Stay Connected with the Library All ways to connect »
Find us on
49-006
2d Session
Part 1
--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT
[To accompany H.R. 5450]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
| CONTENTS | ||
| I. | Amendment | 2 |
| II. | Purpose of the Bill | 12 |
| III. | Background and Need for the Legislation | 12 |
| IV. | Summary of Hearings | 16 |
| V. | Committee Actions | 19 |
| VI. | Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported | 21 |
| VII. | Section-by-Section Analysis (By Title and Section), as Reported | 22 |
| VIII. | Committee Views | 23 |
| IX. | Cost Estimate | 27 |
| X. | Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate | 28 |
| XI. | Compliance With Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates) | 28 |
| XII. | Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations | 28 |
| XIII. | Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives | 28 |
| XIV. | Constitutional Authority Statement | 29 |
| XV. | Federal Advisory Committee Statement | 29 |
| XVI. | Congressional Accountability Act | 29 |
| XVII. | Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law | 29 |
| XVIII. | Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported | 29 |
| XIX. | Committee Recommendations | 29 |
| XX. | Committee Correspondence | 30 |
| XXI. | Correspondence | 33 |
| XXII. | Minority Views | 49 |
| XXIII. | Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 50 | 54 |
| XXIV. | Proceedings of Full Committee Markup of H.R. 50 | 94 |
| XXV. | Proceedings of Full Committee Markup of H.R. 5450 | 197 |
The purpose of H.R. 5450 is to establish in law the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce and to describe the mission and functions of NOAA.
The creation of NOAA
In 1966, the Marine Resources and Engineering Act established an independent commission to produce a comprehensive study and recommendations for the nation's ocean policy. That commission, chaired by Julius Stratton and known as the Stratton Commission, released its report in 1969. One of its recommendations was that the President should establish an agency to coordinate all Federal, nonmilitary ocean management programs. In response, in 1970 President Nixon established the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by Executive Order within the Department of Commerce.
The Executive Order establishing NOAA, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, transferred the functions of various agencies, such as the Sea Grant College Program, into the new agency and established its leadership structure. The plan, however, did not provide an overall mission for the agency, and neither has Congress in the years since. Instead, Congress has enacted laws on specific issues. Since that time NOAA has evolved into the central civilian Federal agency for oceans and atmospheric issues.
NOAA has approximately 12,000 employees and an annual budget of about $3.9 billion, which represents almost 60 percent of the budget for the Department of Commerce. NOAA is structured around the following major offices (also see the organizational chart at the end of this section):
The National Ocean Service (NOS) is responsible for the observation, measurement, assessment and management of the nation's coastal and ocean areas. This includes providing navigational charts and performing applied research on coastal and ocean issues, such as harmful algal blooms.
The National Weather Service (NWS) is the nation's primary civilian source of weather data, forecasts and warnings.
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is responsible for providing much of the research into improving understanding of environmental phenomena such as tornadoes, hurricanes, climate variability, ocean currents, and coastal ecosystem health.
The National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) operates the nation's weather and climate satellites and manages the processing and distribution of the data and images from those satellites. NWS relies on these satellites for its data for weather forecasts and warnings.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) protects and preserves living marine resources through fisheries management, enforcement, and habitat conservation.
The Office of Marine Aviation and Operations manages the NOAA uniformed officer corps. The NOAA corps is one of the nation's uniformed military services and supports the functions of all the line offices in the agency, including operating the planes NOAA uses in hurricane reconnaissance and ships used in fisheries surveys and research expeditions.
The Office of Program Planning and Integration promotes the development of effective programs by integrating resources across NOAA.
The impetus for a NOAA organic act
Over the past 35 years, Congress has debated many different proposals for a NOAA Organic Act. In 2000, Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000, which established the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to perform a comprehensive review of ocean-related laws and issues facing the Federal government. The Commission released its final report on September 20, 2004.
The Commission confirmed the concerns voiced by many other experts: throughout much of its history, NOAA has lacked a clear and consistent mission; the overlap of the more than 200 issue-specific laws under which NOAA operates causes significant programmatic and functional confusion; and the work of the agency's line offices is not sufficiently coordinated. The Commission concluded that these problems have hampered NOAA's ability to effectively carry out its mandates because the agency becomes mired in questions over whether it has the legal authority to act on any particular matter. NOAA's unclear legal standing in some ocean and atmospheric issues also has hampered its ability to form effective partnerships with other agencies, states, the private sector and academia, according to the Commission. Additionally, in the Commission's view, the lack of a clear mandate from Congress makes NOAA susceptible to uncertainty in its budget process because without clear authorizing language it is difficult for NOAA to justify its budget requests, especially for its education and outreach activities, to both Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.
The Commission, recognizing that NOAA has become the de facto lead Federal agency for oceans issues, strongly recommended that Congress strengthen NOAA by enacting an Organic Act for the agency, giving the agency a clear legal mandate and broad authorities to execute it. The Commission and other experts believe a NOAA Organic Act that describes a science-based, service-oriented agency will help NOAA function more effectively, make it capable of taking on new responsibilities envisioned by the Commission, and provide NOAA a strong foundation for the 21st century. Such an Organic Act, the Commission stated, would help the agency set priorities, operate effectively, form effective partnerships, and strategically plan for its future budget and operations.
To address the communication problems and functional overlaps it found within NOAA, the Commission recommended structuring NOAA around three mission areas in an Organic Act: an operations and services mission to include the current line offices and programs of NESDIS, NWS, and the mapping and charting functions of NOS; a research and education mission to include the current line offices and programs of OAR, the Office of Education, and research programs from the other line offices; and a resource management mission to include the current NMFS and the ecosystem management programs of NOS.
President Bush provided a formal response to the Commission's report in his U.S. Ocean Action Plan, released December 19, 2004. In the Action Plan the President stated that his Administration would seek passage of a NOAA Organic Act. In the 108th Congress the President transmitted to Congress an Administration Organic Act for NOAA that was introduced, by request, as H.R. 4607. In the 109th Congress the President transmitted the same Administration bill, which has not been introduced.
In the 109th Congress, there were no hearings in the Committee on Science on H.R. 5450.
In the 108th Congress, the Committee held a hearing about the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and a hearing about NOAA Organic Acts.
May 5, 2004--The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report
On May 5, 2004, the House Committee on Science held a hearing on the key findings and recommendations of the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. In response to pressures on ocean and coastal ecosystems from increased coastal development, over-fishing, pollution and a confusing patchwork of Federal and state legal authorities for ocean and coastal activities, Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000. The Oceans Act required the President to establish a nonpartisan, diverse commission of experts in ocean policy and charged that commission to establish findings and develop recommendations for a new comprehensive ocean policy, including in research and development. The Report was the first comprehensive review of national ocean policy in more than 30 years.
The committee heard testimony from: (1) Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; (2) Dr. Andrew Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Solow was a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel Governance Working Group; (3) Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Pomponi was a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel Research, Education and Marine Operations Working Group; (4) Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University. Dr. Pietrafesa is chair of the NOAA Science Advisory Board; and (5) Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Dr. Freilich is a member of the National Research Council's Space Studies Board and chair of that Board's Committee on Earth Studies.
Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), began the hearing by providing an overview of the key findings and recommendations in the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
A National Ocean Council, including the leaders of all ocean-related agencies and chaired by an assistant to the President, should be established in the Executive Office of the President to coordinate Federal ocean activities and set national ocean policy.
A Presidential Council of Advisers on Ocean Policy should be created to provide input and advice from non-Federal experts. The Federal agency structure should be strengthened to increase effectiveness and minimize redundancies.
The National Integrated Ocean Observing System, (IOOS) led by NOAA and combining a network of regional coastal observations with an array of open ocean observations, should be implemented to achieve adequate observational and forecasting capabilities for the oceans and coasts.
To cover costs and supplement existing appropriations and support new and recommended responsibilities, an Ocean Policy Trust Fund should be established.
Dr. Andrew Solow discussed the Report's recommendations to establish a National Ocean Council to coordinate Federal efforts with respect to oceans.
The main deficiency in Federal ocean and coastal policy is fragmentation, which tends to impede policy coordination. However fragmentation is not, by itself, responsible for the problems on the ground and in the water.
Although the problems in the Nation's oceans and coasts cannot be solved by better coordination alone, a National Ocean Council could contribute to the formulation and execution of better policies and would elevate the visibility of ocean issues in the Federal government.
All Federal activities relating to the ocean should undergo common policy and budgetary review within the Office of Management and Budget.
Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi provided testimony about the implications of the Report's recommendation for increased funding for ocean research.
A NOAA Organic Act should be enacted to clearly lay out an integrated agency structure and mission.
The overall levels of U.S. investment in ocean research should be doubled to fund such areas as bio-diversity and ecosystem research, development of ocean information systems, climate and ocean modeling, and discovery and development of new marine products. Increases for individual agencies and programs should be based on a careful and comprehensive assessment of national ocean policy and the role of each Federal ocean agency in carrying out those priorities.
Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa provided testimony on the Report's recommendations to strengthen NOAA.
At a minimum, there should be an immediate doubling of the Federal ocean research budget.
A NOAA Organic Act should be enacted so that NOAA can have clear and specific responsibilities assigned to it with an unambiguous partitioning of these responsibilities.
An end-to-end, integrated Earth-observing measurement system suite for receipt of data in real time should be implemented.
Dr. Michael H. Freilich provided the committee with comments on the Report's recommendation to transfer some programs from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to NOAA.
NOAA should be the Nation's lead agency for ocean-related research, education, management, measurements, and predictions that recognizes the equal importance of its research and education, management, and prediction and assessment tasks.
An interagency coordination group, to address ocean and coastal data and information issues, as well as a Presidential interagency task force to oversee the modernization of the Nation's environmental data and information system, should be established.
There should be stronger interagency coordination, including moving the Executive's review of NOAA's budget to the Office of Management and Budget's Natural Resources Program, to ease the NASA-NOAA transition from research to operations.
July 15, 2004--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Acts
On July 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards held a hearing on H.R. 4546, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, and H.R. 4607, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act of 2004.
The subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) The Honorable Theodore Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce; (2) Dr. James Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, the Academy of Natural Sciences. Dr. Baker was Administrator of NOAA from 1993-2001; (3) Rear Admiral Richard West (Ret.), President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education. Admiral West was a member of the subcommittee of NOAA's Science Advisory Board that released a review of NOAA's research enterprise on August 6, 2004; (4) Dr. Elbert (Joe) W. Friday Jr., WeatherNews Chair of Applied Meteorology and Director, the Sasaki Applied Meteorology Research Institute, University of Oklahoma. Dr. Friday was the Assistant Administrator of the National Weather Service and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at NOAA. Additionally, he is a past-president of the American Meteorological Society; and (5) Mr. Richard Hirn, General Counsel, National Weather Service Employees Organization.
Mr. Theodore Kassinger began the hearing by acknowledging the importance of the Organic Act for the restructuring of NOAA, and highlighting areas where the Administration's bill, H.R. 4607, and the Committee's bill, H.R. 4546 differ.
H.R. 4607 would codify the Agency's administrative authorities.
In comparison with H.R. 4546, H.R. 4607 would provide the Agency with greater flexibility for reorganizing its structure and programs.
Dr. James Baker provided testimony on the current strengths and limitations of NOAA and how an Organic Act can help to ensure NOAA's future success.
NOAA needs more recognition, support, money and independence. The Organic Act will enable NOAA to better meet the nation's changing needs through updating and clarifying its mission and structure.
The Organic Act should seek to ensure the scientific independence of NOAA, particularly on politically-sensitive issues such as global climate change and fisheries management. Additionally, NOAA should become an independent agency, like the EPA, as it has the maturity to become one.
More support is needed for NOAA's educational outreach programs. The more the public is educated regarding NOAA issues, the better support NOAA will have when dealing with difficult issues.
A provision should be added to Title I of H.R. 4546 to formalize the mechanism for research to be conducted and competitively funded at universities and research institutions outside NOAA.
Rear Admiral Richard West (Ret.) discussed the response of the science community to the NOAA Organic Act. He also briefly reviewed applicable recommendations from the NOAA Science Advisory Board's review of NOAA's research programs.
One major problem with NOAA is that its research, operation, and regulatory bodies do not operate well under its current integrated corporate culture. Another limiting factor is NOAA's placement within the Department of Commerce.
The research plan set out in H.R. 4546 is important, especially because it recognizes the role of research in NOAA, establishes the goals and process for agency-wide research and investments, and delineates the role of NOAA's external partners. The importance of peer review and competitive awards, improved processes for managing grants and contracts, and integrated research, education and outreach should also be emphasized in this plan.
The creation of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, who would be responsible for coordinating and managing the NOAA research enterprise, would provide clear recognition of NOAA as a science-based mission agency.
Dr. Elbert (Joe) W. Friday Jr. testified that an Organic Act should clearly identify research in support of NOAA's mission as a prime NOAA responsibility.
The creation of the position of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology will benefit NOAA through helping to strengthen the role of science within NOAA and providing NOAA with a credible science voice.
NOAA's laboratory structure is absolutely critical to the successful modernization of the National Weather Service.
Mr. Richard Hirn discussed the National Weather Service Employees Organization's (NWSEO) response to the NOAA Organic Act.
The most pressing problem facing NOAA is not its organizational structure but the failure of successive Administrations and Congresses to adequately fund NOAA.
The NWSEO supports granting distinct legislative authority for the National Weather Service, provided within Section 105 of the Chairman's bill and not in the Administration's bill.
The consolidation of research and education into one branch of the NOAA mission areas as highlighted in the Chairman's bill may actually result in an overall reduction in education and research. The NOAA's research and education functions should be closely integrated with, instead of separated from its operational role.
H.R. 5450 is the same as H.R. 50 with minor changes to section 12, savings provision, to reflect an agreement with the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. A description of the Committee actions on both H.R. 50 and H.R. 5450 follows.
Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, on January 4, 2005, at which time the bill was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources. The Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards met on March 15, 2005 to consider the bill. Subcommittee Ranking Member Wu offered an amendment, which clarified that the Administrator may not contract with a private sector organization for an inherently governmental function; that current collective bargaining agreements are not affected by the bill; and that the Administrator must consult with NOAA stakeholders in developing the reorganization plan required by the bill. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported the bill, H.R. 50, as amended, by a voice vote.
On May 17, 2005, the Committee on Science considered H.R. 50. Congressman Ehlers offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was treated as original text for purposes of amendment. Mr. Ehlers' amendment:
made technical corrections;
provided additional authorities to the Administrator of NOAA, such as conducting education and outreach activities;
emphasized NOAA's role in the forecasting of, and issuing warnings for tsunamis;
required NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs, encounters serious problems with or makes major changes to existing satellite programs;
clarified the language requiring NOAA to reorganize; and
clarified that nothing in the bill shall alter the responsibilities or authorities of other Federal agencies.
Congressman Costello offered an amendment to prohibit NOAA from contracting for goods and services with organizations that perform their work outside of the United States. Committee Chairman Boehlert offered a second degree amendment to Mr. Costello's amendment, which ensured that compliance with the Costello amendment would be consistent with international trade agreements. The Committee adopted Mr. Boehlert's amendment by a roll call vote (Y-18; N-17). The Committee adopted Mr. Costello's amendment, as amended, by a voice vote. Then the Committee adopted Mr. Ehlers' amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, by a voice vote. Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 50, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass; 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. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote.
Congressman Ehlers introduced H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, on May 22, 2006, at which time the bill was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources. H.R. 5450 is nearly identical to H.R. 50 as reported by the Committee on May 17, 2005, with language added in Section 12, savings provision, to clarify the intent of the Organic Act regarding the authority of NOAA with respect to public buildings and regulatory issues.
On June 14, 2006, the Committee on Science considered H.R. 5450. Congressman Udall offered an amendment to establish conditions for the development of major program cost baselines and to require notification to Congress when certain cost increases or schedule delays occur in major programs. The Committee adopted Mr. Udall's amendment by a voice vote. Congressman Costello offered an amendment to require an annual report on contracts and subcontracts performed overseas. The Committee adopted Mr. Costello's amendment by a voice vote. Mr. Miller offered an amendment to establish penalties for employees who interfere with science, set requirements for science advisory committees, and exempt NOAA from the Information Quality Act. Mr. Miller's amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y-13; N-17). Congressman Gordon, on behalf of Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, offered an amendment to require NOAA to communicate weather emergency information to other Federal agencies. The Committee adopted that amendment by a voice vote. Congressman Costello offered an amendment to require NOAA to transmit Congressional reports to Congress directly, without prior review by the President or any other Administration official. Mr. Costello's amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y-15; N-19). Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 5450, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass; 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. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote.
The legislation establishes the NOAA within the Department of Commerce.
The legislation maintains the current leadership structure at NOAA except that it creates a new position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service within NOAA. The legislation describes programs to support the operations and services, and the research and education functions of NOAA. The legislation authorizes the NOAA Science Advisory Board.
The legislation requires NOAA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA. It requires NOAA to provide two strategic plans: one to address any deficiencies identified by the NAS data and information system assessment and the second for intramural and extramural research to support the mission of NOAA. The legislation requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private relationships once every five years. It also requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress 18 months after enactment of the legislation.
The legislation repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970 and includes a savings provision to preserve the status of all current NOAA rules, regulations and other legal matters. The legislation prohibits NOAA from contracting for activities or procurement of goods or services that are performed outside the United States, except in some limited circumstances and when the prohibition would be inconsistent with trade agreements.
The legislation requires NOAA to notify Congress and the public if it plans to close or transfer a NOAA facility. The legislation establishes conditions for development of major program cost baselines and requires notification to Congress when certain cost increases or schedule delays occur in major programs.
Section 1. Short title
`National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.'
Section 2. Definitions
Defines terms used in the Act.
Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Establishes the NOAA within the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA.
Section 4. Administration leadership
Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency, and which must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration's operations and management.
Section 5. National Weather Service
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the NWS within NOAA.
Section 6. Operations and services
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational and service functions. This section does not name any organizational units of NOAA, but the functions listed include all the activities of the NESDIS and the mapping and charting activities of the NOS.
Section 7. Research and education
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support research and education functions.
Section 8. Science Advisory Board
Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA to provide scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.
Section 9. Reports
Requires two reports from the Administrator. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report requires the National Academy of Sciences to assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA and then requires NOAA to provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report is a strategic plan for research at NOAA.
Section 10. Public-private partnerships
Requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private partnerships once every five years. Clarifies that no changes in NOAA's current policy are required.
Section 11. Effect of reorganization plan
Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.
Section 12. Savings provision
Clarifies that the Act does not change the legal status of any NOAA rule, regulation or other legal matter.
Section 13. Reorganization plan
Requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress not less than 18 months after enactment of this Act.
Section 14. Facility evaluation process
Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer certain facilities without a public comment period, review by the Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), analysis of the anticipated costs and savings and the impact on NOAA services, and notification to Congress.
Section 15. Budget reprogramming
Requires NOAA to submit to the Science Committee a copy of any reprogramming requests submitted to Appropriations Committees.
Section 16. Baselines and cost controls
Establishes conditions for development of major program cost baselines and requires notification to Congress when certain cost increases or schedule delays occur in major programs.
