and property.
    Mr. Chairman, the committee print has been endorsed by the 
American Geophysical Union and the National Council of 
Structural Engineers Associations, and I urge members to 
support this legislation and yield the balance of time to Mr. 
Neugebauer for any comments he may have on the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Biggert follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this important markup today.
    The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 reauthorizes two 
important multi-agency programs that address hazards faced by millions 
of Americans. The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, also 
known as NEHRP ["KNEE-HURP"] and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program, known as NWIRP ["N-WHIRP"] support research and 
development to better understand and prepare for earthquakes and 
windstorms.
    Briefly, the committee print includes a few changes to the NEHRP 
program that improve its mission and reduce duplication. Those changes 
include:

        
  Reauthorizing the program for three years;

        
  Further detailing the role of NIST as the lead 
        program agency of NEHRP;

        
  Updating the existing Advisory Committee for NEHRP to 
        offer recommendations and assessments on program developments, 
        priorities, and coordination.

        
  he Committee Print also directs an interagency 
        coordinating committee, chaired by the Director of NIST, with 
        overseeing the planning and coordination of both the earthquake 
        and wind hazards programs. The single interagency coordinating 
        committee replaces two separate interagency committees 
        overseeing the current earthquake and windstorm programs, and 
        provides a framework for coordination of a multi-hazards 
        approach to mitigating natural disasters.

    As co-chair of the High Performance Buildings Caucus, we frequently 
hold briefings on building `safety and security', a defining attribute 
of a high-performing building. In fact, we held a briefing in April on 
the seismic readiness of the U.S. building inventory and the importance 
of updated building codes and standards to mitigating risk in 
communities. The NEHRP data and monitoring information is the 
foundation for those safety codes and standards. Without it, we 
wouldn't understand what areas of our country are most risk-prone - and 
what areas are least prepared.
    That's why I believe the reauthorization of this program is 
important for all of us; a little knowledge and improvement in 
earthquake risk measures go a long way in protecting life and property.
    Mr. Chairman, the Committee Print has been endorsed by the American 
Geophysical Union and the National Council of Structural Engineers 
Associations. I urge Members to support this legislation, and I hope we 
can see it through the rest of the legislative process in a timely 
manner.
    I now yield the balance of my time to Mr. Neugebauer for any 
comments he may have on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Program.

    Mr. Neugebauer. I thank the gentlewoman, and I will be 
brief as well. The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 
as mentioned authorizes the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Program or NWIRP Program that I first introduced in 2004. It 
focuses on mitigating the damage from wind hazards through 
research designed to help us better understand the behavior and 
impacts of windstorms.
    The program includes research and development to improve 
model codes, voluntary standards, and construction practices 
for buildings and lifelines, basic research to better under 
windstorms, atmospheric science research, and data collection 
and the development of risk assessment tools and mitigation 
techniques.
    The original authorization for NWIRP expired in 2008, and 
although some agency work in this area has continued, it is 
currently difficult to determine the impact of agency 
activities and spending on wind hazards or reduction measures. 
This committee print makes changes to NWIRP to bring increased 
transparency to the program, including naming NIST as the lead 
program agency which would ensure improved coordination and 
planning for agency activities.
    I would like to thank Chairman Quayle for holding this 
markup today and Representative Biggert for her commitment to 
reauthorizing these programs. I would also like to note that 
the Windstorm Bill I introduced in October, which has been 
included in the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act has been 
endorsed by the American Society of Civil Engineers. I believe 
we should work to get these important programs reauthorized, 
and I look forward to working with other members to strengthen 
this committee print in preparation for introduction.
    Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer and Mrs. 
Biggert. I now recognize Ms. Edwards for five minutes to 
present her opening remarks.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Chairman Quayle and thank you to 
Mrs. Biggert and Mr. Neugebauer for your contributions and for 
holding today's markup to reauthorize two important programs; 
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Ms. Biggert, 
I share your concern, NEHRP, and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program, NWIRP.
    The reauthorization of these programs is very timely as 
there have been a record number of declared federal disasters 
in the U.S. this year resulting in economic damage exceeding 
$45 billion. It is already the deadliest year for tornados in 
the United States since 1936, with 550 fatalities so far. The 
images of devastation from our colleague Congresswoman Sewell's 
district in Alabama and those of an almost completely flattened 
Joplin, Missouri, were nothing less than heartbreaking. Even in 
my own district and state we suffered hurricane and wind damage 
this year, and I have had earthquake damage, in fact, at my 
home.
    The best way to minimize the loss of lives and property 
caused by natural disasters as well as reduce disruptions for 
our economy is to create communities that are disaster 
resilient. NEHRP and NWIRP support research and development 
programs to better understand earthquakes and windstorms and 
their impact and to improve the resiliency of buildings and 
critical lifelines.
    This work has led to advancements in monitoring and 
building practices and has increased awareness and preparation 
by the public. Today's committee print makes a number of 
important improvements to these programs, including 
establishing NIST as the lead agency for both NEHRP and NWIRP 
and placing the responsibility for inner-agency coordination in 
the hands of agency directors who have the authority to make 
both budgetary and programmatic decisions.
    I am pleased that we are also able to work together over 
the last week on additional changes that we will consider as 
part of the manager's amendment.
    Despite this and my strong support for the reauthorizations 
of these programs, I do still have some concerns with the 
committee print that we are considering today. First, even 
though these programs have proven track records in bolstering 
the resiliency of our communities and reducing the costs 
associated with natural hazards and despite the fact that 
experts have expressed concern that sufficient--insufficient 
funding has negatively impacted the implementation of these 
programs and contributed to the loss of low-cost mitigation 
opportunities, the committee print that we are considering 
today cuts the funding authorizations for these programs and 
then freezes funding over the authorization period.
    When we consider the devastating losses that have plagued 
the United States this year and the potential costs associated 
with a larger-scale disaster like the earthquake in Japan, this 
course of action seems irresponsible.
    I urge my colleagues to consider the long-term savings 
these programs will provide. Studies of FEMA's Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation Program have shown that for every dollar we invest 
in mitigation activities we actually save $3 to $4 in recovery 
costs. We can and should be doing more to help our communities 
be prepared so we can realize those cost savings.
    In addition, despite the leadership's attempts to clarify 
authorization protocol, confusion remains. Not only is it 
increasingly difficult for my Democratic colleagues to 
understand what the rules of the road are at any given moment 
or how to craft amendments that comply with them, I think this 
uncertainty has actually resulted in some bad policy.
    In this case we have a combination of seemingly arbitrary 
numbers that seem to be justified only by an effort to comply 
with certain protocol and not on real-world need and the 
experiences that we have had in our communities.
    I also want to take a moment to talk about a disturbing 
trend that seems to be emerging, and that is on bills that have 
traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Such as this there 
has been a startling lack of outreach, although to be fair, the 
majority did ask for input on today's committee print, which I 
do appreciate, but only because the previously-scheduled markup 
was postponed due to factors not within control of the 
majority. And so thankfully we have had an opportunity to 
participate at some level in this committee print.
    In the last Congress the markup of the previous iteration 
of the bill was preceded by weeks and perhaps months of 
outreach and negotiation with minority. As a result we 
incorporated many Republican ideas, legislative priorities in 
the bill, and Ranking Member Smith agreed to be an original 
cosponsor. That bill ultimately passed I think on a suspension 
vote by a vote of 335 to 50, which included the support of many 
notable Republican members, including our Speaker Majority 
Leader Cantor and Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy.
    This was a terrific example of bipartisan legislating, and 
it was a better bill as a result of the process. I think the 
bipartisanship does take work, and it takes a willingness, and 
I know a willingness certainly that I shared with Mrs. Biggert 
to compromise, and I think that has been noticeably lacking, at 
least in this process.
    So I sincerely hope that the members of the subcommittee 
can move forward in a more productive and bipartisan manner in 
the future and particularly on issues such as these which have 
historically benefited from bipartisan support, and I would 
note that over on the Senate side this has moved in a 
bipartisan fashion, and it would seem that if we want to get to 
a point where we have a bill that is signed into law, that we 
should proceed in that direction.
    And with that I yield.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Donna Edwards
    Thank you, Chairman Quayle, for holding today's markup to 
reauthorize two important programs, the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Program-or NEHRP [knee-herp] and the National Windstorm 
Impact Reduction Program-or NWIRP [N- werp].
    The reauthorization of these programs is very timely as there have 
been a record number of declared Federal disasters in the U.S. this 
year, resulting in economic damage exceeding $45 billion. It is already 
the deadliest year for tornadoes in the U.S. since 1936, with 550 
fatalities so far. The images of devastation from our colleague 
Congresswoman Sewell's district in Alabama and those of an almost 
completely flattened Joplin, Missouri were nothing less than 
heartbreaking.
    The best way to minimize the loss of lives and property caused by 
natural disasters, as well as reduce disruptions to our economy, is to 
create communities that are disaster resilient. NEHRP and NWIRP support 
research and development programs to better understand earthquakes and 
windstorms and their impact, and to improve the resiliency of buildings 
and critical lifelines. This work has lead to advancements in 
monitoring and building practices, and has increased awareness and 
preparation by the public.
    Today's Committee Print makes a number of important improvements to 
these programs, including establishing NIST as the lead agency for both 
NEHRP and NWIRP and placing the responsibility for interagency 
coordination in the hands of agency directors who have the authority to 
make both budgetary and programmatic decisions. I am pleased that we 
were also able to work together over the last week on additional 
changes that we will consider as part of the Manager's Amendment.
    Despite this and my strong support for the reauthorization of these 
programs, I do have some concerns with the Committee Print that we are 
considering today. First, even though these programs have proven track 
records in bolstering the resiliency of our communities and reducing 
the cost associated with natural hazards, and despite the fact that 
experts have expressed concern that insufficient funding has negatively 
impacted the implementation of these programs and contributed to the 
loss of low-cost mitigation opportunities, the Committee Print cuts the 
funding authorization for these programs and then freezes funding over 
the authorization period. When we consider the devastating losses that 
have plagued the U.S. this year and the potential costs associated with 
a large-scale disaster like the earthquake in Japan, this course of 
action seems irresponsible.
    I urge my colleagues to consider the long-term savings these 
programs will provide. Studies of FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation 
program have shown that for every dollar we invest in mitigation 
activities, we save $3 to $4 dollars in recovery costs. We can, and 
should, be doing more to help our communities be prepared so we can 
realize these cost savings.
    In addition, despite your attempts to clarify authorization 
protocols, confusion remains. Not only is it increasingly difficult for 
my Democratic colleagues to understand what the rules of the road are 
at any given moment or how to craft amendments that comply with them, I 
believe that the uncertainty is resulting in bad policy. In this case, 
we have a combination of seemingly arbitrary numbers that seem to be 
justified only by an effort to comply with an absurd protocol and not 
on any real-world need.
    I also want to take a moment to talk about a disturbing trend that 
seems to be emerging. On bills which have traditionally enjoyed 
bipartisan support, there has been a startling lack of outreach by the 
Majority prior to markup. To be fair, the Majority did ask for our 
input on today's Committee Print, but only because the previously-
scheduled markup was postponed due to factors not within the control of 
the Majority. Had this markup proceeded as originally scheduled, we 
would not have been provided an opportunity for input.
    In the last Congress, the markup of the previous iteration of this 
bill was preceded by weeks, and perhaps months, of outreach to and 
negotiation with the Minority. As a result, we actively incorporated 
Republican ideas and legislative priorities into the bill, and Ranking 
Member Smith agreed to be an original co-sponsor. That bill ultimately 
passed the House by a vote of 335-50, which included the support of the 
following notable Republican Members: Ms. Biggert, Speaker John 
Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy. 
This was a great example of bipartisan legislating, and it was a better 
bill as a result of the process. Bipartisanship takes work, and it 
takes a willingness to compromise that has been noticeably lacking by 
the Majority this Congress.
    I sincerely hope that the members of this subcommittee can move 
forward in a productive and bipartisan manner in the future, 
particularly on issues such as these which have historically benefitted 
from bipartisan support. That's what produces good policy, and that's 
what our constituents want us to do.
    Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. There being no 
further discussion, without objection all member opening 
statements will be placed in the record at this point.
    We will now consider the committee print, ``The Natural 
Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.'' Without objection I ask 
unanimous consent that the committee print is considered as 
read and open to amendment at any point and that members 
proceed with amendments in the order listed on the roster. So 
ordered.
    [The Committee Print appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Quayle. Are there any amendments to the committee 
print?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Quayle. Are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment in the nature of a substitute?
    Ms. Edwards. I am.
    Chairman Quayle. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 001, amendment in the nature of 
a substitute to the committee print offered by Ms. Edwards of 
Maryland.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Quayle. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I am offering 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. This substitute is 
actually based on the text of the bipartisan bill from last 
Congress. I firmly believe that this bill is a better starting 
point for our subcommittee because it stands a better chance of 
actually being enacted into law.
    I do want to thank Mrs. Biggert for working with me on the 
manager's amendment to address some concerns in the underlying 
bill. I hope this subcommittee continues to work together and 
in the future will work together from the outset to conceive 
the best legislative product that can receive support on both 
sides of the aisle.
    Given the bipartisan cooperation that has taken place on 
the Senate side, Senators Boxer and Hutchison in reporting 
hazards reduction legislation out of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, it seems that this is one place where this 
subcommittee might also strike a bipartisan agreement.
    The bill from last Congress was a product of extensive 
bipartisan negotiations between members of this committee. We 
sought to make the bill something of which all of the members 
of this committee could be proud. We solicited suggestions and 
feedback from the minority and made changes based on that 
feedback.
    As I stated earlier, this included months and weeks of 
negotiation and included making significant adjustments to the 
authorization levels we had originally proposed. As a result 
then Ranking Member Smith joined as an original cosponsor of 
the bill, and it was passed by this committee unanimously.
    In contrast, the committee print that we are considering 
today was shared with us just days before the originally-
scheduled markup, and there was no attempt to incorporate our 
feedback. Although obviously with the postponement we were able 
to incorporate feedback, which I appreciate Ms. Biggert's 
support in, in the committee print, and we did appreciate that 
unexpected postponement that allowed an opportunity to share 
our concerns.
    I am pleased that we are going to address some of the low-
hanging fruit through the manager's amendment later today, 
something that should--that would not have taken place had the 
markup proceeded as originally scheduled.
    Unfortunately, though, this collaboration has not spilled 
over to our most significant concerns with the bill. Namely the 
low authorization levels and decision to flat fund these 
agencies over the life of the bill. Last Congress we made 
changes to our authorization numbers to ensure it had 
bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the majority has not shown a 
similar willingness this time around.
    Last Congress we also worked with the other committees with 
jurisdiction over these programs to ensure that their 
priorities were reflected. In order for a bill to get to the 
floor and pass it needs the support of these other committees. 
We shared our draft bill with our colleagues on these other 
committees and ended up making changes, including changes to 
some of the authorization numbers to get their support.
    As a result of these efforts our bill passed the House on 
the suspension calendar. Unfortunately, in this case I am 
concerned that majority has not worked closely enough with the 
other committees of jurisdiction to ensure a clear and smooth 
process through the House.
    I would point out that the agencies which drew the short 
straws in this effort are agencies which are primarily or 
wholly outside of this committee's jurisdiction. It makes me 
question the commitment of the majority to actually move a bill 
through the House and similarly through the Senate that we can 
get to the President's desk for his signature. We seem to be 
thumbing our noses, in fact, at these other committees.
    In addition, our bill from last Congress is a bill that is 
currently moving through the Senate. The bill already has been 
reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee, and as we 
understand it from our colleagues in the Senate, it is likely 
to be considered and passed by the Senate in the near future.
    If we are committed to getting these programs reauthorized, 
the truth is that we need the support of the Senate. We know 
our previous bill has the Senate support, but I am not 
confident that we will get it with this committee print.
    The Senate bill also has the support of more than 15 
stakeholder organizations representing engineers, scientists, 
building code officials, architects, and emergency management 
response leaders. Certainly the top priority of the 
stakeholders is to get these programs reauthorized, but I am 
also fairly certain that they would uniformly prefer the Senate 
bill over this committee print.
    The language in this substitute is identical to the 
language contained in the bill that passed the House last 
Congress with two slight modifications. Since the fiscal year 
2012 NWIRP numbers for NIST and NOAA in the committee print are 
closer to the numbers we originally proposed last Congress 
before we negotiated them down with then Ranking Member Smith 
in an effort to garner his support, we have chosen to include 
the majority's authorization numbers for NIST and NOAA in this 
amendment and adjust those numbers for inflation for fiscal 
years 2013 and 2014.
    Mr. Chairman, let us get these important programs 
reauthorized. Let us move the bill that we know can garner 
bipartisan support in the House and that concurrently has 
bipartisan support and momentum in the Senate. I urge adoption 
of this substitute amendment.
    Chairman Quayle. I thank the Ranking Member Edwards for her 
amendment, and I will rise in opposition. I am opposed to this 
amendment for a number of reasons, not the least of which being 
that it would negate the entire committee print before us.
    This amendment increases the funding authorization levels 
well above the committee print into President's requested 
levels for the first fiscal year and continues to increase 
spending every year of the authorization.
    It also authorizes the program for five years rather than 
3. In the difficult fiscal crisis our country is facing, the 
current committee print represents a responsible 
reauthorization of two programs which are important to our 
national safety and security. A number of organizations have 
supported the committee print, demonstrating support for 
reauthorization, and Congresswoman Biggert has presented a 
vehicle that will provide a real opportunity for 
reauthorization of the programs.
    The amendment in the nature of a substitute also modifies 
and expands the activities of the agencies. We must be 
cognizant of our budget environment, and therefore, the 
committee print does not add significantly to agency 
responsibilities but rather provides guidance on continuing 
ongoing programs in need of reauthorization.
    Additionally, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
expands the committee print and the statutes that are not 
currently addressed in the bill.
    Finally, I understand that the manager's amendment that 
Representative Biggert intends to offer today was worked out in 
a bipartisan manner, and I believe that amendment represents a 
good-faith effort to meet in the middle on a number of issues. 
While we were not able to include everything in that amendment, 
there are a number of changes included in that amendment that 
strengthen the committee print. And while there are areas of 
policy differences, they were not so substantial as to merit 
consideration of an entirely different vehicle at today's 
markup in the form of this amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    For these reasons I must oppose the gentlelady's amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    The gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry that 
we haven't reached an agreement here. I always try to be the 
most bipartisan and this has worked, for example, in the 
Financial Services Committee this year. We worked with 
everybody and found that a bill passed out of Financial 
Services, the National Flood Bill, 54 to nothing, which 
everybody turned around and said, what happened? It was so 
unusual for that committee.
    This Committee to me has always had a very bipartisan 
nature. That is one of the reasons that I really like serving 
on it, so I am concerned about all the rhetoric that I have 
just heard. This is a different Congress, and a different 
sponsor. This is a different make up of the Committee; we have 
reached out to the other Committees that may have jurisdiction, 
and there was one that said that they didn't want anything to 
do with it, and if it went over there, it was going to be a 
problem.
    So, we have tried to cut this as closely as we can to be 
able to get this to the Floor and to get it over to the Senate. 
It is also a different Senate than what was set up there.
    I do have three concerns, and that is the five-year 
authorization, and I would think that the three years is better 
in these economic times, and the flat funding as the chairman 
said was at the President's request instead of the ascending 
increases in out year spending that totals $618 million more 
than the committee print and adds $113 million more over a 
comparative three years. We just can't afford it right now. We 
can't spend money that we don't have, and if we keep it lower, 
we have much more of an opportunity of being able to 
reauthorize these programs.
    The committee print closely parallels current mission and 
responsibility of hazards research versus the expanding scope 
of research beyond current statute, and you have to remember 
that this is a committee print. There is no bill yet, and that 
is why we have done this is to have the input, and I know that 
my staff has spent a lot of time with your staff and other 
members over there, and I think that is the way that this 
should work.
    And so I just don't think that we can go back to the former 
bill, and with that I would oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Quayle. I thank the gentlelady.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Quayle. Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Hall.
    Chairman Hall. I would like to oppose the amendment. I am 
not happy to, but I listened very carefully to the young lady, 
and she always is eloquent and makes good points, but when she 
talks about low-hanging fruit, you know, that is usually the 
most expensive because it is the easiest gathered.
    And I looked at this first and had my mind made up that I 
couldn't be for it because it added over $100 million, and I 
looked a little closer. It is not just $100 million. It is $618 
million when compared with the committee print. This isn't the 
time to be spending that kind of money or extending the time of 
authorization.
    For those reasons I oppose the amendment and urge a no 
vote.
    Chairman Quayle. I thank the Chairman. Is there any further 
discussion on the amendment?
    Hearing no further discussion on the amendment, are there 
any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
    Hearing none, the vote occurs on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentlelady from Maryland. 
All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The no's 
have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Quayle. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Quayle?
    Chairman Quayle. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Quayle votes no.
    Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Wilson?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes aye.
    Ms. Johnson?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Quayle. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, three members vote aye, and ten 
members vote no.

