19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–333 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND 

CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011 

DECEMBER 16, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HALL, from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2484] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 2484) to reauthorize the Harmful Algal 

Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to include a 

comprehensive and integrated strategy to address harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia, to provide for the development and implementation of a comprehensive research plan and action strategy to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose and Summary ............................................................................... 8 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 8 

IV. Hearing Summary ....................................................................................... 11 

V. Committee Consideration ........................................................................... 11 

VI. Committee Votes ......................................................................................... 11 

VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 21 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 22 

IX. Committee Oversight Findings .................................................................. 25 

X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 25 

XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 25 

XII. Advisory on Earmarks ................................................................................ 25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

XIII. Committee Cost Estimate ........................................................................... 25 

XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 25 

XV. Federal Mandates Statement ..................................................................... 27 

XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 27 

XVII. Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................... 27 

XVIII. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ......................................... 27 

XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 31 

XX. Minority Views ............................................................................................ 43 

XXI. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup ................................................ 46 

XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 82 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Amendments Act of 2011’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL 

ACT OF 1998. 

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or 

repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 

provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 (16 

U.S.C. 1451 note). 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

Section 602 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS. 

‘‘In this title: 

‘‘(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘Administrator’ means the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘(2) NOAA.—The term ‘NOAA’ means the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

‘‘(3) PLAN.—The term ‘Plan’ means the comprehensive research plan and action strategy under section 605. 

‘‘(4) PROGRAM.—The term ‘Program’ means the National Harmful Algal Bloom 

and Hypoxia Program under section 604(a). 

‘‘(5) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of the several States of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United 

States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the United 

States, and any Indian tribe. 

‘‘(6) TASK FORCE.—The term ‘Task Force’ means the Inter-Agency Task Force 

on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia under section 603(a)(1). 

‘‘(7) UNDER SECRETARY.—The term ‘Under Secretary’ means the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.’’. 

SEC. 4. INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE. 

Section 603(a) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(a) INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE.— 

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President, through the Committee on Environment 

and Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council, shall 

establish an Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. 

‘‘(2) REPRESENTATION.—The Task Force shall consist of representatives from 

the following: 

‘‘(A) The Department of Commerce. 

‘‘(B) The Environmental Protection Agency. 

‘‘(C) The Department of Agriculture. 

‘‘(D) The Department of the Interior. 

‘‘(E) The Department of the Navy. 

‘‘(F) The Department of Health and Human Services. 

‘‘(G) The National Science Foundation. 

‘‘(H) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

‘‘(I) The Food and Drug Administration. 

‘‘(J) The Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

‘‘(K) The Council on Environmental Quality. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

‘‘(L) Such other Federal agencies as the President considers appropriate. 

‘‘(3) CHAIRPERSON.—The Under Secretary from the Department of Commerce 

shall serve as the Chairperson of the Task Force. 

‘‘(4) REQUIRED MEETINGS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Task Force shall meet, or otherwise communicate, 

to coordinate activities within each agency represented on the Task Force 

in order to fulfill the program requirements in section 604(b). 

‘‘(B) FREQUENCY.—The Task Force shall meet at least once per year. 

‘‘(5) BUDGET COORDINATION.—The Task Force shall— 

‘‘(A) coordinate in the development of individual agency budgets for the 

activities described in section 604 that will ensure an appropriate balance 

among the research and action priorities; and 

‘‘(B) submit such budgets to the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget at the time designated by the Director for agencies to submit annual budgets.’’. 

SEC. 5. NATIONAL HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA PROGRAM. 

The Act is amended— 

(1) by redesignating sections 605 and 606 as sections 608 and 609, respectively; 

(2) by redesignating section 604 as section 606; and 

(3) by inserting after section 603 the following: 

‘‘SEC. 604. NATIONAL HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (d), the Under Secretary, 

through the Task Force, shall maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program in accordance with authorities under section 603 pursuant to this 

section. 

‘‘(b) DUTIES.—The Under Secretary, through the Program, shall coordinate the efforts of the Task Force to— 

‘‘(1) develop and promote a national strategy to understand, detect, monitor, 

predict, control, mitigate, and respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal 

bloom and hypoxia events; 

‘‘(2) integrate the research of all Federal programs, including ocean and Great 

Lakes science and management programs and centers, that address the chemical, biological, and physical components of marine and freshwater harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia; 

‘‘(3) assist and coordinate, where appropriate, with State, tribal, and local 

government agencies, programs, and regional efforts that address marine and 

freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, including the development and 

implementation of appropriate response plans, strategies, and tools; 

‘‘(4) identify additional research, development, and demonstration needs and 

priorities relating to understanding, detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, control, mitigation, and response to marine and freshwater harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia; 

‘‘(5) ensure the development and use of methods and technologies to protect 

the ecosystems affected by marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 

‘‘(6) encourage the appropriate exchange of research information with other 

countries in order to better mitigate, control, and respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms; 

‘‘(7) coordinate existing education programs to improve public understanding 

and awareness of the causes, impacts, and mitigation efforts for marine and 

freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 

‘‘(8) provide resources to assist in the training of State, tribal, and local water 

and coastal resource managers in the methods and technologies for detecting, 

monitoring, controlling, mitigating, and responding to the effects of marine and 

freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events; 

‘‘(9) oversee the development, review, and periodic updating of the Plan; 

‘‘(10) administer peer-reviewed, merit-based, competitive grant funding to 

support— 

‘‘(A) the projects maintained and established by the Program; and 

‘‘(B) the research and management needs and priorities identified in the 

Plan; and 

‘‘(11) encourage the development of innovative concepts for the beneficial utilization of— 

‘‘(A) biomass from harmful algal blooms that have been removed from the 

natural system; and 

‘‘(B) the growth of certain biofuel crops that reduce runoff that causes 

harmful algal blooms. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

‘‘(c) COOPERATIVE EFFORTS.—The Under Secretary shall work cooperatively and 

avoid duplication of efforts with other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA 

and other agencies represented on the Task Force, States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations concerned with marine and freshwater aquatic issues related 

to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 

‘‘(d) FRESHWATER PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the freshwater aspects of the Program, the 

Administrator and the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, shall carry out 

the duties otherwise assigned to the Under Secretary under this section, excluding the activities described in subsection (e). 

‘‘(2) PARTICIPATION.—The Administrator’s participation under this subsection 

shall include— 

‘‘(A) research on the ecology of freshwater harmful algal blooms; 

‘‘(B) monitoring of and event response to freshwater harmful algal blooms 

in lakes, rivers, estuaries (including their tributaries), and reservoirs; and 

‘‘(C) mitigation and control of freshwater harmful algal blooms. 

‘‘(3) NONDUPLICATION.—The Administrator shall ensure that activities carried 

out under this Act shall focus on new approaches to addressing freshwater 

harmful algal blooms and are not duplicative of existing research and development programs authorized by this or any other Act. 

‘‘(4) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, 

the Administrator shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a report containing— 

‘‘(A) a detailed budget explanation for all of the activities conducted by 

the Administrator under this Act; and 

‘‘(B) a description of how such activities reduce the effects of freshwater 

harmful algal blooms and improve water quality. 

‘‘(e) NOAA ACTIVITIES.—As part of the program under this section, the Under Secretary shall— 

‘‘(1) maintain existing peer-reviewed competitive grant programs at NOAA relating to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 

‘‘(2) conduct marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia event 

response activities; and 

‘‘(3) ensure communication and coordination among Federal agencies carrying 

out marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia activities and increase the availability to appropriate public and private entities of— 

‘‘(A) analytical facilities and technologies; 

‘‘(B) operational forecasts; and 

‘‘(C) reference and research materials. 

‘‘(f) INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN OBSERVATION SYSTEM.—All monitoring and 

observation data collected under this Act shall be collected in compliance with all 

data standards and protocols developed pursuant to the National Integrated Coastal 

and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and such data 

shall be made available through the system established under that Act. 

‘‘(g) TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the duties described in subsection (b), the Under 

Secretary and the Administrator, through the Task Force, shall maintain a 

focus on technology research and development for each of the categories of marine harmful algal blooms, freshwater harmful algal blooms, and hypoxia in the 

following areas: 

‘‘(A) Monitoring. 

‘‘(B) Prediction. 

‘‘(C) Prevention. 

‘‘(D) Control. 

‘‘(E) Mitigation. 

‘‘(F) Response to events, including remediation. 

‘‘(2) ENUMERATION.—As part of the report required under subsection (i), the 

Under Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, shall enumerate the 

technology research and development conducted for each of the areas identified 

in paragraph (1). 

‘‘(3) PROTOCOL.—The Under Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, shall develop a protocol for— 

‘‘(A) assessing the stage of technology development that is ready to move 

from lab testing to field testing; 

‘‘(B) coordinating local, State, and Federal authorities to facilitate measures necessary to conduct field tests in a timely manner; and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

‘‘(C) working with local and State entities, programs, and interested 

stakeholders to conduct outreach and education on technology field testing 

projects. 

‘‘(h) INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.— 

‘‘(1) ELECTRONIC INFORMATION.—Using the authority under section 

603(i)(2)(B), the Under Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, shall 

expand the existing electronic clearinghouse to provide information about marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, including— 

‘‘(A) the Federal agencies involved in research and development on understanding, detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, control, mitigation, 

and response activities; 

‘‘(B) tools available to predict and model events; and 

‘‘(C) current or developing technologies for detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, control, mitigation, and response, including remediation. 

‘‘(2) TOXIN STANDARDS.—The Under Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall— 

‘‘(A) develop a mechanism to provide a reliable and cost-effective supply 

of toxin standards for comparative research; and 

‘‘(B) notify the Congress of such mechanism as part of the report required 

under subsection (i). 

‘‘(i) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the submission of the Plan, the Under 

Secretary, through the Task Force, shall prepare and transmit to the Congress a 

report that describes— 

‘‘(1) the activities carried out under the Program and the Plan and the budget 

related to such activities; and 

‘‘(2) the need to revise or terminate activities or projects under the Program.’’. 

SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN AND ACTION STRATEGY. 