Section 17. Limitations on off-shore performance of contracts for the procurement of goods and services
Prohibits the Administrator from contracting for Administration activities or procurement of goods or services that are performed outside the United States except when the goods or services are necessary for national security or are only available outside the United States, when the activities or function under the contract was previously performed by federal government employees located outside the United States, or when the prohibition is inconsistent with international agreements.
Section 18. Recordkeeping and reporting requirement
Requires an annual report on contracts and subcontracts performed overseas.
Overall views
The Committee developed an Organic Act because it believes that providing NOAA with a clear mission and broad authority to execute it will strengthen the agency and improve its ability to carry out its responsibility as the lead civilian agency for oceans and atmosphere.
The Committee recognizes that an Organic Act, by its very nature, cannot address all the issues currently confronting NOAA. The Committee intends to continue to work, for example, on the many oceans issues raised by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Committee also expects that the final version of the Organic Act will deal with the portions of NOAA that are not under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee.
Section 3: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The Committee does not view this Act as changing the current mission of NOAA. But the Committee emphasizes that education and outreach are vital components of NOAA's mission.
Section 3 of the Act lists overarching functions of NOAA. This list of functions (and other lists of functions in the Act) are meant to be exemplary. NOAA may undertake additional functions related to carrying out the agency's mission.
The Committee expects NOAA to work with experts in ecology, social science, and economics, both within and outside the agency, to develop an ecosystem approach to managing, protecting, and researching coastal, ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems. Such an approach should emphasize the protection of ecosystem structure, function and key processes, and should aim to integrate ecological, social, and economic perspectives. Also, the Committee expects NOAA to integrate its ecosystem approach across all offices within the agency.
Section 4: Administration leadership
The Act grants NOAA itself the authority to promulgate rules and regulations; enter into and perform contracts, leases, grants and cooperative agreements; use the services and facilities of other Federal Government organizations; and conduct education and outreach activities. NOAA no longer will derive these authorities through the Secretary of Commerce, and the Committee expects NOAA to use these authorities on its own without seeking permission from the Secretary of Commerce. This should enable the agency to operate more efficiently.
The provision of the Act assigning day-to-day operating responsibility to the Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, the highest ranking career employee at the agency, is also designed to improve efficiency.
The Act also creates a Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Science and Education, following through on a recommendation the NOAA Science Advisory Board made in 2004, after an extensive review of NOAA's research enterprise. This DAS is a career reserve position and the person holding it will be responsible for overseeing science and education activities, and advising the Administrator on integrating research findings into NOAA's operational services and regulatory decisions.
The Act provides NOAA the flexibility to appoint up to two additional Deputy Assistant Secretaries as it sees fit to carry out its mission.
Section 5: National Weather Service
The Act requires NOAA to maintain the NWS as a distinct entity within the agency. The NWS is a vital public service, providing forecasts and warnings of severe weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. In addition to the public safety aspect of weather prediction, the NWS provides tremendous economic value to the nation. Weather and climate sensitive industries, both directly and indirectly, account for about one-third of the United States' Gross Domestic Product, or $3 trillion. These industries range from finance, insurance, and real estate to services, retail and wholesale trade, and manufacturing. The public recognizes, trusts, and relies on the NWS name. Therefore, the Committee believes that NOAA should not dissolve, rename, or alter the major functions of the NWS. The Committee fully supports NOAA's continued role in providing space weather for public use through the Space Environment Center. Space weather affects several industries such as those that provide or utilize wireless services, utilize the Global Positioning System, or rely on the safety of transpolar routes between North America and Asia. As the only provider of space weather forecasts for the government and for public use in the United States, the Space Environment Center is vital for the protection of both our commercial and government space-based assets.
Section 6: Operations and services
The Act directs NOAA to maintain programs to support efforts, on a continuing basis, to collect data and provide information and products regarding satellites, observations, and coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources. These services include the programs currently performed by NESDIS and the mapping and charting activities of the NOS.
Section 7: Research and education
The Act directs NOAA to maintain basic and applied research programs to support the mission of the agency. The Act also directs NOAA to maintain education and outreach programs to serve NOAA's mission, including promoting greater public understanding of coastal, ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems as well as weather, climate, and earth sciences. The Committee expects NOAA to continue to carry out its full range of education and outreach activities.
Section 9: Reports
The Act requires NOAA to contract with the NAS to assess the adequacy of its environmental data and information systems. NOAA then is required to provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The Committee expects these documents to be completed on time. The Act requires NOAA to perform this review on a regular basis because the Committee wants NOAA to regularly integrate planning for satellite data use with planning for construction of major satellite systems.
The Committee has good reason to believe that there are serious gaps in the data and information systems that could impair NOAA's ability to carry out its mission. The NOAA Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 Authorization Act (P.L. 102-567) required NOAA to conduct a needs assessment for data management, archival, and distribution. The assessment (which NOAA did not deliver until 2001) found that by 2015 the anticipated volume of satellite and other environmental data would far exceed NOAA's archive and assessment capabilities. This is already the case. NOAA's own FY 2003 budget
documents state that the agency cannot meet 65 percent of the new requests for satellite data products from the NWS and the Department of Defense in a timely manner. And because of NOAA's lack of planning for data management, archival and distribution, it can now take up to two years from the launch of a new satellite until any data is successfully incorporated into weather forecasting models. Given that the average lifetime of a satellite is five years, such a gap can mean that much of the data collected by a satellite is never used, wasting a multi-million dollar investment.
The Committee believes NOAA must quickly address these deficiencies. The next generation of polar-observing weather satellites at NOAA is currently estimated to cost more than $11 billion to build. The Committee is very concerned that NOAA is spending a large amount of money to build the new satellite system, but has yet to provide a comprehensive plan, including projected funding requirements, to ensure the maximum use of data from this new series of weather satellites. The Committee expects NOAA to submit such a plan to the Committee no later than February 1, 2007.
The second report required by this section is a strategic plan for research and development activities at NOAA, a requirement recommended by the 2004 NOAA Science Advisory Board report on NOAA research. The Act requires that this plan be updated every five years. The Committee emphasizes that it expects NOAA to specifically describe how the agency will fill its research needs by utilizing each of the following resources: intramural research, extramural peer-reviewed competitive grant programs, and the expertise of other Federal agencies.
Section 10. Public-private partnerships
The Committee supports NOAA's 2006 Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Environmental Information that defines how the agency will make decisions regarding its relationship to the private sector in providing products, technologies, and services. The Committee expects NOAA to closely consult with the private sector (including the academic community) when updating the policy, but the Committee does not assume that any immediate changes are needed. The Committee believes the current policy conforms with the policy recommendations of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences report `Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather and Climate Services.'
Section 13: Reorganization plan
The Committee is concerned, based on expert testimony and its own experience, that the current line office structure at NOAA leads to duplication of efforts and a lack of communication across programs. The Committee believes NOAA needs to be reorganized to remedy these problems. While the Committee is not dictating a particular organizational structure, it does believe that the new organization should be based on the three functional themes developed by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and listed in the Act. The Committee expects NOAA to evaluate its structure rigorously and to develop a genuinely redesigned organization that will facilitate work across each of the functional themes. A minor reshuffling or renaming of the existing structure will not suffice. The Committee emphasizes that the Act requires NOAA to maintain the NWS as an entity in the new organizational structure. The Act requires NOAA to closely consult with its stakeholder community throughout the development of the reorganization plan. To meet this consultation requirement, the Committee expects NOAA to meet with stakeholders prior to publication of the plan in the Federal Register.
Section 14: Facility evaluation process
The Act requires NOAA to notify the Committee when NOAA intends to close, consolidate, relocate, subdivide or establish a facility. In the case of facilities with operating budgets greater than $5 million or if the facility is a local weather forecast office, the Act requires NOAA to undertake a review of the proposed change. The Committee must be kept apprised of proposed changes that could affect NOAA's strong presence and valuable ties to many communities around the country.
Section 16. Baselines and cost controls
The Committee is very concerned about NOAA's management of major satellite programs. These programs represent nearly a quarter of NOAA's annual budget (in the FY2007 President's request for NOAA, satellite procurement costs are $1 billion, 27 percent of NOAA's total budget request of $3.7 billion). When problems occur with satellites they are almost always expensive to fix. For example, due to a combination of budget issues and technical challenges, costs for the next generation of polar-orbiting satellites have risen by almost 50 percent (or $3.7 billion) from the most recent previous estimate of $7.4 billion.
Effective oversight of NOAA's satellite programs requires that Congress have up-to-date and accurate information on the status of satellites while they are in development. This has not always been the case. The Act requires the submission of baseline cost estimates, annual updates, and notification of cost overruns. It is based on the Nunn-McCurdy provisions of Department of Defense acquisition law (10 U.S.C. 2433) and on section 103 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155). The baseline cost estimates provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration pursuant to P.L. 109-155 are a model NOAA should follow in carrying out this provision of the Act.
A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
H.R. 5450 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Donald B. Marron,
Acting Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 5450--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act
H.R. 5450 would provide statutory authority for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which was created administratively in 1970. In addition to codifying the agency's functions, authorities, and responsibilities, the bill would require NOAA to prepare new reports and policy statements.
Based on information from NOAA, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5450 would have no significant impact on the federal budget and no effect on direct spending or revenues. We estimate that complying with the additional reporting requirements and making the minor changes to personnel authorized by the bill would cost less than $500,000 annually, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
H.R. 5450 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The bill would codify the authority of NOAA to enter into grants and cooperative agreements with state, local, and tribal governments. Any costs incurred by those entities as a result of participating in the grants and cooperative agreements would be voluntary.
On May 26, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Science on May 19, 2005. H.R. 50 is very similar to H.R. 5450, and the cost estimates for the two bills are identical.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
H.R. 5450 contains no unfunded mandates.
The Committee on Science's oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(4) of House rule XIII, the goals and objectives of H.R. 5450 are to establish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and describe the mission and functions of the agency.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5450.
The advisory committee authorized by H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science Advisory Board, currently exists. The legislation simply codifies its functions.
The Committee finds that H.R. 5450 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 (Public Law 104-1).
This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute.
On June 14, 2006, a quorum being present, the Committee on Science favorably reported the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment.
Minority views on H.R. 5450 are almost precisely those filed for H.R. 50 because the bill is almost entirely the same text. The Chairman made some small changes in language to accommodate concerns expressed by another Committee and accepted amendments offered by Mr. Costello (on offshoring), Mr. Udall (on cost overruns) and Ms. Jackson-Lee (on NWS support for emergency personnel).
However, two significant amendments offered by Democrats were defeated on party line votes. Mr. Miller (NC) offered an amendment that would have put whistleblower protections in NOAA's organic act for agency scientists. Mr. Costello offered an amendment that would have directed NOAA to provide Congressionally-directed reports to Congress without any outside review or approval by other offices in the Executive branch.
Mr. Miller's amendment comes on the heels of reports that NOAA scientists were told not to discuss global climate change or the possibility that global warming may be a factor in the more deadly hurricane seasons seen in recent years. The Chairman had sent a letter on this very issue earlier this year asking Admiral Lautenbacher, the head of NOAA, to put in place policies that would reaffirm scientists' rights to discuss their science.
The Miller amendment adapted provisions included in H.R. 839, a bill introduced by Mr. Waxman and Mr. Gordon, that are designed to provide some protections to federal scientists from being suppressed or punished for public revelations regarding their work. H.R. 839 was itself the result of widespread reports over the past five years of science being suppressed or actively distorted by political appointees.
While the Bush administration is widely viewed as unusual for the degree of politicization of science in their policy-making, it is likely that the trend will not end with a new administration. Science has become an important area of contention in many, many public policy venues. As the stakes for winning those discussions rise, and as our reliance on scientific findings to help shape outcomes increases, the temptation to skew the science to justify a policy preference will increase as well.
Mr. Miller's amendment recognized these emerging trends and would have provided guarantees for NOAA scientists as part of the organic act of the agency. While opponents of the amendment argued that an organic act was an improper place to insert such guarantees, it is hard to understand what could be more appropriate for a science agency's organic act than to affirm scientific freedoms.
Mr. Costello's amendment was provoked by a recent incident involving another Department of Commerce office, the Technology Administration. The Technology Administration produced a report at the direction of Congress on workforce globalization in knowledge intensive industries. The report was finished by July 2004 and then went into a black-hole of reviews that included the Secretary of Commerce's office and offices in the White House. A summary was finally released in September 2005.
The Chairman stated that the White House had nothing to do with these reviews, but Minority staff have been told that there was an interagency review process that involved White House actors. We do know that the summary report produced by TA was significantly reduced in length--from 45 pages to just over 12--and the tone of the findings altered in a way that minimized the implications of offshoring American jobs.
The Committee does not know where the new version of the summary was produced, though we do know it was not done by the TA. This specific example illustrates the Minority's concern that the efforts by OMB and others to filter the quality and content of information that comes to Committees of jurisdiction from the agencies under their purview is reducing the quality of Congressional oversight.
The Majority largely evaded discussion of the substance of the amendment, opposing it because Mr. Costello had not shared the amendment 24 hours ahead of the markup. We are hopeful that the next time the Committee holds a markup the Majority will support this small step towards strengthening Congress's oversight powers.
Even without the Miller and Costello amendments, the Minority support H.R. 5450 as a solid basis for an organic act.
With those brief observations, we re-submit our views on H.R. 50, reproduced in their entirety below. Note that the discussion of offshoring below is no longer operative for H.R. 5450 since a new Costello amendment on offshoring was adopted by the Committee. But there are other lessons to be learned from studying the treatment of the original Costello amendment and for that reason we leave it in the text.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has operated for over thirty years without the benefit of an organic act. H.R. 50 contains a broad mission statement that encompasses the full range of NOAA's responsibilities. The provisions regarding climate, weather, atmospheric research and education in this Committee's jurisdiction form a solid basis for the continued delivery of high quality forecasting services and research on weather, climate and atmospheric phenomena.
However, until the Committee on Resources completes its consideration of the bill, H.R. 50 remains a job half done. NOAA faces a tremendous challenge in conserving and restoring our coastal areas and our fisheries. We support H.R. 50 as reported by our Committee. We hope the Committee on Resources will produce provisions addressing the ocean and coastal programs that will enable us to maintain our support for this legislation when it comes before the House of Representatives.
Section 13 of H.R. 50 requires NOAA to publish a Reorganization Plan in the Federal Register within 18 months of the bill's enactment. We commend the Majority for including a mandatory public review process in this section. We believe the Congress as well as the many organizations that maintain an ongoing relationship with NOAA should have an opportunity to shape any reorganization of the Agency that is implemented.
We fully support Section 5 of the bill and concur with the Majority in the view that the National Weather Service should be maintained as a discrete entity in NOAA. We also support H.R. 50's emphasis on NOAA's research programs. In the past, there have been proposals to reorganize NOAA's research laboratories by consolidating them with operational office functions. We believe NOAA's research enterprise should serve the needs of the operational offices, but must also maintain sufficient independence to ensure the continued pursuit of research with mid-to long-term applicability.
H.R. 50 as passed contains language in Section 14 that addresses the issue of possible facility closures. This language, worked out in negotiations prior to the Committee mark-up, sets clear limits on the Administrator's ability to close, consolidate, relocate, subdivide or establish a facility. In a compromise, the language requires a detailed review process associated with any proposed change in a facility that has an annual operating budget of $5 million or greater, or is a National Weather Service field office. While we were pleased that we were able to draw a clear line around the field offices of NWS, we remain concerned that $5 million may not mark the right line for requiring a rational, and public, review process prior to a significant change in the status of a facility.
The Committee did no substantive work on the nature of the NOAA complex to fully understand what the impact of the $5 million trigger would mean. The $5 million figure was provided by NOAA as a replacement for the original figure of $1 million adopted during Subcommittee consideration of this legislation in the 108th Congress (in an amendment offered by Mr. Udall). We will continue to work with our colleagues on the Resources Committee to better understand the impact of these provisions and we are prepared to offer an amendment on the floor if we are convinced that the $5 million figure is inappropriate.
H.R. 50 includes a broad mission statement for NOAA. We support a broad mission for NOAA to encompass its present and future research and operational programs. However, the broad mission statement should not be viewed as an open invitation to transfer programs and responsibilities from other federal agencies to NOAA. Section 12 of H.R. 50 includes a savings clause indicating that nothing in H.R. 50 authorizes or prohibits the transfer of any program, function or responsibility to NOAA. We believe that any transfer of responsibilities or programs to NOAA from other federal agencies must only occur in accordance with a transition plan and when additional resources have been identified and allocated to NOAA's budget to support the transfer and when a programmatic transfer is appropriately justified.
Section 16 of H.R. 50 addresses ongoing problems with satellite development and procurement at NOAA. In addition to the problems NOAA is experiencing, NASA's plans to postpone, terminate and restructure a number of earth sciences missions also have an impact on NOAA. For example, NASA's decision to cancel a dedicated Landsat gap-filler mission has accelerated the schedule for incorporating the Landsat imager on NOAA's new polar satellite, NPOESS. The partnership in earth sciences between NOAA and NASA should continue with
sufficient resources provided by each agency to ensure continuity of progress in our global monitoring capability and our earth sciences program.
The Administration has made outsourcing of federal jobs a priority through its aggressive implementation of OMB Circular A-76. The continued trends of increased outsourcing of jobs overseas and the decline in manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. have eroded the standard of living for many U.S. citizens. In order to emphasize the importance of using taxpayer funds to maintain taxpayer jobs and standards of living, Rep. Costello offered an amendment to ensure that any federal job that is converted to a private sector job does not result in the transfer of a U.S. job to a non-U.S. job. Rep. Costello's amendment also directed NOAA to `buy American' when it is possible to do so.
A second-order amendment offered by Chairman Boehlert transformed Rep. Costello's provision from one which emphasized the protection of American jobs to one that emphasized the protection of trade agreements. The Chairman's amendment reads, `The provisions of this section shall not apply to the extent that they are inconsistent with obligations of the United States under international agreements.' The amendment was adopted on a near party line vote of 18 to 17, with Mr. Rohrabacher joining 16 Democrats. The Chairman's language pushes the Administration to err on the side of protecting trade agreements at the expense of American jobs. In the balancing of interests, we believe that emphasis is exactly backwards. It is unfortunate the Majority believes that trade agreements deserve a higher level of protection than American jobs. We continue to believe the Costello amendment should have been accepted without the Chairman's amendment.
The Committee has provided a solid starting point for the development of a NOAA Organic Act. We also look forward to working with our colleagues on the Committee on Resources to further develop H.R. 50 into a comprehensive organic act that will appropriately define the missions and functions of this important agency.
Bart Gordon.
Jerry F. Costello.
Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Lynn Woolsey.
Darlene Hooley.
Mark Udall.
David Wu.
Michael M. Honda.
Brad Miller.
Lincoln Davis.
Daniel Lipinski.
Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Brad Sherman.
Brian Baird.
Jim Costa.
Al Green.
Charlie Melancon.
Dennis Moore.
Doris O. Matsui.