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Quayle. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments to the committee print?
    For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Quayle. The next amendment is offered by the 
gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. The clerk will report 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 0045, amendment to the 
committee print offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Quayle. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain 
her amendment.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment before 
us was worked out in a bipartisan manner among committee staff, 
and I believe represents a good-faith effort to meet in the 
middle on a number of issues. While we were not able to include 
everything in this amendment, there are a number of changes 
included that strengthen the committee print, and I appreciate 
the Ranking Member's willingness to work with me on these 
provisions.
    Briefly, the manager's amendment includes the following 
provisions. Number one is to add social science to the trends 
in science that the Advisory Committee for the Earthquake and 
Wind Program should examine.
    Number two, it articulates that one of the activities of 
the NEHRP Program is supporting public education and outreach 
to help prepare for and respond to earthquakes. Number three, 
it provides for the termination of the Earthquake and Windstorm 
Advisory Committees five years after enactment.
    And number four, strengthens the coordination of research, 
development, strategic planning, and budgeting across the 
federal disaster programs. The manager amendment I think adds 
language to ensure coordination, not duplication, of disaster 
activities within the Federal Government.
    And with that I would urge support for the amendment.
    Chairman Quayle. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment 
and for her good-faith efforts working in a bipartisan manner 
to strengthen the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
    Are there any other comments or Members who want to discuss 
the amendment?
    Ms. Edwards.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I am pleased 
to support Ms. Biggert in this manager's amendment, and I do 
appreciate that with the committee print having had our ability 
to have the--to have input on the committee print, although, 
obviously, there are other things that we would like to do to 
strengthen it, it is really important for us to have had a role 
in trying to strengthen what is before us.
    And so I appreciate her willingness to work with us. The 
amendment makes some important improvements to the committee 
print. For example, we have been concerned on this side of the 
aisle that activities within NEHRP and NWIRP are not 
sufficiently coordinated with relevant activities at non-
program agencies. Specifically in hearings earlier this year we 
heard from officials at the Department of Homeland Security, 
Science and Technology Directorate, and the Department of 
Transportation's Research and Innovation Technology 
Administration about work they were performing to improve the 
disaster resiliency of our Nation's communities to earthquakes.
    However, when asked how those efforts were being 
coordinated with NEHRP, they indicated there was limited 
interaction. We need to make sure that we are leveraging 
resources across the entire Federal Government and that one 
agency is not duplicating efforts already underway at another 
agency.
    Therefore, I am pleased that we were able to work together 
to bolster inner-agency coordination in this manager's 
amendment. The manager's amendment also addresses our concerns 
about terminating the advisory committees at the end of the 
authorization period. If I have learned anything during my time 
in Congress it is that even well-intentioned efforts to get 
programs reauthorized on time fall short.
    I am pleased that the manager's amendment ensures that the 
agencies will continue to benefit from the oversight and 
counsel of the advisory committees even if we are unable to get 
reauthorization--a reauthorization bill over the finish line 
before the authorization expires.
    These improvements as well as a number of other important 
changes make the bill we are considering today better, and I, 
again, want to thank Mrs. Biggert for working with this side to 
address some of our concerns in the manager's amendment, and I 
urge its adoption.
    Chairman Quayle. I thank the gentlelady.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment 
is agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments to the committee print?
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Quayle. For what purpose does the gentleman seek 
recognition?
    Chairman Hall. I have an amendment at the desk, amendment 
number 011.
    Chairman Quayle. The next amendment is offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 011, amendment to the committee 
print offered by Mr. Hall of Texas.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Quayle. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Chairman Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the 
markup, and I appreciate the interest and efforts of both Mrs. 
Biggert and Congressman Neugebauer and the minority, the 
support that they have given.
    The committee print before us today proposes to change the 
leadership of the earthquake investigations from the United 
States Geological Survey to the National Institute for 
Standards and Technology. However, after gathering additional 
feedback from various stakeholders we talk about how it will 
better go in the Senate and how it would better progress as it 
moves across the Floor.
    It appears that we need a better understanding of the 
current system of investigation before transferring this 
responsibility to NIST. So my amendment would essentially 
maintain the status quo, keeping the current responsibility and 
funding for post-earthquake investigations at the U.S. 
Geological Survey, while also asking USGS to use the 
coordination expertise of the Earthquake Program's lead agency, 
NIST, when conducting such investigations.
    I urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Quayle. I thank the gentleman, and I will 
recognize myself in support of this amendment.
    I thank the chairman of the full committee for his 
amendment, which removes the transfer of responsibility and the 
funding for the coordination of post-earthquake investigations 
from the United States Geological Survey to NIST. Rather than 
transferring this role to NIST, this amendment directs USGS to 
utilize the coordination expertise of NIST in organizing 
investigations on the implications of earthquakes by each of 
the agencies in the NEHRP Program.
    Furthermore, the amendment adjusts the authorization 
amounts of the United States Geological Survey and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, bringing both program 
authorizations in line with the Administration's agency's 
fiscal year 2012 budget request.
    In the difficult fiscal crisis our country is facing, the 
amendment represents a good-faith effort and a responsible 
reauthorization of the program. I look forward to continuing to 
work with Chairman Hall and other members of the committee, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Quayle. The gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, 
although I appreciate that Chairman Hall wants to make sure 
that NIST is not forced to take on responsibility for 
coordinating post-earthquake investigation if it is not 
provided with funding it needs to fulfill that responsibility, 
but I am concerned that the motivation for the amendment is not 
really the best policy. Instead its compliance with the 
confusing set of legislative protocols regarding where we are 
pushing and pulling funding.
    We just spoke to the importance of the advisory committees 
here and yet the NEHRP advisory committee in its 2008 report 
recommended the transfer of post-earthquake investigations from 
USGS to NIST, consistent with NIST's role as the program's lead 
agency. In hearing after hearing we heard expert testimony 
praise the job NIST had done as a lead agency.
    Furthermore, the experts are in agreement that it is 
appropriate for NIST to also coordinate post-earthquake 
investigations under the program, and when we talked to NEHRP 
agencies about making this change in the bipartisan bill passed 
by the House last Congress, they were supportive of the change.
    The bipartisan bill making its way through the Senate right 
now, which is based on the bipartisan House bill from last 
Congress, also authorizes this transfer.
    But as I understand it both USGS and FEMA have 
understandably expressed concern that their authorizations were 
cut by 13 percent and 18 percent below current spending levels 
in the committee print so that the NIST authorization level 
could be raised to accommodate the transfer of the 
responsibility.
    And so it is not that the policy is wrong. It is that the 
funding levels are wrong, and the other agencies have suffered 
cuts that have to be absorbed. The truth is that all of the 
NEHRP agencies including USGS and FEMA are already under-funded 
at existing spending levels. The NEHRP Advisory Committee and 
the stakeholder community at large have indicated that current 
spending levels are inadequate and the pace of implementation 
of the program is being compromised to the point that 
opportunities for low-cost mitigation measures are being lost.
    The NEHRP agencies can't afford any further spending cuts. 
That is clear, and in this time of budget uncertainty, federal 
agencies are fighting to protect every single cent.
    But here is the rub. Either we think it is good policy for 
NIST to coordinate post-earthquake investigations or we don't. 
Either we take the recommendations of the advisory committee or 
we don't, and we if we think it is good policy, we should 
authorize that transfer and provide NIST with the resources it 
needs to carry out the responsibility, and those resources 
should not come at the expense of other NEHRP agencies who are 
already struggling to meet their responsibilities under the 
program.
    As an authorizing committee our primary objective should be 
to make good and reasonable policies. Unfortunately, what this 
amendment proposes doesn't have anything to do with what is 
good or reasonable in terms of the policy implication. Instead 
it is only concern is compliance with what I believe are 
misguided funding protocols.
    We simply can't legislate in this kind of way. It doesn't 
serve the American people, and we will suffer disasters that we 
won't be able to respond to because we are approaching this in 
the wrong way. The members of this committee, our agencies, and 
our constituents deserve better than that, and for this reason 
I cannot support the amendment.
    And with that I yield.
    Chairman Quayle. Thank the gentlelady.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment 
is agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments to the committee print?
    Mr. Lipinski. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Quayle. The next amendment is offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. The clerk will report 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 036, amendment to the committee 
print offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Quayle. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
begin by thanking my fellow Illinoisan, my neighbor, Ms. 
Biggert, for authorizing this committee print. As well as 
thanking her, Chairman Hall, and Chairman Quayle for working 
with me to address some of my concerns in the manager's 
amendment.
    There is one additional issue I would like to address in 
this amendment that I am offering. An amendment to ensure that 
social science research is adequately included in the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program.
    This year's tornado season was one of the worst in this 
country's history, killing 546 people and causing $6.5 billion 
in damage throughout the midwest and the south. I believe that 
research into resilient structures as envisioned by this 
legislation's authors will certainly help reduce the impact of 
these storms.
    But in addition a better understanding of how both 
organizations and individuals respond to disasters will lead to 
more resilient institutions in response and planning strategies 
that save lives. Many people erroneously believe that calling 
911 after a major disaster will bring them help within an hour, 
the highway overpasses are a good place to shelter from a 
tornado, or that opening windows can help equalize pressure to 
prevent damage to a house.
    None of these are true, and I think social science research 
is important if we want to understand why these myths are so 
pervasive and that we can better inform Americans about safe 
actions to take, or if we want to improve institutional 
structures, disaster response plans, or risk assessments, that 
is how the institutions that we have set up, local law 
enforcement, others respond to these disasters. We want to make 
improvements to that. Social science research can help.
    My amendment would include social science research in end 
work in a similar manner to how it is now included in the 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program in this legislation. When 
tornados or hurricanes strike, the behavior of people and 
organizations matter, and I believe that the Impact Reduction 
Program should include what we know about behavior.
    Adopting my amendment would make sure that we are using all 
the information at our disposal to improve disaster resiliency 
strategies for our communities and to help make Americans 
safer.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski, and I want to 
thank you for your amendment, and I appreciate your desire to 
include language regarding the use of social science research 
to inform windstorm risk mitigation and preparedness strategies 
in NWIRP. The bipartisan manager's amendment considered today 
includes provisions adding social science to the list of 
different scientific disciplines assessed by the advisory 
committees for both the wind and earthquake programs.
    I am concerned about highlighting the role of research and 
social sciences over other types of science research. I just--
what are you considering to be included in social science?
    And I yield to you to answer these questions.
    Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The information about--such as what people know about 
response, what--how people, first of all, how people respond to 
disasters, how then they expect the institutions that we have 
set up, mostly law enforcement, others that they go and deal 
with, how they interact with them when there is an emergency. 
How they respond to warnings that come from say the National 
Weather Service, understand what they do so that we have a much 
better understanding of the behavior that people engage in 
because I think people can be much safer than they are. Those 
myths that I had mentioned, I mean, certainly those are things 
that, you know, I remember hearing growing up, opening windows 
to equalize the pressure would make a difference.
    Those things don't work. There are things that people can 
do, I believe, that work, and I think by bringing social 
science research and learning about people's behaviors, 
learning about institutions' behaviors. The communications 
between different jurisdictions in an emergency. These are all 
types of things that can help in--to mitigate problems that 
occur, windstorms. We just included this in NEHRP with the 
manager's amendment, and I think that would also be helpful in 
this section of the bill.
    Chairman Quayle. Reclaiming my time, I just am concerned 
about how the specificity of listing this type of research when 
other types of research aren't specified in this bill. I just 
don't know if this is going to create some unintended 
consequences of focusing on and highlighting social science 
research.
    Do you think that it is necessary to include this type of 
specificity when they are already doing this type of research 
going forward? Is this specificity actually needed when that 
will be a part of the broader research that is going to go on 
with NWIRP and NEHRP?
    And I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Well, the only place when it comes 
to NWIRP that the social science research is included is in the 
advisory committee's assessment of the program, and I think if 
we are going to say in an advisory committee's assessment of 
the program that we should use social science research, I think 
it also makes sense to include that in the broader part of this 
section of this legislation.
    Ad it was included in the bill that passed out of this 
committee on last year, and I think it would be good to 
continue to include that because it is something that is 
sometimes forgotten and not considered. That is why we included 
it last year.
    Chairman Quayle. I guess it goes back to the question, is 
the specificity for social sciences necessary in the broader 
bill when other types of research are not specifically labeled 
out? When you do list things, a lot of interpretation will go, 
well, they did list social sciences, but they didn't list 
others. So social sciences should take precedence.
    And I yield to you just to try to clarify that.
    Mr. Lipinski. Well, a 2006 National Research Council's 
report on NEHRP noted that the efforts are needed to compare 
catastrophic events and to examine societal responses in 
relation to variables such as warning time, magnitude, scope, 
and duration of impact. And the report found that more social 
science research is needed to understand long-term disaster 
recovery.
    So the NRC said that more social science research is 
necessary when it comes to emergencies, and so I think that is 
why we included that last year in this bill because NRC says it 
has been missing, and it tends to be overlooked.
    Chairman Quayle. Okay. Well, thank you, and I think I just 
do have some concerns--I agree with you that people need to 
understand this, but specifying this in this manner, I don't 
know if it is the best way to go about it when we already do 
have the advisory committee where it is specified out.
    But I do appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, and 
is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    The gentlelady from Maryland is recognized.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I didn't think I 
would speak, but I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, 
and I have to tell you when I joined this committee and sat 
through a number of hearings that we held on the importance of 
social science research, it was something actually completely 
new to me, but I think as my colleague rightfully points out, 
that if we want to create communities that are resilient to 
disasters, we need to understand the behavior of the people in 
those communities. This includes understanding what an 
individual does when a tornado or hurricane warning is issued, 
as well as what motivates people to develop an emergency plan 
or to retrofit their home to withstand high winds associated 
with tornadoes or hurricanes before they happen.
    We can also perform all the engineering and natural science 
research we like, but in the grand scheme of things if we don't 
have a clear understanding of the human element in disaster 
mitigation, preparedness, and response, then the efforts may be 
for naught.
    Building disaster-resilient communities will take an inner-
disciplinary approach that includes social science research in 
order to make sure that we have strong communities. I would 
note that in the underlying statute there actually are a couple 
of the areas where specific kinds of research are specified.
    So, for example, there is research, development, and 
technology transfer to improve loss estimation and risk 
assessment. There is research, development, and technology 
transfer to improve simulation and computational modeling and 
windstorm impacts. This would add another area of research in 
an area where there are certain areas of specificity with 
respect to research.
    And I think it would be a strong component because it 
wouldn't do us any good to have, you know, all the other 
research that we do, the engineering changes that we make, and 
then not to understand how it is that people are going to 
respond in a natural disaster.
    And with that I yield.
    Chairman Quayle. Thank the gentlelady.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to.
    Are there any other amendments to the committee print?
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Quayle. The next amendment is offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 003, amendment to the committee 
print offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Quayle. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The bipartisan version of this bill from last Congress 
included a fire research title to ensure that NIST continues to 
carry out important research on fires in the wildland-urban 
interface, which is where homes and communities are tucked in 
and intermixed with wildlands such as forests and grasslands.
    Unfortunately, that title is missing from the committee 
print that we are considering today. As more and more 
communities are expanding into areas in and around forests and 
other wildlands, it is more critical than ever that we conduct 
this important research.
    For this reason my amendment restores this important fire 
research provision. Since the bipartisan bill passed the House 
last Congress, the severity of the U.S. fire problem has grown, 
and the amount of damage caused by fires at the wildland-urban 
interface has risen.
    In fact, from January through September of this year we saw 
more than 7.7 million acres burn across the U.S. This is the 
fifth worst year on record for wildfires with the southwest 
being hit particularly hard. According to the National Inner-
agency Fire Center, there have been more than 7,000 wildfires 
in New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. Both my State of New Mexico 
and neighboring Arizona have seen more than a million acres 
burned.
    In fact, both States have suffered the largest wildfires in 
their histories. The wildfire which burned in the White 
Mountains in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico was 
declared the largest fire in Arizona history, causing an 
estimated $109 million in damage, burning over half a million 
acres, destroying 72 building, and injuring 16 people.
    Also in June the Las Conchas fire in my district burned 
more than 104,000 acres in just 6 days. More than 100 buildings 
were destroyed, and 15 people were injured by the fire, which 
blackened the slopes of the Hemus Mountains and threatened both 
the Los Alamos, the community of Los Alamos and the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory.
    The truth is while we do not currently have a complete 
understanding of how fires behave in the wildland-urban 
interface, this lack of understanding is limiting our ability 
to develop effective fire safety systems and technologies. In 
the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 we charged NIST 
with supporting fire research to help preserve and control 
fires. My amendment updates the statute to ensure that NIST 
continues to conduct research on fires occurring specifically 
in the wildland-urban interface.
    This fire research will help us minimize the spread of 
wildland fires into communities through tools that predict and 
reduce fire risks, post-fire investigations, improve fire codes 
and standards, and safe and effective use of emerging fire 
technologies. Addressing these research needs is essential if 
we are going to reduce losses from fire and increase the 
resiliency of buildings and infrastructure.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment 
and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Quayle. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank him 
for his amendment and appreciate his desire to amend the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to include 
the ability for NIST to conduct research into fires at 
wildland-urban interface.
    In general I am supportive of NIST conducting this work. 
However, it is important to consider how this amendment changes 
the scope of the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act, which 
amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and the 
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004.
    I am concerned about Mr. Lujan's amending the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Act, potentially opening 
the bill to provisions that are not in NEHRP or NWIRP Programs.
    Thus I would ask that Mr. Lujan consider withdrawing this 
amendment. I would welcome the chance the work together on this 
subject as the committee print moves forward through the 
legislative process because it is a very important issue, and I 
look forward to working with the gentleman from New Mexico 
going forward, if you would be willing to withdraw your 
amendment.
    Mr. Lujan. If the chairman would yield.
    Chairman Quayle. I yield.
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I understand and appreciate the 
majority's concerns about how the provisions may open us up to 
non-related amendments from the House Floor, and I certainly 
respect the desire to preserve this committee's product, and I 
am very open to working on some agreeable language if there is 
a hard commitment to do so before full committee markup.
    Chairman Quayle. Absolutely.
    Mr. Lujan. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw 
the amendment.
    Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Lujan.
    The amendment is withdrawn for the record.
    Are there any other amendments to the committee print?
    Hearing none, the question is on the committee print, the 
``Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011,'' as amended. All 
those in favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In 
the opinion of the chair the ayes have it.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Quayle. The gentlelady from Maryland.
    Ms. Edwards. Well, finish up first. I would ask for a 
recorded vote.
    Chairman Quayle.Recorded vote. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle?
    Chairman Quayle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes aye.
    Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes aye.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes aye.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes aye.
    Mr. Hall?
    Chairman Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes no.
    Ms. Wilson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Chairman Quayle. The clerk will report. Mr. Hultgren.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren is not recorded.
    Chairman Quayle. The gentleman from Illinois?
    Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
    Chairman Quayle. Any other members who want to be 
recognized?
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, ten members voting aye, and four 
members voting no.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Quayle. The committee print is agreed to.
    The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized.
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to include in the hearing record letters of support for 
the reauthorization of the Natural Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 
from the American Geophysical Union, the American Society of 
Civil Engineers, the National Earthquake Hazards Risk Reduction 
Coalition, and the National Council of Structural Engineers 
Association.
    Chairman Quayle. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
  Additional Material for the Record Submitted by Representative Judy 
                                Biggert