The Act is amended by inserting after section 604, as added by section 5(3) of this 

Act, the following: 

‘‘SEC. 605. COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN AND ACTION STRATEGY. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the 

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, 

the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive research plan and action strategy to address marine and freshwater 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia that identifies— 

‘‘(1) the specific activities to be carried out by the Program and the timeline 

for carrying out such activities; 

‘‘(2) the roles and responsibilities of each Federal agency in the Task Force 

in carrying out Program activities; and 

‘‘(3) appropriate regions and subregions requiring specific research and activities to address local, State, and regional harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 

‘‘(b) REGIONAL FOCUS.—The regional and subregional parts of the Plan shall identify— 

‘‘(1) regional priorities for ecological, economic, and social research on issues 

related to the impacts of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 

‘‘(2) research, development, and demonstration activities needed to develop 

and advance technologies and techniques for minimizing the occurrence of 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and improving capabilities to detect, predict, 

monitor, control, mitigate, respond to, and remediate harmful algal blooms and 

hypoxia; 

‘‘(3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of harmful algal blooms and 

hypoxia, including deployment of response technologies in a timely manner; 

‘‘(4) research and methods to address human health dimensions of harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia; 

‘‘(5) mechanisms, including the potential costs and benefits of those mechanisms, to protect ecosystems that may be or have been affected by harmful algal 

bloom and hypoxia events; 

‘‘(6) mechanisms by which data, information, and products may be transferred 

between the Program and State, tribal, and local governments and relevant research entities; 

‘‘(7) communication and information dissemination methods that State, tribal, 

and local governments may undertake to educate and inform the public concerning harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; and 

‘‘(8) the roles that Federal agencies may have to assist in the implementation 

of the Plan. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

‘‘(c) UTILIZING AVAILABLE STUDIES AND INFORMATION.—In developing the Plan, 

the Under Secretary shall utilize existing research, assessments, reports, and program activities, including— 

‘‘(1) those carried out pursuant to existing law; and 

‘‘(2) other relevant peer-reviewed and published sources. 

‘‘(d) DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN.—In developing the Plan, the Under Secretary 

shall, as appropriate— 

‘‘(1) coordinate with— 

‘‘(A) State coastal management and planning officials; 

‘‘(B) tribal resource management officials; and 

‘‘(C) water management and watershed officials from both coastal States 

and noncoastal States with water sources that drain into water bodies affected by harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; and 

‘‘(2) consult with— 

‘‘(A) public health officials; 

‘‘(B) emergency management officials; 

‘‘(C) science and technology development institutions; 

‘‘(D) economists; 

‘‘(E) industries and businesses affected by marine and freshwater harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia; 

‘‘(F) scientists with expertise concerning harmful algal blooms or hypoxia 

from academic or research institutions; and 

‘‘(G) other stakeholders. 

‘‘(e) FEDERAL REGISTER.—The Under Secretary shall publish the Plan in the Federal Register. 

‘‘(f) PERIODIC REVISION.—The Under Secretary, in coordination and consultation 

with the individuals and entities identified in subsection (d), shall periodically review and revise the Plan prepared under this section, as necessary.’’. 

SEC. 7. NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO HYPOXIA. 

Section 606, as redesignated by section 5(2) of this Act, is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(c) REQUIRED UPDATE.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Within 2 years after the date of enactment of the Harmful 

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, the 

Administrator, through the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, shall complete and submit to the Congress and the President 

an updated assessment and a revised action plan based on the updated assessment. 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The updated assessment shall take into account the following: 

‘‘(A) The role of nutrient influx in the context of water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

‘‘(B) The contribution of the topography of the Gulf of Mexico in the effects of the characteristics described in subparagraph (A) on the hypoxic 

zone. 

‘‘(C) The frequency and availability of monitoring to measure the size of 

the hypoxic zone. 

‘‘(D) The potential of hypoxia hot-spot formation within the Gulf of Mexico and possible causes of such hot-spots. 

‘‘(E) The contribution of wetland loss to hypoxia events in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

‘‘(F) The actual effect of hypoxia on the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico 

and the benefits resulting from a reduced hypoxic zone size. 

‘‘(G) A scientifically generated, peer-reviewed goal for the size of the 

hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. 

‘‘(3) RESEARCH STRATEGY.—The updated plan shall include a research strategy— 

‘‘(A) to enhance understanding of the contribution of topography, water 

column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current 

dynamics on the size of the hypoxic zone; 

‘‘(B) to develop models able to— 

‘‘(i) simulate different shelf regions and the fundamental processes 

that act in each shelf region; 

‘‘(ii) differentiate between the separate effects of stratification and 

nutrient loading in the formation of hypoxia; and 

‘‘(iii) be informed by realistic three-dimensional hydrodynamic and 

biogeochemical models; 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

‘‘(C) that determines the appropriate amount of monitoring and measuring necessary to get a scientifically robust accounting on the size of the 

Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone; and 

‘‘(D) that examines several potential solutions based on information provided by the updated assessment in paragraph (1).’’. 

SEC. 8. CHESAPEAKE BAY DEAD ZONE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Act is amended by inserting after section 606, as redesignated by section 5(2) of this Act, the following: 

‘‘SEC. 607. CHESAPEAKE BAY DEAD ZONE. 

‘‘(a) ASSESSMENT PLAN.—Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of 

the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 

2011, the Task Force, in accordance with the authority under section 603, shall complete and submit to the Congress and the President an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay that examines the status of and gaps within current 

research, monitoring, prevention, response, and control activities by— 

‘‘(1) Federal agencies; 

‘‘(2) State agencies; 

‘‘(3) regional research consortia; 

‘‘(4) academia; 

‘‘(5) private industry; and 

‘‘(6) nongovernmental organizations. 

‘‘(b) RESEARCH PLAN.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the 

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 

2011, the Task Force shall develop and submit to the Congress a plan, based 

on the integrated assessment submitted under subsection (a), for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay. 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In developing such plan, the Task Force shall— 

‘‘(A) consult with State and local governments and representatives from 

academic, agricultural, industry, and other stakeholder groups; 

‘‘(B) ensure that the plan does not duplicate activities conducted by other 

Federal or State agencies; 

‘‘(C) include incentive-based partnership approaches; 

‘‘(D) include an economic cost-benefit analysis of the measures for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia events; 

‘‘(E) utilize existing research, assessments, reports, and program activities; 

‘‘(F) publish a summary of the proposed plan in the Federal Register 90 

days prior to the submission to the Congress of the completed plan; and 

‘‘(G) provide progress reports every 2 years after the submission to the 

Congress of the completed plan on the activities leading toward attainment 

of the goals set forth in the plan. 

‘‘(3) CONTENTS.—The plan shall— 

‘‘(A) address the monitoring needs identified in the integrated assessment 

submitted under subsection (a) and develop a timeline and budgetary requirements for deployment of future assets; 

‘‘(B) detail procedures for the development and verification of Chesapeake 

Bay hypoxia models, including making available to the public— 

‘‘(i) all assumptions built into the models; and 

‘‘(ii) data quality methods used to ensure the best available data is 

utilized; and 

‘‘(C) describe efforts to improve the assessment of the impacts of hypoxia 

by— 

‘‘(i) characterizing current and past biological conditions in ecosystems affected by hypoxia; and 

‘‘(ii) quantifying effects, including economic effects, at the population 

and community level.’’. 

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Section 608, as redesignated by section 5(1) of this Act, is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 608. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘(a) UNDER SECRETARY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Under 

Secretary to carry out this Act $18,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 

2015, of which, for each fiscal year— 

‘‘(1) $1,000,000 may be used for the development of the comprehensive research plan and action strategy under section 605 and the assessment and reports required by sections 606 and 607; 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

‘‘(2) $4,000,000 may be used for the research and assessment activities related 

to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms at research laboratories of 

NOAA; 

‘‘(3) $4,000,000 may be used to carry out the Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms 

Program (ECOHAB); 

‘‘(4) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out the Monitoring and Event Response 

for Harmful Algal Blooms Program (MERHAB); 

‘‘(5) $2,000,000 may be used to carry out research and assessment for the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and hypoxia activities; 

‘‘(6) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out coastal hypoxia research activities; 

‘‘(7) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out prevention, control, and mitigation 

activities; 

‘‘(8) $500,000 may be used to carry out event response activities; and 

‘‘(9) $500,000 may be used to carry out infrastructure activities. 

‘‘(b) ADMINISTRATOR.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator $2,700,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to carry out 

the activities authorized under this Act. 

‘‘(2) NONDUPLICATION.—The Administrator shall ensure that activities carried 

out using the amounts authorized under paragraph (1) do not duplicate research and development activities related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia 

conducted by Federal agencies represented on the Task Force, States, tribes, 

and nongovernmental organizations concerned with marine and freshwater 

aquatic issues.’’. 

(b) EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.—The Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere shall ensure that a substantial portion of funds appropriated pursuant to section 608 of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 

and Control Act of 1998 that are used for research purposes are allocated to extramural research activities. 

SEC. 10. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS. 

(a) TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in section 2 of the 

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 is amended by striking the items relating 

to sections 602 through 606 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Sec. 602. Definitions. 

‘‘Sec. 603. Assessments. 

‘‘Sec. 604. National harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program. 

‘‘Sec. 605. Comprehensive research plan and action strategy. 

‘‘Sec. 606. Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. 

‘‘Sec. 607. Chesapeake Bay dead zone. 

‘‘Sec. 608. Authorization of appropriations. 

‘‘Sec. 609. Protection of States’ rights.’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Section 609, as redesignated by section 5(1) of this Act, is 

amended by striking ‘‘Clean Water Act or’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the’’. 

II. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 2484 is to reauthorize the Harmful Algal 

Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to include a 

comprehensive and integrated strategy to address harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia; to provide for the development and implementation of a comprehensive research plan and action strategy to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; and for other purposes. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

A harmful algal bloom (HAB) is a bloom, or rapid overproduction 

of algal cells, that produces toxins, which are detrimental to plants 

and animals. These outbreaks are commonly referred to as ‘‘red’’ or 

‘‘brown’’ tides. Blooms can kill fish and other aquatic life by decreasing sunlight available to the water and by depleting the available oxygen in the water, causing hypoxia. The produced toxins accumulate in shellfish, fish, or through the accumulation of biomass 

that affect other organisms and alter food webs. In recent years, 

many of the nation’s coastlines, near shore marine waters, and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

freshwaters have experienced an increase in the number, frequency, duration, and type of HABs. 