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology,
and Standards,
Committee on Science,
--Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Chairman EHLERS. Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome you to the first--Subcommittee's first markup of the year. Pursuant to notice, we will consider three important measures today that together underlie the breadth of jurisdiction of the subcommittee. Given the number of bills we need to get through today, my opening statement will be brief, and then I will explain each bill in more detail as it is brought up.
First we will consider H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. This bill, a reintroduction of legislation I authored last Congress, would created an organic act for NOAA. This is a term that puzzled me when I first got here because, to me, organic had something to do with organic chemistry or organic gardening or organic food stores; but an organic act in the Congress is an act which is an original act establishing an agency and outlining its functions and purposes. This organic act for NOAA would provide the underlying statute of missions and functions to be carried out by NOAA, something that has not existed since the agency was formed by executive order in 1970--established by executive order. It has been modified by executive order and by law since, but we have never had an organic act, so today we are trying to remedy that.
Next, we will consider H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. This bill is nearly identical to legislation I introduced last Congress and which passed the House last July. Unfortunately, the bill did not receive action in the Senate, and so we are proposing it once again.
The main focus of the bill is an authorization for the Department of Commerce Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.
And finally, we will consider H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. This bill, introduced by Ranking Member Gordon, Representative Calvert, and Chairman Boehlert, would create a research program at the Environmental Protection Agency to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and to provide important voluntary guidelines for states to use as they try to clean up former meth laboratories. I suspect many people are not aware of the extent of this problem and the dangers involved, but meth labs are springing up, primarily in rural areas, particularly wooded areas--and I know Oregon is having considerable problems with them; we have in Michigan as well because both states have substantial wooded areas where you can conceal a shack and try to manufacture methamphetamine.
There are several aspects of danger there. One is that very frequently, because of the danger of the components--and in fact, the explosive nature of the components--frequently an explosion occurs, which obliterates the shack and the people within it, so we lose a number of young people every year who are engaged in this dangerous pursuit. Even more frequently, they use a particular structure for this; it becomes very--it collects a lot of toxic materials because there is a great deal of toxic material going into the production of methamphetamine. They actually become not quite superfund sites, but pretty close to it, and local governments are having a great deal of trouble cleaning them up to a reasonable standard, and the expense is substantial for small units of government.
Now, I am pleased that Mr. Wu has introduced this bill, which will deal with this problem, not only in Oregon and Michigan, but throughout the country. With that, I am proud to introduce Mr. Wu from Oregon, the Subcommittee's new Ranking Member. I have worked before with Mr. Wu on a number of issues. I know he has a strong interest and considerable experience in the issues before the Subcommittee. I am very happy that he has joined us in this position.
I want to thank Mr. Udall. He is on the way but not here yet. I want to thank Mr. Udall from Colorado, who was a Ranking Member for the past four years. We had a very productive relationship, and now he is Ranking Member of the Space Subcommittee, where spacey Members end up. And I am sorry to lose him for that purpose, but delighted that Mr. Wu is his replacement. I am pleased that Mr. Udall will continue to be a Member of the Subcommittee.
I am now pleased to yield to Mr. Wu for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]
Good afternoon! Welcome to the Subcommittee's first markup of the year. Pursuant to notice, we will consider three important measures today that together underlie the breadth of jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. Given the number of bills we need to get through today, my opening statement will be brief and then I will explain each bill in more detail as it is brought up.
First, we will consider H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Act. This bill, a reintroduction of legislation I authored last Congress, would create an `organic act' for NOAA. This organic act would provide the underlying statute of missions and functions to be carried out by the NOAA, something that has not existed since the agency was formed by executive order in 1970.
Next, we will consider H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. This bill is nearly identical to legislation I introduced last Congress, and which passed the House last July. The main focus of the bill is an authorization for the Department of Commerce's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.
And finally, we will consider H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. This bill, introduced by Ranking Member Gordon, Representative Calvert and Chairman Boehlert, would create a research program at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and provide important voluntary guidelines for states to use as they try to clean up former `meth' laboratories.
I am proud to introduce Mr. Wu from Oregon, the Subcommittee's new Ranking Member. I know that Mr. Wu has a strong interest and considerable experience in the issues before the Subcommittee, and I am very happy that he has joined us. I want to thank Mr. Udall, from Colorado, who was our Ranking Member for the past four years. We had a very productive relationship and now he is the Ranking Member of our Space Subcommittee. I am pleased he will still be a Member of our subcommittee.
I now yield to Mr. Wu for an opening statement.
Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to working with you in a very productive relationship concerning the broad range of this subcommittee's jurisdiction in technology transfer, competitiveness, and other crucial issues for our research, our tech transfer, and our economy. And in your spirit, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, even laconic. I am very pleased to be here with you to participate in our subcommittee's first markup, markup of the NOAA Organic Act, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, and the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman and would just correct myself. I mentioned this was your bill; it is actually Mr. Gordon's bill, joined with the methamphetamine. But it is certainly a bill which is worthy of your attention.
Mister--without object, all Members--all other Members may place statements in the records, and I ask unanimous consent to recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without objection it is so ordered; I hear no objection.
We will now consider the bill H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. This bill is identical to the legislation that I introduced last year and that passed the Subcommittee at the end of the Congressional session. Unfortunately, time ran out before we could consider it at Full Committee. H.R. 50 provides NOAA with an organic act. An organic act defines the overall missions and functions of an agency. As an example, H.R. 50 states that the mission of NOAA is, first, to understand and predict changes in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere; second, to conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and great lakes ecosystems; and third, to educate the public about these topics. The bill also describes the specific functions NOAA should carry out to fulfill its mission, such as issuing weather forecasts and warnings.
I should note that H.R. 50 contains very little language about fisheries or research management at NOAA because those topics are under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee, and particularly the Subcommittee chaired by my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, who is also, now, a Member of this committee. I look forward to working with Mr. Gilchrest, my other colleagues, and the administration, as well as with the full Resources Committee, to pass truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA.
I am pleased to recognize Mr. Wu if he wishes to make any comments about this bill.
Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully support your interest in moving forward to develop legislation that will provide NOAA with a statutory foundation to guide its missions and functions. I congratulate you for introducing H.R. 50.
NOAA is this nation's lead agency charged with conserving and managing our coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also plays a vital role in public safety through the programs of the National Weather Service to issue weather forecasts and warnings. We must ensure that NOAA has the resources and authorities it needs to meet its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public safety missions.
H.R. 50 makes a good start on this effort, and I look forward to working with you further before this legislation is considered by the full House. And I might add that I also look forward to working with you and Mr. Gilchrest to have a more robust component with respect to fisheries, which are of great interest to us on either coast, and I assume, also, in the Great Lakes.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]
Good afternoon, everyone. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here this afternoon to participate in our subcommittee's first markup of legislation. I realize your interest in moving forward to develop legislation that will provide NOAA with the statutory foundation to guide its missions and functions. I congratulate you for introducing H.R. 50.
NOAA is this nation's lead agency charged with conserving and managing our coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also plays a vital role in public safety through the programs of the National Weather Service to issue weather forecasts and warnings.
We must ensure that NOAA has the resources and authorities it needs to meet its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public safety missions.
H.R. 50 makes a good start on this effort, and I look forward to working with you further before this legislation is considered by the Full Science Committee.
Chairman EHLERS. I thank you for your comments, and let me just note the presence of Mr. Udall. Mr. Udall, I paid you several compliments in your absence. I won't repeat them, but I expressed my appreciation for your good service as Ranking Member of this subcommittee. We will miss you, and I am happy that you are going to continue to be on the Subcommittee.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the spirit of the old adage, you never get in trouble for something you didn't say. I would just say I think probably those compliments are undeserved, and I do look forward to working with you as a Member of the Committee, and with Ranking Member Wu. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I disagree with him; they are deserved.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.
The first amendment on the roster is an en bloc amendment offered by Mr. Wu. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
Mr. WU. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have amendment at the desk.
Chairman EHLERS. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 50 offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon.
Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. WU. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, does three things. The first part of my amendment clarifies current policy of having the National Weather Service serve as the Nation's source for issuing forecasts and warnings. The public safety function performed by the National Weather Service should not be contracted to outside providers. There are numerous commercial weather providers that also have an important role to play in weather forecasting. They and the National Weather Service have developed a productive partnership that serves our nation well. This language ensures that it will continue to do so.
The second part of my amendment ensures the continuance of the agreements between NOAA and its established employee organization. The final part of my amendment requires NOAA to engage the agency's client base, this Congress, and their own employees in the development of any organizational changes.
NOAA partners include State and local governments, commercial interests in recreation, fishing, navigation, and weather forecasting, the research and education communities, and conservation organizations. NOAA reorganizations should not occur without the involvement of the many organizations that work with NOAA.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that you will be supporting my amendment. I yield back.
Chairman EHLERS. I thank Mr. Wu for working with us on his amendment. It is a worthy amendment. I believe it strengthens the bill, and the Chair is pleased to support this amendment.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment? None?
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman may proceed for five minutes.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of moving the legislation forward, I don't have an amendment, but I would like clarification on an issue of concern to me, and I believe to all of the Members of the Committee. The mission we are defining for NOAA is a broad one, and I certainly agree that NOAA's mission should be defined broadly to include the many important operation and research functions it performs for our nation. However, I am concerned about the potential for overlap with NASA's mission. And as you know, reports have surfaced at various times, indicating the possibility that NASA's Earth science programs might be transferred to NOAA. And I was curious if it was your intention to endorse or facilitate that type of transfer through this legislation.
Chairman EHLERS- with your comment.
Mr. UDALL. I would be happy to yield to the----
Chairman EHLERS. I thank gentleman for yielding.
There is no intent in this bill to favor that one way or the other and no plans to do any such thing. It is true there is overlap between NOAA and NASA. There is also overlap between NOAA and the armed services with the new satellite program. And I think--my personal opinion is that there is going to have to be much greater effort made in NOAA--and I hope it will occur under this bill--to work more closely with other agencies with which they have joint interests. And that, of course, includes NASA as well as the armed forces and perhaps other government agencies, perhaps the Department of Interior as an example. So my hope is that operating under an organic act, it will be easier for them to develop interagency agreements to deal with these issues. At this point, it has been pretty much on an ad hoc basis, as far as I can see, particularly with the satellite program.
So there is no ulterior motive in the bill to deal with this, and so far as I know, nothing in the bill would encourage that sort of thing. But it would be something that we would be involved in judging on a case-by-case basis, as they present.
Mr. UDALL. I thank the Chairman. And reclaiming my time, if I could ask just one follow-on question?
I understand we are planning a hearing on NASA's Earth sciences program in the near future, and it would be my hope that--and this is the thrust of my question--we would have that hearing before we markup H.R. 50 in the Full Committee. And I would be happy to yield to the gentleman again.
Chairman EHLERS. I assume that hearing would be on the Space Subcommittee rather than this subcommittee, so I would suggest that since you are on that committee that you make that request known to the Chairman. I would not want to hold up H.R. 50 at any point, but if that Subcommittee wishes to conduct such a hearing early on, that would be most helpful.
Mr. UDALL. Reclaiming my time, I hear the gentleman suggesting that he would be amenable to the Space Subcommittee taking a look at that this, but you don't want to slow down the process that H.R. 50----
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman is correct, and that is based on consideration of how rapidly or not rapidly bills tend to move through Committee--through the House, through the Senate, and I want to make certain that this gets passed during this Congress and preferably this year if at all possible. But I would be happy to work with the Chair of the Space Subcommittee on a joint hearing if he would wish to do it.
Mr. UDALL. That seems to be the general thrust here, and I will talk to Chairman Calvert as well, and I look forward to working with you, and we will prove, Mr. Chairman, Ross Perot wrong where he said a committee is a cul-de-sac down which great ideas go to die. So we have, I think a bigger load to shoulder here when it comes to proving Mr. Perot wrong.
Chairman EHLERS. Well, you also have to remember that was a goal of the founders of this nation, to make a structure so complicated that very few things would pass, assuming that only the best would survive. But since this bill is so superb, we are not worried about what the process might do to it.
Any further comments on the amendment? Hearing none, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed say no. The yeas have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the bill. H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, 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.
I will now recognize Mr. Wu for a motion.
Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 50, as amended, to the Full Committee. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to make all necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill as amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.
Chairman EHLERS. The question is on the motion to report the bill as amended favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries, and the bill favorably reported. Without object, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
I thank the Committee very much.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I wish to express my appreciation to all of the Members of the Committee for the rapid action on this group of bills and the good spirit in which we have all approached these bills and trying to improve them. So I appreciate your consideration. I thank the Committee Members for their attendance. This concludes our subcommittee markup.
[Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
000
The short title of this Act is the `National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.'
Defines terms used in the Act.
Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA.
Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, Education and Outreach, who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency, and must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration's operations and management.
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a National Weather Service within NOAA.
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational and service functions. These functions would include all the activities of NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support research and education functions.
Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.
Requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report must provide a strategic plan for research at NOAA. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) shall review each report prior to delivery to Congress.
Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.
Provides that all rules and regulations, and other technical legal topics that were previously assigned to the Administration, remain in effect under this Act.
Makes the effective date of the Act two years after the date of enactment and requires NOAA to reorganize around the themes outlined in sections five through seven.
Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer a facility without a 60-day public comment period, 90 days notification to Congress, review by the Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), preparation of anticipated costs and savings, and preparation of a statement of the impacts of the facility change on NOAA and its part
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
--Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to welcome everyone here today for this markup of bills concerning the heavens and the Earth and to the agencies that explore them, NOAA and NASA.
Now let me just say this before I give you the rest of this wonderful statement.
The Committee on Science will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act; H.R. 2363, To establish a Science and Technology Scholarship Program to award scholarships to recruit and prepare students for careers in the National Weather Service and in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration marine research, atmospheric research, and satellite programs; H.R. 426, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2005, and H.R. 1022, the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act.
I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration of these matters, and without objection, it is so ordered.
We will now proceed with the markup beginning with the opening statements, and I will continue mine.
The main bill before us today is the NOAA Organic Act introduced by Dr. Ehlers, which we had initially planned to markup last week. This bill will give NOAA a firm legislative grounding, something that was called for by the Ocean Commission, among others. The Administration has also called for an Organic Act for NOAA.
But our bill will do more than merely found NOAA into law. It will raise the profile of science at NOAA and improve its management. The bill also will greatly improve oversight of the agency by ensuring that Congress and the public get the information needed to evaluate NOAA's organizational structure, facilities plans, budgeting, and satellite programs. This is a solid bill that will strengthen the agency.
And now we look forward to working with the Resources Committee, which shares jurisdiction over portions of NOAA, to get this bill to the Floor. Also related to NOAA, we will take up Congressman Rohrabacher's bill to create a Scholarship for Service Program at NOAA. And he is a real leader on that effort, and we applaud that. We have done the same thing with NASA and the Department of Energy. Service scholarships are a great way to entice students into science, math, and engineering while also helping the Federal Government develop the workforce it will need. These scholarships have been championed tirelessly by Congressman Rohrabacher, and I congratulate him for that.
We are running the scholarship program through as a separate bill, because specific program authorizations generally are not part of agency Organic Acts. We will also take up two bills related to space today. These were last-minute additions to today's roster, which is something we have generally avoided on this committee. But this seemed like an opportune time to move these bills, and we continue to work on them through manager's amendments on the Floor.
Mr. Udall's bill, which the Committee also passed last Congress, concerns remote sensing. Mr. Udall will offer an amendment that will take care of concerns raised by companies in the remote sensing data business, concerns that have stymied progress on this bill in the past. I know that Mr. Bonner and I, perhaps some others, have some further ideas for perfecting the bill, and we will work on those as the bill moves forward.
Mr. Rohrabacher's bill focuses on near-Earth objects, a subject that has long concerned him and has gotten quite a bit of publicity lately. Congressman Rohrabacher has helped us all understand that asteroids may present a real threat to Earth and that we need to pay greater attention to them. All of these bills will improve our lives through increasing our understanding of the Earth, how it works, and what may threaten it.
As usual, these bills represent a bipartisan effort, and I take pride in that. I look forward to their passage.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
I want to welcome everyone here today for this markup of bills concerning the heavens and the Earth--and to the agencies that explore them, NOAA and NASA.
The main bill before us today is the NOAA Organic Act, introduced by Dr. Ehlers, which we had initially planned to mark up last week. This bill will give NOAA a firm legislative grounding, something that was called for by the Ocean Commission among others. The Administration has also called for an Organic Act for NOAA.
But our bill will do more than merely found NOAA in law. It will raise the profile of science at NOAA and improve its management. The bill also will greatly improve oversight of the agency by ensuring that Congress--and the public--get the information needed to evaluate NOAA's organizational structure, facilities plans, budgeting and satellite programs. This is a solid bill that will strengthen the agency.
And now we look forward to working with the Resources Committee, which shares jurisdiction over portions of NOAA, to get this bill to the Floor.
Also related to NOAA, we will take up Congressman Rohrabacher's bill to create a scholarship for service program at NOAA, as we have at NASA and the Department of Energy. Service scholarships are a great way to entice students into science, math and engineering while also helping the Federal Government develop the workforce it will need. These scholarships have been championed tirelessly by Congressman Rohrabacher, and I congratulate him for that.
We are running the scholarship program through as a separate bill because specific program authorizations generally are not part of agency organic acts.
We will also take up two bills related to space today. These were last minute additions to today's roster, which is something we have generally avoided on this committee. But this seemed like an opportune time to move these bills, and we can continue to work on them through manager's amendments on the Floor.
Mr. Udall's bill, which the Committee also passed last Congress, concerns remote sensing. Mr. Udall will offer an amendment that will take care of concerns raised by companies in the remote sensing data business--concerns that have stymied progress on this bill in the past. I know that Mr. Bonner and I and perhaps some others have some further ideas for `perfecting' the bill, and we will work on those as the bill moves forward.
Mr. Rohrabacher's bill focuses on Near-Earth Objects, a subject that has long concerned him and that has gotten quite a bit of press lately. Congressman Rohrabacher has helped us all understand that asteroids may present a real threat to Earth and that we need to pay greater attention to them.
All of these bills will improve our lives through increasing our understanding of the Earth, how it works and what may threaten it. As usual, these bills represent a bipartisan effort. I look forward to their passage.
Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have summed up what we are going to do this morning very well. I just want to concur that it is a good idea, I think, to take up these additional three bills today, and I want to give my thanks to the staff on both sides for the good cooperative work that they have done over the last week in trying to bring NOAA together as well as these three bills, and I look forward to the markup.
And I yield my time back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
I want to thank the Chairman for scheduling this markup.
Originally we were to just take up H.R. 50 today, but I think it is to the advantage of our Members that we will expeditiously take up three other bills, all of which can probably move on suspension on the Floor.
In addition to the NOAA organic act, I am especially pleased to see the Remote Sensing Act move through Committee. We have dealt with this in past Congresses and I am happy the Chairman agrees that we can move that bill forward today.
I don't want to delay the process here this morning with an extensive preliminary statement, but let me take a moment to thank staff on both sides of the aisle for their work to handle these bills. I think the Members have been well served through their efforts.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Without objection, Members may place statements in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]
Good morning, everyone. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to participate in the Science Committee's markup of H.R. 50. I appreciate your interest in moving forward to develop legislation that will provide NOAA with the statutory foundation to guide its missions and functions.