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Quayle. I now recognize myself to offer a motion. 
I move that subcommittee forward the committee print, the 
``Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011,'' as amended to 
the full committee.
    Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the 
subcommittee report and make necessary technical and conforming 
changes.
    Questions on the motion to forward the committee print as 
amended. Those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes 
have it, and the committee print is favorably reported.
    Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the 
table. I move that members may have two subsequent calendar 
days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional 
views on the measure.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    This concludes our subcommittee markup. The chairman 
declares the subcommittee adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


   Committee Print: THE NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011, 
       Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendments, Amendment Roster



<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

Section-by-Section Description of Committee Print: The Natural Hazards 
                       Risk Reduction Act of 2011

Section 1. Short Title

    This section sets forth the short title as the "National Hazards 
Risk Reduction Act of 2011."

Section 2. Table of Contents

    This section provides a table of contents.

                          Title I. EARTHQUAKES

Section 101. Short Title

    This section sets forth the short title for Title I as the 
"National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 
2011."

Section 102. Definitions

    This section removes the definitions of the "Interagency 
Coordination Committee" and the "Advisory Committee" from Section 4 of 
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.

Section 103. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

    This section identifies the four agencies that make up National 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the 
National Science Foundation (NSF). This section also amends the 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to detail NEHRP activities, 
which include researching and developing effective methods, tools, and 
technologies to reduce the risk posed by earthquakes to the built 
environment, especially to lessen the risk to existing structures and 
lifelines.
    Section 103 defines the responsibilities of NIST as the lead 
Program agency, which include: planning and coordinating the Program; 
supporting the development of performance-based seismic engineering 
tools; requesting the assistance of Federal agencies other than Program 
agencies as necessary; working with Program agencies to develop a 
comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to use existing 
facilities and laboratories; coordinating all Federal post-earthquake 
investigations; and issuing recommendations to assist in informing 
model codes when warranted by research or investigative findings. This 
section also updates the responsibilities of the Program agencies, 
further detailing current activities.
    Finally, this section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act 
of 1977 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for 
NEHRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to offer recommendations 
and assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and 
revisions as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to 
report to the Director of NIST on the assessment and its 
recommendations at least every two years.