Harmful algal blooms are one of the most scientifically complex 

and economically significant coastal management issues facing the 

nation. In the past, only a few regions of the United States were 

affected by HABs, but now almost all states have reported blooms. 

In severe cases, these phenomena can have serious environmental, 

economic, and human health impacts. 

CURRENT LAW

In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Research and Control Act (HABHRCA, Public Law 105–83), which 

established an Interagency Task Force to develop a national HABs 

assessment and authorized funding for existing and new research 

programs on HABs. Funding supported the development of a national scientific research, development, demonstration, and technology transfer program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) that focused on HABs and included the 

Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) 

program and the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful 

Algal Blooms (MERHAB) program. The program at NOAA involves 

federal, state, and academic partners and supports interdisciplinary extramural research studies to address the issues of HABs in 

an ecosystem context. 

In 2004, HABHRCA was reauthorized in Public Law 108–456. 

The reauthorized Act required assessments of HABs in different 

coastal regions and in the Great Lakes and included plans to expand research to address the impacts of HABs. The law also authorized research, education, and monitoring activities related to 

the prevention, reduction, and control of harmful algal blooms and 

hypoxia and reconstituted the Interagency Task Force on HABs 

and Hypoxia. 

The 2004 reauthorization also directed NOAA to produce several 

reports and assessments, which have since been completed, including: 

• The Prediction and Response Report (September 2007) addressed both the state of research and methods for HAB prediction 

and response, especially at the federal level. 

• The 2008 National Scientific Research, Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer Plan for Reducing Impacts 

from Harmful Algal Blooms (RDDTT Plan) established research 

priorities to develop and demonstrate prevention, control and mitigation methods to advance current prediction and response capabilities. 

• The Scientific Assessment of Marine Harmful Algal Blooms 

(December 2008) described the state of the science with respect to: 

understanding HABs causes and controls and developing predictive 

models; developing detection methods for cells and toxins; characterizing toxins and impacts; HAB impacts on food webs and fisheries; and assessing public health, economic and socio-cultural impacts. 

• The 2008 Scientific Assessment of Freshwater Harmful Algal 

Blooms released in 2008 described the state of the knowledge of 

HABs in U.S inland and freshwaters and presented a plan to adVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

vance research and reduce the impacts on humans and the environment. 

• The Scientific Assessment of Hypoxia in U.S. Coastal Waters 

(September 2010) assessed the prevalence of low-oxygen ‘‘deadzones’’, or hypoxic zones, in U.S. coastal waters and outlined a series of research steps needed to address these occurrences. 

Additionally, the 2004 reauthorization directed NOAA, in coordination with the Task Force, to conduct local and regional scientific 

assessments if requested by state, tribal, or local governments or 

for affected areas identified by NOAA. Funding was also authorized 

for ongoing and new programs and activities such as: competitive, 

peer-reviewed research through the ECOHAB program; freshwater 

harmful algal bloom research added to the research priorities of 

ECOHAB; a competitive, peer-reviewed research program on management measures to prevent, reduce, control, and mitigate harmful algal blooms supported by the MERHAB program, and; activities related to research and monitoring of hypoxia supported by the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico program and Coastal Hypoxia Research 

Program. 

The 2004 HABHRCA authorized funds to conduct research and 

reduce HABs and hypoxia in U.S. marine waters, estuaries and the 

Great Lakes. In its role as a task force participant, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has signed Memorandums of Understanding to fund competitive research into the occurrence of 

HABs in these areas. However, since the completion of the freshwater report in 2008, EPA has ceased participation in HABHRCA 

for freshwater HAB research and mitigation activities. As a result, 

although EPA oversees a wide array of programs specifically designed to protect and preserve freshwater sources and the coastal 

and marine waters of the United States, including watershed protection programs and an array of regulatory programs, the agency 

currently has no research and development effort that directly addresses freshwater harmful algal blooms. 

OTHER INTERAGENCY EFFORTS

EPA and NOAA work together to lead a Federal Workgroup of 

thirteen federal agencies committed to supporting the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a partnership formed by the five Gulf State Governors. 

In addition, EPA is also the lead agency of the Mississippi River/ 

Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. 

The 2004 HABHRCA reauthorization expired in 2008, however, 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110–161) provided an authorization of appropriations through FY2010. H.R. 

2484 would reauthorize the Act with the primary goal of H.R. 2484 

being advancing the body of knowledge of HABs and hypoxia to 

begin to enable development of solutions for communities affected 

by these events. By requiring greater Interagency Task Force involvement and a Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy, H.R. 2484 seeks to coordinate efforts across the Federal government. Although there have been long-term strategies in place 

attempting to mitigate the occurrence of HABs, such strategies 

take years, even decades, to bear fruit. In the meantime, States 

and communities are dealing with increasing occurrences of HABs 

and hypoxia, indicating a greater need for near-term solutions. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

Accordingly, H.R. 2484 shifts the focus of the current program to 

technological research, development, and demonstration, encouraging a move toward finding such near-term solutions through 

technological innovation. 

IV. HEARING SUMMARY

The Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing on June 1, 2011, entitled ‘‘Harmful Algal Blooms: Action Plans for Scientific Solutions.’’ The purpose of the hearing was examine harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia research and response needs to develop and 

implement action plans to monitor, prevent, mitigate and control 

both marine and freshwater bloom and hypoxia events. 

The Subcommittee received testimony from: Dr. Robert Magnien, 

Director of the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research at the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Dr. Richard 

Greene, Chief of the Ecosystems Dynamics and Effects Branch of 

the Gulf Ecology Division at the Office of Research and Development within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Donald 

Anderson, Senior Scientist and Director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Dr. Kevin Sellner, 

Executive Director of the Chesapeake Research Consortium; Dr. 

Stephanie Smith, Chief Scientist at Algaventure Systems; and Dr. 

Beth McGee, Senior Water Quality Scientist at the Chesapeake 

Bay Foundation. 

Witnesses discussed their work and the state of the science of 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and what additional steps were 

needed. Witnesses also provided testimony on draft legislation entitled, ‘‘The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011’’. 

V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On July 11, 2011, H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011 was introduced by Rep. Andy Harris (R–MD-1), and co-sponsored by Rep. 

Roscoe Bartlett (R–MD-6), Rep. Kathy Castor (D–FL-11), Rep. 

Donna Christensen (D–VI), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D–AZ-7), Rep. 

Connie Mack (R–FL-14), Rep. Michael Michaud (D–ME-2), and 

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D–ME-1). The bill was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on 

Natural Resources. 

On July 14, 2011 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

met to consider H.R. 2484 and ordered it favorably reported to the 

Full Committee, as amended, by voice vote. 

On July 28, 2011 the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 2484, as 

amended, by a record vote of 20 yeas and 15 nays. Further, the 

Committee ordered H.R. 2484, favorably reported to the House, as 

amended, by voice vote. 

VI. COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The Committee 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

adopted H.R. 2484, as amended by a record vote of 20 yeas and 15 

nays. A motion to order H.R. 2484, favorably reported to the House, 

as amended, was agreed to by a voice vote. 

During Subcommittee on Energy and Environment consideration 

of H.R. 2484 the following amendments were considered: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 HR333P1.001
14 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 HR333P1.002
15 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 HR333P1.003
16 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 HR333P1.004
17 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 HR333P1.005
18 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 HR333P1.006
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 HR333P1.007
20 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 HR333P1.008
21 

VII. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Coordinated budget 

The Task Force is to develop a coordinated budget to be submitted by each agency to the Director of OMB at the time designated for agencies to submit annual budgets. (Sec. 4) 

Overarching program direction 

The bill directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere to utilize the resources of the Task Force to maintain 

the National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program. The bill 

directs the Under Secretary, through the Program, to develop a national strategy, coordinate all Federal programs, work with State, 

tribal, and local government agencies and identify additional research needs and priorities. In addition, the bill directs the Under 

Secretary to work cooperatively and avoid duplication of efforts 

with other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA, as well as 

with States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and other 

agencies represented on the Task Force. The bill directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a 

freshwater harmful algal bloom research program. (Sec. 5) 

Technology research and development focus 

The bill requires that the existing research programs maintain a 

focus on research, development, and demonstration of technology to 

monitor, predict, prevent, control, mitigate and respond to marine 

and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It also requires 

the Under Secretary and the Administrator to develop a protocol to 

assess technology development timelines, coordinate local State and 

Federal authorities to facilitate field testing, and work with State 

and local entities to conduct outreach and education on technology 

field testing projects. (Sec. 5) 

Information clearinghouse 

The bill directs the Under Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, to expand the existing electronic information clearinghouse to provide information about marine and freshwater harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia. Furthermore, the bill directs the Under 

Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, to develop a 

mechanism to provide a reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin 

standards for comparative research and notify Congress of such in 

the report required under this section. (Sec. 5) 

Comprehensive research plan and action strategy 

The bill requires that the Under Secretary, through the Task 

Force, oversee the development of a Comprehensive Research and 

Action Strategy by generating a national plan that identifies regional issues and includes a strategy to address them. (Sec. 6) 

Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia 

The bill amends the underlying statute to require the Mississippi 

River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force to update its 

scientific assessment and revise the Action plan issued in 2008. 

(Sec. 7) 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

Chesapeake Bay dead zone 

The bill directs the Task Force to complete an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay that examines the current 

status of and gaps in current research efforts, and develop a corresponding research plan. (Sec. 8) 

Authorization of appropriations 

Section 9 provides an authorization for the activities of the 

Under Secretary of Commerce of $18,000,000 for each of the fiscal 

years 2012 through 2015 and an authorization for the activities of 

the Administrator of the EPA of $2,700,000 for each of the fiscal 

years 2012 through 2015. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Amendments Act of 2011, will support efforts to better understand, detect, predict, control, mitigate, and respond to both marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia 

events. It is the intent of the Committee that the research and activities required under the Act seek ways to reduce the duration 

and intensity of blooms that many U.S. waterways currently experience. This is particularly important to minimize beach and tourism activity closures, cancellations, and evacuations as well as the 

issuance of health and food warnings. 