NOAA is this nation's lead agency charged with conserving and managing our coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also plays a vital role in public safety through the programs of the National Weather Service to issue weather forecasts and warnings. We must ensure that NOAA has the resources and authorities it needs to meet its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public safety missions. H.R. 50 makes a good start on this effort, and we want to continue to work with Chairman Boehlert and the majority on the dollar figures for facility changes.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act is an important piece of legislation that deserves strong consideration along with the appropriate Amendments. NOAA was created through the merger of a number of organizations in the 1970s. However, it still has no legislation that establishes it as an Agency or formally defines it missions.
The legislation before this committee today will help to refine the mission of NOAA and allow the agency to succeed in the future. Specifically, the legislation authored by my colleague Mr. Ehlers will define broad mission areas and general authorities and to codify the existing primary administrative positions at NOAA. Based upon text from the Ocean Commission report this bill defines the mission and function of NOAA. The bill codifies the current senior positions of the agency: Administrator/Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere. The current positions of Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere are also specifically authorized and Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs.
Among the provisions I am most supportive of is Section 5 of the bill which calls upon NOAA to maintain the National Weather Service as a distinct entity. The National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO) is very supportive of this position. NWS forms a major part of NOAA's operational mission and I have long advocated that accurate weather forecasting is not only useful for planning purposes, but can also be used in possible life saving capacity as the technology continues to develop.
This legislation needs to be clearer on certain issues; I am especially concerned about the issue of separation between the mission of NOAA and the Earth science programs at NASA. As we heard last week from testimony provided by Mr. Diaz of NASA at last week's Full Committee hearing, he indicated NASA's plan for a number of their missions (Landsat, Glory) will be to transfer these Earth science programs to NOAA. In addition, the Ocean Commission Report suggests that NOAA should take on NASA's Earth sciences programs. Firstly, I am against the idea that Earth science programs should be diminished at NASA. Secondly, NOAA's budget cannot absorb these programs in its current budget. The current mission statement in the bill does create overlap with the mission statement for NASA. Clarifying language should be inserted to ensure that these necessary Earth science programs are continued in one fashion or another.
Again, I believe this legislation is pertinent and should be implemented with due consideration for all amendments. NOAA deserves to have proper mission which is achievable under the right parameters.
Thank you.
Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. I recognize Dr. Ehlers to present some introductory remarks.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to explain my bill.
This is certainly an important bill, and I say that not because I have a large ego, but because it is very rare that we have an opportunity to pass an organic act through this committee. And this bill, H.R. 50, establishes an organic act for NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.
An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an agency. As an example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA is to, first, understand and predict changes in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere; second, conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems; and third, educate the public about these topics.
NOAA was created in 1970 by an Executive Order that placed the agency in the Department of Commerce and transferred various oceanic and atmospheric functions from other agencies into the new NOAA. Since that time, NOAA has operated under a confusing collection of issue-specific laws that are not coordinated by an overarching mission, therefore, the need for an organic act.
In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its final report, which called for Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA and clarify in one place the mission and program goals of the agency. The Bush Administration supports Congressional passage of a NOAA and organic act and made it a priority in the Administration formal response to the Ocean Commission report. In the 108th Congress, witnesses at Science Committee hearings strongly endorsed this bill.
Today, I will offer a manager's amendment, which makes technical corrections and reflects negotiations with the minority. I will explain the amendment further when it is offered.
I should note that H.R. 50 contains little language about fisheries management at NOAA, because that topic is under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee, and in particular, the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee chaired by my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest.
I look forward to working with the Members of that committee to join us in passing truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA. I urge my colleagues today to support H.R. 50, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to explain my bill. H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, is an organic act for NOAA. An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an agency. As an example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA is to:
NOAA was created in 1970 by an executive order that placed the agency in the Department of Commerce and transferred various oceanic and atmospheric functions from other agencies into the new NOAA. Since that time, NOAA has operated under a confusing collection of issue-specific laws that are not coordinated by an overarching mission.
In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its final report, which called for Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA and clarify in one place the mission and program goals of the agency. The Bush Administration supports Congressional passage of a NOAA organic act, and made it a priority in the Administration formal response to the Ocean Commission report. In the 108th Congress witnesses at Science Committee hearings strongly endorsed my bill.
Today I will offer a manager's amendment which makes technical corrections and reflects negotiations with the minority. I will explain the amendment further when it is offered.
I should note that H.R. 50 contains little language about fisheries management at NOAA because that topic is under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee, in particular the Subcommittee chaired by my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest. I look forward to working with the Members of that committee to join us in passing truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 50, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers, and a special thanks from all of us for your hard work to bring us to the point where we find ourselves today.
Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, let me say that I think Mr. Ehlers has done a good job in evaluating this bill, and I want to thank him for the work with his staff in putting it together.
A couple of concerns I do have, though, is that we are still trying to determine what is an appropriate value to be triggering the review process. The bill has a $5 million limit, but I think the Committee needs to do some more work on this to make sure that that really is a valid number, and I am sure we will be doing that before it goes to the Floor. And I do appreciate Mr. Ehlers' work in the past.
Finally, let me just say that the bill defines a broad mission for NOAA to allow this agency to grow and change as needed to serve our resource needs as our nation grows and changes. However, I do not believe the broadly-defined mission in this bill should serve as an invitation to this or future Administrations to transfer programs from other agencies to NOAA without sufficient planning and adequate funding. And I think that is very important.
We look forward to working with you and our colleagues on the Committee of Resources as this bill continues to move forward, and I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for bringing H.R. 50 before the Committee this morning. I would also like to thank Rep. Ehlers for introducing the NOAA Organic Act.
I recognize H.R. 50 is not yet a true organic act for NOAA. The bill does not include important authorities and functions in fisheries, coastal zone management, ocean mapping and charting, and a number of other important operations that are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources.
This committee's programs, however, are well-treated in this legislation. I am especially pleased that we are including explicit language to ensure that the structure and function of the National Weather Service remains unchanged.
The 3,700 employees of the National Weather Service fulfill a vital public safety mission across this nation everyday in cooperation with the network of professionals in the private sector.
We have worked well together on language to try to establish a regular procedure for proposed changes in NOAA facilities. However, I want to keep working to understand what an appropriate dollar value is to trigger that review process. The bill has $5 million, but I think the Committee needs to do more work before this bill gets to the floor to understand all the implications of this language. We do have some information from NOAA on this, but since they prefer the $5 million number I think we need to double check some of that information.
We have achieved steady improvements to our weather forecasting through investments in research and technology and the expansion of our system of weather observing satellites. We should ensure continued progress in weather forecasting and understanding the Earth's atmospheric and oceanic systems.
The bill defines a broad mission for NOAA to allow this agency to grow and change as needed to serve our resource needs as our nation grows and changes. However, I do not believe the broadly defined mission in this bill should serve as an invitation to this or a future Administration to transfer programs from other agencies to NOAA without sufficient planning and adequate funding.
We look forward to working with you and our colleagues on the Committee on Resources as this bill moves forward.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.
The first amendment on the roster is an amendment offered in the nature of a substitute offered by Dr. Ehlers. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be treated as original text for purposes of amendment under the five-minute rule. Without objection, so ordered.
Dr. Ehlers, are you ready to proceed?
Mr. EHLERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
This substitute amendment strengthens and clarifies certain sections of H.R. 50.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Excuse me, Dr. Ehlers.
The Clerk will report the amendment, and then we will hear the eloquent words of Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. I have an amendment at the desk.
Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 50 offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This substitute amendment strengthens and clarifies certain sections of H.R. 50, as it was reported by the Environment, Technology, and Standards Committee. Specifically, as compared to the bill as reported, my amendment first provides technical clarification. It also provides additional authorities of the Administrator of NOAA, such as conducting education and outreach activities. It emphasizes NOAA's role in forecasting of and warning for tsunamis. It also provides for input from the National Academy of Sciences earlier in the process of NOAA developing its strategic plan for management of its environmental data and information systems. It requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs, encounters serious problems with, or makes major changes to existing satellite programs, and finally clarifies that nothing in the bill shall alter the responsibilities or authorities of other federal agencies.
These changes were developed after careful consultation with the Administration, outside experts, NOAA stakeholders, and other Members of this committee.
I urge my colleagues to support this substitute amendment for H.R. 50 and yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
This substitute amendment strengthens and clarifies certain sections of H.R. 50 as it was reported by the Environment, Technology and Standards Committee.
Specifically, as compared to the bill as reported, my amendment:
These changes were developed after careful consultation with the Administration, outside experts, NOAA stakeholders, and other Members of this committee. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute amendment for H.R. 50 and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to thank Dr. Ehlers for his work on the bill, and the Chair supports his amendment.
Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would move to strike the last word.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. Udall, my distinguished colleague and good friend from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be brief, I hope.
I am pleased to see some of the changes included in my good friend, Dr. Ehlers' amendment regarding the evaluation process for the closures, relocation, or consolidation of NOAA facilities. Particularly, I am pleased to see that the Congress must be notified if any NOAA facility will be closed, relocated, or consolidated. This covers 183 facilities that could have been closed without Congressional notification under the original definition of a facility as having a budget greater than $1 million.
I am also pleased that the language has been included to evaluate National Weather Service's field offices by involving a similar evaluation process used in the National Weather Modernization Act.
These are both good government provisions, and I am pleased that they have been included in Dr. Ehlers' amendment.
However, I would like to express my concern that there are at least 28 NOAA facilities with budgets between $1 million and $5 million. NOAA will merely have to notify Congress of closures, relocations, or consolidations of these facilities without going through an evaluation process. I do not believe that we know enough about how this will affect these 28 facilities at this time to set the number at $5 million.
While I do not want to try to amend this language in an effort to move the bill through Committee, I plan to continue to work on the issue in an effort to ensure that any changes to the organization of NOAA facilities is thoroughly evaluated and services are not degraded.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chairman and Dr. Ehlers for working with me on this issue, and I look forward to continuing this working relationship in the future as we move this bill forward.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back any time I have remaining. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am pleased to see some of the changes included in this amendment regarding the evaluation process for the closures, relocation, or consolidation of NOAA facilities.
Particularly, I am pleased to see that Congress must be notified if any NOAA facility will be closed, relocated or consolidated. This covers 183 facilities that could have been closed without Congressional notification under the original definition of a facility as having a budget greater than $1 million.
I am also pleased that language has been included to evaluate National Weather Services field offices by involving a similar evaluation process used in the National Weather Modernization Act.
These are both good government provisions and I am pleased they have been included in Mr. Ehlers amendment.
However, I would like to express my concern that there are at least 28 NOAA facilities with budgets between $1 and $5 million. NOAA will merely have to notify Congress of closures, relocations or consolidations of these facilities without going through an evaluation process.
I do not believe that we know enough about how this will affect these 28 facilities at this time to set the number at $5 million.
While I do not want to try to amend this language in an effort to move the bill through Committee, I plan to continue to work on issue in an effort to ensure that any changes to the organization of NOAA facilities is thoroughly evaluated and services are not degraded.
I would like to thank the Chairman and Mr. Ehlers for working with me on this issue and hope to continue this working relationship in the future.
With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall, and we will be glad to continue our work with you, because you bring up a very good point. It is one that should concern us all, and we will work cooperatively to get the best possible result.
The vote, then, is on--all right.
The second amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello. Are you ready to proceed?
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I am. My amendment is at the desk.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask that we dispense with the reading of the amendment.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a `buy American and protect American jobs' amendment. The amendment is straightforward, and it will protect American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses two contracting issues with NOAA. One, it prohibits federal jobs from being outsourced to foreign nations, and two, it requires NOAA contracts for goods and services to be performed in the United States.
In cases where NOAA issues a contract for goods or services to a private-sector contractor, NOAA would have to ensure that the contract work is being done in the United States. Foreign labor may not be substituted for U.S. labor.
The amendment provides exceptions to this policy. One, the new Administrator may waive the requirement if an essential instrument or service is only produced outside the United States or is only produced by non-U.S. manufacturers. Two, the President may waive the requirement if, in his opinion, it is in the interest of national security. Three, the restriction does not apply to goods or services that are now obtained for use outside of the United States or in case where the functions are performed by U.S. federal workers outside the United States.
Regardless of how Members of the Committee feel about the A-76 process on either side of the aisle, we should have an agreement that tax dollars should not be spent to create jobs in other countries and put Americans out of work. We must look for ways to protect our national economy. NOAA should be getting its goods and services here in America, not abroad. We may not be able to keep the big multi-national firms from moving offshore or setting up supply chains that stretch from China to our local retailers, but we ought to be able to block NOAA from doing exactly that.
And Mr. Chairman, I ask for your support and ask for the support of Members of the Committee, and I----
Mr. GORDON. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. COSTELLO. I would be happy to yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. GORDON. Let me just quickly say that, as you pointed out, we are all aware that the Administration has launched an aggressive effort to cut government jobs through the A-76 circular out of OMB. And we all want to see government work as efficiently as possible, but I think the jury is still out on this outsourcing, whether it really is effective. But clearly, your niche in this of not sending jobs overseas is an important one. I think that it is something that we can all agree upon, and I commend you for this amendment.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.
The gentleman's time has expired.
I know the gentleman's amendment is well-intended, and none of us would argue with its thrust to keep and create jobs in the United States. I always say that `jobs' is my favorite four-letter word.
But here is the problem with the amendment.
In many ways, it runs afoul of our international trade obligations. We all know the world is flat. We are constantly reminded of that every single day. Specifically, we have signed treaties in which we and the other signatories agree not to limit most government procurements. And guess why we do that. We do it because we think it will help keep and create jobs in the United States by enabling U.S. companies to compete for government contracts abroad. There is no way to know for sure, but it is perfectly likely that this amendment would actually cost jobs in the United States by preventing U.S. companies from winning procurement contracts overseas.
Moreover, the amendment is at odds with our international obligations and possibly endangers American jobs, even though no one can point to a particular problem that this amendment is designed to resolve.
Is there any indication that NOAA has been loose with the taxpayers' money by needlessly sending money overseas? The answer is no. This amendment is a well-meaning, symbolic expression of the concern we all have with outsourcing, but it is not designed to combat a specific known problem.
But it would create specific known problems by conflicting with trade agreements. And I would add that the Administration strenuously objects for that same reason.
So I will offer a second-degree amendment that says that the Costello language can not override an international obligation of the United States. I imagine Mr. Costello will claim, and I know him from long experience working closely with him, and we are very good friends, but he will claim, probably, that this amendment, my second-degree amendment, would gut his amendment. If that is so, then it just confirms that Mr. Costello's language would create an international trade incident, which may hurt the United States. If my language will not gut Mr. Costello's effort, then there is no reason not to pass it.
So I urge passage of my amendment, which will balance Mr. Costello's good intentions. Let me emphasize that. Good intentions. But we also have to match that with our obligation to ensure that the United States abides by its international commitments.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
I know the gentleman's amendment is well intentioned. And none of us would argue with its ostensible purpose--to keep and create jobs in the U.S. I always say that `jobs' is my favorite four-letter word.
But here's the problem with the amendment. In many ways, it runs afoul of our international trade obligations. Specifically, we have signed treaties in which we and the other signatories agree not to limit most government procurements. And guess why we do that? We do it because we think it will help keep and create jobs in the U.S. by enabling U.S. companies to compete for government contracts abroad. There's no way to know for sure, but it's perfectly likely that this amendment would actually cost jobs in the U.S. by preventing U.S. companies from winning procurement contracts overseas.
Moreover, this amendment is at odds with our international obligations and possibly endangers American jobs even though no one can point to a particular problem that this amendment is designed to resolve. Is there any indication that NOAA has been loose with the taxpayers money by heedlessly sending money overseas? No.
This amendment is a well meaning, symbolic expression of the concern we all have with outsourcing, but it's not designed to combat a specific, known problem. But it would create specific, known problems by conflicting with trade agreements. And I would add that the Administration strenuously objects for that same reason.
So, I will offer a second-degree amendment that says that the Costello language cannot override an international obligation of the United States.
I imagine Mr. Costello will claim that this would `gut' the amendment. If that is so, then it just confirms that Mr. Costello's language will create an international trade incident, which may hurt the U.S. If my language will not `gut' Mr. Costello's effort, then there's no reason not to pass it.
So I urge passage of my amendment, which will balance Mr. Costello's good intentions with our obligation to ensure that the U.S. abides by its international commitments.
Mr. COSTELLO. I would ask the Chair to yield.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair is pleased to yield to his good friend and colleague.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, let me respond, if I may. I was not going to suggest that it guts my amendment, but apparently it does.
Let me make a couple of points.
One, you make the point of a foreign country or someone objecting and challenging this provision because of the international trade agreements that we have through the WTO. And I would just suggest that this committee should not be in the business of attempting to protect trade agreements, and in fact, a provision such as this that we are offering as this amendment has never been challenged at all by the International Trade Commission. There has not been a foreign country ever challenge an issue with the U.S. Government to go to court over this issue before.
Number two is let me suggest that we have offered and debated several amendments to other bills in the past, and the Chair has been very protective in the past of having amendments adopted that would result in referring a bill from this committee to another committee. And it--I would suggest that--I am told at least that your amendment to my amendment would, in fact, result in this bill being referred to the Ways and Means Committee.
So I would just raise that issue and last say that, you know, Members of the Committee have a choice today regarding NOAA. And the choice is, with exceptions, with--giving the President the exception that if it is in the interest of national security, NOAA would not have to abide by this. If they are buying products now that are only made outside of the United States, there would be an exception. So I am--it is pretty clear to me that, you know, instead of this committee protecting or trying to protect international trade agreements that have never been challenged in the past on this issue, I would just suggest that we have a choice to make today and that is we can either protect American jobs from going overseas through contracts and services or we can sit here and try and protect trade agreements that I think many of us do not support to begin with.
But I would ask again for Members--for their support of my amendment and to respectfully reject the Chairman's amendment.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I am glad you noted respectfully.
Let me--first of all, let me just say before we proceed, and the way I would like to proceed, I will just respond initially briefly to you, and then I will have my amendment reported, and then we can continue the debate. Okay.
Our advice from counsel is this will not result in a referral to Ways and Means or any other committee, so we are getting conflicting advice on both sides. But be that as it may----
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, we would like to take our counsel's advice.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I don't blame you, but guess what, I have got the advantage of sitting in the Chair. And my counsel is pretty darn good. But we will get some clarification on that, too.
The Clerk will report----
Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT- the amendment to the amendment.
Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. We are going to--here is what we are going to do. She is going to report, and then we will have further discussion.
Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert of New York to the amendment offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read, and so the Chair is recognized for five minutes. We will continue this.
Ms. Biggert, you are next.
Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move to strike the last word.
I have just a couple of points.
First of all, to the--to Mr. Costello's amendment, I have concerns when he talks about we will let the courts decide and it can always--or that we are protecting international trade agreements. We are not protecting international trade agreements. Trade agreements are a legal, binding contract on the United States and all of the other countries involved, and we can't protect them, but we really have to make sure that our actions do not violate the law.