Section 104. Post-Earthquake Investigation Program

    This section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 
reassigning to NIST the lead agency responsibility for the NEHRP post-
earthquake investigations program. The lead agency shall continue to be 
responsible for coordinating investigations after major earthquakes, in 
order to gather information and data to learn lessons that may be 
applied to reduce the loss of life and property in future earthquakes.

Section 105. Authorization of Appropriations

    This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows:

          For FEMA: $6,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For USGS: $54,200,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NSF: $53,800,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NIST: $7,500,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

                             Title II. WIND

Section 201. Short Title

    This section establishes the short title for this Title of the bill 
as the "National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization Act of 
2011."

Section 202. Definitions

    This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 
2004 to define the "Director" of the Program as the Director of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology rather than the Director 
of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

Section 203. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

    This section identifies the four agencies that make up the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NIST, NSF, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and FEMA; defines NIST 
as the lead program agency; and assigns responsibilities to the four 
program agencies.
    As the new lead agency, NIST's activities include planning and 
coordinating the Program; supporting the development of performance-
based engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal agencies 
other than Program agencies as necessary; coordinating all Federal 
post-windstorm investigations; and issuing recommendations to assist in 
informing model codes when warranted by research or investigative 
findings. In addition to the lead agency responsibilities, NIST shall 
also conduct research and development to improve model building codes, 
voluntary standards, and best practices for the design, construction, 
and retrofit of buildings, structures, and lifelines.
    NSF activities include research in engineering and the atmospheric 
sciences to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and 
their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines.
    NOAA activities include the support of atmospheric science research 
to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their 
impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines.
    FEMA activities include the development of risk assessment tools 
and effective mitigation techniques; data collection and analysis; and 
public outreach, information dissemination and implementation of 
mitigation measures.

Section 204. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction

    This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 
2004 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for NWIRP 
of relevant non-Federal employee experts to offer recommendations and 
assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and 
revisions as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to 
report to the Director of NIST on the assessment and its 
recommendations at least every two years.

Section 205. Authorization of Appropriations

    This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows:

          For FEMA: $4,000,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NSF: $9,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NIST: $5,300,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NOAA: $2,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

                  Title III. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Sec. 301. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards

RRisk Reduction

    This section combines the Interagency Coordinating Committee on 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program Interagency Working Group into one Interagency 
Committee on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction, chaired by the Director of 
NIST and comprised of the heads of FEMA, USGS, NOAA, NSF, the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), and the head of any other Federal agency the chair of the 
Committee considers appropriate. The section instructs the Interagency 
Committee to plan and coordinate NEHRP and NWIRP, including the 
development of a strategic plan for each program, a progress report on 
each program, and a coordinated budget for both NEHRP and NWIRP.

Sec. 302. Coordination of Federal Disaster Research, Development,

and Technology Transfer

    This section requires the existing Subcommittee on Disaster 
Reduction, of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the 
National Science and Technology Council, to submit a report to Congress 
identifying the current Federal research, development, and technology 
transfer activities that address mitigation for all types of natural 
hazards, and opportunities to create synergies and reduce duplication 
among the various research activities.

Sec. 303. Authorizations

    This section clarifies that no additional funding is authorized to 
carry out the title.
                               Amendments
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                            Amendment Roster

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>



 XXIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 3479, NATURAL 
                   HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011

                  House of Representatives,
       Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                            Washington, DC.


    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Hall. Good morning. The Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology will come to order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology meets today to consider the following measure: H.R. 
3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, and that 
is an important announcement.
    I have a more important announcement to make, and that is 
that the Ranking Member of this Committee has a birthday today, 
and I have known her a long, long time and I know now that she 
is old enough to vote. I have an 18-year-old granddaughter that 
warned me last week, Papa, you better be better to me, I am old 
enough to vote now, so I will have to be better to you if you 
are up to voting age, Eddie. Happy birthday to you. You are a 
wonderful person and we wish you a good birthday and many, many 
more.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 6d and House Rule 11(2)(h)(4), 
House announces that he may postpone further proceedings today 
on any question approving any measure or matter adopting an 
amendment on which a recorded vote of the yeas or nays are 
ordered. It is the Chair's intention to provide reasonable 
notice prior to the commencement of rolled votes. Any rolled 
votes will start around noon, and that is about the time we 
ought to be winding up here. Let us proceed with the markup 
beginning with opening statements. I will begin.
    All right. I am pleased to call the markup this morning for 
consideration of H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction 
Act of 2011. The bill we are considering today will reauthorize 
the activities of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. 
Both programs are targeted federal research and development 
efforts to mitigate the loss of life and property due to 
earthquake and wind-related hazards.
    Over the years, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program has been instrumental in developing and advancing 
earthquake knowledge and raising awareness of earthquake 
hazards. The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program has 
supported activities to improve the understanding of windstorms 
and their impacts, while developing and encouraging the 
implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures.
    I want to thank Representatives Biggert and Neugebauer for 
collaborating on this effort, as well as my fellow cosponsors 
Representatives Smith and Palazzo. We want to truly aid our 
agencies and instruct them to do that which we expect them to 
do, and what their needs are this year probably is different 
than what their needs were last year or ten years ago or two 
years ago. We are in a different day and time, and the test 
last year or in the 1980s or 1990s or most of this session is 
that we be careful as we add on to these bills, the cost of the 
bills. We expect the people that are going to have to carry 
this out to be pleased and work hard with what we are able to 
give them.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph Hall
    I am pleased to call the markup this morning for consideration of 
H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011.
    The bill we are considering today will reauthorize the activities 
of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. Both programs are targeted federal 
research and development efforts to mitigate the loss of life and 
property due to earthquake and wind related hazards.
    Over the years, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 
has been instrumental in developing and advancing earthquake knowledge 
and raising awareness of earthquake hazards. The National Windstorm 
Impact Reduction Program has supported activities to improve the 
understanding of windstorms and their impacts, while developing and 
encouraging the implementation of cost-effective mitigation measures.
    I want to thank Representatives Biggert and Neugebauer for 
collaborating on this effort, as well as my fellow co-sponsors 
Representatives Smith and Palazzo. I strongly support this measure and 
look forward to discussion of the proposed amendments. I yield the 
balance of my time.