The Committee regards this legislation as the next necessary 

step in formulating the national and regional action strategies, 

building upon the findings and results of various reports and assessments required under the previous Harmful Algal Blooms and 

Hypoxia Research and Control Acts (1998 and 2004). Addressing 

the many dimensions of HABs requires a coordinated multi-agency 

approach, and there are presently a number of programs and agencies that address the various aspects of HABs. 

It is in the opinion of the Committee that the federal agencies 

participating in the Interagency Task Force, established by the 

1998 HABHRCA Act, should strengthen collaboration and coordination to address both marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms 

and hypoxia. H.R. 2484 aims to enhance this effort by requiring 

participating agencies to develop and submit program budgets annually to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) has been a lead agency in the country’s HABs and hypoxia 

research activities, it is the intent of the Committee that in this 

role, NOAA does not bear the burden of the entire Program. H.R. 

2484 intends for NOAA to lead the National Harmful Algal Bloom 

and Hypoxia Program in its role as the chair of the Interagency 

Task Force. The Committee believes that NOAA had been given 

such authority with the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 2004, and strongly urges NOAA to utilize 

such authority to maintain an interagency program. Accordingly, 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (Administrator of NOAA) should work with the Task Force to outline 

the roles and responsibilities of each participating Federal agency 

to ensure all contribute to the Program activities, including the development of the comprehensive research plan and action strategy. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

It is also the intent of the Committee that the Under Secretary ensures the coordination of the Task Force and works cooperatively 

with all Federal, State, and local programs, including NOAA internal programs and activities that address marine and freshwater 

HABs and hypoxia. 

Despite the fact that HABs and hypoxia are not limited to marine waters, in recent years, research and related activities have focused on marine waters at the expense of freshwater issues. The 

Committee does not intend to establish a separate freshwater 

HABs and hypoxia program, but rather expects NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work together to expand 

the national HABs program to address freshwater HABs and hypoxia issues, while maintaining NOAA’s current role in the Great 

Lakes as well as in the Gulf of Mexico. 

As the lead agency with oversight over freshwater quality, EPA 

is in the best position to ensure the management of aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, and promote freshwater economic 

and recreational activities through both internal and extramural 

research to understand, detect, predict, control and mitigate freshwater HABs and hypoxia. The Committee expects EPA to not only 

continue its extensive hypoxia work in the Gulf of Mexico, but also 

to participate in the Program with respect to the inland and freshwater needs around the country. The Committee also intends for 

EPA to work with NOAA in individual extramural research programs including the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal 

Blooms Program (ECOHAB); the Monitoring and Event Response 

for Harmful Algal Blooms Program (MERHAB); the Northern Gulf 

of Mexico Ecosystems and Hypoxia Assessment Program 

(NGOMEX); the Coastal Hypoxia Research Program (CHRP); and, 

the Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms 

Program (PCM). 

As directed in H.R. 2484, the Committee expects EPA to conduct 

monitoring and event response activities as well as mitigation and 

control activities for outbreaks in lakes, rivers, estuaries (including 

their tributaries and the watersheds), and reservoirs. The Committee is not supportive of EPA utilizing resources provided by 

H.R. 2484 to increase funding of research activities within existing 

programs. 

EPA already devotes substantial resources towards nutrient 

management research; the resources provided by this bill are not 

intended to supplement that research. Instead, the Committee directs EPA in H.R. 2484 to focus on monitoring of, and event response to, freshwater outbreaks and mitigation and control of such 

outbreaks. The Committee intends for EPA to focus its effort on 

mitigation and control technologies and techniques that could offer 

immediate relief to communities stricken with freshwater harmful 

algal bloom outbreaks. 

Advances in the basic knowledge of the causes of marine and 

freshwater harmful algal blooms have provided sufficient information to develop technologies to respond to HABs and hypoxia. Although improvements have been made in the past couple of years, 

the Committee has found there is less focus on technological research to respond to HABs and hypoxia than on the ecological or 

basic research into the causes of these phenomena. The Committee 

intends that resources provided by H.R. 2484 to the Under SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

retary and the Administrator of EPA increase efforts to develop 

HABs and hypoxia mitigation solutions through an increased focus 

on technology research, development, and demonstration. Furthermore, the Committee directs NOAA and EPA to develop a protocol 

for assessing the progression of technology development to determine appropriate readiness to move from lab testing to field testing. In order to promote field testing in an expedient manner, the 

Committee intends for this protocol to include a process for coordinating with local, State, and Federal authorities to facilitate field 

testing. In addition, it is the Committee’s intent that this protocol 

includes a process for working with local and State entities and 

stakeholders to conduct outreach and education about technology 

field testing. 

H.R. 2484 instructs NOAA and EPA to expand its existing electronic information database to develop a comprehensive information clearinghouse. The Committee intends that this clearinghouse 

will provide detailed information on the following: HABs and Hypoxia activities of each of the agencies on the Interagency Task 

Force; tools currently available to predict and model events; and t 

current or developing technologies that exist to detect, monitor, 

predict, prevent, control, mitigate, and respond to HABs and Hypoxia events. 

In the development of the comprehensive research plan and action strategy mandated by H.R. 2484, it is the Committee’s intention for the Undersecretary to coordinate and collaborate with the 

State, local, and tribal governments that are directly affected by 

HABs and hypoxia, and to formulate a plan that will not cause financial burdens on these governments. It is also the intent of the 

Committee for all participating agencies of the Interagency Task 

Force to participate in the development of the Plan. The regional 

and subregional focus outlined in H.R. 2484 is intended to increase 

public awareness of those that live in and around the communities 

affected by HABs and Hypoxia. 

To date, EPA efforts to address the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of 

Mexico have centered on the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008, which 

focuses on upstream water quality in an attempt to affect the size 

and severity of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf. Although the legislation does not prevent the continuation of EPA’s efforts, it instructs 

EPA to update this plan to provide a more comprehensive analysis 

of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Accordingly, the Committee expects EPA to conduct an assessment to determine different physical, chemical, biological and topographical impacts on, 

and effects of, the hypoxic zone. The Committee intends that the 

updated research plan will be based on the information acquired by 

the assessment included in H.R. 2484. 

In recognition of the Chesapeake Bay’s status as a national 

treasure, the Committee included in H.R. 2484 a section specifically to address hypoxia in the Bay. Given its importance to the 

identity of the States and region that comprise the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, there are many entities involved in conducting research 

to improve the ecological health of the Bay. The Committee intends 

for the Interagency Task Force to conduct an assessment of the 

current research efforts of Federal and State agencies, regional research consortia, academia, private industry, and nongovernmental 

organizations. The assessment is intended to help avoid duplicative 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

efforts and to assist in the strategic deployment of resources. As 

such, the Task Force is to develop a research plan based on the integrated assessment. It is the Committee’s intent that this research 

plan will be developed based on information acquired by the assessment to fill any research gaps, address the identified monitoring 

needs, and describe efforts to improve the assessment of impacts of 

hypoxia in the Bay. It is the Committee’s intent that any modeling 

of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay be transparent. As such, H.R. 

2484 requires that the Chesapeake Bay research plan include detailed procedures for the development and verification of Chesapeake Bay hypoxia models, establish a method to make public all 

model assumptions, and detail data quality protocols used to ensure best available science. 

IX. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight hearing and 

made findings that are reflected in the descriptive portions of this 

report. 

X. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the performance goals and objectives of 

the Committee are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report, including the goal to reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom 

and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to provide direction 

and specificity to the nation’s harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research program efforts. 

XI. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

XII. ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, the 

Committee finds that H.R. 2484, the ‘‘Harmful Algal Bloom and 

Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011’’ contains 

no earmarks. 

XIII. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

XIV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, August 19, 2011. 

Hon. RALPH M. HALL, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal 

Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 

2011. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2484—Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011 

Summary: H.R. 2484 would reauthorize and modify the Harmful 

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. The 

bill would authorize the appropriation of $20.7 million annually 

over the 2012–2015 period for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to mitigate the effects of harmful algal blooms and 

hypoxia (reduced oxygen level) in certain bodies of water. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost $79 million 

over the 2012–2016 period and $4 million after 2016. Enacting 

H.R. 2484 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 2484 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2484 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012– 

2016 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ....................................................................... 21 21 21 21 0 83 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 13 18 20 20 7 79 

Note: Amounts do not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted near the end of 2011 and that the authorized 

amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar NOAA 

and EPA activities. 

H.R. 2484 would authorize the appropriation of $18 million a 

year over the 2012–2015 period for certain NOAA activities related 

to mitigating the effects of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

coastal waters and the Great Lakes. Those activities include providing grants, conducting research, preparing reports, and overseeing an interagency task force. The bill also would authorize the appropriation of $2.7 million a 

year over the 2012–2015 period for EPA to assist NOAA in conducting related activities, including expanding an existing electronic clearinghouse and developing protocols for coordinating 

intergovernmental efforts related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO esti- mates that implementing the legislation would cost $79 million 

over the 2012–2016 period and $4 million after 2016. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2484 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Jeff LaFave; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on the 

private sector: Amy Petz, 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

XV. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

XVI. ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

XVII. APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

XVIII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short title 

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 

Amendments Act of 2011. 

Sec. 2. Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 

and Control Act of 1998 

This section explains that the text the bill modifies is the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, unless otherwise expressly stated. 

Sec. 3. Definitions 

Section 4 provides definitions, including: Administrator, the Program under Section 604(a), the Task Force under section 603(a)(1) 

and Under Secretary. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

Sec. 4. Interagency task force 

This section restates the President’s establishment of an interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. The bill 

reiterates representation and designation of the representative 

from the Department of Commerce to serve as the Chairperson of 

the Task Force. The bill directs the Task Force to meet at least 

once per year and to develop a coordinated budget to be submitted 

to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget at the time 

designated for agencies to submit annual budgets. 

Sec. 5. National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program 

This section directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 

and Atmosphere to utilize the resources of the Task Force to maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program. The 

bill requires the Under Secretary to: 1) develop a national strategy 

to address both marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and 

hypoxia events; 2) coordinate all Federal programs related to HABs 

and hypoxia; 3) work with State, tribal, and local government agencies; 4) identify additional research needs and priorities; 5) ensure 

the development and implementation of methods and technologies 

to protect ecosystems damaged by HABs; 6) encourage the appropriate exchange of research information with other countries; 7) coordinate existing education programs to improve public understanding; 8) provide resources for training of State, tribal and local 

water and coastal resource managers for detecting, monitoring, 

controlling, mitigating, and responding to the effects of harmful 

algal bloom and hypoxia events; 9) oversee the development of the 

Plan; 10) administer peer-reviewed, merit-based competitive grant 

funding; and 11) encourage the development of innovative concepts 

for the beneficial use of biomass from harmful algal blooms and the 

growth of certain biofuel crops. In addition, the legislation directs 

the Under Secretary to work cooperatively and avoid duplication of 

efforts with other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA, as 

well as with States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and 

other agencies represented on the Task Force. 