Second of all, the grandfathering in those contracts with others right now, I think that locks us into an old technology that if we can not make new agreements with other countries who might have the quality of goods that we need that the United States doesn't need and we have grandfathered them in, then they are not going to be able to proceed with--we can't go to another country with--that has better technology and that we don't have. So I have concerns just with the way that that is written.
Second of all, with the proposed secondary amendment, I think that that helps to overcome the legality of trade agreements. My only concern with the secondary amendment is that it doesn't say who is going to decide. And in most cases like this, there usually is a provision as--that USTR will be the deciding body whether--you know, whether that would violate the trade agreement whether to be able to go ahead or not.
So with that, I think there is a little bit of the language that would need to be looked at if we decide to go with the secondary amendment.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Is there anyone--Ms. Jackson Lee has departed.
Mr. Gutknecht.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for your perfecting amendment here, but I do want to congratulate Mr. Costello for bringing this issue forward. And for those of you who have never been out to NOAA's headquarters out in Colorado, I would encourage you to make a trip out there. And after I was out there, I came back believing that this was an agency that not only had a point of view, but was willing to do whatever it took to prove that particular point of view. And that was discouraging for me.
But I also want to say this. It is also discouraging to me that a lot of our partners around the world are more than eager to allow the United States to shoulder 90 percent of the cost of doing research of this type and then have little to offer except criticism of the United States. And so this may be a ham-fisted way to make a point, but I think it is an important point that Congress needs to make.
And I guess if you boiled it all down, it comes to this: he who pays, plays. And a lot of our trading partners in Europe and in other parts of the world, who are supposedly our allies, will--are not willing to put up much money in terms of doing this kind of research but they are constantly critical of the United States for not doing enough. And so this may not be the perfect way to make a statement to some of our friends around the world, but at least it is an attempt.
I will vote for the Chairman's perfecting amendment, but I would encourage all Members to pay very close attention not only to what NOAA is up to but sometimes to what our friends are up to as well.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much.
I wish my colleagues would look specifically at Mr. Costello's language, and I think it is, if anything, leans toward absolute fairness. It particularly talks about procurement. It talks about contractors and subcontractors located outside of the United States. Time after time, Members have voted for this very same language on the Floor of the House. I hate to use the term `buy American' to defend someone, but I think part of the connection of Mr. Costello's language and intent, and I don't want to read my analysis into his language, but over and over again, we talk about building the science capacity, technology capacity here in the United States, the number of scholars that we can generate to begin to foster a greater involvement in this work. NOAA is a scientific entity. Albeit, it deals with our weather predictions and other scientific efforts. What Mr. Costello is doing is even more far-reaching than the concept of `buy American.' It is investing in America. I think he makes provisions if it is to the necessity of national security that he provides an exemption.
And I am concerned, though I appreciate the intent of the Chairman's amendment, I am concerned that this throws this particular legislation into Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over treaties. And this doesn't speak--he does not speak specifically to treaties, and by its silence, I think that this legislation can track and parallel the obligations of a treaty. What it says, where NOAA can, abiding by law, use the services and goods from within the United States, goods and services from the United States, they should do it. Why should we be against that? All of the protections are in the amendment.
And I would hope that we would see this two-fold: one, investing in America, and three, investing in America's human resources, investing in America's small businesses, investing in America's technology, investing in America's science.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment, and I yield back.
Thank you.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Before going to Mr. Hall, I just want it known that the Parliamentarian's office has confirmed that this will--my substitute amendment, second-degree amendment, will not trigger a referral to Ways and Means, so let us strike that from your thinking.
Mr. Hall.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
You know, the lady from Texas was absolutely correct in saying it is not an unfair thrust, but I was a judge for 12 years, and most of them I ran into wanted a favorable treatment more than they wanted fair treatment. And I think from the manner that you had with Mr. Costello evidences the respect that you have for one another.
But actually, `buy American' is a wonderful thrust and one that we have all supported and voted--all of us have voted for it many times in many shapes and in many forms. And I read this amendment over and looked at it with my advisor in my office. And my thought was if there is some way that the U.S. could get last chance at any underseller or underbuyer, and I don't know what your amendment does, but I would like something like that.
Mr. Chairman, you put it to him pretty hard. If it harms, it should harm, and if it doesn't harm, there is no damage done. I will--you are going to explain your amendment, aren't you, a little more fully, your amendment to his amendment?
Chairman BOEHLERT. I already did.
Mr. HALL. And--well----
Chairman BOEHLERT. Do you want me to repeat?
No, I mean, as the fact--look, we are not----
Mr. HALL. Well, maybe you could just talk louder for some of us older people. You know, your statement to the gentleman who has the amendment, Mr. Costello, is a lot like a guy standing in front of a judge in Texas that is about to condemn him to death and explained his actions, how horrible they were and how many children that the deceased left and what painful death it was for him, and he says, `Now do you have anything to say before I sentence you to death?' And he says, `No, sir. Under the circumstances, I feel like I am getting off pretty light.'
So I don't know if Mr. Costello feels that way or not, but I want to vote for his amendment, but I am going to support your correcting amendment, if it corrects the amendment. If it doesn't correct the amendment, it shouldn't correct the amendment. That is taking a page out of your book.
I yield back.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
And you just, once again, gave us testimony to why it is such a delight to have you serving on this committee.
This--let me just say that this is unlike past `buy American' amendments, which did not supersede trade agreements. What we are saying with my language is that the Costello language can not override an international obligation of the United States. You know, I have been in the ranks with all of us here. We all have the same general intent. We want everybody to buy American. But we have some international agreements that have been entered into, and you know, we want to--we don't want to override those international agreements based on this amendment.
So with that, let us see, who is next up? Mr. Miller.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Will the Chairman, as the author of the second-degree amendment, yield to a question or two?
Chairman BOEHLERT. Will I yield or will----
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Mr. Chairman, do you agree with Mr. Costello that there is not now any clear provision of treaty or any clear ruling of law that would apply to this amendment to make it either permissible or not permissible under the WTO or any other trade agreement?
Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah.
Mr. MILLER. You do agree with that?
Chairman BOEHLERT. The answer is essentially yes.
Mr. MILLER. But it is--okay. So then who would decide whether this was consistent or not? Would it simply be the Administration that would decide, and if so, what would be--on what basis would they decide?
Mr. COSTELLO. If the gentleman would yield while the Chairman is conferring, would you yield?
Mr. MILLER. I do yield.
Mr. COSTELLO. That is my whole point.
Mr. MILLER. Right.
Mr. COSTELLO. My whole point in the issue with the--when we are talking about international trade agreements, and my friend from Illinois made the point, I would tell you that, in my judgment, it is not clear what our international trade obligations are under the WTO treaties. And number two, you know, are we going to interpret treaties here, in this committee, or are we going to leave it up to the courts or the International Trade Association to determine what treaties are violated and what treaties are not violated?
And I would just leave you with this thought. Are we going to be cautious about trying to protect trade agreements where we do not even know, as we sit here today, if this violates a trade agreement? I would just say, as opposed to being cautious about trade agreements, we ought to be aggressive about protecting American jobs.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Costello, it did occur to me that my line of questioning might actually help the point you were making.
Mr. COSTELLO. And I thank the gentleman for that.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, but let me just say we do know that this would violate existing trade agreement, and what would happen under the WTO? And it would be NOAA, in consultation with the U.S. Trade Representative, that would give us guidance and make the initial interpretation.
We are not going to get into the treaty business here in the House. I agree with you on that. But we are involved in a number of treaties, and it seems that we are obligated, under the provisions of those treaties, to honor them, and we don't want to do anything that would be in violation that would trigger an action by WTO.
Mr. MILLER. I am sorry. Was that in answer to the question of who decides and on what basis?
Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah. Yeah. The--NOAA, in consultation with USTR, and incidentally, WTO procurement agreement would be violated. The CRS review determined that.
Mr. MILLER. Okay. My third--actually, I have just a couple more questions, if I am not----
Chairman BOEHLERT. Have at it.
Mr. MILLER. All right. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, do you agree with Ms. Biggert's point that Congress can not exempt this from WTO, or any other trade agreement, anyway?
Chairman BOEHLERT. Restate your question, please.
Mr. MILLER. I believe Ms. Biggert made the point that we cannot--Mr. Costello's amendment could not exempt NOAA's procurement from WTO requirements anyway. Is that--do you agree with that? Do you agree with Ms. Biggert?
Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah, but then there is no reason to oppose my amendment.
Mr. MILLER. But then that also raises the question of whether it is necessary or whether it is redundant, not that redundancy has ever been particularly a political sin. We would all be in deep trouble were it.
Mr. GORDON. Would my friend from North Carolina yield? I think I can maybe sum this up.
Mr. MILLER. All right.
Mr. GORDON. The--in my opinion, in my legal opinion, the fact of the matter is, we can not, through this committee, pass some type of law that would make us be in non-compliance with an international treaty. So, I mean, you know, we can't do that.
And so here is the practical part of this. There is a lot of gray area in this law, and what--and this amendment, or this--by putting this secondary amendment, it really puts us into a burden of proof situation. In other words, we can't pass a law that says that we are going to be in violation of an international treaty. But--that is very vague. And so what this amendment would do, secondary amendment would do, it would put the--really the burden of proof on leaning more toward the international treaties than it would on leaning toward trying to be aggressive and protecting American jobs.
So it is really dealing in that gray area, and the kind of message you are going to send out, it is--under no circumstances are we in this Science Committee going to pass a law that would allow us to violate an international treaty.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah, and it----
Mr. GORDON. And I yield back.
Chairman BOEHLERT. And we are not the people who are going to sit in judgment. It is going to be the Administrator of NOAA in consultation with U.S. Trade Representative. We are not getting into that business.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I did have one more question.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Who else seeks recognition?
Mr. MILLER. Actually, could I just ask----
Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Johnson.
Mr. MILLER. I guess I can't ask one more?
Chairman BOEHLERT. Your time is expired now.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to Mr. Costello before me.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I would--you know, we could sit here for the next half-hour and go back and forth on this issue, but I think it is pretty clear. The Chairman stated it just a second ago. We are not going to get into the business of determining international treaties in this committee. But any time that we can try and protect American jobs, we should. And if, in fact, this, at some point in time, that it is determined that it is a violation of an international trade agreement, which I doubt very seriously that it is, then we can come back and address that. But today, we ought to be protecting American jobs.
And I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have one more question for you.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Why am I not surprised?
The gentleman will ask the question.
Mr. MILLER. All of the discussion so far, Mr. Chairman, has been about jobs and about buying American. But does this not also allow the contracting outside the United States of services? Are we going to be building scientific expertise somewhere other than here? Of course, I prefer to buy American goods, but I am particularly concerned about building scientific expertise in the United States, not somewhere else.
Chairman BOEHLERT. We don't have any problem with Subsection A of the amendment. Get the amendment. Read it. What my second-degree amendment simply says, and I will repeat, `can not override an international obligation of the United States.'
Mr. MILLER. Right.
Chairman BOEHLERT. That is not the responsibility of the Science Committee to determine. That is the responsibility of the Administrator of NOAA in consultation with the World--with the U.S. Trade Representative of any Administration.
Who else seeks recognition?
Ms. Biggert.
Ms. BIGGERT. Let me just take that one step further.
The reason that it is so important that we have this secondary amendment is because if we don't, and there is a--we are cited by the--and it goes to court to decide, then what happens is that the World Trade Organization will, if they say yes we are in violation of a trade agreement, then they can sanction us. And it doesn't mean that they are going to sanction NOAA or anything. They can sanction any product in our--in this country, like, say, agriculture or financial services, anything. And so it is so important that we make this decision prior to going to court. And that is why it is so important that it is with NOAA and with the USTR to give us an opinion before this is done whether it would be a violation or not.
Mr. COSTELLO. And I wonder if my friend from Illinois would yield?
The point that I have made, as I am trying to make, is that, to my knowledge, and staff has informed me, that there has never been a challenge to a `buy American' agreement through the World Trade Organization. So there is not a ruling by a court, there is not a ruling by anyone on any of these issues. And what I am saying is, at some point in time, we have to stand up and say enough is enough. And we have to begin to protect American jobs.
Now this is not an amendment that says that NOAA can not contract out for services, can not contract out for other goods to foreign countries or to foreign labor. There are exceptions. If the President determines that it is in the interest of national security or if there are products that are only made outside of the United States that can not be obtained here in the country, or if, in fact, the goods are being made by U.S. workers in other countries, those exceptions are clear in the amendment. And I would say, you know, at some point in time, we need to not be so concerned about protecting a gray area in an international trade agreement and start protecting jobs here at home.
Ms. BIGGERT. If I might reclaim my time.
We also have to be protective of our legal obligations and to make sure that those are not violated. I just think it is one more--all of your exceptions are very good. Your premise is very good of buying American, but this one makes it even better.
Mr. COSTELLO. And I would say that the courts are there for a reason, that we shouldn't be--we are the Judicial Branch. They are the Judicial Branch, we are the Legislative Branch, but the branch that will determine this will be the Judicial Branch, not the Legislative Branch, and if we are going--every action that we take, if we are going to be concerned that it is going to be overruled by a court, you know, I don't think we would ever get anything done around here.
Ms. BIGGERT. I don't think that we are worried about whether what we are doing is legal under the WTO. And this is a global economy, and we are participating.
I yield back.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
And thank you.
Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Just one more, I guess, comment.
If we get too over concerned about the language of the treaties and not allow the appropriate ones to get concern, it--then I would like to explore what our treaty says with China, because apparently they have an open-ended agreement, if we are going to get into treaty agreements, because they certainly don't respect any of our guidelines.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I was just advised by the distinguished Chief of Staff of the Science Committee that China is not part of WTO and therefore--the procurement agreement, and therefore it wouldn't apply.
But just let me say this in summing up everything. I must admire the skill of the gentleman from Illinois' presentation. I agree with the rhetoric, but not the reasoning. The rhetoric is something we can all identify with. We are all anxious to do as much as we can to protect American jobs. That is the desire of every single Member of this panel, no matter where he or she may sit.
But it is also the intent of this committee not to go forward with anything that would be in violation of existing commitments of the United States of America. And the Costello Amendment violates the WTO procurement agreement on its face, according to the Congressional Research Service, a highly-regarded operation, CRS, non-partisan. We need my language, because the Costello language goes further in contradicting trade agreements than past `buy American' language does.
[The information follows:]
Chairman BOEHLERT. So with that, the vote will be on----
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes.
Mr. GORDON. I know we have got to finish this thing up, and I will try to be quick.
Once again, we can't pass legislation here that is going to be in violation of an international treaty, so we can all, you know, go home comfortable about that tonight.
Let me tell you how it really can make a difference. I had--I have got--the school in my hometown is called Middle Tennessee State University, and they have got a very good dyslexia center there. And they have done some work on treating dyslexia and treating--and also with distant learning in trying to help teachers around the state learn how to treat people with dyslexia. So I was persuasive and had $1 million put in the Defense budget for--so we could do the same sort of thing with our military schools around the Nation--around the world to try to help--you know, teach those teachers how to deal with dyslexic students. And what wound up happening--and parochially, I will admit, my university was a good one, and so I was thinking they were going to get this bid. But instead, what happened, it--there was a little company in New Jersey that had a front there who got the bid and then shipped everything to India to be done.
And I think this amendment would have given the Defense Department or NOAA or someone else the ability, you know, to take that back. And so I mean, I think this is the kind of--the real war, it is really where are you going to put the burden of proof. And I think that is what Mr. Costello does is puts the burden of proof on keeping the jobs here.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for reminding me of the outstanding work being done at Middle Tennessee State University.
And let me, on behalf of all of us, congratulate you on your ability to get $1 million earmark in the DOD bill. We are all wondering how you achieved that.
But I would point out that the procurement agreement allows for exceptions for Defense.
And so with that, I think we have pretty much exhausted it.
The vote is on the amendment to the amendment. If--all in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Costello asks for a recorded vote. The Clerk will call the roll.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes yes.
Mr. Hall.
Mr. HALL. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Hall votes yes.
Mr. Smith.
[No response.]
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Weldon.
[No response.]
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. CALVERT. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert votes yes.
Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. BARTLETT. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes yes.
Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. Yes.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes yes.
Mr. Gutknecht.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes.
Mr. Lucas.
Mr. LUCAS. Yes.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes yes.
Mrs. Biggert.
Ms. BIGGERT. Yes.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes yes.
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes yes.
Mr. Akin.
Mr. AKIN. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes yes.
Mr. Johnson.
[No response.]
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes.
[No response.]
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner.
Mr. BONNER. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes yes.
Mr. Feeney.
Mr. FEENEY. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Feeney votes yes.
Mr. Inglis.
Mr. INGLIS. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Inglis votes yes.
Mr. Reichert.
Mr. REICHERT. Yes.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Reichert votes yes.
Mr. Sodrel.
Mr. SODREL. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sodrel votes yes.
Mr. Schwarz.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Schwarz votes yes.
Mr. McCaul.
Mr. MCCAUL. Aye.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. McCaul votes yes.
Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon votes no.
Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes no.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Johnson votes no.
Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
Ms. Hooley.
Ms. HOOLEY. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hooley votes no.
Mr. Udall.
Mr. UDALL. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes no.
Mr. Wu.
Mr. WU. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes no.
Mr. Honda.
[No response.]
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller.
Mr. MILLER. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes no.
Mr. Davis.
[No response.]
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. CARNAHAN. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Baird.
[No response.]
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson.
Mr. MATHESON. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson votes no.
Mr. Costa.
Mr. COSTA. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costa votes no.
Mr. Green.
Mr. GREEN. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Green votes no.
Mr. Melancon.
Mr. MELANCON. No.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Melancon votes no.
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there any other Member who seeks recognition?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Hall.
Mr. HALL. I didn't really understand fully what Mr. Wu said. Like when you were speaking earlier, I couldn't hear you. You weren't talking loud enough for some of us older people, and I didn't understand Mr. Wu, and I would like to know what Mr. Wu said, and then I would also like to really know what he meant. And I would like to see it in writing. I would like to have time to have him----
Chairman BOEHLERT. This is called a filibuster.
Mr. HALL. That is what I was waiting to hear, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will record.
Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 18; no, 17.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The amendment is passed, and the vote is on the amendment, as amended. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment, as amended, is passed.
Are there any other amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? If not, the vote occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the bill H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. All of those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
I recognize Dr. Ehlers to offer a motion.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 50, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, 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.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. I would 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. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. Without objection, so ordered.
I want to thank everybody for participating and for your attendance and indulgence.
This concludes our Committee markup.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
000
`National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.'
Defines terms used in the Act.
Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA.
Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, Education and Outreach, who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency, and must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration's operations and management.
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a National Weather Service within NOAA.
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational and service functions. These functions would include all the activities of NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support research and education functions.
Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.
Requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report must provide a strategic plan for research at NOAA. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) shall review each report prior to delivery to Congress.
Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.
Provides that all rules and regulations, and other technical legal topics that were previously assigned to the Administration, remain in effect under this Act.
Makes the effective date of the Act two years after the date of enactment and requires NOAA to reorganize around the themes outlined in sections five through seven.
Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer a facility without a 60-day public comment period, 90 days notification to Congress, review by the Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), preparation of anticipated costs and savings, and preparation of a statement of the impacts of the facility change on NOAA and its part.
`National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act"
Defines terms used in the Act.
Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA.
Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, Education and Outreach, who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency, and which must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration's operations and management.
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service within NOAA.
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational and service functions. This section does not name any organizational units of NOAA, but the functions listed include all the activities of NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support research and education functions.
Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.
Requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report, by the National Academy of Sciences should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report is strategic plan for research at NOAA.
Requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private partnerships once every five years. Clarifies the no changes in NOAA's current policy are required.
Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.
Provides that the Act does not change the legal status of any NOAA rule, regulation or other legal matter.
Requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress not less than 18 months after enactment of this Act.
Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer certain facilities without a public comment period, review by the Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), analysis of anticipated costs and savings and impact on NOAA services, and notification to Congress.
Requires NOAA to submit to the Science Committee a copy of any reprogramming requests submitted to Appropriations Committees.
Requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs, encounters serious problems with, or makes major changes to existing satellite programs.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
--Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to welcome everyone today to this markup and I am going to keep my remarks brief because the bill we are marking up today is very important, but not particularly controversial and we have reported it out before. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to consider the following measure, H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.
I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration on these matters and without objection, that is so ordered.
Virtually every group that has looked at ocean issues has concluded that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be able to function better if it had a clear basis in law. And that is what this bill, a NOAA Organic Act, would provide. It would give this key science agency, which was created by executive order, a firm legal basis for its full range of activities and responsibilities. That is hard to argue with. The bill which was introduced by Dr. Ehlers, who has been its tireless champion, would also strengthen science at NOAA, which makes sense since NOAA is a major science agency.
We reported this bill out earlier as H.R. 50 and the only difference between the reported version of that bill and today's is language we negotiated with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. That language makes clear that we are not intending to give NOAA any new authority in areas of concern to that committee, such as new authority to build buildings or to issue new kinds of regulations. So that jurisdictional hurdle behind us, this bill should move forward. We will continue to work with the Resources Committee, which shares jurisdiction over NOAA, to bring the bill to the Floor. The Resources Committee has it also on hold pending the resolution of the Transportation Committee issue.
I assume that most of our debate today will not be on the bill, but on the Miller amendment and I will hold my comments on that until we get it, get to it. I want to thank the Members on both sides of the aisle who have contributed to this bill and I look forward to its passage.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon of Tennessee.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
I want to welcome everyone today to this markup, and I'm going to keep my remarks brief because the bill we're marking up today is very important but not particularly controversial, and we've reported it out before.
Virtually every group that has looked at ocean issues has concluded that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be able to function better if it had a clear basis in law. And that's what this bill, a NOAA Organic Act, would provide. It would give this key science agency, which was created by Executive Order, a firm legal basis for its full range of activities and responsibilities. That's hard to argue with.
The bill, which was introduced by Dr. Ehlers, who has been its tireless champion, would also strengthen science at NOAA, which makes sense since NOAA is a major science agency.
We reported this bill out earlier as H.R. 50 and the only difference between the reported version of that bill and today's is language we negotiated with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The language makes clear that we are not intending to give NOAA any new authority in areas of concern to that committee--such as new authority to build buildings or to issue new kinds of regulations.
So with that jurisdictional hurdle behind us, this bill should move forward. We will continue to work with the Resources Committee, which shares jurisdiction over NOAA, to bring the bill to the Floor. The Resources Committee has also been on hold pending the resolution of the Transportation Committee issue.
I assume that most of our debate today will not be on the bill, but on the Miller amendment, and I'll hold my comments on that until we get to it.
I want to thank the Members on both sides of the aisle who have contributed to this bill, and I look forward to its passage.
Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was about a year ago that we marked up or reported this bill on the number H.R. 50. Since that time a variety of situations relating to NOAA have come to our attention. Thus, some of our Members have amendments to further improve this bill. I believe it is important to get this legislation right. The Organic Act for the agency must include the tools the agency needs today and to the future to allow this agency to grow and change as needed to serve our resource needs as our nation grows and changes.
NOAA has currently experienced serious problems with the procurement of its new polar satellite series. The long-term implications of the cost overrun and schedule delay in this program are likely to impact all other NOAA programs for years to come. Representative Udall had an amendment to offer that will address this problem for future procurements, as well as continue to work together to find a solution for the current NPOESS problem.
As in the case of H.R. 50, this bill does not include important authorities and functions in fisheries, coastal zone management, ocean mapping and charting, and a number of other important operations that are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. Until our colleagues complete their work, we will not have a true Organic Act for NOAA.
I understand you will not be supporting all of our amendments today. I regret that, especially in the case of the amendment to be offered by Mr. Miller, which would ensure that open scientific dialogue and debate is standard operating procedure at NOAA. I look forward to a constructive debate on this amendment as we proceed this morning.
We thank you for this second opportunity to further improve this legislation. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues on the Committee, on our colleagues on the Committee of Resources, as this bill continues through the legislative process. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Mr. Chairman, I believe it was about one year ago that we marked up and reported this bill under the number, H.R. 50.
Since that time, several situations relating to NOAA have come to our attention. Thus, several of my Members have amendments to further improve this bill.
I believe it is important to get this legislation right. The Organic Act for the Agency must include the tools the Agency needs today and into the future to allow this agency to grow and change as needed to serve our resource needs as our nation grows and changes.
NOAA is currently experiencing serious problems with the procurement of its new polar satellite series. The long-term implications of the cost overrun and schedule delay in this program are likely to impact all other NOAA programs for years to come.
Rep. Udall has an amendment to offer that will address this problem for future procurements as we continue to work together to find a solution for the current NPOESS program.
As in the case of H.R. 50, this bill does not include important authorities and functions in fisheries, coastal zone management, ocean mapping and charting, and a number of other important operations that are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. Until our colleagues complete their work, we will not have a true Organic Act for NOAA.
I understand you will not be supporting all of our amendments today. I regret that--especially in the case of the amendment to be offered by Rep. Miller which would ensure that open scientific dialogue and debate is standard operating procedure at NOAA. I look forward to a constructive debate on this amendment as we proceed this morning.
We thank you for this second opportunity to further improve this legislation. We look forward to working with you and our colleagues on the Committee on Resources as this bill continues through the legislative process.
Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. Without objections, Members may place statements in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association has an important place in America's scientific and weather enterprises.
NOAA funds and implements research critical for predicting floods, tornadoes and hurricanes. It disseminates information on how to avoid rip-tides for summer beach-goers.
Texas is unfortunately well-acquainted with natural disasters. A clear vision and mission for NOAA is a necessary step for the agency to run smoothly and with clear guidance from Congress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. I recognize Dr. Ehlers to describe the bill.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to explain my bill. H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, is an organic act for NOAA. It is long overdue. NOAA has operated for years without it and it is clearly needed. An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an agency. As an example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere, are committed to conserve and manage coastal, ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems, and third, educate the public about these topics.
Since 1970, when NOAA was created by executive order, the agency has operated under a confusing collection of issue-specific laws that are not coordinated by an overarching mission. In September 2004, the final report of the U.S. Commission on Oceans called for Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA and clarify in one place the mission and program goals of the agency. The Administration supports Congressional passage of a NOAA Organic Act and made it a priority in the Administration formal response to the Ocean Commission report.
In the 108th Congress, witnesses at Science Committee hearings strongly endorsed my NOAA Organic Act. In a new report released just yesterday, the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative reiterated the need for NOAA to codify in law and this bill embodies specific priorities outlined in their report. And yet, the Organic Act has languished for the past year over a jurisdictional claim by another committee. This new version of my bill makes a simple addition to the language in Section 12 to address these jurisdictional claims so that we can pass this bill and let the Resources Committee do their part.
The Resources Committee will add language about fisheries management and other NOAA issues that are under their jurisdiction. I look forward to working with the Members of the Committee to join us in passing truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA into law. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5450 and I also would like to just offer a brief comment regarding the amendments, particularly the amendment by Mr. Miller, which the previous speaker mentioned.
I am in sympathy with that amendment. I do not believe, in fact, I strongly believe that this is not the appropriate place to offer an amendment. An organic act is good for the agents. We don't need to address a short-term immediate question which has already been largely taken care of and accomplished by adding an amendment to an organic act. If we did do so, for years from now on people would say why did they add that stupid little amendment to this wonderful organic act? And so what we are proposing here is to pass it without the Miller amendment and we will address the concerns of the Miller amendment in a separate way.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to explain my bill. H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, is an organic act for NOAA. An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an agency. As an example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA is to:
Since 1970 when NOAA was created by executive order, the agency has operated under a confusing collection of issue-specific laws that are not coordinated by an overarching mission.
In September 2004, the final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean called for Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA and clarify in one place the mission and program goals of the agency. The Administration supports Congressional passage of a NOAA organic act, and made it a priority in the Administration formal response to the Ocean Commission report. In the 108th, witnesses at Science Committee hearings strongly endorsed my NOAA organic act. In a new report released just yesterday, the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative reiterated the need for NOAA to be codified in law, and this bill embodies specific priorities outlined in their report.
And yet, the Organic Act has languished for the past year over a jurisdictional claim by another committee. This new version of my bill makes a simple addition to the language in Section 12 to address these jurisdictional claims so that we can pass this bill and let the Resources Committee do their part. The Resources Committee will add language about fisheries management and other NOAA issues that are under their jurisdiction. I look forward to working with the Members of that committee to join us in passing truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA into law. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5450, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers, I want to thank you for your leadership on this and I want to thank Mr. Wu, who is not yet here, for working so effectively and cooperatively with you. You are a good team and you produced a good product. Since Mr. Wu is not here, I would like to recognize Mr. Gordon for any comments he might make.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also congratulate Mr. Ehlers for his work in bringing forth this important legislation, but I would say to him, since he raises the question of the Miller amendment, if scientific integrity is not a part of the Organic Act, the basis for this agency, where in the world is it legitimate? I mean, this is the place to develop the scientific integrity of the agency. I yield back my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. I think we are forewarned that the Miller amendment is going to be the subject of some serious discussion and my thought is we had originally scheduled, Mr. Miller, your amendment to be first. I would rather defer on that and go with some of the other less contentious, if you will, amendments because that will give the opportunity for our colleagues to get here to join us to hear the eloquent words that are going to come from both sides of the podium.
With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed with the amendment in the revised order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.
The first amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello. Mr. Costello, are you ready?
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I am and Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois for five minutes.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, when we last considered this bill, I offered an amendment to ensure that taxpayers' funds are used to sustain and promote jobs here in the United States whenever possible. Unfortunately, my amendment was weakened by the adoption of a secondary amendment offered by the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you expressed your concern at the time that my amendment would have an impact on WTO agreements that we have with the World Trade Organization. I made the point at the time that we should be more concerned about protecting jobs here in the United States and let the courts decide on what may or may not violate our trade agreements.
Unfortunately, at the time we did not, this committee did not have the benefit of knowing the number or the magnitude of NOAA's contracts that are being performed overseas. The amendment I am offering today is designed to obtain this information on an ongoing basis. My amendment establishes an annual reporting requirement. The identical language was included in the NASA authorization bill that was signed into law at the end of last year. NOAA would be required to provide a report listing the contracts and subcontracts performed overseas. The report must also include an accounting of the purchases made by NOAA from foreign entities.
The report will indicate which goods and services were only available for purchase through foreign sources and it will include information about waivers issued by the Administration of the Buy American Act. We have heard repeatedly that we do not have accurate information about off-shoring of jobs. This report will provide us some information about the extent to which NOAA contracts and subcontracts are subject to the trend of moving more jobs overseas.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this straightforward amendment.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for that description. This is a classic example of how we should work together, with consultation, with give and take back and forth. We have dealt with a subject that is uppermost on all of our minds. It deals with my favorite four letter word, and don't get nervous, you can use it in public, jobs. And my interest is in American jobs. And so we have no objection to the amendment; we appreciate the spirit of cooperation that has been so evident and the Chair is prepared to accept the amendment. Is there any further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. No? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted.
We will do Mr. Udall. Are you prepared? Next amendment on the roster is the amendment by Mr. Udall.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading and without objection, that is so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the last few weeks the Committee has held two hearings on the NPOESS program and concerns were raised on both sides of the aisle that NPOESS was not properly managed and that warning signs were apparent, though not taken seriously by those responsible for the oversight of the program. As a result, we have a $6.8 billion program that unaltered was estimated to be $7 billion over budget and with current program changes, it is expected to total $11.5 billion, $4.7 billion over the original projections.
It is with this in mind that I offer my amendment to include greater oversight of large programs at NOAA. There have been many developments in the status of NPOESS since we last marked up the NOAA Organic Act and as NOAA begins to make plans for the next series of the GOES satellite, I believe it is important that proper oversight is in place. My amendment would implement a Nunn-McCurdy-like oversight process for programs that have budgets of $250 million or more. In fact, the language in this amendment is almost identical to that included in the NASA Authorization Act which was signed into law late last year.
Specifically, it would require detailed information provided to Congress up front about the cost and schedule of any major program at NOAA and establishes a process to follow for yearly oversight over these programs. It requires NOAA to notify Congress if a major program is 15 percent over budget or delayed six months, at which point, the agency must develop cost projections for several different scenarios. If the program's cost exceeds 30 percent of its budget, all spending on the program must end within 18 months. At this point, the only way the program can proceed is if Congress were to authorize it again.
I hate to continue to harp on NPOESS, but I think it is an important example of how budget can hamstring when it has problems, an agency's goals. NOAA's annual budget is usually in the realm of $4 billion. While NOAA will not be the only agency having to cover these cost overruns, it will need to provide significantly more funding than expected as the program moves forward. And this begs the question now that NOAA will continue to do all of its other vital work in atmospheric and oceanic research while trying to cover the cost of NPOESS.
Looking at this situation more broadly, I think it is important to discuss how over-budget programs can affect NOAA's mission. With the fiscal climate over the past few years, NOAA's world renowned laboratories have had to endure instability in their budgets. I don't need to tell the Members of the Committee the importance of the models and research produced by those labs. They are integral to understanding our climate as well as predicting our daily weather. In the last appropriations cycle, we saw NOAA programs such as the Space Environment Center have their budgets cut by nearly half for reasons unknown to most in Congress and the American public.
With an estimated one-third of our economy dependent on weather, we cannot ignore the impact this research has on our economy. Yet one program's cost overruns can indirectly affect the research in programs at NOAA for forcing the agency to shift money in order to continue the over-budget program. Further reducing those budgets will jeopardize the quality of NOAA's research. By not properly monitoring major programs, there are many unattended consequences that will have lasting effects on NOAA's ability to perform its mission.
Mr. Chairman, I see this as a good government amendment that ensures major programs at NOAA do not potentially derail other efforts at the agency and that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I thank you and I yield back any time I have remaining.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for this good beneficial amendment which the Chair is prepared to accept and I would say to Mr. Udall don't apologize for what you referred to as harping on NPOESS. I prefer to call it constructive and vigorous engagement and we are going to continue to either harp or constructively and vigorously be engaged, but it is something that is critically important. Oversight of procurement is something that we don't take lightly and we will continue to be constructively engaged.
This is a good amendment. We will have to tweak it maybe a little bit in the language, but we will work with you on that to make sure it complies with the NASA language and our original intent. But the chair thanks the gentleman for his addition, valued addition to this bill and the Chair is prepared to accept it. Is there anyone else who cares to be heard on the amendment? If not, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. No? The ayes appear to have it and the amendment is adopted.
Now we go to the main act. The Chair is prepared to recognize Mr. Miller. Are you prepared?
Mr. MILLER. I am, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report.
The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered and the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this stupid little amendment is to safeguard the integrity of science at NOAA, something that should be true across all agencies of government, but this would apply the provisions of free-standing legislation that Mr. Waxman and Mr. Gordon have introduced that many of us have co-sponsored that would provide protections and legal requirements that scientific research not be tampered with, it not be censored and that nobody in NOAA, at least, would disseminate any scientific findings that they knew to be false or misleading.
Most important, Mr. Chairman, it is more than an exhortation to the executive branch of government not to do it. It provides real protection for the employees who are in the position to blow the whistle when it does happen. It provides real protections to them, it prohibits any personnel action directed at an employee who blows the whistle so that they may not lose their job or be demoted or have any other adverse personnel action taken with respect to them.
Mr. Chairman, you have spoken eloquently on many occasions on the importance of scientific integrity, that this Congress and all policy-makers in government should be able to rely upon the findings of neutral, honest scientific inquiry, that we should not decide what our policy is first or what politics dictates first and then make it clear to those who do scientific research on federal funding, with federal funding, what conclusions they are to come to, to support those findings.
Whatever conclusion we may reach on what the policy should be, we should have good, honest scientific research to rely upon. Mr. Chairman, I applaud your letter to Admiral Lautenbacher earlier this year. In that letter you referred to articles in the Washington Post in which NOAA scientists complained of being told to shut up about global warming, not to talk about global climate change, it was very similar to earlier reports coming out of NASA.
And Mr. Chairman, you said, in your letter to Admiral Lautenbacher, that this was not an isolated incident and in fact, the Members of this committee and the staff of this committee have heard many reports from NOAA that the reports in the Post were representative of what was going on generally.
This is not simply a short-term problem. I hope it is a short-term problem, Mr. Chairman. I hope that this does not continue to occur, but this amendment would make sure that there are lasting protections; if any administration, this one or the next one, decides that they are going to have scientific research results flow from politics, that those scientists who blow the whistle on that will be protected. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. I am going to take some time to lay out my position on this amendment because it raises an important issue that is too often subject to demagoguery. I think it is fair to say that no one in this Congress has been more vocal than I have about the need for federal agencies and the Congress, for that matter, to encourage open scientific communication. I have strenuously objected when agencies or Congressional committees have appeared to unfairly constrain or intimidate science, scientists.
You know, policy should be informed by science rather than have science being influenced by policy, so I am not denying that such situations occur. In the case of NOAA, the agency has frankly developed an unfortunate reputation as a place where scientists are not always able to communicate freely and fully with the general public on sensitive topics. That said, it has been a little difficult to pin down specific, clear-cut cases in which scientists have been muzzled. One gets more of a sense that scientists are sort of walking on eggshells when discussing issues like climate change. There seems to be a problem with the atmosphere at NOAA.
At the same time, NOAA scientists have continued, without constraint, to conduct their research and participate in scientific conferences and NOAA has had what is generally viewed as a model policy governing communications. Finally, Admiral Lautenbacher has issued very clear statements urging open communications and no one has accused him of personally trying to shut down communications. So what we have is an agency that clearly has some problems where scientists clearly sometimes feel constrained, for whatever reasons, but where the problem seems to originate with discreet steps taken by mid-level and some more senior officials, in particular instances, and worries that other steps might be taken in the future.
This is a situation that cries out for a remedy, but it hardly cries out for legislation. In fact, the last thing needed to create a more settled atmosphere at NOAA is a legalistic regime that would send everyone to their lawyers each time there is a question or a misunderstanding about how exactly to communicate with the public or what to do when a scientist is talking about policy as opposed to pure science. What is needed, instead, in my view, is more active engagement on the communication issue at the top level of NOAA and Dr. Ehlers and I have sent, and you have referred to it, a very clear and strong letter to Admiral Lautenbacher outlining the steps we think need to be taken and we will make that letter public today.