    Chairman Hall. I yield the balance of my time back, and at 
this time I recognize Mrs. Johnson for her five minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, and thank you 
for the recognition of this birthday that will get me closer to 
80 than to 70.
    Today, we are marking up H.R. 3479, the Natural Hazards 
Risk Reduction Act of 2011, and this bill reauthorizes two 
important programs: the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program, or the NEHRP, and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program, or the NWIRP.
    It has been a devastating year of natural disasters in this 
country, and we have experienced one of the deadliest and most 
destructive tornado seasons in U.S. history. We have had 
earthquakes in areas that don't usually experience earthquakes, 
including Virginia and Oklahoma. And Hurricane Irene caused 
widespread destruction and death along the Eastern seaboard.
    This Committee has an important role to play in helping 
Americans prepare for and recover from tornadoes and other 
natural disasters by facilitating the disaster resiliency of 
communities. By reauthorizing the earthquake and windstorm 
reduction programs, we can minimize the number of Americans who 
are harmed or killed by natural disasters or who have to face 
the challenge of putting their homes, businesses, and 
communities back together.
    These programs both have proven track records in reducing 
the vulnerability of our communities to natural disasters. They 
support research and development to better understand 
earthquakes and windstorms and their impacts. The results of 
this work have led to advancements in monitoring, the design 
and construction of infrastructure and critical lifelines, and 
public awareness and preparation for tornadoes, hurricanes, and 
earthquakes.
    Today's bill includes good provisions that I believe are 
important and will make the programs more efficient and 
effective. For example, establishing NIST as the lead agency 
for both programs, improving the coordination of these programs 
with other federal agencies, and increasing transparency are 
all positive additions.
    That being said, there is definitely room for improvement. 
As an authorizing committee, we require agencies to carry out 
specific activities and have an obligation to authorize the 
funding that we believe is needed by the agencies to 
effectively carry out all of what we have required of them. As 
authorizers, we must ask ourselves how much money an agency 
truly needs to do every single thing we have asked of it 
exceedingly well.
    It is then the responsibility of the Appropriations 
Committee to weigh various priorities in the context of the 
current budgetary climate and determine what ultimately should 
be funded and at what level.
    Unfortunately, the funding levels in this bill do not seem 
to align with our responsibilities as an authorizing committee. 
The bill reduces the authorization level for NEHRP by 36 
percent and NWIRP by 14 percent when compared to the last year 
the programs were authorized. Further, it constrains both 
programs by providing flat authorizations that are six percent 
below current funding.
    While some may claim that our budgetary situation has 
changed, the truth is that the need to improve the disaster 
resiliency of our communities has not. We don't have any reason 
to believe that these agencies need any less money to carry out 
these responsibilities than we determined was necessary last 
year, or the last time we authorized these programs. Yet the 
bill fails to take a single step to reduce or minimize the 
obligations of these agencies to justify a reduction in 
authorized funding. Without a corresponding reduction in 
responsibilities, we are doing nothing less than setting these 
agencies up to fail.
    For these reasons, I believe that the authorization levels 
in this bill have missed the mark. This is especially true this 
year, when disasters have caused over $45 billion in economic 
damage and cost hundreds of lives across this country, and we 
simply can't afford to have these agencies miss further 
opportunities to implement low-cost mitigation measures prior 
to the disasters. Studies have shown that for every dollar we 
invest in mitigation activities through FEMA's pre-disaster 
mitigation programs, we save $3 to $4 in recovery costs. In the 
end, strong and effective hazard reduction programs will not 
only save lives and property, but also provide us with 
meaningful cost savings.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Chairman Hall. Today, we are marking up H.R. 3479, the 
Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011. This bill reauthorizes two 
important programs--the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program-
or NEHRP [knee-herp] and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Program-or NWIRP [N- werp].
    It has been a devastating year for natural disasters in this 
country. We've experienced the deadliest and most destructive tornado 
season in U.S. history. We've had earthquakes in areas that don't 
usually experience earthquakes, including Virginia and Oklahoma. And 
Hurricane Irene caused widespread destruction and death along the 
Eastern seaboard.
    This Committee has an important role to play in helping Americans 
prepare for and recover from tornadoes and other natural disasters by 
facilitating the disaster resiliency of communities. By reauthorizing 
the earthquake and windstorm reduction programs, we can minimize the 
number of Americans who are harmed or killed by natural disasters or 
who have to face the challenge of putting their homes, businesses, and 
communities back together.
    These programs both have proven track records in reducing the 
vulnerability of our communities to natural disasters. They support 
research and development to better understand earthquakes and 
windstorms and their impacts. The results of this work have lead to 
advancements in monitoring, the design and construction of 
infrastructure and critical lifelines, and public awareness and 
preparation for tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
    Today's bill includes many good provisions that I believe are 
important and will make the programs more efficient and effective. For 
example, establishing NIST as the lead agency for both programs, 
improving the coordination of these programs with other federal 
agencies, and increasing transparency are all positive additions.
    That being said, there is definitely room for improvement. As an 
authorizing committee, we require agencies to carry out specific 
activities and have an obligation to authorize the funding that we 
believe is needed by the agencies to effectively carry out all of what 
we have required of them. As authorizers, we must ask ourselves how 
much money an agency truly needs to do every single thing we have asked 
of it exceedingly well.
    It is then the responsibility of the Appropriations Committee to 
weigh various priorities in the context of the current budgetary 
climate and determine what ultimately should be funded and at what 
level.
    Unfortunately, the funding levels in this bill do not seem to align 
with our responsibilities as an authorizing committee. The bill reduces 
the authorization level for NEHRP by 36 percent and NWIRP by 14 percent 
when compared to the last year the programs were authorized. 
Furthermore, it constrains both programs by providing flat 
authorizations that are six percent below current spending.
    While some may claim that our budgetary situation has changed, the 
truth is that the need to improve the disaster resiliency of our 
communities has not. We don't have any reason to believe that these 
agencies need any less money to carry out these responsibilities than 
we determined was necessary the last time we reauthorized these 
programs. Yet the bill fails to take a single step to reduce or 
minimize the obligations of these agencies to justify a reduction in 
authorized funding. Without a corresponding reduction in 
responsibilities, we are doing nothing less than setting these agencies 
up to fail.
    For these reasons, I believe that the authorization levels in this 
bill have missed the mark. This is especially true this year, when 
disasters have caused over $45 billion in economic damage and cost 
hundreds of lives across this country.
    And we simply can't afford to have these agencies miss further 
opportunities to implement low-cost mitigation measures. Studies have 
shown that for every dollar we invest in mitigation activities through 
FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program, we save $3 to $4 in recovery 
costs. In the end, strong and effective hazard reduction programs will 
not only save lives and property, but also provide us with meaningful 
cost savings.
    Thank you, Chairman Hall. I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    Without objection, all Member statements can be placed in 
the record at this point.
    We will now consider the bill, H.R. 3479, the Natural 
Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, and I recognize the 
gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, to describe her bill. I 
recognize you, Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start with 
the bill and then the amendment.
    I want to thank you for scheduling today's markup. H.R. 
3479, the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011, 
reauthorizes two important multi-agency programs that address 
natural hazards faced by millions of Americans. The bill will 
reauthorize two important programs that support research and 
development to better understand prepare for earthquakes and 
windstorms.
    The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program has been 
instrumental in developing and advancing earthquake knowledge, 
raising the awareness of both officials and the public to 
earthquake hazards and updating seismic building codes. As co-
chair of the High Performance Building Caucus, I know how 
important NEHRP's data and monitoring information is to 
updating building codes and standards. The NEHRP program 
recently published the 2010 NEHRP recommended seismic 
provisions for new buildings and other structures and provided 
estimates on the fatality and economic losses anticipated from 
earthquakes across the Nation.
    The bill includes bipartisan changes to the NEHRP program 
that improves its mission and reduces duplication. Changes 
include reauthorizing the program for three years, further 
detailing the role of NIST as the lead program agency of NEHRP 
and updating the existing advisory committee for NEHRP to offer 
recommendations and assessments on program developments, 
priorities and coordination.
    The Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 also 
reauthorizes the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, a 
program that my colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, first championed in 
2004. H.R. 3479 includes improvements to NWIRP--all these names 
are really hard acronyms, they don't make too much sense to 
me--but anyway, to strengthen the program including naming NIST 
as the lead program agency which will ensure improved 
coordination and planning of the agency activities and budget. 
A strong windstorm program can enable faster development and 
implementation of codes, standards and practices to mitigate 
windstorm damage, protect life and contain the ever-increasing 
costs of hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe windstorms. 
This research is particularly important due to the 
exceptionally destructive year that we had had for windstorms.
    As demonstrated by these two programs, hazard mitigation is 
a responsibility shared by multiple federal agencies, and to 
better coordinate a multiple-hazard approach to national 
disasters across the government, H.R. 3479 creates a single 
interagency coordinating committee chaired by NIST charged with 
overseeing the planning and coordination of both earthquake and 
wind hazard programs. The single interagency coordinating 
committee replaces two separate interagency committees.
    The American Geophysical Union, the American Society of 
Civil Engineers, the National Earthquake Hazards Risk Reduction 
Coalition and the National Council of Structural Engineers 
Associations have endorsed H.R. 3479, and I would urge Members 
to support this legislation.
    Let me just say while we are talking, the Ranking Member 
talked about the authorization, we did change this to make it 
three years rather than the five years, and I think that the 
request was for $900 million for five years, and this is a six 
percent reduction for $366 million for three years, 2012 
through 2014. I wish that we could make it more, but in these 
economic times, I think we are very fortunate to be able to 
provide the authorization that we have now where many 
committees are not able to do this with programs. By making it 
three years, I would hope that we have the economic turnaround 
that perhaps there will be more in the future, but if we don't 
keep this where we don't have the money, we can't spend the 
money that we don't have. To be able to reauthorize this for 
the three years and proceed I think is better than having no 
authorization at all, which could happen if we don't pass this 
bill.
    So with that, I would urge my colleagues to support this 
bill, and I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    Does anyone else care to comment on the bill for five 
minutes?
    Okay. Without objection I ask unanimous consent that the 
bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point 
and that Members proceed with amendments in the order listed on 
the roster. So ordered.
    Chairman Hall. Are there any amendments to the bill? The 
first amendment on the roster is a Manager's Amendment offered 
by Mrs. Biggert. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 048, amendment to H.R. 3479, 
offered by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Hall. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The amendment before us makes a number of minor changes 
that strengthen the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act. 
Briefly, the Manager's Amendment includes the following 
provisions.
    One, it updates NEHRP's progress report to include a 
description of the post-earthquake investigation activities 
carried out under the program in order to gather a better 
understanding of the current system of investigations organized 
by the United States Geological Survey. Second, it directs the 
National Science and Technology Council to report on the 
disaster research, development, and technology transfer 
activities of the national laboratories, which are 
complementary to the activities the bill authorizes under NEHRP 
and NWIRP programs. And third, it modifies the NEHRP strategy 
plan requirements regarding a description of how the George E. 
Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation and 
Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System, and I 
quote, ``may be used'' increasing flexibility and achieving the 
programmatic goals and research objectives.
    I believe that the Manager's Amendment makes sound 
improvements to the bill, and I urge the adoption of the 
measure.
    Chairman Hall. All right. I thank the gentlelady for the 
amendment. I support the amendment.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment? All right. 
Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the amendment 
offered by Mrs. Biggert. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, 
say no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    Other amendments? For what purpose does the gentleman seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer an amendment that 
would provide that the programs here up for reauthorization 
would include public education and outreach to different 
populations including and especially those individuals in 
households with special needs and that also any research for 
natural hazard preparedness would also include strategies to 
reach those and help those with special needs. This is similar 
to an approach that FEMA has taken to help certain populations, 
those that may be physically disabled, may have barriers, 
cultural barriers that prevent them from clearly understanding 
direction, whose proficiency in English may not be at a level 
to allow them to be prepared and to receive direction in case 
of an emergency.
    So I would urge your support.
    Chairman Hall. All right. This amendment is offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Clarke. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 050, amendment to H.R. 3479, 
offered by Mr. Clarke of Michigan.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Hall. All right. I want to thank the Member for 
this amendment. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to ask Mr. Clarke a question 
for the record.
    Chairman Hall. Without objection.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. You had suggested that this might help 
people who do not speak English enough, and this does not 
require, am I correct, your amendment does not require a 
bilingual and multilingual presentation by the agencies 
involved?
    Mr. Clarke. It does not expressly require this, correct.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It says they may, and they could consider 
that a factor but they are not mandated to do this?
    Mr. Clarke. No. The language in this amendment does not 
mandate that. That is correct.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there further discussion? Mrs. Johnson. I recognize Mrs. 
Johnson for five minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
    I support this amendment because it is clear from the 
evidence that a one-size-fits-all approach to hazard mitigation 
education and outreach is not sufficient to protect the most 
vulnerable members of our population. Most of us have elderly, 
disabled, chronically ill or otherwise vulnerable friends, 
relatives and constituents who live in areas that experience 
severe windstorms and earthquakes, and I am sure we want to be 
sure that our loved ones in our communities are saved during 
disasters.
    As a former nurse, I understand too well how much more 
difficult it is for many people with special needs to duck and 
cover or to get to basements or do whatever it is they need to 
do to be saved during this natural hazard. But they often have 
to rely on others who know best how to help them. But it is 
also about what everyone can do to prepare themselves in 
advance, for example, by having enough water, food, medication 
in their homes to get them through a week or more when supply 
lines are cut off. We do have now some warning through our 
systems that we put together through both NASA and EPA as well 
as the Weather Service to give us some warning but we need to 
alert people as to what they need to be doing during the time 
that we were anticipating.
    So this amendment would simply ensure that all of the 
participating agencies take into account the unique needs of 
different vulnerable populations and ensure that research about 
how best to protect these populations in the event of an 
earthquake or windstorm is incorporated into education and 
outreach efforts.
    I thank you very much. I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    Are there further--Ms. Biggert, do you wish to be 
recognized?
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I understand the purpose of this amendment and I think it 
is very important that we make sure that all individuals have 
the education that is needed. My only concern is do we need to 
be that specific? Do we need to be that specific in the 
legislation itself? I know that we had asked whether report 
language would be enough with the legislative intent, because 
it just seems like when you say you are including one group and 
there might be--then people are saying well, I am left out and 
we are going to have a whole laundry list of various things. 
For example, what Mr. Rohrabacher said, are we going to have to 
put in languages, and the list would continue. Is this language 
that is used by FEMA and other bills? Do you know, or can you 
tell me why it is not enough just to have what is in the 
legislation as such now? And I yield to the gentleman.
    Chairman Hall. Go ahead. She is yielding part of her time 
to you, Mr. Clarke. Your mic won't come on? Just talk a little 
louder.
    Mr. Clarke. So FEMA actually uses the term ``special 
needs'', and the reason why we use it is because it is broad 
enough to avoid that type of laundry listing that the 
gentlewoman would have a concern about.
    Chairman Hall. Is there something that can be worked out if 
you withdraw this and work on report language? Are you willing 
to do that, Ms. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. I would be willing to do that but it is up to 
the----
    Chairman Hall. It is not a bad amendment. It is a needed 
amendment. Can you all work out something here and now? You are 
at two disadvantages, though. One, you are a man and Ms. 
Biggert is a woman, and two, it is her bill.
    Mr. Clarke. Mr. Chair, I think it is so important that, you 
know, people who are disadvantaged right now do get the type of 
outreach that is necessary. I would rather proceed with the 
bill on a recorded vote.
    Chairman Hall. All right. Does anyone else care to be heard 
on the bill?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Respectfully disagreeing with my 
colleague, I think that this is an appropriate amendment, and 
quite frankly, we have seen this in many other bills and many 
other pieces of legislation over the years where we just want 
to remind the bureaucracy that, for example, there are sick and 
infirmed people out there who need some special consideration 
as well as others, mentally ill people and things like that, 
that may have to be taken care of during a time of disaster, 
and just mentioning that to make sure that they know, that the 
bureaucracy knows that we expect them to take care of everybody 
in these situations. I think that is very appropriate.
    Mrs. Biggert. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
    Mrs. Biggert. Now, I have not made a recommendation here 
against it. My concern is that whether it is needed or not or 
it is limiting. I am more concerned whether it is limiting the 
concept, and if it is not, then I am fine with having it in the 
legislation. I just didn't want to be, you know, where we are 
including----
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Cravaack, I recognize you--who seeks 
recognition? Ms. Edwards, you, I recognize you for five minutes 
or more.
    Ms. Edwards. No, Mr. Chairman, don't be too surprised. I 
wondered if it would help, though, to clarify. I do support the 
amendment, but to clarify for Ms. Biggert that in 2006 there 
was a Department of Homeland Security and Department of 
Transportation report that actually came to a conclusion based 
on inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina that substantial 
improvement is necessary to integrate people with disabilities 
in emergency planning and readiness, and then in 2007 FEMA 
issued a more strident guidance in its planning, and I think 
that that actually begs the question of whether as a Congress 
we need to actually be more directive of the agencies in terms 
of their response to these unique special-needs communities, 
and I think the language is actually consistent with that and 
consistent with the direction that the Departments of Homeland 
Security and Transportation and these agencies are going in any 
case.
    Mrs. Biggert. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Edwards. Yes.
    Mrs. Biggert. With that, then I would support the 
amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
    Mrs. Biggert. Yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and if I could--I 
support the amendment, and I just have a question if my 
colleague, Mr. Clarke, could answer this question. Are the 
needs of special-needs people right now, are they not being 
addressed under the current legislation or current intent of 
other programs? And I will yield.
    Mr. Clarke. My concern is in the event of a disaster, we 
want to make sure that the outreach and research is being 
conducted to reach out to people that need help.
    Mr. Cravaack. And I share that concern as well, but is it 
not being addressed now? That was--I am trying to educate 
myself.
    Ms. Edwards. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Cravaack. I will yield to Ms. Edwards.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
    As I was just pointing out, the difficulty is that the 
needs in these communities actually haven't been met, and what 
I was suggesting before is that in fact that was recognized 
both by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation and 
FEMA as an agency that they were not adequately meeting those 
needs, and it isn't spelled out in legislation. That is why 
they have had to come up over some time with some guidance but 
they don't really have any direction, and so the point of the 
amendment, as I understand from Mr. Clarke, is that it would 
give that directive, and then FEMA and DHS would have, you 
know, sort of much greater responsibility in terms of them and 
their accountability to us as to whether they are providing--
meeting the special needs of these communities in the event of 
a disaster.
    Mr. Cravaack. Thank you.
    With that then, sir, I speak in favor of this amendment.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. It seems to me 
that the gentleman is in pretty good shape with his amendment.
    Hearing no further discussion--is there further discussion? 
The vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those 
opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The gentleman's amendment is 
agreed to.
    Are there other amendments? And for what purpose does the 
gentleman seek recognition--the gentlelady?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is on 
the docket.
    Chairman Hall. The next amendment is offered by the 
gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. Are you ready to 
proceed?
    Ms. Lofgren. I am ready to proceed.
    Chairman Hall. Do you have an amendment at the desk?
    Ms. Lofgren. I do.
    Chairman Hall. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 010, amendment to H.R. 3479 
offered by Ms. Lofgren of California.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Ms. Lofgren. I would ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Hall. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, this amendment implements the 
2008 Natural Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Advisory 
Committee recommendation that NIST be the agency responsible 
for coordinating post-earthquake investigations. The amendment 
also provides NIST with the authorization that they would need 
to carry out this responsibility.
    In 2004, NIST was given the task of serving as the lead 
agency, and it follows that NIST should be responsible for 
coordinating all of the program's activities including post-
earthquake investigations. The experts who testified before 
this Committee praised NIST, and I think we all know NIST as a 
very efficient agency, and I think everybody agreed that they 
should take the responsibility of coordinating post-earthquake 
investigations, and in the last Congress, the House passed in a 
bipartisan manner--I think the vote was on suspension 335 to 
50--the reauthorization that included this change.
    The hazards bill that is moving through the Senate also 
includes this change, and I think the original bill that was 
considered by the Subcommittee implemented the advisory 
committee's recommendation. However, the current matter before 
us does not include that transfer.
    Now, California has had its share of earthquakes, and I do 
understand the importance of NEHRP and the work it does to 
minimize risks and hazards. I think the experts have told us 
that NIST is the proper agency to serve as lead in the post-
earthquake investigations. I remember quite well in my prior 
role as a member of the board of supervisors in Santa Clara 
County after the Loma Prieta earthquake how chaotic the 
situation is when you have a major event and agencies from 
everywhere coming in. It is important that this be handled in 
an efficient and orderly way, and I think the experts have 
recommended NIST. I think we should listen to their advice, and 
that is what the amendment does, and I would yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    Does anyone else care to be heard? The Chair recognizes Ms. 
Biggert for five minutes.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I appreciate the amendment offered by my colleague from 
California. Unfortunately, because the amendment transfers the 
responsibility currently conducted by the USGS to NIST without 
transferring funding----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentlelady yield? It does actually.
    Mrs. Biggert. Well, it does, but the problem that we have 
is that it adds funding to NIST, leaving the USGS at the same 
funding level as its fiscal year 2012 request, and I support 
giving NIST more funding if we are giving it new 
responsibilities, but I think that the problem that we have is 
that funding should come from the agency which currently holds 
this responsibility. That is a problem and it is a problem with 
the Natural Resources Committee, who also has jurisdiction over 
the earthquake program. From our conversations with our 
colleagues there, the transfer of the responsibility from USGS 
to NIST is problematic to them, and consequently I am concerned 
that the addition of this amendment could potentially slow down 
the bill's progress and whether we would be able to do it.
    I would also like to note that the Manager's Amendment that 
I offered today includes a provision seeking more information 
on the current state of earthquake investigations conducted by 
USGS. I believe that this provision would be helpful to all 
stakeholders in order for us to understand how best to proceed 
on the earthquake investigation coordination and to make sure 
that the--I think that the USGS would improve what they have 
been doing.
    But again, this is a problem with the authorization of 
money and I don't see a way around it. We can't add any more 
funding to this, and that is my problem, so I would 
unfortunately oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    Are there other--who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. Ms. Johnson, I recognize you for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I clearly understand what is being said here about the 
funding, but the earthquake program's advisory committee 
recommended transfer of the post-earthquake investigations from 
USGS to NIST in 2008 consistent with NIST's role as the 
program's lead agency, and in hearing after hearing we have 
heard expert witnesses praise the job NIST has done as lead 
agency. Further, the experts are in agreement that it is 
appropriate for NIST to also coordinate post-earthquake 
investigations under the program, so when we talked to the 
agencies about making this change in the bipartisan bill passed 
by the House last Congress, they were supportive of the change, 
and the bipartisan bill making its way though the Senate right 
now, which is based on the bipartisan House bill from last 
Congress, authorizes this transfer.
    And so this amendment makes the right policy choice by 
transferring coordination of post-earthquake investigations to 
NIST and providing NIST with the resources necessary to carry 
out the responsibility.
    Unfortunately, even though I believe that my colleagues 
also believe it is the right policy to transfer the post-
earthquake investigations coordination to NIST, they could not 
accomplish it without taking resources from other agencies who 
are already struggling to meet their responsibilities under the 
earthquake program. And so in order to comply with their 
misguided legislative protocols, I suppose the Republicans have 
decided to sacrifice the best policy. This is not the way that 
we ought to be legislating as an authorizing committee. We do 
not spend money in this Committee. We authorize what the 
Appropriations Committee has the right to spend or recommend be 
spent.
    And so our top concerns in this Committee ought to be 
policy, and so I support this amendment. Thank you.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mrs. Biggert. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Chairman Hall. Excuse me.
    Ms. Johnson. I yield.
    Mrs. Biggert. And I understand exactly what you are saying, 
and maybe the Senate can find more money. But when this program 
was authorized, it was when we weren't in such dire straits in 
the economy and it was much easier then to say well, this will 
be the money. We just don't have it now, and I yield back.
    Ms. Johnson. We are not spending in this Committee. We are 
trying to make good policy.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The gentlelady's time has 
expired.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey. Lynn Woolsey down here.
    Chairman Hall. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I----
    Chairman Hall. For five minutes.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much, and I certainly support 
Ms. Lofgren's proposal and amendment, and I would yield my time 
to her for whatever time she may consume.
    Ms. Lofgren. I appreciate my colleague for yielding to me.
    As has been pointed out, there is limited information on 
the activities being performed under the program's post-
earthquake investigation authority, which is being addressed in 
the Manager's Amendment, but I think that lack of data and 
information actually is part of the reason why we should 
support transferring the coordination of the responsibility to 
NIST because NIST has been repeatedly praised by the 
stakeholder community, experts, NEHRP agencies for being an 
effective coordinator and manager of the program, and the 
policy of promoting that is really what we are about.
    And I think the underlying issue that my colleague from 
Illinois has addressed really is that in the original mark, 
Committee print, the majority transferred the responsibility 
and cut funding 13 percent below fiscal year 2011 funding for 
U.S. Geological Survey, which promoted a tremendous outcry, and 
to avoid doing that, the transfer to NIST, which is the right 
policy, was voided basically to avoid the reduction in U.S. 
Geological Survey. You know, that is not a good reason, I 
think, to not do the right policy. I think we should authorize, 
as my amendment provides, and let the appropriators struggle 
with this.
    But this is--it is real money that we are authorizing but 
it is real losses that occur in earthquake events, and I speak 
as a Californian having been through many earthquakes. The 
amount being authorized is a very small proportion of the 
losses that are experienced in a major event, and it is very 
important that this be done well.
    And I understand Ms. Biggert's constraints. It is not of 
her making. But I think that we should adopt this amendment. 
And I thank the gentlelady for yielding to make that point.
    Ms. Woolsey. And I yield back the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    I thank Ms. Lofgren also for her amendment but I do oppose 
the amendment. I appreciate that it seeks to implement a policy 
recommendation from the advisory committee for the earthquake 
program. It is one that we also are interested in keeping and 
seeing come to fruition. As a matter of fact, this transfer was 
proposed in the Committee print that we marked up at 
Subcommittee, and after receiving feedback from various 
stakeholders, it became apparent that before transferring post-
investigation responsibilities to NIST, it would be necessary 
to gain a better understanding of the current system of 
investigation. For this reason, I offered an amendment at the 
Subcommittee level that switched the investigations back to 
USGS.
    Additionally, this amendment increases the authorization 
levels by nearly $11 million over three years for NIST, and the 
funding exceeds even what the Administration's fiscal year 2012 
budget requests. I believe this would be an imprudent increase 
in federal funding in such fiscally challenging times. This 
isn't the 1980s or 1990s nor the last few sessions. With the 
country at crossroads now, I think we ought to go along with 
the President's recommendation. I yield back my time.
    Does anybody else care to be heard?
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. McNerney, I recognize you for five 
minutes, sir.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to be supporting the amendment. I live in 
earthquake country, and basically what you want for your 
district is the best possible agency to take care of the 
problem, and that is what this amendment asks. Anyone that 
would experience this sort of event would want that, and I ask 
all the Members of the Committee to consider if you have a 
major event in your district, do you want the most qualified 
agency to be taking care of business or do you want someone 
else? And the answer in my mind is pretty clear.
    So I ask the Committee to support Ms. Lofgren's amendment, 
and I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California for five minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Whereas I come from earthquake country as 
well, I can suggest that yes, we always know in the back of our 
mind that there may be an earthquake, but one thing we know for 
sure, unless we start acting responsibly in our financial 
affairs, there is going to be a financial earthquake that is 
going to cause a lot more damage to this country than we could 
ever imagine. So I agree to oppose this amendment.
    Chairman Hall. If the gentleman would yield, you base your 
statement probably on the fact that the funding exceeds the 
Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget also.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Anyone else care to be heard? If not, hearing no further 
discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Those opposed, say no. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, could we have a roll call?
    Chairman Hall. A roll call has been requested. Under the 
Chair's prior announcement, proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