Section 5 directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to work with the Under Secretary to utilize the resources of the task force to carry out freshwater activities. It also 

instructs the Administrator to ensure that such activities do not 

duplicate existing research and development programs authorized 

under this or any other Act. 

Furthermore, the bill requires the Administrator to submit a report to Congress detailing the budget explanation for all the activities conducted by the Administrator under the authority of this 

Act. 

This section also specifies duties for the Under Secretary to 

maintain existing competitive grant programs, conduct marine and 

freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia event response activities, ensure communication among Federal agencies, and increase 

availability of resources. The bill stipulates that all monitoring and 

observation data collected shall conform to standards and protocols 

developed pursuant to the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean 

Observation System Act of 2009. 

Section 5 requires that the existing research programs maintain 

a focus on research, development, and demonstration of technology 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

to monitor, predict, prevent, control, mitigate and respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxias. It also requires the Under Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a protocol to assess technology 

development timelines, coordinate local State and Federal authorities to facilitate field testing, and work with State and local entities 

to conduct outreach and education on technology field testing 

projects. 

This section also directs the Under Secretary, in consultation 

with the Administrator, to expand on the existing electronic information clearinghouse to provide information about marine and 

freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Furthermore, the 

bill directs the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, to develop a mechanism to provide a reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin standards for comparative research and notify 

Congress of such in the report required under this section. The bill 

also directs the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, to report 

to Congress describing the activities carried out under the Program 

and the Plan. 

Sec. 6. Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy 

This section directs the Under Secretary, through the Task 

Force, to oversee the development of a Comprehensive Research 

Plan and Action Strategy by identifying the appropriate regions 

and sub-regions to be addressed by the Plan and requires that the 

Plan include the following: 1) regional priorities for ecological, economic, and social research related to the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 2) research, development, and demonstration activities to advance technologies and techniques for minimizing the occurrence 

and addressing the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of HABs events; 4) research and 

methods to address the impacts of HABs on human health; 5) 

mechanisms and the potential costs of these mechanisms to protect 

vulnerable ecosystems that could be or have been affected by harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events; 6) mechanisms for data transfer between the Program and State, tribal, and local governments 

and relevant research entities; 7) communication, outreach, and 

dissemination methods used to educate and inform the public; and 

8) the roles of Federal agencies in implementation of the Plan. 

Section 6 also explicitly directs the utilization of existing peer-reviewed research, assessments, and reports in the development of 

the Plan. This section provides a list of individuals and entities 

that the Under Secretary shall coordinate with in developing the 

Plan. Section 6 directs that the Plan be completed and approved 

within 2 years after the date of enactment, and be periodically reviewed and updated as necessary. 

Sec. 7. Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia 

This section amends the underlying statute to require the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force to update its scientific assessment to include the following information: 

(1) the role of nutrient influx in the context of water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico; (2) the contribution of the topography 

of the Gulf of Mexico to water column stratification, seasonal flows 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

and conditions, and wind and current dynamics; (3) the frequency 

and availability of monitoring to measure the size of the hypoxic 

zone; (4) the potential for hypoxia hot-spot formation with the Gulf 

of Mexico and possible causes; (5) the contribution of wetland loss 

to the nutrient level in the Gulf of Mexico; (6) the actual effects of 

hypoxia on the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico and the benefits resulting from a reduced hypoxic zone; and (7) a scientifically generated, peer-reviewed goal for an appropriate size of the hypoxic 

zone in the Gulf of Mexico that will protect ecosystem functions. 

Section 7 also requires the Task Force to update its Gulf Hypoxia 

Action Plan 2008 within 2 years of the enactment of the bill to include the following: (1) a strategy to enhance the understanding of 

the contribution of topography, water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics on the 

size of the hypoxic zone; (2) the development of models to simulate 

the different shelf regions and the fundamental processes that act 

in each shelf region, differentiate between the separate effects of 

stratification and nutrient loading in the formation of hypoxia, and 

informed by realistic three-dimensional hydrodynamic and biogeochemical models; (3) a strategy to determine the appropriate 

amount of monitoring needed to develop a scientifically robust accounting on the size of the hypoxic zone; and (4) an examination 

of several potential solutions based on the information provided by 

the updated assessment. 

Sec. 8. Chesapeake Bay dead zone 

Section 8 directs the Task Force to complete and submit to Congress an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay 

that examines the current status of and gaps in research. The bill 

requires the Task Force to develop a research plan based on the 

integrated assessment for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay, and directs the Task Force to consult 

with State and local governments and representatives from academic, agricultural, industry, and other stakeholder groups. The 

bill also directs the Task Force to ensure that the plan does not duplicate activities conducted by other Federal or State agencies. It 

further directs the Plan to include incentive-based partnership approaches and an economic cost-benefit analysis of the measure for 

reducing, mitigating, or controlling hypoxia events. This section requires publication of the plan in the Federal Register and progress 

reports every 2 years on the activities leading toward attainment 

of the goals set forth in the plan. The bill states that the plan contents shall address the monitoring needs identified in the assessment; detail procedures for the development and verification of 

Chesapeake Bay hypoxia, including making all assumptions built 

into the model publicly available; and describe the efforts to improve the assessment of the impacts of hypoxia. 

Sec. 9. Authorization of appropriations 

Section 9 provides an authorization of $18,000,000 for each of the 

fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to the Under Secretary of Commerce to carry out the Program. In addition, this section provides 

$2,700,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to the Administrator to carry out activities authorized in the bill. Furthermore, section 9 provides that the Administrator ensure that activiVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

ties carried out using authorized appropriations do not duplicate 

research and development activities related to harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia conducted by Federal agency represented on 

the Task Force, States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations 

concerned with marine and freshwater aquatic issues. 

Sec. 10. Clerical amendments 

Amends section 2 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 

to include an updated table of contents, and replaces any instance 

of ‘‘Clean Water Act or’’ with ‘‘Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

or the’’ in section 609 of the Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VI—HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 602. Findings. 

øSec. 603. Assessments. 

øSec. 604. Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. 

øSec. 605. Authorization of appropriations. 

øSec. 606. Protection of States’ rights.¿ 

Sec. 602. Definitions. 

Sec. 603. Assessments. 

Sec. 604. National harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program. 

Sec. 605. Comprehensive research plan and action strategy. 

Sec. 606. Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. 

Sec. 607. Chesapeake Bay dead zone. 

Sec. 608. Authorization of appropriations. 

Sec. 609. Protection of States’ rights. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VI—HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS 

AND HYPOXIA 

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998’’. 

øSEC. 602. FINDINGS. 

øThe Congress finds that— 

ø(1) the recent outbreak of the harmful microbe Pfiesteria 

piscicida in the coastal waters of the United States is one exVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

ample of potentially harmful algal blooms composed of naturally occurring species that reproduce explosively and that are 

increasing in frequency and intensity in the Nation’s coastal 

waters; 

ø(2) other recent occurrences of harmful algal blooms include red tides in the Gulf of Mexico and the Southeast; brown 

tides in New York and Texas; ciguatera fish poisoning in Hawaii, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands; and shellfish poisonings in the Gulf of Maine, the Pacific 

Northwest, and the Gulf of Alaska; 

ø(3) in certain cases, harmful algal blooms have resulted 

in fish kills, the deaths of numerous endangered West Indian 

manatees, beach and shellfish bed closures, threats to public 

health and safety, and concern among the public about the 

safety of seafood; 

ø(4) according to some scientists, the factors causing or 

contributing to harmful algal blooms may include excessive nutrients in coastal waters, other forms of pollution, the transfer 

of harmful species through ship ballast water, and ocean currents; 

ø(5) harmful algal blooms may have been responsible for an estimated $1,000,000,000 in economic losses during the past 

decade; 

ø(6) harmful algal blooms and blooms of non-toxic algal 

species may lead to other damaging marine conditions such as 

hypoxia (reduced oxygen concentrations), which are harmful or 

fatal to fish, shellfish, and benthic organisms; 

ø(7) according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration in the Department of Commerce, 53 percent of 

United States estuaries experience hypoxia for at least part of 

the year and a 7,000 square mile area in the Gulf of Mexico 

off Louisiana and Texas suffers from hypoxia; 

ø(8) according to some scientists, a factor believed to cause 

hypoxia is excessive nutrient loading into coastal waters; 

ø(9) there is a need to identify more workable and effective 

actions to reduce nutrient loadings to coastal waters; 

ø(10) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through its ongoing research, education, grant, and coastal resource management programs, possesses a full range of capabilities necessary to support a near and long-term comprehensive effort to prevent, reduce, and control harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia; 

ø(11) funding for the research and related programs of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will aid in 

improving the Nation’s understanding and capabilities for addressing the human and environmental costs associated with 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; and 

ø(12) other Federal agencies such as the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation, along with the States, Indian tribes, 

and local governments, conduct important work related to the 

prevention, reduction, and control of harmful algal blooms and 

hypoxia.¿ 

SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(2) NOAA.—The term ‘‘NOAA’’ means the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. 

(3) PLAN.—The term ‘‘Plan’’ means the comprehensive research plan and action strategy under section 605. 

(4) PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘Program’’ means the National 

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program under section 

604(a). 

(5) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several 

States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, 

Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the United 

States, and any Indian tribe. 

(6) TASK FORCE.—The term ‘‘Task Force’’ means the InterAgency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 

under section 603(a)(1). 

(7) UNDER SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Under Secretary’’ means 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. 