[The information follows:]
Chairman BOEHLERT. This follows up on a letter that I sent to the Admiral as far back in April. These communication issues are subtle and each one is a little different and they need to be handled through oversight, not through legislation. I would add that this strategy seems to be working at NASA. When NASA had a problem, Mr. Gordon and I worked very effectively and very closely and very cooperatively with NASA, mostly behind the scenes, to get the situation straightened out. That doesn't mean there will never again be an issue there. Oversight has to be done on a continuing basis and we are committed to that proposition, but no one has argued that the situation at NASA hasn't vastly improved to the credit of Administrator Griffin and Deputy Administrator Dale, who, I might add, got her training on this committee, as well as to all of us.
So I don't think legislating in this area is a good idea, in general. But let me outline my specific concerns about this particular amendment. First, this amendment would sidetrack this bill by sending it to the Government Reform Committee. Needless to say, this language is rather controversial in that committee or they already would have acted on the bill on which this amendment is based, a bill that has been sitting in that committee for most of this Congress. I point out that this bill also still needs to go through the Resources Committee, and that is perhaps not the ideal venue to debate this subject.
Second, for the reasons I have already described, I don't think this is a problem that is best solved by legislation. And third, the language of the amendment doesn't even address the issues that have been raised at NOAA. The amendment language is based on a bill that was drafted largely in response to allegations about science issues related to human health. No one, no one at NOAA has been accused of tampering with scientific research or censoring findings, a vague term, in any event, or disseminating information known to be false. Yet those are the formal offenses created by this amendment.
So this amendment would have the perverse effect of forcing anyone with a complaint about communications at NOAA to try to describe their problem in the terms used in this amendment. That would hardly help resolve these issues. The amendment also deals with advisory bodies, again using language designed to apply to different panels than the ones NOAA has. The NOAA advisory bodies tend to be, in part, policy bodies, not purely scientific ones. We are not talking primarily about an advisory panel to determine, say, a safe level for lead in blood. And I won't even get into the peer review guidelines issues raised by the amendment, which is an entirely separate, complex issue that shouldn't be fought out on this bill for one agency.
So I strongly oppose this amendment. It would kill this organic act while only making worse the problems at NOAA that its sponsor claims to want to resolve. It is based on a bill drafted by and for another committee that didn't have the NOAA situation in mind when it was drafting. I think we should swiftly and soundly defeat this amendment, pass the bill and continue, continue to monitor NOAA's communications policy as part of our oversight responsibilities.
And let me add, we take those responsibilities seriously, both Mr. Gordon and I in a bipartisan basis. I wish some other committees would follow the lead of this committee and do the same thing. With that, I urge strongly that this amendment be defeated. Now, is there anyone else who seeks to be recognized? Mr. Gordon.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
I'm going to take some time to lay out my position on this amendment because it raises an important issue that is too often subject to demagoguery.
I think it's fair to say that no one in this Congress has been more vocal than I have been about the need for federal agencies--and the Congress, for that matter--to encourage open scientific communication. I have strenuously objected when agencies or Congressional committees have appeared to unfairly constrain or intimidate scientists.
So I'm not denying that such situations occur. In the case of NOAA, the agency has frankly developed an unfortunate reputation as a place where scientists are not always able to communicate freely and fully with the general public on sensitive topics. That said, it's been a little difficult to pin down specific, clear-cut cases in which scientists have been muzzled. One gets more of a sense that scientists are `walking on egg shells' when discussing issues like climate change. There seems to be a problem with the atmosphere at NOAA.
At the same time, NOAA scientists have continued without constraint to conduct their research and participate in scientific conferences. And NOAA has had what is generally viewed as a model policy governing communications. Finally, Admiral Lautenbacher has issued very clear statements urging open communications, and no one has accused him of personally trying to shut down communication.
So what we have is an agency that clearly has some problems, where scientists clearly sometimes feel constrained, for whatever reasons, but where the problem seems to originate with discrete steps taken by mid-level and some more senior officials in particular instances and worries that other steps might be taken in the future.
This is a situation that cries out for remedy, but it hardly cries out for legislation. In fact, the last thing needed to create a more settled atmosphere at NOAA is a legalistic regime that would send everyone to their lawyers each time there's a question or misunderstanding about exactly how to communicate with the public or what to do when a scientist is talking about policy, as opposed to `pure' science.
What's needed instead is more active engagement on the communication issue at the top level of NOAA, and Mr. Ehlers and I have sent a letter to Admiral Lautenbacher outlining the steps we think need to be taken, and we'll make that public today. This follows up on a letter that I sent to the Admiral back in April. These communications issues are subtle, and each one is a little different, and they need to be handled through oversight, not legislation.
I'd add that that strategy seems to be working at NASA. When NASA had a problem, Mr. Gordon and I worked very effectively with NASA, mostly behind the scenes, to get the situation straightened out. That doesn't mean there will never again be an issue there--oversight has to be done on a continuing basis--but no one has argued that the situation at NASA hasn't vastly improved--to the credit of Administrator Griffin and Deputy Administrator Dale, as well as to us.
So I don't think legislating in this area is a good idea, in general. But let me outline my specific concerns about this amendment.
First, this amendment would sidetrack this bill by sending it to the Government Reform Committee. Needless to say, this language is rather controversial in that committee, or they already would have acted on the bill on which this amendment is based, which has been sitting in that committee for most of this Congress.
I'd also point out that this bill also still needs to go through the Resources Committee, perhaps not the ideal venue to debate this subject.
Second, for the reasons I've already described, I don't think this is a problem that is best solved by legislation.
Third, the language of the amendment doesn't even address the issues that have been raised at NOAA. The amendment language is based on a bill that was drafted largely in response to allegations about science issues related to human health. No one at NOAA has been accused of (quote) `tampering' with scientific research or (quote) `censoring' findings--a vague term, in any event--or disseminating information known to be false. Yet those are the formal offenses created by this amendment.
So this amendment would have the perverse effect of forcing anyone with a complaint about communications at NOAA to try to describe the problem in the terms used in this amendment. That would hardly help resolve these issues.
The amendment also deals with advisory bodies--again, using language designed to apply to different panels than the ones NOAA has. The NOAA advisory bodies tend to be, in part, policy bodies, not purely scientific ones. We're not talking primarily about an advisory panel to determine, say, a safe blood level for lead.
And I won't even get into the peer review guideline issues raised by the amendment, which is an entirely separate complex issue that shouldn't be fought out on this bill for one agency.
So I strongly oppose this amendment. It would kill this Organic Act while only making worse the problems at NOAA that its sponsor claims to want to resolve. It is based on a bill drafted by and for another committee that didn't have the NOAA situation in mind when it was drafting.
I think we should swiftly and soundly defeat this amendment, pass this bill, and continue to monitor NOAA's communication policies as part of our oversight responsibilities.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Miller laid out the merits of this bill very well, so I won't proceed to elaborate there. What I would like to do is concur with the Chairman in a couple of ways. First of all, I want to concur with the Chairman in saying that we have had some difficulty with scientific integrity at NOAA and secondly, I want to concur with the Chairman in saying he has been a champion in trying to work through these problems. Unfortunately, he is going to be leaving us soon and let me just say I don't consider this a partisan bill.
Although I may not see another Democrat in my lifetime, certainly Ralph Hall is likely to find one and when that occurs, I think that you are going to want, both parties are going to want best information from these agencies without any kind of filtering. This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue of trying to allow Congress to do its job and if we don't do it here, I don't know where we are going to get it done. Again, I concur with Mr. Miller's amendment, think that it is a nonpartisan amendment, it is an amendment that each side of this roster is going to want at the appropriate times so that we can do our job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for the complimentary words, but I wish to point out that I never, never use the word partisan in referring to this amendment and we work, this committee works on a bipartisan basis and my view is that we have got sort of two choices. We can do as some committees do where the Majority runs roughshod over the Minority, not even taking into consideration the views of the Minority.
I am proud to say that that is not the model we follow on this committee. And when I look across to your side of the aisle, I look across not only to see people I work with and am friendly with on a personal basis, but people I work with and am cooperative with on a professional basis. This committee can hold its head high and say we are not part of the problem. You refer to the fact that I am going to be leaving and I am going to be--that wasn't a draft invitation, was it? But there are many reasons why I am leaving, but one of the reasons that I announced in my statement on March 17 was that I came to this Hill 42 years ago as a starry-eyed young staffer and for the past 24 years it has been my privilege to serve as a Member of this great institution.
I have never, never seen a higher level of partisanship or a lower level of tolerance for another point of view. Fortunately, in this committee, that situation doesn't exist, nor will it as long as I am privileged to be in this chair. Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to discuss in some detail why I think it would be inappropriate to adopt this amendment at this point. This organic act that we have before us has been in preparation for more than six years. We have spent a great deal of time on it in subcommittee. I have personally devoted a lot of time to it. We have had innumerable roadblocks, including the latest, which was a claim of jurisdiction by another committee which took us several months to resolve.
My time, Mr. Chairman, on this subcommittee is coming to an end. The time of getting this passed through both the House and the Senate is coming to an end. It is going to be touch and go the way it is. I would not want to see this bill sidetracked in any way and assigned to another committee other than the Resources Committee, which is going to add their part of the organic act to this bill. So I urge that we reject this amendment.
I would also like to point out the nature of an organic act and why we have worked so hard on this and we have touched base with so many different segments. An organic act is, in a sense, almost a constitution for a committee. There are very few organic acts out there. The best example is the National Science Foundation, which has had the same organic act for roughly 50 years. It has very seldom, if at all, been amended by the Congress. It is regarded as the guiding act and any laws pertaining to the National Science Foundation have avoided amending the organic act.
Similarly, we are trying to write that type of `constitution' for NOAA and all its activities. It is a very concise document, contains a great deal, but we have tried to deal with the issue that the amendment addresses in the act, in the following words, `Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the ability of an administration employee to discuss scientific research performed by that employee.' That says it in one sentence what the essence of the amendment is. Yet, the amendment goes on for 11 pages. It is one-third the length of our entire bill and I just think it is inappropriate to insert that detail in an organic act.
If the author of the amendment would wish to offer this as a bill which would apply to all the various scientific agencies, NIH, NASA, NSF, NOAA and so on down the line, Department of Energy, that might be an appropriate move to go into that kind of detail for a general statement of all governmental science agencies. But as I say, it is inappropriate to put something of that length, of that detail in an organic act which applies to only one agency and certainly not to the largest scientific agency of the Federal Government.
So I encourage the defeat of the amendment and I believe we have taken care of it as fully as we need to or should in this organic act with that one sentence which I read. It is very complete, very thorough, `Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the ability of an administration employee to discuss scientific research performed by that employee.' NASA, or pardon me, NOAA already has in place a policy. It is a good enough policy that when NASA developed some problems on this, they referred to the NOAA policy and made their new policy based on the NOAA policy.
It is not that there is a pressing need in this particular agency for this and as I said, to repeat myself, if this is a serious problem that has to be addressed in this detail, an 11-page amendment, it should be done with a bill that applies to all science agencies and not just to one agency, which has not demonstrated any major problems. So I urge the defeat of this amendment and urge that we pass the organic bill in the form as submitted to this committee.
Mr. GORDON. Would my friend yield for just a moment?
Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I would yield.
Mr. GORDON. If I could address your specific question. For your information, there has been a bill introduced specifically dealing with scientific integrity across the board. It is the bill I introduced over a year ago. It has been referred, in part, to this committee and there have been no hearings on it.
Mr. EHLERS. May I ask what other committee----
Mr. GORDON. I yield back to my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Just reclaim my time. Could the gentleman inform me what other committees it has been referred to? And I yield to him for that answer.
Mr. GORDON. Government Reform, as well as this committee and Mr. Miller's amendment is based almost entirely on that bill, but being more specific to this committee since this committee has not had hearings on the bill that you requested.
Mr. EHLERS. I reclaim my time. I would simply state that illustrates precisely the problem. We do not want the organic act to go to the Government Reform Committee; we would never see it again.
Chairman BOEHLERT. That is part of the problem when you refer it to other committees. Other committees don't follow our example. They don't lead and get things done. They sit on legislation for far too long and the second thing I would observe is that Dr. Ehlers is a very distinguished scientist in his own right, a physicist, Ph.D., a fellow of the American Physical Society. No one values unfettered scientific inquiry more than the scientific community that we are here to try to help and Dr. Ehlers, I thank you for your input.
Mr. GORDON. May I address that quickly?
Chairman BOEHLERT. Be glad to recognize Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. Let me first concur Dr. Ehlers is a great asset to this committee and his integrity should not be challenged in any way. But in terms of jurisdiction, let me point out that already this year this committee has had 26 bills. We have exchanged letters in lieu of referrals between the Science Committee and other committees and I am sure there is going to be additional letters of exchange and as you just mentioned, you have already done that on this bill already once, so I feel sure this could be worked out if there was an effort, since this bill is specific to NOAA.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the Chair for recognizing me, and I would like to reiterate the comment that the Chairman and Mr. Ehlers have made. The NOAA Organic Act is highly recommended by the Pew Oceans Commission and led by Leon Panetta, and the National Ocean Commission led by Admiral Watkins. NOAA right now is contained in the Department of Commerce and it is a poor second cousin of the Department of Commerce. As a result of this structure, the frame that NOAA exists under, the United States has no coherent ocean policy. It is not a separate independent agency like NASA. It doesn't have the same kind of clout in Congress that other independent agencies have. That is just the way it works. It is the human condition. I said NOAA--the U.S. has no coherent ocean policy. We have no ocean policy. There is a myriad of committees that deal with these kinds of issues and not just Government Reform or Transportation or Science or Resources, but we are talking about Commerce, we are talking about Ways and Means, we are talking about Armed Services. This goes across the board. It is vital at this point to keep the momentum going for good Science to take that Ocean Commission report so it doesn't gather dust, like other reports do around here and it is completely ignored, to set the stage for NOAA Organic Act so they can be a separate independent agency and we can begin the process of developing clear ocean policy. The other issues that are brought out here today can be dealt with, they must be dealt with, but they can be dealt with more effectively outside this particular bill and I, unfortunately, at this point urge a no vote on Mr. Gordon--Mr. Miller's amendment.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Wu.
Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to commend the way that the Chairman and Ranking Member Gordon have worked together very, very well on a range of issues, including this one. And I also want to recognize that Chairman Ehlers and I, on the Subcommittee, have worked together on this bill. And I want to lay out the reasons why I think it is important to support Mr. Miller's amendment today. And, Mr. Chairman, I think that you have been very forthright in your statements about the importance of scientific integrity and making those views known to folks at NASA and NOAA and other agencies. But if you go back to June of 2005, the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a survey of NOAA fishery scientists, found that half of all respondents were aware of instances of political interference with scientific opinions, and over half were aware of cases where Commerce appointees `inappropriately altered NOAA fisheries determinations.'
Now fast forward to April of this year and, Mr. Chairman, you sent a letter to Admiral Lautenbacher, highlighting some of the issues and I believe that one of the statements was, our staff has heard concerns about politicization repeatedly and the problem goes beyond just a few instances.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WU. Once I finish, I would be happy to yield. But after you sent the letter, Mr. Chairman, Greenway reported that NOAA directed all media inquiries on salmon to go through several political appointees. And the reason why I am pointing it out, there is this problem with NOAA fisheries. It also applies to the National Weather Service, on climate research, which is a part of NOAA. It was my personal experience to have met with NOAA folks on the Klamath salmon issue and their proposal to prohibit all sport and commercial fishing in the Pacific Ocean. And the prohibition on all ocean salmon fishing would have saved, at most, 500 salmon; whereas all the studies show that the up-river policies were killing 85,000 salmon, 85,000 spring Chinook salmon every year. And this is not a threatened run, this is not an endangered run, but NOAA was proposing to close down the entire fishery to close--to protect this one run in one river, the Klamath River, and I struggled with the NOAA administrators back and forth, back and forth, and it was like a debate to get them to admit that it was up-river policies that was causing this problem.
And I asked them a direct question several times: wouldn't water--changing water management solve this problem much more effectively, and they repeatedly answered no. And finally I got the form of the question right and I said, well, if we change up-river water management and ecosystem recovery in the water basin, would that solve the problem? And the answer magically became yes. And without contact, direct contact with NOAA scientists, I never would have been able to form that question and get that admission out of the folks at NOAA. I think it is very, very important, it is very, very important, specifically, in a policy instance and in direct dealings with the folks at NOAA. But I think Mr. Miller's amendment is also important for one other reason and that is the Supreme Court case which came out, I believe, after your letter, Mr. Chairman, Garcetti v. Ceballos, which dramatically cut back on the protection which whistleblowers have. In that particular case, Mr. Ceballos, a district deputy district attorney in Los Angeles, found that a deputy sheriff had lied in order to get a search warrant and brought it to the attention of his superiors, he was ignored and when, as required by Bar rules, disclosed this to the defense, he was removed from the case, demoted and transferred. And the Supreme Court ruled that he was not protected, and the law has changed just recently. This is May 30. And it is appropriate to provide statutory protection when the traditional protections have been cut back. I understand the Chairman's concern and Dr. Ehlers' concern about a referral to another committee, but I think that it is extremely important that we get this right, especially with the underlying change in the law because of the Supreme Court Case. I would like to yield to Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Miller.
Chairman BOEHLERT. There is no more time. Your time has expired, the red light is on, and Mr. Gilchrest graciously consented not to go further. Let me point out that both sides, I think, have fairly well capsulized and expanded on their respective positions, and so we will go to a vote, but before we go to the vote, Dana--Mr. Rohrabacher asked for a minute.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will just go very quickly. I don't believe that what we are talking about here is politics within this committee, but I do believe it is based on political posturing that happened outside of this committee, and this is, frankly, the charges that this Administration has been stifling people on the issue of global warming is just total nonsense. But based on some actions that were politically-based actions by certain scientists, especially at NASA, let me note that the very first action taken by the Clinton Administration was to fire the head of the--the chief scientist at the Department of Energy because he was skeptical of global warming. I will put in the record at this point a number of references and articles by scientists who have noted that they have not received, they have not been able to receive grants in recent years since the Clinton Administration and into this Administration because of their skepticism of global warming. And if there is any type of muzzling going on, it is the opposite of what is being presented here today and this is turning, you know, reality on its head, and that is why even though I understand----
[The information follows:]
Mr. HONDA. Will Mr. Rohrabacher yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know what? I promised the Chairman I would be less than two minutes and that is it, so I have had my say. Thank you.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Honda, did you have a brief intervention?
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to strike the last word.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes, and----
Mr. HONDA. And I would like to yield my time Mr. Miller.
Chairman BOEHLERT. But not for the full five minutes. Look, here is what the Chair is trying to do, recognize that a number of Members of the Committee have other committees competing with us and some of those committees are actually voting and require their attendance, so we would like to get on with it. But, Mr. Miller, for a brief intervention.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I will defer. I will not use----
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and that is the spirit of cooperation that is so evident. Both sides have laid out the case, so now the vote is on the Miller Amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The noes appear to have it.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded voted.