    Are there any other amendments?
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. Oh, Ms. Woolsey. An amendment is offered by 
the gentlelady from California. Are you ready to proceed with 
your amendment?
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I am. I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading. Without objection--whoops.
    Chairman Hall. Let the clerk report the amendment first and 
then we will do that.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 006, amendment to H.R. 3479 
offered by Ms. Woolsey of California.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Hall. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Woolsey. My amendment brings funding levels for 
earthquake and windstorm hazards to the exact levels set by the 
Republican majority in the 2004 reauthorization.
    I fully support reauthorization of these valuable hazard 
programs. Of particular importance to me and the community that 
I represent is the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction 
Program. Earthquakes are a common occurrence, as we all know, 
in the San Francisco Bay area. And Marin and Sonoma counties, 
my two counties, are right across the Golden Gate Bridge from 
San Francisco. Individuals, households and businesses in our 
area must be prepared for any earthquake, and we know there 
will be earthquakes in our lifetime. Unfortunately, 
Californians know that it is not a question of if but when the 
next scale earthquake will happen.
    The earthquake program has and will continue to improve our 
understanding of California's risks and vulnerabilities. It is 
helping us develop mitigation preparedness and response plans. 
The program makes it more likely that communities will 
withstand and quickly recover from a massive earthquake.
    The two programs covered by this bill were last authorized 
in 2004 under Republican leadership. Now, not one of us can 
claim with a straight face that the risk from natural hazards 
or the potential impact of such disasters on our communities 
has diminished since then. My colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, was 
the sponsor of the windstorm program in 2004, and he is the 
sponsor of the reauthorization again today. I hope that he 
agrees with me that the risk of windstorms has not declined 
since 2004, especially given that this year has been the second 
deadliest year on record for tornadoes.
    My colleagues, we should all agree that on the heels of the 
tragedy in Japan earlier this year, ensuring that our 
communities can respond to and recover from a large-scale 
earthquake is as pressing as ever. If that is the case, it is 
simply inappropriate and irresponsible for us to cut the 
funding authorizations for these programs, and yet the bill 
before us this morning does just that.
    Some may argue that the fiscal climate in 2011 is markedly 
different than it was when these programs were last authorized 
and that we must take drastic measures and make significant 
sacrifices to reduce our national debt. However, I want to 
point out that in the year 2004, we experienced the largest 
deficit since World War II. The budget surpluses from the final 
years of the Clinton presidency had vanished altogether and the 
stage had been set for the fiscal situation we find ourselves 
in today. Yet in the midst of that unprecedented and serious 
fiscal crisis, the Republican majority correctly recognized the 
value of these programs and saw fit to authorize nearly $192 
million for the earthquake program and $25 million for the 
windstorm program. Now, however, the majority is claiming that 
its very own numbers are too high and is proposing to cut the 
authorization for earthquakes by 36 percent and windstorms by 
14 percent.
    I must admit that I am particularly troubled by the 
proposed 73 percent cut to FEMA under the earthquake program. 
FEMA has indicated that under these authorization levels, it 
will likely end support for its critical infrastructure 
activities and provide less support for the earthquake state 
assistance program.
    In fact, states with high seismic risk like California 
would receive 30 percent less in funding and states with medium 
seismic risks like those in the New Madrid region of Tennessee, 
Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas could have their funding 
eliminated completely.
    My amendment proposes to put in place the authorization 
numbers from the last year each of the programs were 
authorized. I want to make clear that these are the exact same 
numbers included by the Republican majority in the 2004 
authorization. I believe that by reverting back to 2009 funding 
levels for the earthquake program and 2008 funding levels for 
the windstorm program and freezing funding at those levels over 
the life of this bill, we can help keep spending under control 
but also ensure that these agencies have the funding that they 
need to effectively carry out the responsibilities we have 
given them.
    I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    Are there others who want to be heard?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Neugebauer, the gentleman from Texas, 
five minutes.
    Mr. Neugebauer. And I won't take that long, and I 
appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. You know, all I would 
just say is that, you know, we are in a different environment 
than we were in the previous years, and today every 40--every 
dollar we spend, we are borrowing 42 cents, and basically what 
we are doing is, we are living a lifestyle today and we are 
charging it to our children and grandchildren. Now, as a brand-
new grandfather of a little girl, the first girl in the 
Neugebauer family in over 80 years, I am not interested in 
increasing the gift of the American government any more than 
what they have already given her. They have given her a note of 
$50,000, and she hasn't even had a chance to enjoy any of the 
privileges of being an American yet.
    But I understand that this research is important. I still 
think that good research can be done but it is going to have to 
be done at lower levels.
    And with that, I yield back my time.
    Ms. Woolsey. Would you yield?
    Mr. Neugebauer. I would yield to the gentlewoman.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, sir, first of all, for your good 
legislation in 2004, and hopefully for understanding that this 
is an authorization. It is suggesting to the spending 
committees what it will cost to carry out these programs 
effectively. And for your sweet little granddaughter, we have 
to prevent these serious accidents, and that is going to be, 
you pay up front of you pay later, and it is going to cost more 
in the long run.
    I will yield back.
    Mr. Neugebauer. If I could reclaim my time and yield back 
my time. Thank you.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Miller, the gentleman from North 
Carolina, for five minutes.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I support this amendment, not because I don't want to try 
to do things more frugally. I am one of the more frugal people 
on the planet. Just this morning I ran the shower into the last 
little bit of my shampoo bottle so I could get it all. And 
believe me, there are many things I could tell you like that.
    But these numbers are simply snatched out of thin air. Yes, 
it would be nice if we could do all this on two-thirds of the 
money or less, but there is absolutely no evidence, no record, 
nothing, to support the idea, and so Republicans are going to 
go home and say look, we protected, we are going to be doing 
all the same stuff, we told the Federal Government agencies 
they have got to be prepared for earthquakes, they got to be 
prepared for tornadoes and hurricanes, and we save two-thirds 
doing it, and they just snatched the number out of thin air.
    I chaired the Oversight Subcommittee of this Committee for 
four years, and yes, there is waste in Federal Government. Some 
of it is because of corruption. More of it is because of just 
garden-variety stupidity. It should be part of the function of 
Congress to identify that and to do something about it. We have 
many management tools that are available to us. One is 
oversight hearings. And once Federal Government employees 
understand that there is an Oversight Subcommittee that really 
is about the business of trying to make government run more 
efficiently, they will provide you information. Things will 
come over the transom that will lead you to identify programs 
that are not being run well. There is the Government 
Accountability Office, the GAO, that will help, that will point 
to how-what government agencies are being run poorly and how 
they can be run more effectively. There are inspector generals 
all throughout government. They can examine how agencies are 
being run and they report both to the agency head and to 
Congress. And none of that has happened with respect to this 
program. Instead, we see a number snatched out of thin air and 
say do everything you are doing, do everything you are doing so 
we can go home and tell people we protected these programs but 
do it for two-thirds of what you are doing without any 
evidence. Without any record, without anything to support the 
idea that the numbers that we have got now are not the right 
numbers, it simply--there simply is not a basis for this change 
in the law to reduce the authorization by the amounts they are 
being reduced.
    So I do support Ms. Woolsey's amendment.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Biggert, the gentlelady from Illinois, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The gentleman is talking about the figures that seem to 
come from the air. Actually, the authorizing figures are the 
President's request, and we have tried not to go over the 
President's request and we haven't gone under it. And so I 
think that this is something that the agencies have looked at, 
and so I can't support Ms. Woolsey's amendment when we really 
have done the reauthorization according to what the President 
requested.
    With that, I would yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mrs. Sewell, the gentlelady from 
Alabama.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today, I address the Committee in support of Representative 
Woolsey's commonsense and lifesaving amendment. This amendment 
strikes a balance I believe between fiscal responsibility and 
strategic investing by restoring the authorization levels for 
the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program and the 
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program back to the levels 
approved by their last authorization.
    H.R. 3479 as proposed dramatically undercuts critical 
disaster prevention activities. This is particularly concerning 
given the devastating natural disasters observed earlier this 
year in the United States and worldwide. Both of these programs 
are important partnerships between government, academia and the 
private sector aimed at improving the understanding of 
windstorms and earthquakes and their impacts. Their main 
purpose is to provide and encourage and develop implementation 
of cost-effective mitigation measures to reduce devastating 
loss of life and property.
    As you all may know, the 7th Congressional District and 
other parts of the State of Alabama suffered from tornadoes and 
heavy storms during the month of April of this year. Homes, 
churches, schools, businesses, entire communities were 
destroyed and damaged. Many people in my district lost their 
lives as well as the lives of their friends and loved ones. It 
is this type of natural disaster that highlights our need to 
continue to provide adequate funding for disaster preparedness 
efforts and to ensure that our first responders are equipped to 
meet the needs of our communities in these times of great 
tragedy.
    The reality is, that the need for these types of programs 
has not changed. In fact, there is now an even greater 
realization of the importance of these types of programs and 
initiatives. The best way to minimize the lives of--the loss of 
lives and property and the economic impact due to disaster is 
to invest in pre-disaster mitigation activities. Put simply, 
the activities and responsibilities we are asking this network 
of agencies to fulfill has become even more critical and 
necessary. I believe it is irresponsible and would be costly in 
the long run to underfund programs that have the potential to 
minimize property damage and save lives.
    I understand that in these difficult budgetary times, we 
must find ways to reduce cost and identify savings wherever 
possible. However, we must also continue to make strategic 
investments that will yield tangible results and benefits in 
the future. I urge my colleagues to support Representative 
Woolsey's amendment and restore funding levels for these 
critical, important programs back to the reauthorization level.
    Thank you, and I yield back my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Sewell. I will.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to add my voice in support 
of the amendment, and just reflect back on the--my experience 
in local government after the Loma Prieta earthquake. I 
remember it so well. It was, you know, around 5 o'clock on a 
Tuesday, and there were a number of collapses of structures but 
nothing collapsed in San Jose, and my college classmate was 
then the Chief Science Officer for the USGS up in Menlo Park, 
and I remember asking him why nothing had collapsed in downtown 
San Jose when buildings collapsed in Oakland and in San 
Francisco and in Santa Cruz, and he said, really, it wasn't 
anything about the waves of the earthquake, it was good 
engineering. It was the information that the city had received 
to require that buildings be engineered and not fall down.
    And I look at these authorizations, and it is one building 
that we would prevent from collapsing. So I think we need a 
little perspective here on what we are authorizing and what the 
potential losses are, and it is really a situation of an ounce 
of prevention is worth many, many pounds of cure, and I thank 
the gentlelady for yielding and my colleague from California 
for offering the amendment.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    I recognize myself for just a couple of minutes. We are in 
different days and times. One of the speakers--and all of you 
made good arguments, but one speaker compared it to 2004. The 
whole world wasn't trying to go broke in 2004, and that is the 
direction we are going now, and I recognize that my colleagues 
on both sides are unhappy with the authorization amount in this 
bill. I am not real happy with it. But we didn't cut, we 
matched the Administration's fiscal year 2012 request for the 
earthquake program which each agency prepared and each agency 
defended.
    The bill makes only modest changes to the current program, 
carefully ensuring that we are not significantly expanding 
programs in tight fiscal times and asking agencies to do more 
with less. We are not doing that. Nevertheless, we believe both 
are critically important programs in need of reauthorization.
    The gentlelady's amendment would increase funding for the 
earthquake program by more than 50 percent in fiscal 2012 
compared to what was spent in 2011, wind program increased by 
20 percent when compared to the last authorization. Her total 
increase is $224.3 million. In this day and time, I just don't 
think that is practical. It would be good to do that. But to 
continue to fight for higher funding, especially above the 
fiscal year 2012 agency request, seems to ignore the financial 
crisis we are in. We just can't do that. Who across the Nation 
is getting a 50 percent raise? The amount of the funding is 
unrealistic in this fiscal environment, and I believe these 
increases would hamper the chances of these programs even being 
reauthorized, which I am sure my Democratic friends would not 
want.
    I think we just absolutely have to be cognizant of our 
current budget environment. Therefore, I oppose the 
gentlelady's amendment.
    Who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. I yield back my time. Who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. Ms. Edwards, the Chair recognizes you.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I rise in support 
of the amendment here offered by Ms. Woolsey, and I think it 
really is important for us to focus as an authorizing committee 
on our responsibility to outline what the requirements are to 
do the work, and we have other colleagues who sit on the 
Appropriations Committee in another venue whose challenge it 
will be to match that with what our fiscal responsibilities are 
in terms of our spending, and you know, we can't divvy there 
because otherwise we get away from making good policy.
    And with that, I would like to yield the balance of my time 
to Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much for yielding.
    It is really nice to hear the other side of the aisle 
supporting the President's budget. We should wallow in that. 
But this budget doesn't truly, I believe, represent what he 
would do or what he should do, and--well, he is not always 
right. You know what? And in 2004, President Bush was right on 
this, and----
    Chairman Hall. Even if we don't agree with her, we----
    Ms. Woolsey. And I am surprised that when this is exactly 
the same numbers that came out of the Republican majority in 
2004, which was seven years ago, so that is not a raise over 
what is going on right now, when the economy was not in good 
shape as it isn't now, that an ounce of prevention worth a 
pound of cure is not what we would be using as our guidelines 
here when we are talking about disasters. We are not talking 
about frills. We are talking about really important programs.
    So Mr. Chairman, thank you for hearing me. Remember, this 
is a number that is not an increase over 2004, so I think we 
should go from there. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Hall. I thank the gentlelady. Do you yield back?
    Ms. Edwards. I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bucshon 
from Indiana for five minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Being new to Congress, I know full well we are an 
authorizing, not an appropriating committee, but I would like 
to point out the appropriate amount of spending for the 
earthquake program, NEHRP, in 2009 was $129.4 million, in 2010, 
$131.2 million, and in fiscal year 2011, $129.5 million. This 
bill would authorize $122 million, which is a very, very modest 
decrease, and has been pointed out, requested by the 
President's budget.
    So even though we have a lot of drama about dramatic cuts 
and other things, I think it is very important for people to 
understand, for the American people to understand that the 
actual amount of money spent in those years is only slightly 
more than the current bill is authorizing, and therefore I do 
not think will result in any significant decrease in the 
ability of these agencies to function and to protect the 
American people, and with that, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    Are there others who want to be heard? Hearing no further 
discussion, a vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Those opposed, say no. The nos have it and the amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a 
recorded vote.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady asks for a recorded vote. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Woolsey. I thought it was rolled.
    Chairman Hall. Didn't you ask for a recorded vote?
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, I want it rolled. I would like us to 
have a vote. I thought you were rolling it all until the end of 
the----
    Chairman Hall. I have the discretion to roll or not roll, 
and it looks like you have a lot of people here.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yeah, I see what happened.
    Chairman Hall. Which do you want to do?
    Ms. Woolsey. I would like to vote at the end of the bill 
like the others are.
    Chairman Hall. Do you want to roll it?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes, please roll it.
    Chairman Hall. All right. We will roll it.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
    Chairman Hall. Are there other amendments?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The next amendment is offered by 
the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, and I know you are 
ready to proceed with your amendment. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 007, amendment to H.R. 3474--
79, offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Hall. Okay. I ask unanimous consent to dispense 
with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain 
her amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I suppose this amendment in the spirit of Ms. Woolsey's is, 
and I can't quote poetry the way the chairman can, but if at 
first you don't succeed, try, try again.
    Mr. Chairman and Ms. Biggert, at the Subcommittee markup of 
the bill, I offered an amendment to replace the Committee print 
with the text of the bipartisan bill from last Congress. That 
bipartisan legislation passed the House by a wide margin, a 
vote of 335 to 50, and it is the legislation that is currently 
moving through the Senate. At the Subcommittee markup, I argued 
that the text from last Congress was the better starting point 
for our Committee's consideration because it was bipartisan and 
because it stands a better chance of actually being enacted 
into law in the near future, and I think that is a goal that we 
all share.
    We are at a time also when the American public is looking 
at us wondering whether it is that we can agree on something. 
We did agree on something last year. That something is in the 
Senate this year, and we have an opportunity to come together 
as a Committee in the spirit in which I think this Committee 
has operated in the past to move this legislation forward more 
expeditiously.
    But the truth is, much of the policy contained in the bill 
from last Congress has in fact--thank you, Ms. Biggert--been 
incorporated into the bill before us today, either as part of 
the underlying text or through the bipartisan Manager's 
Amendment that Ms. Biggert and I first offered at the 
Subcommittee markup. I am very pleased that in this case, and I 
want to thank Mrs. Biggert and Chairman Quayle for working with 
us on many of those issues. Unfortunately, the difference that 
remains between this bill and the bill from last Congress is 
arguably the most important difference, and that is the funding 
levels authorized for these important activities.
    The amendment I am offering this morning strikes the 
authorization numbers in the current bill and replaces them 
with the bipartisan authorization numbers. For NEHRP, the 
amendment proposes the exact same authorization numbers as 
those included in the bipartisan bill from last Congress and 
the bill currently making its way through the Senate. For 
NWIRP, the amendment proposes the bipartisan numbers for the 
National Science Foundation, NOAA and FEMA but maintains the 
authorization numbers for NIST that are in Ms. Biggert's bill. 
I agree with my Republican colleagues that NIST requires a 
higher authorization to accommodate its new responsibility as 
the program's lead agency. The bill before us today includes 
authorization levels for NEHRP and NWIRP that are not only flat 
but below current spending. I am very concerned about lowering 
the authorization levels for those agencies, especially at the 
close of a year in which this country has experienced a 
historic number of disasters, and I think we are all aware of 
the terrible tragedy that occurred in Japan, an earthquake and 
ensuing tsunami that devastated parts of Japan and triggered 
the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. This one disaster 
has so far resulted in over 15,000 lives lost, and moreover, it 
is quite likely to end up being the costliest natural disaster 
ever with estimates exceeding $300 billion.
    A large earthquake like this one will indeed happen in the 
United States, and it could happen on the San Andreas Fault in 
California, in the New Madrid Fault in the Mississippi valley, 
or off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, and the devastation 
that was witnessed in this country this year from tornadoes and 
other windstorms including in the district of our colleague, 
Ms. Sewell, is staggering. Tornadoes have caused deaths in 15 
states from Louisiana to Massachusetts this year, and in fact, 
2011 is the deadliest year for tornadoes in the United States 
in over 80 years and the second deadliest ever. I think we are 
all just shocked to know that 552 people have died in tornadoes 
so far this year in 2011.
    For these reasons, I can't in good conscience support a cut 
to the authorization levels for these programs. As we said 
before, it will be the job of the appropriators to find the 
actual funding that is required or the offsets required for 
that funding because that is their duty as appropriators. Our 
duty and responsibility as authorizers is to set the level that 
we know to be appropriate for the agencies to do the job that 
we expect of them and that the American people expect, and as 
the authorizing Committee with jurisdiction over the programs, 
we should be setting the mark and including the level of 
funding that we honestly believe these agencies need to fulfill 
their responsibilities.
    I doubt anyone on this Committee believes that the risk to 
people and property has gone down, and if that is the case, it 
is wrong for us to cut the authorization levels for these 
important natural hazards programs.
    Mr. Chairman, when we invest in mitigation activities that 
save lives and money in the future, and when we do more to 
ensure that our communities are resilient to disasters, we know 
that that can only be accomplished by providing the programs 
with authorization levels that allow them to fulfill their 
responsibilities and objectives that have been outlined in the 
bill we are considering today.
    I want to thank you, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment, and I yield my time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back, and I want to 
thank her for her amendment. However, I have to point out again 
that this amendment increases authorization levels for the 
earthquake and windstorm programs to levels well above the 
authorizations currently included in H.R. 3479, well above the 
fiscal year 2012 agency request and the amount spent in 2011 by 
the program agencies.
    We made an attempt at a responsible reauthorization of the 
earthquake and windstorm programs. This amendment increases the 
President's fiscal year 2012 request, implying that the 
President's proposed level of funds were grossly inadequate, 
and I try to protect that President every chance I get, and 
here is an opportunity where I respect his recommendations. And 
actually, Ms. Edwards, you know how fond I am of you and how 
much I admire your background and your presentations here, but 
when you tell me it is a bipartisan bill, there is not a 
Republican sponsor in the Senate so far as I know. But that 
doesn't make any difference but I want the record to reflect 
what the hard, cold facts are.
    And this increases--once again increases $198.6 million. I 
just think that for these reasons, I have to oppose the 
gentlelady's amendment.
    Now I recognize Ms. Edwards.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just want to note 
that the bill in the Senate actually passed the Committee 
unanimously and was reported out by Ms. Hutchinson.
    Chairman Hall. Anyone else care to be heard?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. So what we are asked to do here is to 
increase the spending level about what the President has 
requested by about $200 million. If we are not going to be in a 
disastrous financial situation, we need to at least when we are 
going to increase the level somewhere tell us where you might 
want to cut down, what science programs do you want to reduce 
by $200 million in order to make sure that our country doesn't 
go off the financial cliff.
    Ms. Edwards. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly would.
    Ms. Edwards. The point here is that we are supposed to be 
looking at these agencies and their responsibilities, and 
figuring out what it takes for them to meet their 
responsibilities. Now, we can play a lot of politics, and I am 
as a good a Democrat as the next one, but whether we have a 
Democrat in the White House or a Republican in the White House, 
that doesn't change our responsibility on this Committee. And 
so the fact that even among Democrats that we might disagree 
with what the President has proposed in his budget, it is our 
job as legislators.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well----
    Ms. Edwards. And so I think that looking at these agencies 
and their responsibilities. In fact, I think my amendment 
actually strikes a balance between where Ms. Woolsey is and 
where we are in the Committee print, and I would urge us to do 
that because what I would like to see more than anything else 
is for us to report a bill that gets all of us on board. I 
think one of these two amendments on this bill in fact would do 
that, and I think the American people would like to see it and 
I think it would be good and healthy for us on this Committee.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, reclaiming my time, yes, you are 
right what our responsibility is, but that is within the 
context of the overall responsibility we have to the American 
people and to the next generation of Americans that we are not 
doing something that will cause an overall negative impact on 
our country to the point that all of these other debates will 
become meaningless. If we have a collapse of our currency, 
which is possible when you are going $1.5 trillion into debt 
every year, all of this will disappear. We will be in a crisis 
like Greece and everywhere else, and we know it. So that when 
we actually ask for $200 million more in spending than even the 
President wants to offer, I think that when you use the word 
``responsibility'', it would require us to say well, here are 
some examples of $200 million that I would like to cut out of 
the science program that aren't as high a priority as this. You 
know, the ultimate responsibility is setting priorities. That 
is what we are hired for. That is what we have been elected to 
do: set the priorities within the context of what our economy 
can actually function at, and I don't see either one of these 
amendments as doing that.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my 
time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    Are there others? Hearing no further discussion--excuse me. 
Mr. Tonko is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Yes, just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to add my voice of support to the amendment offered 
by Representative Edwards. You know, seeing the record number 
of tornadoes and earthquakes in some very atypical areas across 
the country this year draws upon me to be very supportive of 
the effort made by Representative Edwards. Having witnessed in 
the 21st Congressional District of New York some tremendous 
destruction and devastation via Mother Nature this past summer, 
we are very concerned about having the appropriate 
authorization so that the agencies can respond in very 
sensitive and reasonable terms to the American public.
    I know that there are those who are suggesting that we may 
be facing a record number of natural disasters that amassed at 
least a billion dollars worth of damage. If we break that 
record, that tells us that we have to be very, very laser sharp 
in our focus, which I believe that the Representative has done 
here. She has outlined her increases in a very targeted way, 
and I just want to encourage Members of this Committee to 
support Representative Edwards' amendment.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. You yield back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Cravaack, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, for five minutes.
    Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and if I could yield to 
Ms. Biggert, just a couple questions so I understand this 
process correctly.
    Do I understand it correctly that these agencies have put 
forth a number of what it would take to fund their specific 
agencies? Would that be correct?
    Mrs. Biggert. Yes, the agencies do, and then that is how 
the President comes up with his request.
    Mr. Cravaack. So it is incumbent upon the responsibility of 
these agencies to put forth a budget that would be able to 
reflect upon what it would take to do their jobs. And then it 
goes up through the process to the President where the 
President will then verify their numbers. Is that correct, 
ma'am?
    Mrs. Biggert. That is right, and then the Congress has the 
oversight to reauthorize that and look at their numbers and 
make a decision.
    Mr. Cravaack. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. So understanding this 
correctly, it is incumbent upon the individual----
    Mrs. Biggert. Now, I must say. You know, just for 
clarification, the President came forward with the request for 
the earthquake program. At that time we did not have the wind 
in this bill, so that was not determined by the President.
    Mr. Cravaack. But it is incumbent upon the agencies to have 
the responsibilities to ensure that they have the budget 
necessary to complete their mission?
    Mrs. Biggert. I am sorry. Would you repeat that?
    Mr. Cravaack. It is incumbent upon the agencies to make 
sure that they put forth a budget to complete their mission?
    Mrs. Biggert. That is correct.
    Mr. Cravaack. That would be correct. Okay. That is what I 
needed to know, and I will yield back. And I would have to 
speak against this amendment as much as I admire and respect 
Representative Edwards. Unfortunately, if these numbers 
actually come forth from the agencies themselves saying that 
this is what it would take to complete their mission, then I 
think we should go forward with what the agency is requesting, 
and I will yield back.
    Chairman Hall. And you further want to support the 
President's request, right?
    Mr. Cravaack. We should always support the President, sir.
    Chairman Hall. I agree with you. Thank you.
    All right. Ms. Edwards has made a good case and had an 
opportunity. Does anyone else want to be heard? If not, hearing 
no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The nos have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments?
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. The next amendment is offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Mr. Lujan. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. Okay. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 003, amendment to H.R. 3479, 
offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Hall. I might say to Mr. Lujan now before he gets 
underway that we think it is a good amendment, and we want to 
let you know we are going to accept your amendment and 
appreciate your desire to ensure that NIST conducts research 
into fires at the wildland-urban interface.
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much.
    Chairman Hall. Would you like to go ahead and present 
your--say a few words?
    Mr. Lujan. Quickly, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of thank 
yous to share with our friends on the other side of the aisle.
    Chairman Hall. Well, we will yield you a full five minutes 
for that.
    Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
    In the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, we charged 
NIST with supporting fire research to help prevent and control 
fires. My amendment updates the statute to ensure that NIST 
continues to conduct research on fires occurring specifically 
in the wild-urban land area. NIST fire research will help us 
minimize the spread of wildland fires into communities through 
tools that predict and reduce fire risk, post-fire 
investigations, improved fire codes and standards and the safe, 
effective use of emerging fire technologies. Addressing these 
research needs is essential if we are going to reduce losses 
from fire and increase the resiliency of buildings and 
infrastructure.
    This is an urgent and growing hazard. From January through 
September of this year, we saw more than 7.7 million acres burn 
across the United States. This is the fifth worst year on 
record for wildfires with the Southwest being hit particularly 
hard. We will remember fires that burned through Arizona and 
New Mexico and Texas and devastated families, families that 
lost entire businesses and their homes.
    When I offered a similar amendment at the Subcommittee, the 
majority had some concerns and we agreed to work out a 
compromise before coming to the full Committee. This amendment 
today is a result of that effort, and I want to thank Ms. 
Biggert, my friend, Chairman Mr. Quayle for their support and 
for all of the majority staff for their efforts in making sure 
that we had a chance to work together. I sincerely appreciate 
that. And I am happy that we found a way to authorize this 
important research.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, not only thank you to you for 
allowing me to present this amendment today and for the work 
that we were able to do together, and with that, I urge 
adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my 
time, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The 
ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    Pursuant to the Chair's earlier announcement, further 
proceedings on the postponed questions will resume at noon. The 
Committee stands in recess.
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman, before you do that, may I enter 
some documents into the record?
    Chairman Hall. Without objection.
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to include in the hearing record letters of support for 
the reauthorization of the Natural Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
Program and the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program 
from the American Geophysical Union, the American Society of 
Civil Engineers and the National Council of Structural 
Engineers Associations. And with that, I yield back.
    [They appear below:]
    