SEC. 603. ASSESSMENTS. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE.—The 

President, through the Committee on Environment and Natural 

Resources of the National Science and Technology Council, shall establish an Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and 

Hypoxia (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Task Force’’). The Task 

Force shall consist of the following representatives from— 

ø(1) the Department of Commerce (who shall serve as 

Chairman of the Task Force); 

ø(2) the Environmental Protection Agency; 

ø(3) the Department of Agriculture; 

ø(4) the Department of the Interior; 

ø(5) the Department of the Navy; 

ø(6) the Department of Health and Human Services; 

ø(7) the National Science Foundation; 

ø(8) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 

ø(9) the Food and Drug Administration; 

ø(10) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; 

ø(11) the Council on Environmental Quality; and 

ø(12) such other Federal agencies as the President considers appropriate.¿ 

(a) INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President, through the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National 

Science and Technology Council, shall establish an Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. 

(2) REPRESENTATION.—The Task Force shall consist of representatives from the following: 

(A) The Department of Commerce. 

(B) The Environmental Protection Agency. 

(C) The Department of Agriculture. 

(D) The Department of the Interior. 

(E) The Department of the Navy. 

(F) The Department of Health and Human Services. 

(G) The National Science Foundation. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

(H) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

(I) The Food and Drug Administration. 

(J) The Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

(K) The Council on Environmental Quality. 

(L) Such other Federal agencies as the President considers appropriate. 

(3) CHAIRPERSON.—The Under Secretary from the Department of Commerce shall serve as the Chairperson of the Task 

Force. 

(4) REQUIRED MEETINGS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Task Force shall meet, or otherwise communicate, to coordinate activities within each 

agency represented on the Task Force in order to fulfill the 

program requirements in section 604(b). 

(B) FREQUENCY.—The Task Force shall meet at least 

once per year. 

(5) BUDGET COORDINATION.—The Task Force shall— 

(A) coordinate in the development of individual agency 

budgets for the activities described in section 604 that will 

ensure an appropriate balance among the research and action priorities; and 

(B) submit such budgets to the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget at the time designated by the Director for agencies to submit annual budgets. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 604. NATIONAL HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (d), the 

Under Secretary, through the Task Force, shall maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program in accordance 

with authorities under section 603 pursuant to this section. 

(b) DUTIES.—The Under Secretary, through the Program, shall 

coordinate the efforts of the Task Force to— 

(1) develop and promote a national strategy to understand, 

detect, monitor, predict, control, mitigate, and respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events; 

(2) integrate the research of all Federal programs, including ocean and Great Lakes science and management programs 

and centers, that address the chemical, biological, and physical 

components of marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms 

and hypoxia; 

(3) assist and coordinate, where appropriate, with State, 

tribal, and local government agencies, programs, and regional 

efforts that address marine and freshwater harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia, including the development and implementation of appropriate response plans, strategies, and tools; 

(4) identify additional research, development, and demonstration needs and priorities relating to understanding, detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, control, mitigation, 

and response to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms 

and hypoxia; 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

(5) ensure the development and use of methods and technologies to protect the ecosystems affected by marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 

(6) encourage the appropriate exchange of research information with other countries in order to better mitigate, control, 

and respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms; 

(7) coordinate existing education programs to improve public understanding and awareness of the causes, impacts, and 

mitigation efforts for marine and freshwater harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia; 

(8) provide resources to assist in the training of State, tribal, and local water and coastal resource managers in the methods and technologies for detecting, monitoring, controlling, mitigating, and responding to the effects of marine and freshwater 

harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events; 

(9) oversee the development, review, and periodic updating 

of the Plan; 

(10) administer peer-reviewed, merit-based, competitive 

grant funding to support— 

(A) the projects maintained and established by the Program; and 

(B) the research and management needs and priorities 

identified in the Plan; and 

(11) encourage the development of innovative concepts for 

the beneficial utilization of— 

(A) biomass from harmful algal blooms that have been 

removed from the natural system; and 

(B) the growth of certain biofuel crops that reduce runoff that causes harmful algal blooms. 

(c) COOPERATIVE EFFORTS.—The Under Secretary shall work 

cooperatively and avoid duplication of efforts with other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA and other agencies represented on 

the Task Force, States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations 

concerned with marine and freshwater aquatic issues related to 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 

(d) FRESHWATER PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the freshwater aspects of 

the Program, the Administrator and the Under Secretary, 

through the Task Force, shall carry out the duties otherwise assigned to the Under Secretary under this section, excluding the 

activities described in subsection (e). 

(2) PARTICIPATION.—The Administrator’s participation 

under this subsection shall include— 

(A) research on the ecology of freshwater harmful algal 

blooms; 

(B) monitoring of and event response to freshwater 

harmful algal blooms in lakes, rivers, estuaries (including 

their tributaries), and reservoirs; and 

(C) mitigation and control of freshwater harmful algal 

blooms. 

(3) NONDUPLICATION.—The Administrator shall ensure that 

activities carried out under this Act shall focus on new approaches to addressing freshwater harmful algal blooms and 

are not duplicative of existing research and development programs authorized by this or any other Act. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

(4) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Administrator shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology of the House of Representatives a report containing— 

(A) a detailed budget explanation for all of the activities conducted by the Administrator under this Act; and 

(B) a description of how such activities reduce the effects of freshwater harmful algal blooms and improve 

water quality. 

(e) NOAA ACTIVITIES.—As part of the program under this section, the Under Secretary shall— 

(1) maintain existing peer-reviewed competitive grant programs at NOAA relating to marine and freshwater harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia; 

(2) conduct marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom 

and hypoxia event response activities; and 

(3) ensure communication and coordination among Federal 

agencies carrying out marine and freshwater harmful algal 

bloom and hypoxia activities and increase the availability to 

appropriate public and private entities of— 

(A) analytical facilities and technologies; 

(B) operational forecasts; and 

(C) reference and research materials. 

(f) INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN OBSERVATION SYSTEM.— All monitoring and observation data collected under this Act shall 

be collected in compliance with all data standards and protocols developed pursuant to the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and such 

data shall be made available through the system established under 

that Act. 

(g) TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRA- TION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—As part of the duties described in subsection (b), the Under Secretary and the Administrator, through 

the Task Force, shall maintain a focus on technology research 

and development for each of the categories of marine harmful 

algal blooms, freshwater harmful algal blooms, and hypoxia in 

the following areas: 

(A) Monitoring. 

(B) Prediction. 

(C) Prevention. 

(D) Control. 

(E) Mitigation. 

(F) Response to events, including remediation. 

(2) ENUMERATION.—As part of the report required under 

subsection (i), the Under Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, shall enumerate the technology research and development conducted for each of the areas identified in paragraph 

(1). 

(3) PROTOCOL.—The Under Secretary, in coordination with 

the Administrator, shall develop a protocol for— 

(A) assessing the stage of technology development that 

is ready to move from lab testing to field testing; 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

(B) coordinating local, State, and Federal authorities 

to facilitate measures necessary to conduct field tests in a 

timely manner; and 

(C) working with local and State entities, programs, 

and interested stakeholders to conduct outreach and education on technology field testing projects. 

(h) INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.— (1) ELECTRONIC INFORMATION.—Using the authority under 

section 603(i)(2)(B), the Under Secretary, in coordination with 

the Administrator, shall expand the existing electronic clearinghouse to provide information about marine and freshwater 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, including— 

(A) the Federal agencies involved in research and development on understanding, detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, control, mitigation, and response activities; 

(B) tools available to predict and model events; and 

(C) current or developing technologies for detection, 

monitoring, prediction, prevention, control, mitigation, and 

response, including remediation. 

(2) TOXIN STANDARDS.—The Under Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall— 

(A) develop a mechanism to provide a reliable and costeffective supply of toxin standards for comparative research; and 

(B) notify the Congress of such mechanism as part of 

the report required under subsection (i). 

(i) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the submission of the 

Plan, the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, shall prepare 

and transmit to the Congress a report that describes— 

(1) the activities carried out under the Program and the 

Plan and the budget related to such activities; and 

(2) the need to revise or terminate activities or projects 

under the Program. 

SEC. 605. COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN AND ACTION STRATEGY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Under Secretary, through the 

Task Force, shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive research plan and action strategy to address marine and freshwater 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia that identifies— 

(1) the specific activities to be carried out by the Program 

and the timeline for carrying out such activities; 

(2) the roles and responsibilities of each Federal agency in 

the Task Force in carrying out Program activities; and 

(3) appropriate regions and subregions requiring specific 

research and activities to address local, State, and regional 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 

(b) REGIONAL FOCUS.—The regional and subregional parts of 

the Plan shall identify— 

(1) regional priorities for ecological, economic, and social 

research on issues related to the impacts of harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia; 

(2) research, development, and demonstration activities 

needed to develop and advance technologies and techniques for 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

minimizing the occurrence of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia 

and improving capabilities to detect, predict, monitor, control, 

mitigate, respond to, and remediate harmful algal blooms and 

hypoxia; 

(3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia, including deployment of response 

technologies in a timely manner; 

(4) research and methods to address human health dimensions of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 

(5) mechanisms, including the potential costs and benefits 

of those mechanisms, to protect ecosystems that may be or have 

been affected by harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events; 

(6) mechanisms by which data, information, and products 

may be transferred between the Program and State, tribal, and 

local governments and relevant research entities; 

(7) communication and information dissemination methods 

that State, tribal, and local governments may undertake to educate and inform the public concerning harmful algal blooms 

and hypoxia; and 

(8) the roles that Federal agencies may have to assist in the 

implementation of the Plan. 

(c) UTILIZING AVAILABLE STUDIES AND INFORMATION.—In developing the Plan, the Under Secretary shall utilize existing research, 

assessments, reports, and program activities, including— 

(1) those carried out pursuant to existing law; and 

(2) other relevant peer-reviewed and published sources. 

(d) DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN.—In developing the Plan, the 

Under Secretary shall, as appropriate— 

(1) coordinate with— 

(A) State coastal management and planning officials; 

(B) tribal resource management officials; and 

(C) water management and watershed officials from 

both coastal States and noncoastal States with water 

sources that drain into water bodies affected by harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia; and 

(2) consult with— 

(A) public health officials; 

(B) emergency management officials; 

(C) science and technology development institutions; 

(D) economists; 

(E) industries and businesses affected by marine and 

freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 

(F) scientists with expertise concerning harmful algal 

blooms or hypoxia from academic or research institutions; 

and 

(G) other stakeholders. 

