 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
January 17, 2006
NEHRP fears came true
Posted to Author: Vranes, K. | Disasters
I spent some time in early 2004 working on the Senate's part in reauthorizing the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) in the 108th session. It eventually became law as PL 108-360.
NEHRP is a research direction and interagency coordination bill, with funding pieces in FEMA, USGS, NIST, and NSF. As the House Science Committee writes in its report on the NEHRP reauthorization bill (H.Rep. 108-246):
Currently the agency responsibilities within NEHRP include:FEMA—overall coordination of the Program, education and outreach, and implementation of research results;
USGS—basic and applied earth science and seismic research;
NSF—basic research in geoscience, engineering, economic, and social aspects of earthquakes;
NIST—problem-focused earthquake engineering research and development programs aimed at improving building design codes and construction standards.
NEHRP was first created in 1977 as PL 95-124. The biggest change in this reauthorization was a switch from FEMA to NIST as lead coordinating agency. This change was requested by stakeholders such as the groups who joined the NEHRP coalition. These stakeholders saw an alarming disconnect by FEMA on natural hazards and disasters after FEMA was swallowed by the Department of Homeland Security in the post- World Trade Center executive branch reorganization. When stakeholders began asking Congress to take the lead role on NEHRP away from FEMA and give it to NIST, and when FEMA didn't even bother to dissent, Congress seemed happy to agree.
But during my experiences on the NEHRP reauthorization, one senior staffer on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee did try to put the brakes on the lead agency shift. She voiced strong concern over appropriations battles that were leaving NIST underfunded. This was a fear shared by the House Science Committee, as seen in H.Rep. 108-246:
NIST is fully capable of carrying out the lead agency responsibilities as the Chair of the Interagency Coordinating Committee, but NIST will have difficulty fulfilling its duties under sections 5(b)(1) and (5) of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act, as amended, unless it receives appropriations at the level authorized by this bill.
Well, the Science/State/Justice/Commerce appropriations bill is done (PL 109-108) and the fears of the authorizers have been realized. While NIST gets a 5% increase for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (core programs), no direct appropriations are made for NEHRP. Report language states:
The Committee encourages NIST to allocate funding available under this account to carry out responsibilities under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Public Law 108–360).
Forcing NEHRP to compete internally with other programs within the core. These "competitors" include national security programs highlighted and prioritized by the committee:
The Committee expects NIST to continue to prioritize funding for programs associated with standards and guidelines relating to the national security of the United States, including efforts relating to biometric and cyber security and programs relating to improvements to the nation’s manufacturing and services sectors. The recommendation also continues funding for a telework project and a critical infrastructure program, at the same funding levels as in fiscal year 2005.
Given this loose language and no clear direction to pursue NEHRP priorities set out in the authorization bill, it is unclear whether NIST will step up to the coordinating agency role it took from FEMA. This issue was actually anticipated by House Science in the NEHRP report:
However, the Committee also believes that the Program’s potential has been limited by the inability of NEHRP agencies to create synergy through coordinated efforts—a necessary part of any truly successful interagency program. It is because of these concerns that the Committee is modifying the structure of NEHRP. The Committee believes that, while NEHRP has been a successful undertaking, a great deal of room for improvement exists.
Where NEHRP goes from here remains to be seen, but if Congressional appropriators read the recently released Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) report -- a report commissioned by Senate appropriators in the 106th Congress -- they will find language like this:
The analysis of ... FEMA grants awarded during the study period indicates that a dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $4.
A summary of the numbers can be found here. And while the study was done on FEMA numbers and not the NEHRP program in general, the take home message is that money spent on mitigation (the overall purpose of NEHRP) is money saved over the long term.
Posted on January 17, 2006 03:14 PM
Comments
Kevin -
This illustrates a problem that is somewhat opaque to me (despite significant effort spent trying to understand it) - the distinction, in practical day-to-day governance, of legislative language included in authorizing legislation and legislative language included in appropriations report language. More than once, I have seen a tug-of-war between conflicting provisions of authorizing legislation and appropriations bills, drawn up by different committees, attempting to manage not only the funding but also the direction of the same program. I frequently see this in the U.S. nuclear weapons program, which is authorized in the defense authorization bill and appropriated by the energy and water subcommittee.
In this case I assume the appropriating committee could have included a specific line item for NEHRP, or included stronger report language?
Posted by: John Fleck at January 19, 2006 03:03 PM
John, it's a good question and the answer deserves a post of its own, which I'll do at some point. The short answer is: yes to all. That tug-of-war does exist and is part of the checks-and-balances system inherent in Congress' legislative construction. Basically the authorizing committee writes policy language and the appropriators follow it at their discretion. Think of it this way: the Committee on Science's role is to say, "we like this NEHRP program, think it's valuable to this level." The Approps Committee's role is to say, "Ok, we need to balance NEHRP against all the other priorities from the other authorization bills."
In theory Approps isn't supposed to spend money not authorized in an authorizing bill, but in practice that rule is broken often. For instance, often a program will expire and the committee of jurisdiction won't get around to a reauthorization for a year or two. The Approps committee might continue to fund the program anyway.
Posted by: kevin v at January 20, 2006 10:15 AM