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    We are in recess until noon. In the Texas legislature, we 
used to have a guy that set the clock there. When something had 
to be done by midnight and couldn't be done past that, we had 
one that moved it back for about two hours a lot of times. So 
we don't have that luxury up here, and we thought we would be 
through, completely through by noon. We perhaps could go ahead 
with unanimous consent. We need to come back at 10 of noon, I 
am told by this lawyer here.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Hall. All right. The Committee will please--the 
very patient Committee will please come to order.
    Okay. The unfinished business of the Committee is a 
postponed roll call on the amendment offered by Mrs. Lofgren, 
amendment number 10. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes no.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes no.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Benishek?
    Mr. Benishek. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Costello?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
    Mr. Lujan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes aye.
    Chairman Hall. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 
Have all the Members voted? Any Members wish to change their 
vote? Then the clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 11 Members vote aye and 20 Members 
vote no.

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Hall. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next unfinished business of the Committee is on the 
postponed roll call on the amendment offered by Mrs. Woolsey, 
amendment number 006. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes no.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes no.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Benishek?
    Mr. Benishek. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes aye.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
    Mr. Lujan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes aye.
    Chairman Hall. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 
Have all the Members voted? Do any Members wish to change their 
vote? The clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 12 Members vote aye and 21 Members 
vote no.