(e) FEDERAL REGISTER.—The Under Secretary shall publish the 

Plan in the Federal Register. 

(f) PERIODIC REVISION.—The Under Secretary, in coordination 

and consultation with the individuals and entities identified in subsection (d), shall periodically review and revise the Plan prepared 

under this section, as necessary. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

SEC. ø604.¿ 606. NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO HYPOXIA. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) REQUIRED UPDATE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Within 2 years after the date of enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Administrator, through 

the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task 

Force, shall complete and submit to the Congress and the President an updated assessment and a revised action plan based on 

the updated assessment. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The updated assessment shall take 

into account the following: 

(A) The role of nutrient influx in the context of water 

column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and 

wind and current dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico. 

(B) The contribution of the topography of the Gulf of 

Mexico in the effects of the characteristics described in subparagraph (A) on the hypoxic zone. 

(C) The frequency and availability of monitoring to 

measure the size of the hypoxic zone. 

(D) The potential of hypoxia hot-spot formation within 

the Gulf of Mexico and possible causes of such hot-spots. 

(E) The contribution of wetland loss to hypoxia events 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

(F) The actual effect of hypoxia on the ecosystem of the 

Gulf of Mexico and the benefits resulting from a reduced 

hypoxic zone size. 

(G) A scientifically generated, peer-reviewed goal for 

the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. 

(3) RESEARCH STRATEGY.—The updated plan shall include 

a research strategy— 

(A) to enhance understanding of the contribution of topography, water column stratification, seasonal flows and 

conditions, and wind and current dynamics on the size of 

the hypoxic zone; 

(B) to develop models able to— 

(i) simulate different shelf regions and the fundamental processes that act in each shelf region; 

(ii) differentiate between the separate effects of 

stratification and nutrient loading in the formation of 

hypoxia; and 

(iii) be informed by realistic three-dimensional hydrodynamic and biogeochemical models; 

(C) that determines the appropriate amount of monitoring and measuring necessary to get a scientifically robust accounting on the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic 

zone; and 

(D) that examines several potential solutions based on 

information provided by the updated assessment in paragraph (1). 

SEC. 607. CHESAPEAKE BAY DEAD ZONE. 

(a) ASSESSMENT PLAN.—Not later than 12 months after the 

date of enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

search and Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Task Force, in accordance with the authority under section 603, shall complete and 

submit to the Congress and the President an integrated assessment 

of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay that examines the status of and 

gaps within current research, monitoring, prevention, response, and 

control activities by— 

(1) Federal agencies; 

(2) State agencies; 

(3) regional research consortia; 

(4) academia; 

(5) private industry; and 

(6) nongovernmental organizations. 

(b) RESEARCH PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of 

enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 

and Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Task Force shall develop and submit to the Congress a plan, based on the integrated assessment submitted under subsection (a), for reducing, 

mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In developing such plan, the Task 

Force shall— 

(A) consult with State and local governments and representatives from academic, agricultural, industry, and 

other stakeholder groups; 

(B) ensure that the plan does not duplicate activities 

conducted by other Federal or State agencies; 

(C) include incentive-based partnership approaches; 

(D) include an economic cost-benefit analysis of the 

measures for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia 

events; 

(E) utilize existing research, assessments, reports, and 

program activities; 

(F) publish a summary of the proposed plan in the 

Federal Register 90 days prior to the submission to the 

Congress of the completed plan; and 

(G) provide progress reports every 2 years after the submission to the Congress of the completed plan on the activities leading toward attainment of the goals set forth in the 

plan. 

(3) CONTENTS.—The plan shall— 

(A) address the monitoring needs identified in the integrated assessment submitted under subsection (a) and develop a timeline and budgetary requirements for deployment of future assets; 

(B) detail procedures for the development and 

verification of Chesapeake Bay hypoxia models, including 

making available to the public— 

(i) all assumptions built into the models; and 

(ii) data quality methods used to ensure the best 

available data is utilized; and 

(C) describe efforts to improve the assessment of the impacts of hypoxia by— 

(i) characterizing current and past biological conditions in ecosystems affected by hypoxia; and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

(ii) quantifying effects, including economic effects, 

at the population and community level. 

øSEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

øThere are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 

Commerce for research, education, and monitoring activities related to the prevention, reduction, and control of harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $18,250,000 

for fiscal year 2000, $19,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $23,500,000 

for fiscal year 2005, $24,500,000 for fiscal year 2006, $25,000,000 

for fiscal year 2007, and $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

through 2010, to remain available until expended. The Secretary 

shall consult with the States on a regular basis regarding the development and implementation of the activities authorized under 

this section. Of such amounts for each fiscal year— 

ø(1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1999, $1,500,000 for fiscal 

year 2000, $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $2,500,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010 may be used to enable 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry 

out research and assessment activities, including procurement 

of necessary research equipment, at research laboratories of 

the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service; 

ø(2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $5,500,000 for fiscal 

year 2000, $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $6,500,000, of 

which $1,000,000 shall be used for the research program described in section 603(f)(2)(B), for each of fiscal years 2005 

through 2010 may be used to carry out the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) project under the 

Coastal Ocean Program established under section 201(c) of 

Public Law 102–567; 

ø(3) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $2,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2000, $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $3,000,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010 may be used by the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration to carry out a peer-reviewed research project 

on management measures that can be taken to prevent, reduce, control, and mitigate harmful algal blooms and to carry 

out section 603(d); 

ø(4) $5,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, 

2001, and $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 

2010 may be used to carry out Federal and State annual monitoring and analysis activities for harmful algal blooms administered by the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration; 

ø(5) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $3,750,000 for fiscal 

year 2000, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $4,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2005, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $5,500,000 for fiscal 

year 2007, and $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 

2010 may be used for activities related to research and monitoring on hypoxia by the National Ocean Service and the Office 

of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration; and 

ø(6) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010 

to carry out section 603(e).¿ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

SEC. 608. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) UNDER SECRETARY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Under Secretary to carry out this Act $18,000,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015, of which, for each fiscal 

year— 

(1) $1,000,000 may be used for the development of the comprehensive research plan and action strategy under section 605 

and the assessment and reports required by sections 606 and 

607; 

(2) $4,000,000 may be used for the research and assessment 

activities related to marine and freshwater harmful algal 

blooms at research laboratories of NOAA; 

(3) $4,000,000 may be used to carry out the Ecology of 

Harmful Algal Blooms Program (ECOHAB); 

(4) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out the Monitoring and 

Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms Program 

(MERHAB); 

(5) $2,000,000 may be used to carry out research and assessment for the Northern Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and hypoxia activities; 

(6) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out coastal hypoxia research activities; 

(7) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out prevention, control, 

and mitigation activities; 

(8) $500,000 may be used to carry out event response activities; and 

(9) $500,000 may be used to carry out infrastructure activities. 

(b) ADMINISTRATOR.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Administrator $2,700,000 for each of the fiscal years 

2012 through 2015 to carry out the activities authorized under 

this Act. 

(2) NONDUPLICATION.—The Administrator shall ensure that 

activities carried out using the amounts authorized under paragraph (1) do not duplicate research and development activities 

related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia conducted by Federal agencies represented on the Task Force, States, tribes, and 

nongovernmental organizations concerned with marine and 

freshwater aquatic issues. 

SEC. ø606.¿ 609. PROTECTION OF STATES’ RIGHTS. 

(a) Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to adversely affect 

existing State regulatory or enforcement power which has been 

granted to any State through the øClean Water Act or¿ Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act or the Coastal Zone Management Act 

of 1972. 

(b) Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to expand the regulatory or enforcement power of the Federal Government which 

has been delegated to any State through the øClean Water Act or¿ 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(43) 

XX. MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Amendments Act of 2011, as amended by the Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, is intended to reauthorize research needed to address both marine and freshwater harmful 

algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia events. The Committee Democrats recognize that the increasing frequency and severity of these 

events warrant a renewed focus on the relevant programs and activities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a reauthorization of the original Act is crucial. However. H.R. 2484 reduces the authorizations for HABs research at NOAA to below the 

FY 2008 spending levels, while, at the same time, the bill mandates a focus on additional duties for the agencies, imposing unfunded mandates on these agencies. It is the view of the Committee 

Democratic Members that the activities being authorized should be 

supported with commensurate levels of funding, or, at minimum, 

current funding levels should be sustained. It is the view of Committee Democrats that, contrary to the stated intent of supporting 

these activities, H.R. 2484 actually hinders the agencies’ ability to 

protect our nation’s waterways, marine life, and public health from 

the effects of HABs. For this reason, Committee Democrats unanimously opposed the final passage of the bill in Committee. 

Committee Democrats regard the following additional provisions 

required for the Under Secretary of NOAA and the Administrator 

of EPA as new unfunded mandates: (1) maintaining a focus on research, development, and demonstration of technology to monitor, 

predict, prevent, control, mitigate and respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; (2) develop a protocol to 

assess technology development timelines, coordinate local State and 

Federal authorities to facilitate field testing, and work with State 

and local entities to conduct outreach and education on technology 

field testing projects; (3) expand on the existing electronic information clearinghouse to provide information about marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; (4) develop a mechanism 

to provide a reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin standards for 

comparative research; and (5) all of the EPA’s Freshwater HABs 

research activities. The Democratic amendments accepted for H.R. 

2484 will allow some of the research, specifically in the Northern 

Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, to progress without the hindrance of 

additional requirements set by the Act. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

Committee Democratic Members do not object to the substance 

of these additional provisions, and, in fact, agree with the Majority 

and stakeholders that they can be valuable additions to the existing activities. However, we believe that the current research activities are already underfunded, without the imposition of new requirements. The table below shows the current spending levels of 

HABs activities at NOAA to be roughly $21 million, assuming that 

the projected FY 2011 spending levels will fall within the same 

range as the 2009 and 2010 levels. H.R. 2484 is set to reauthorize 

the NOAA HABs activities at $18 million, which is just below the 

FY 2008 spending levels and below the $25.5 million authorized in 

the 2004 Reauthorization Act. It is the opinion of the Committee 

Minority that this reduced level of funding will make it extremely 

difficult for the agencies to carry out the currently-mandated activities, let alone focus on the additional activities required by H.R. 

2484. 