Chairman BOEHLERT. A recorded vote has been requested. The Clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert.
Chairman BOEHLERT. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
Mr. HALL. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Smith.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Weldon.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Reichert.
Mr. REICHERT. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Reichert votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. CALVERT. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Lucas.
Mr. LUCAS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. Ms. Biggert.
Ms. BIGGERT. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Forbes.
Mr. FORBES. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Forbes votes no. Mr. Bonner.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Feeney.
Mr. FEENEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes no. Mr. Neugebauer.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Inglis.
Mr. INGLIS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Sodrel.
Mr. SODREL. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Sodrel votes no. Mr. Schwarz.
Mr. SCHWARZ. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Schwarz votes no. Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Gordon.
The CLERK. Mr. Costello. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.
Ms. HOOLEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes yes. Mr. Udall.
Mr. UDALL. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
Mr. WU. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
Mr. HONDA. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Lipinski.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Sherman.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Baird.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Matheson.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Costa.
Mr. COSTA. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Costa votes yes. Mr. Green.
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Melancon.
Mr. MELANCON. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Melancon votes yes. Mr. Moore.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Ms. Matsui.
Ms. MATSUI. Yes.
The CLERK. Ms. Matsui votes yes. Mr. Sherman, you are not recorded. Mr. Sherman votes yes.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk, when the Clerk is prepared, will report.
The CLERK. Yes, 13. No, 17.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The amendment is defeated. Next, the Chair recognizes Ms. Matsui.
Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that the NOAA Organic Act is once again moving forward today. The research information that NOAA provides on our coastal resources, climate and weather is critical to policy-making and particularly to my home State of California. This agency is certainly deserving of an explicit authorization and I applaud Chairman Boehlert, Dr. Ehlers, Ranking Member Gordon, and Representative Wu for their hard work on this legislation. I was glad to work with the Committee on report language which ensures that we are leveraging NOAA's scientific and technical expertise to support the competitiveness goals this committee advanced during last week's markup. NOAA's day-to-day operational mission is to protect our coastal resources, manage our fisheries, and forecast weather, provide excellent illustrations of the real-world application of science. I want to make sure we continue to take advantage of that opportunity; therefore the language we have agreed to will ensure that NOAA continues to promote public understanding of these critical issues.
The world is always changing. My granddaughter is two and a half years old and I know she has been born in a very different world than I was. I want her to be able to understand the changes going on around her and what they mean to her future and her children's future. This language directs NOAA to continue to provide the research and information that will allow Anna and all her friends to have such a comprehension of these important issues. I thank the Chairman for his willingness to include this report language and I look forward to working with him and other Members of the Committee to advance these goals and future legislation. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, I thank the gentlelady for the excellent point she has made regarding this bill and I am pleased she is already proving to be a very active Member of this committee and I appreciate how cooperative she and her staff have been in working this out, the report language, with the majority staff.
The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee. I don't see her here.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, since Ms. Jackson Lee is not here, I have an amendment that I would like to offer at this time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Which is not on the roster. Let us proceed with the amendment on the roster. We will deal with that, then we will get to you, Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Gordon, would you like to offer the amendment on behalf of Ms. Jackson Lee?
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I will and with your indulgence, I would like to reserve her right to comment on it at some later time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. GORDON. We have an amendment at the desk, H.R. 5450, introduced by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading, and without objection, that is so ordered. And now for a brief explanation of an amendment that we find in good order and we are prepared to accept. Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I don't want to mess up a good thing. Since you said you are going to accept this, let me just congratulate Ms. Jackson Lee on bringing forth this amendment. We all know that the Weather Service has a vital role to play by communicating warnings and watches of several weather events, within the Federal Government, as well as the State and local governments and the general public, and I think you do a very good job of this. This amendment will help them do that and I thank you for accepting it. And we would like to reserve her right to make a comment, if we are still in when she arrives.
Chairman BOEHLERT. That is fine. The vote will be on the amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment and send the amendment to the Clerk's desk.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, this is a late entry in the race, so let us have the distribution of the amendment so we can look at it.
Mr. COSTELLO. It is indeed. Mr. Chairman, can I explain the amendment while it is being distributed?
Chairman BOEHLERT. I look forward to your eloquent words of explanation. Well, wait.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk needs to designate. First of all, Clerk, will you designate the amendment?
The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Would you read it, please, because we don't have it.
The CLERK. `In Section 9, add at the end of the following new subsection: (C) Direct Transmittal of Reports. All reports the Administration is required to transmit to the Congress shall be transmitted directly by the Administration, without prior review by the President or any other federal agency or official.'
Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and, Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, it is very clear and right to the point, and I am sure it is an amendment that the Chairman can accept. Mr. Chairman, this provision requires NOAA to provide the committees of jurisdiction of the Congress with reports the agency has prepared at our direction, that those reports come directly to the Committee without prior approval comments or review by other officers or agencies of the government. In other words, Mr. Chairman, when the Committee requests information from NOAA, it should come directly from NOAA. We should not receive information that has been filtered, edited and manipulated by this Administration, or future administrations, through interagency and OMB review processes.
If we are to exercise our constitutional responsibility, craft legislation, authorize and appropriate funds for agency programs, and oversee the activities and expenditures of these agencies within our jurisdiction, we must have information. The Executive Branch does not have the right to bar Congress from obtaining information from agencies. While this problem is not unique to this Administration, I must say, the Bush Administration has routinely used procedures of interagency and OMB review to bury, delay or alter information requested by the Congress. We could cite several examples, but I am attempting to be brief here.
The report on off-shoring of jobs produced by the Technology Administration is a perfect example. Somehow a 250-page report produced by analysts at TA was transformed into a 13-page pamphlet, devoid of any substantial information. This editing process was done with the participation of offices such as OMB and the National Economic Council. It took a resolution and an inquiry and numerous letters and conversations between Members of this committee and the Chairman, as well as the Department of Commerce, to obtain the report that we should have been given months ago. Mr. Chairman, the Executive Branch has the right to assert its policy preferences; however, they do not have the right to manipulate information coming to the Congress to eliminate or distort information that does not conform to their policies. That applies to this Administration or future administrations.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple, it is clear, it is to the point, and that is, when the Congress of the United States or committees of jurisdiction order an agency to produce a report, that report should come directly from the agency to the committee of jurisdiction. It should not be filtered through the OMB and other agencies of the Congress. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Costello. You are correct, the amendment proposed is simple, it is clear, it is to the point. It is also very late. And let me tell you the position of the Chair. We have held up marking up this NOAA Organic Act for sometime so that we could have the good interaction between majority and minority, the staffs could work together, and only when we thought we were in a position to go forward and everyone was satisfied that we had heard each other out, did we go forward. The Chair would probably oppose this late entry, if it suggested that we make apple the national fruit. In other words, I would be very much in favor of apples the national fruit, but I don't want this committee to deviate from what has been the norm, working things out before we come into this room. I don't like last-minute entries in the race. We don't have a chance to evaluate it. We don't have a chance to discuss it. That is not the way this committee or Congress should work. So with that explanation, the Chair will oppose it.
And let me point out that the one report you cite that was sort of delayed, the delay came from within, not because it was vetted across the Administration lines or had to be sent down to Pennsylvania Avenue, it came from within. That was the delay. And with that, are there any others who seek recognition on this amendment?
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, let me say that this amendment is a late entry. It was not done intentionally to go around the process or not to give you notice, but it was--I decided to offer the amendment actually last evening when I was reviewing the legislation. There are other examples, not just with the TA report that came directly to this committee, but there are specific examples. And I know that you are interested in attempting to move the process along because Members have other committees to go to, but I could cite reports with Health and Human Services and two other agencies where they have been filtered through OMB and other governmental agencies. I think it is pure and simple and I don't understand why any Member of this committee or the Congress would oppose. When the Congress orders a report from an agency, they ought to be able, that committee of jurisdiction, to get the report unfiltered, without going through several other agencies. And I think the TA, I would disagree with my friend, the Chairman of the Committee, that the 250-page report that was edited down to 13 pages, it is one example and I think we should have seen the 250-page report, and I don't think that OMB and other agencies of the government ought to be deleting or amending reports done by agencies ordered by this Congress.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, in that specific instance, Mr. Costello, let me point out, that was within the agency, the delay and the summation, if you will, that condensation, it came from within, not from without. Secondly, I have the highest regard for the gentleman from Illinois, as you well know, but I beg to differ with your description about the lateness of it and the reason for it. Quite frankly, I am informed that our staff was told very specifically that there would be a late entry and we should be prepared to deal with an amendment, not knowing what the amendment would be about, not knowing the specifics of the amendment, and we were told, quite honestly, that we could not have the specifics of the amendment. Now, maybe it was because there was difficulty in drafting what you explain as a simple, clear and to-the-point amendment, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that. But the Chair will vigorously oppose something like this, simply because it deviates from standard accepted Committee procedures, where we work across the center aisle, where we invite input, where we sometimes listen instead of talking to the minority, because I find that when we listen instead of talking to the Minority, we often learn from the Minority, and I take great pride in the manner in which this committee operates. And therefore, because it is a deviation from the standard practice, and among other reasons, I will vigorously oppose it.
Is there anyone else who seeks recognition on this? Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will oppose this for much the same reason I opposed the Miller Amendment. Once again, it is not an appropriate place to put it; secondly, it should apply to all governmental agencies, not just to NOAA; and I would encourage the gentleman to consider offering this as a separate bill to the Government Reform Committee so that it would, in fact, apply to all government agencies. Frankly, I would like to see it take a different form, as well as this--I think the Administration should have the right to review, but I would insist that whatever review is given, whatever happens to it, the original report from the department or the agency should accompany the final report which is submitted to us by the President. And I think that would be a much better way to go, to allow the full administration of the country to state their point of view, as well as listening to the report from the specific government agency producing it. So I oppose this amendment for both reasons.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. I would ask to strike the last word.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I want to concur with you that I think best policy is to notice amendments as well as secondary amendments; however, that is not always happens in this committee on either side. That is what markups are for. This is not a complicated amendment. Honestly, I don't know all that has gone back and forth on this. You mentioned that our staff, which I didn't know about, put you on notice that something was coming up and I am glad that that was done. But let me point out, this is a very simple amendment. Dr. Ehlers pointed out that this should be introduced in Government Reform and brought up as, you know, Congress-wide. But let me point once again, just like Mr. Miller, that was done. I introduced that bill, it was sent to Government Reform, and it was referred to this committee and this committee has refused to have hearings on it. So I mean, it doesn't help to follow the rules if you are not going to follow through on it. So I don't think that holds water.
Let me also point out that CRS has given us a legal opinion, something that ought to be common knowledge to all of us and that is, that if Congress requests an agency to do a study, that Congress has a right to have that. Now all Mr. Costello is dong is saying, you know, as CRS said is our right, for that not to be filtered. Once again, this is not a partisan issue. You know, I think Congress, whichever party, regardless of who is in charge, wants to get good information, and let me give you some examples why you want that information. We had this problem with--as we were trying to investigate the Columbia loss, with OMB and NASA refusing to provide information, saying it was budgetary. The same thing happened with NOAA. And something that I guess we should all remember, if you remember back when we were talking about the Medicare prescription drug bill, they, OMB, refused to give us the information on what it is going to cost. I think that if we had had that information, many of us might have voted a different way. We certainly would have had a better bill. Again, this is not a partisan issue, this is a matter of trying to let Congress have full information to do its job and when that occurs, we are all better off. And I yield back the--well, I ask that the CRS opinion be made a part of the record, and I yield back my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Chairman BOEHLERT. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. The nays appear to have it.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, with that, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Costello requests a recorded vote; therefore, would the Clerk please call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert.
Chairman BOEHLERT. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
Mr. HALL. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Smith.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Weldon.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Calvert.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. BARTLETT. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Lucas.
Mr. LUCAS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. Ms. Biggert.
Ms. BIGGERT. No.
The CLERK. Ms. Biggert votes no.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Rohrabacher, how is he recorded?
The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Calvert, how is he recorded?
The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert is not recorded.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Calvert.
The CLERK. Mr. Calvert votes no.
Chairman BOEHLERT. How is Mr. Smith recorded?
The CLERK. Mr. Smith is not recorded. Mr. Smith votes no.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Continue the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
Mr. AKIN. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes no. Mr. Johnson.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Forbes.
Mr. FORBES. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Forbes votes no. Mr. Bonner.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Feeney.
Mr. FEENEY. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes no. Mr. Neugebauer.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Inglis.
Mr. INGLIS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Reichert.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Sodrel.
Mr. SODREL. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Sodrel votes no. Mr. Schwarz.
Mr. SCHWARZ. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Schwarz votes no. Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
[No response.]
Chairman BOEHLERT. How is Mr. Johnson recorded?
The CLERK. Mr. Johnson is not recorded.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Johnson.
The CLERK. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Chairman BOEHLERT. How is Mr. Neugebauer recorded?
The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer is not recorded. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
Mr. COSTELLO. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Ms. Hooley.
Ms. HOOLEY. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes yes. Mr. Udall.
Mr. UDALL. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
Mr. WU. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
Mr. HONDA. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Mr. Sherman.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Baird.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Mr. Matheson.
Mr. MATHESON. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Costa.
Mr. COSTA. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Costa votes yes. Mr. Green.
Mr. GREEN. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Melancon.
Mr. MELANCON. Yes.
The CLERK. Mr. Melancon votes yes. Mr. Moore.
[No response.]
The CLERK. Ms. Matsui.
Ms. MATSUI. Aye.
The CLERK. Ms. Matsui votes yes.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report.
The CLERK. Yes, 15. No, 19.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The amendment is defeated. Now, there are no other amendments on the roster, but we are graced by the presence of Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me report to you that in your absence, and I know you had a competing committee assignment, Mr. Gordon eloquently explained your amendment. He was so convincing that the Chair adopted it and we passed it, but I will recognize you for a couple of minutes for any comments you might care to make to further enlighten us.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. My first word is to thank both the Ranking Member, the Ranking Member for offering it and protecting my amendment, and the Chairman, and to acknowledge that you are absolutely right. I did come to the Science Committee hearing markup and of course the time conflicted with a vote in another committee, and so I want my colleagues to know that I have great affection and respect for this committee and the offering of amendments. I would also like to welcome our colleague, Ms. Matsui, and thank her for her vote on my amendment.
I will briefly say this, Mr. Chairman. There are those of us who are seasoned hurricane participants. If you spoke to the regions in the Gulf Coast two years ago, Florida and Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, and other places, we would say we know about hurricanes and we are able to weather the storm, but Hurricane Katrina woke us up, and my amendment simply allows the local first responders to have direct information from NOAA. And I believe that the amendment, with the science that NOAA has the opportunity and the ability to possess and evidence, gives a much more secure and much more--a much greater opportunity, if you will, for the Gulf region to be more prepared than we have ever been. Katrina, Wilma and Rita gave us a wakeup call in their collective power, and I believe that this amendment will help us to be more secure and more knowledgeable regarding the pending storms that we are to face in the coming season.
So with that, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for protecting the amendment. And to my colleagues, thank you for supporting the Jackson Lee Amendment. And if I had been present, I would have voted aye for the Miller Amendment. With that, I don't have to call for a vote. A vote doesn't have to be called for, and I yield back my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment that I am offering states that it is within the National Weather Service's functions and responsibilities to provide information to federal agencies and other organizations responsible for emergency preparedness and response as required by law.
Over the last year, we have seen powerful reminders not only of the crucial and vital functions of the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), but of the disaster that can befall our communities when the modes of communication breakdown. As diligent and capable as our emergency preparedness teams are, we are always vulnerable to Mother Nature and the havoc she can wreak.
I have a great amount of respect for both the National Weather Service and NOAA, both for the quality of science that they demonstrate, as well as for the integrity of information that they produce. Their accuracy in detecting and tracking storm systems is admirable and impressive. Although they are not and cannot be perfect predicting mechanisms, they are in many ways our best first line of defense against natural disasters.
Much of the work that I have done in the Homeland Security Committee has been to help foster open communications lines and inter-operability standards and capabilities. In almost every major national security emergency that we have seen in the last several years, it is the communications system that has been the most crucial element, and yet the greatest failure.
In this instance, I felt that it was important to underscore the role that the National Weather Service has in trying to prevent catastrophes such as what we saw from Hurricane Katrina. With this amendment, I simply contribute language that makes it explicit that the National Weather Service must be able to provide information to national emergency stakeholders when necessary.
I thank the Chairman for continuing the bipartisan collaboration of this committee, and for his friendly and even-handed efforts to engage all of us in the progress made by this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill is passed.
I recognize Mr. Gordon for a motion.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favor report H.R. 5450 as amended, although it has been further amended, to the House, with recommendation that the bill as amended do pass. Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes, and that the Chairman will take all the necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I move that Members have two 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. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. Without objection, so ordered.
I want to thank the Members for their participation. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
000
`National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act'
Defines terms used in the Act.
Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA.
Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency, and which must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration's operations and management.
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service within NOAA.
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational and service functions. This section does not name any organizational units of NOAA, but the functions listed include all the activities of NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service and the mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.
Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support research and education functions.
Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.
Requires two reports from the Administrator. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report, by the National Academy of Sciences, should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report is strategic plan for research at NOAA.
Requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private partnerships once every five years. Clarifies the no changes in NOAA's current policy are required.
Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.
Clarifies that the Act does not change the legal status of any NOAA rule, regulation or other legal matter.
Requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress not less than 18 months after enactment of this Act.
Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer certain facilities without a public comment period, review by the Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), analysis of anticipated costs and savings and impact on NOAA services, and notification to Congress.
Requires NOAA to submit to the Science Committee a copy of any reprogramming requests submitted to Appropriations Committees.
Requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs or encounters serious problems with, or makes major changes to existing satellite programs.
Prohibits the Administrator from contracting for Administration activities or procurement of goods or services that are performed outside the United States except when the goods or services are necessary for national security or are only available outside the United States, when the activities or function under the contract was previously performed by Federal Government employees located outside the United States, or when the prohibition is inconsistent with international agreements.
The legislation establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce.
The legislation maintains the current leadership structure at NOAA except that it creates a new position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education. It requires the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service within NOAA. The legislation describes programs to support the operations and services, and the research and education functions of NOAA. The legislation authorizes the NOAA Science Advisory Board.
The legislation requires NOAA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA. It requires NOAA to provide two strategic plans: one to address any deficiencies identified by the NAS data and information system assessment and the second for intramural and extramural research to support the mission of NOAA. The legislation requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private relationships once every five years. It also requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress 18 months after enactment of the legislation.
The legislation repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970 and includes a savings provision to preserve the status of all current NOAA rules, regulations and other legal matters. The legislation prohibits NOAA from contracting for activities or procurement of goods or services that are performed outside the United States, except in some limited circumstances and when the prohibition would be inconsistent with trade agreements.
The legislation requires NOAA to notify Congress and the public if it plans to close or transfer a NOAA facility, and if it starts a new satellite programs, encounters problems with a current satellite program, or makes major changes to a satellite program.