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Hall. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is on the House bill, House Resolution 3479, 
the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 as amended. All 
those in favor will say aye. Those opposed, say no.
    Ms. Johnson. I would like to ask for a record vote, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Hall. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it. A Member requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes aye.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes aye.
    Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
    Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes aye.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes aye.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes aye.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes aye.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes aye.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
    Mr. Benishek?
    Mr. Benishek. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek votes aye.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes no.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
    Mr. Lujan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Ms. Wilson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes no.
    Chairman Hall. The clerk will report the--are there other--
first, are there other Members who wish to vote or any Members 
who wish to change their vote? The clerk shall report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 21 Members vote aye and 12 Members 
vote no.

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Chairman Hall. The bill is agreed to.
    I will make a motion. I move that the Committee report H.R. 
3479 as amended to the House with the recommendation that the 
bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to 
prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and 
conforming changes and that the chairman take all necessary 
steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
    The question is on the motion to report the bill. Those in 
favor will say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the 
resolution is favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. Okay. Members will have 2 subsequent calendar days 
in which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on 
the measure. I move pursuant to clause 1 of rule 22 of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee 
authorizes the chairman to offer such motions as may be 
necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 3479, the Natural 
Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2011 as amended. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
    This concludes our Committee markup. The Committee is 
adjourned. Thank you for your patience.
    [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


 H.R. 3479: THE NATURAL HAZARDS RISK REDUCTION ACT OF 2011, Section-by-
             Section Analysis, Amendments, Amendment Roster



<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

Section-by-Section Description of H.R. 3479, ``The Natural Hazards Risk 
                        Reduction Act of 2011''

Section 1. Short Title

    This section sets forth the short title as the ``Natural Hazards 
Risk Reduction Act of 2011.''

Section 2. Table of Contents

    This section provides a table of contents.

                          Title I. EARTHQUAKES

Section 101. Short Title

    This section sets forth the short title for Title I as the 
``National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 
2011.''

Section 102. Definitions

    This section removes the definitions of the ``Interagency 
Coordination Committee'' and the ``Advisory Committee'' from Section 4 
of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977.

Section 103. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program

    This section identifies the four agencies that make up National 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the 
National Science Foundation (NSF). This section also amends the 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to detail NEHRP activities, 
which include researching and developing effective methods, tools, and 
technologies to reduce the risk posed by earthquakes to the built 
environment, especially to lessen the risk to existing structures and 
lifelines.
    Section 103 defines the responsibilities of NIST as the lead 
Program agency, which include: planning and coordinating the Program; 
supporting the development of performance-based seismic engineering 
tools; requesting the assistance of Federal agencies other than Program 
agencies as necessary; working with Program agencies to develop a 
comprehensive plan for earthquake engineering research to use existing 
facilities and laboratories; and issuing recommendations to assist in 
informing model codes when warranted by research or investigative 
findings. This section also updates the responsibilities of the Program 
agencies, further detailing current activities.
    Finally, this section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act 
of 1977 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for 
NEHRP of relevant non-Federal employee experts to offer recommendations 
and assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and 
revisions as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to 
report to the Director of NIST on the assessment and its 
recommendations at least every two years.

Section 104. Post-Earthquake Investigation Program

    This section amends the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to 
direct USGS to utilize the coordination expertise of the lead program 
agency in organizing post-earthquake investigations.

Section 105. Authorization of Appropriations

This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows:

          For FEMA: $6,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For USGS: $57,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NSF: $53,800,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NIST: $4,100,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

                             Title II. WIND

Section 201. Short Title

    This section establishes the short title for this Title of the bill 
as the ``National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 
2011.''

Section 202. Definitions

    This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 
2004 to define the ``Director'' of the Program as the Director of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology rather than the Director 
of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

Section 203. National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program

    This section identifies the four agencies that make up the National 
Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP): NIST, NSF, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and FEMA; defines NIST 
as the lead program agency; and assigns responsibilities to the four 
program agencies.
    As the new lead agency, NIST's activities include planning and 
coordinating the Program; supporting the development of performance-
based engineering tools; requesting the assistance of Federal agencies 
other than Program agencies as necessary; coordinating all Federal 
post-windstorm investigations; and issuing recommendations to assist in 
informing model building codes when warranted by research or 
investigative findings. In addition to the lead agency 
responsibilities, NIST shall also conduct research and development to 
improve model building codes, voluntary standards, and best practices 
for the design, construction, and retrofit of buildings, structures, 
and lifelines.
    NSF activities include research in engineering and the atmospheric 
sciences to improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and 
their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines.
    NOAA activities include the support of atmospheric science research 
and data collection to improve the understanding of the behavior of 
windstorms and their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines.
    FEMA activities include the development of risk assessment tools 
and effective mitigation techniques; data collection and analysis; and 
public outreach, information dissemination and implementation of 
mitigation measures.

Section 204. National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction

    This section amends the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 
2004 to reauthorize and update an existing Advisory Committee for NWIRP 
of relevant non-Federal employee experts to offer recommendations and 
assessments on program developments, priorities, coordination, and 
revisions as necessary. This section requires the Advisory Committee to 
report to the Director of NIST on the assessment and its 
recommendations at least every two years.

Section 205. Authorization of Appropriations

This section provides authorizations of appropriations as follows:

          For FEMA: $4,000,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NSF: $9,400,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NIST: $5,300,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

          For NOAA: $2,700,000 for each fiscal year 2012 through 2014.

                  Title III. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Sec. 301. Interagency Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards

Risk Reduction

    This section combines the Interagency Coordinating Committee on 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction and the National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Program Interagency Working Group into one Interagency 
Coordinating Committee on Natural Hazards Risk Reduction, chaired by 
the Director of NIST and comprised of the heads of FEMA, USGS, NOAA, 
NSF, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), and the head of any other Federal agency 
the chair of the Committee considers appropriate. The section instructs 
the Committee to plan and coordinate NEHRP and NWIRP, including the 
development of a strategic plan for each program, a progress report on 
each program, and a coordinated budget for both NEHRP and NWIRP.

Sec. 302. Coordination of Federal Disaster Research, Development,

and Technology Transfer

    This section requires the existing Subcommittee on Disaster 
Reduction, of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the 
National Science and Technology Council, to submit a report to Congress 
identifying the current Federal research, development, and technology 
transfer activities that address mitigation for all types of natural 
hazards, and how such activities are being coordinated to reduce 
duplication among the various research programs.

Sec. 303. Authorizations

    This section clarifies that no additional funding is authorized to 
carry out the title.
                               Amendments
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                            Amendment Roster
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>