Similarly, the Committee Democrats believe in order for EPA to 

fully participate in the research activities proposed in H.R. 2484, 

the EPA will require additional authority and funding above current operating levels. However, we strongly oppose robbing NOAA 

to pay for these activities, which is what the Majority has done in 

their bill. 

NOAAHAB AND HYPOXIA EXPENDITURES,1 FY 2007–FY 2010—JULY 7, 2011 

Expenditures 

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 

NCCOS:.

Regional Research and Action Plans 2 ......................... $0 .02M $0 .02M $0 .1M $0 .0M 

Intramural Research and Assessment Activities 3 ....... $3 .8M $4 .4M $3 .8M $3 .3M 

ECOHAB ......................................................................... $2 .8M $3 .0M $5 .1M $4 .7M 

MERHAB ......................................................................... $1 .9M $1 .6M $1 .5M $0 .6M 

NGOMEX ......................................................................... $1 .7M $2 .4M $2 .7M $2 .4M 

CHRP ............................................................................. $0 .7M $0 .9M $1 .9M $1 .3M 

PCM HAB ....................................................................... $0 .0M $0 .0M $O .0M $1 .0M 

Event Response ............................................................. $0 .01M $0 .06M $0 .04M $0 .02M 

Infrastructure ................................................................ $0 .0M $0 .0M $0 .0M $0 .0M 

Coordination and Management of HABHRCA Competitive Programs ........................................................... $2 .0M $2 .1M $1 .7M $1 .7M 

Operational HAB Forecasting 4 ...................................... $0 .0M $0 .0M $0 .0M $1 .0M 

HABHRCA Reports 5 ....................................................... $0 .2M $0 .0M $0 .01M $0 .0M 

Ship Costs (presently allocated to OMAO and executed through NCCOS) ............................................. $1 .8M $1 .0M $1 .8M $1 .3M 

NOAA (external to NCCOS) ..................................................... $1 .3M $2 .6M $2 .1M $3 .4M 

NCCOS Total ........................................................................... $14 .9M $15 .5M $18 .7M $17 .3M 

NOAA TOTAL ............................................................................ $16 .2M $18 .1M $20 .8M $20 .7M 

1Within the NOAA Budget there is not a specific NOAA line item for HABHRCA appropriations. HABHRCA is primarily implemented through 

appropriations to the NCCOS Base and the Competitive Research lines. Both NCCOS budget lines and the above estimates support a suite of 

prog rams codified in HABHRCA, as well as, in some cases, HABHRCA’s goals more generally. 2 This includes research prioritization workshops and contractor support used for preparation of Regional Plans. 

3 Estimated expenditures include research related to HABs and hypoxia within this time frame. These numbers have been refined slightly 

since the May 2011 submission based on additional analyses regarding activities carried out within NCCOS. 4 In FY07, FY08. and FY09, operational costs were incurred by NOAA external to NCCOS. 

5 Yearly HABHRCA reporting costs vary significantly based upon HABHRCA’s schedule. Costs for the initial series of HAKIRCA-required reports 

were largely incurred prior to 2007 (approx. $200,000–$300,000/report). 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. BRAD MILLER. MARCIA L. FUDGE. DAVID WU. ZOE LOFGREN. DONNA F. EDWARDS. PAUL TONKO. JOHN P. SARBANES. JERRY COSTELLO. LYNN WOOLSEY. JERRY MCNERNEY. HANSEN CLARKE. FREDERICA S. WILSON. BEN R. LUJA ́ N. TERRI SEWELL. DANIEL LIPINSKI. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(46) 

XXI: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT MARKUP 

ON H.R. 2484, HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS 

AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Harris 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman HARRIS. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Environment meets today to consider the following 

measure: H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. 

We will now proceed with the markup, beginning with opening 

statements, and I will begin. 

Harmful algal blooms affect nearly every State in the U.S., and 

the complexity in understanding and responding to these events 

has eclipsed our current research and response structure. As part 

of an effort to address this need, we are marking up H.R. 2484, the 

Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. This legislation is based on the discussion draft 

that was the subject of a Subcommittee hearing at the beginning 

of June. The changes from the discussion draft this afternoon’s bill 

reflect comments received during the hearing and through discussions with the agencies and other relevant stakeholders in the intervening weeks. 

H.R. 2484 reauthorized the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 

Research and Control Act of 1998. There are a number of research 

programs related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia already in 

existence authorized by several existing laws. However, in order to 

administer these programs, an umbrella structure has evolved to 

manage the disparate activities. H.R. 2484 is supportive of this umbrella program and directs the task force to maintain it, and instructs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, who is also the Administrator of NOAA, to carry out a series 

of activities through the program. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

Now, one thing we learned from our hearing is that people who 

are seeking assistance when they have an HAB problem have had 

serious difficulties finding useful and relevant information. H.R. 

2484 instructs the under secretary and the administrator to maintain an electronic information clearinghouse to aid with the dissemination of information about freshwater and marine harmful 

algal blooms and hypoxia. Also, it requires the under secretary and 

the administrator to develop a mechanism to ensure quality and 

cost effective toxin standards for comparative research. 

Now, the Committee Print we discussed in June contained an additional 10 reports from what you see in the bill before you. I believe that this single comprehensive approach is simpler and more 

efficient. Furthermore, with each report estimating the cost approximately $300,000, we will be eliminating about $3 million 

worth of reporting requirements, which frees up significant resources for additional research and response activities. Finally, H.R. 2484 provides NOAA with an authorization of $18 

million for each fiscal year from 2012 to 2015, a level slightly below 

fiscal year 2010 levels. But it also directs the administrator of EPA 

to utilize up to $3 million of existing funding for each fiscal year 

from 2012 to 2015 to carry out the authorized provisions in the Act. 

H.R. 2484 started out from a version of a House bill passed in 

the 111th Congress. I understand that there have been positive collaborations on this effort between Majority and Minority staff, and 

I thank them all for that. I hope that such collaboration will continue and increase as we move through the legislative process. I 

will urge the support of all the members of the Subcommittee for 

this bill, and I will leave my statement at that and insert the rest 

in the record, as we would like to get going before votes are called. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HARRIS

Harmful algal blooms affect nearly every State in the U.S., and the complexity 

in understanding and responding to these events has eclipsed our current research 

and response structure. In my District, algal blooms and dead zones are an ongoing 

challenge in the Chesapeake Bay, negatively impacting the commercial fishing industry, tourism, and numerous Bay-related recreational activities. There is a growing need for collaboration between Federal agencies and between the Federal government and States and localities to address this important environmental issue. 

As part of an effort to address this need, we are marking up H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. This 

legislation is based on the discussion draft that was the subject of a Subcommittee 

hearing at the beginning of June. The changes from the discussion draft to this 

morning’s bill reflect comments received during the hearing and through discussions 

with the Agencies and other relevant stakeholders in the intervening weeks. 

H.R. 2484 reauthorizes the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. The bill reconstitutes the inter-agency Task Force already in statute and requires budget development and coordination for the activities enumerated 

in the bill. This will raise the visibility of the research programs within the agency 

members of the Task Force. 

There are a number of research programs related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia already in existence, authorized by several existing laws. However, in order 

to administer these programs, an umbrella structure has evolved to manage the disparate activities. H.R. 2484 is supportive of this umbrella Program and directs the 

Task Force to maintain it, and instructs the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere - who is also the Administrator of NOAA - to carry out a 

series of activities, through the Program. The Under Secretary is also required to 

work cooperatively with other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA, as well 

as with States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations and other members of the 

Task Force to avoid duplication of efforts. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

As we heard at the hearing, there is a need for technologies to deal with harmful 

algal bloom or HAB outbreaks in addition to looking for solutions to prevent or minimize them in the first place. Accordingly, H.R. 2484 directs the Under Secretary 

and the Administrator of the EPA to maintain a focus on technology research and 

development for freshwater and marine harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It also 

requires the development of protocols to determine when technologies are ready to 

move from lab testing to field testing, to coordinate local, State and Federal authorities to facilitate field testing, and work with local and State entities to conduct outreach and education about the field testing. 

Another thing we learned from our hearing is that people who are seeking assistance when they have a HABs problem have had serious difficulties in finding useful 

and relevant information. H.R. 2484 instructs the Under Secretary and the Administrator to maintain an electronic information clearinghouse to aid with the dissemination of information about freshwater and marine harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Also, it requires the Under Secretary and the Administrator to develop a 

mechanism to ensure quality and cost-effective toxin standards for comparative research. 

The bill directs the Under Secretary to oversee the development of a comprehensive research plan and action strategy and identify the appropriate regions to be 

highlighted by such a Plan. The action strategy outlines the specific activities to be 

carried out by the Program, a timeline for such activities, and the programmatic 

roles of each Federal agency on the Task Force. The research plan must also identify research, activities and technologies needed to detect, predict, monitor, prevent, 

control and mitigate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The Committee print discussed in June contained an additional 10 reports. I believe that this single, comprehensive approach is simpler and more efficient. Furthermore, with each report 

estimated to cost approximately $300,000, eliminating $3 million worth of reporting 

requirements frees up significant resources for additional research and response activities. 

Chairman HARRIS. I now recognize Mr. Miller for five minutes to 

present his opening remarks. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In June, this Subcommittee did hear expert witnesses on the rapid overproduction of 

algae, and how that can have devastating effects on aquatic plant 

and animal life, as well as human health. Unfortunately, despite 

years of research on harmful algal blooms, HABs, and hypoxia is 

on the rise; and are affecting more of our coastlines and in the waterways than ever. Just last month, the senior senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, a member of the other body, and a frequent 

participant in debates about environmental policy, was made 

deathly sick, he said, by swimming in a toxic algal outbreak in a 

lake in Oklahoma. 

Recognizing the growing threat, we begin work on the reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Act in the last Congress—I recall, though, there was a 

helpful acronym for that—with bill ultimately passed in the House 

but stalling in the Senate. The Senate being where all ideas go to 

die. 

In some regards, today is a continuation of that effort and as 

with that bill, this bill before us directs NOAA to implement research strategies and action plans so we can understand better and 

respond better to the harmful blooms and hypoxia events. 

NOAA and the research community have made notable strides in 

advancing our understanding of harmful algae, and under intense 

budget constraints they have managed to devise a range of innovative solutions. The question for us is when we will stop paying lip 

service to the problem, take it seriously, and put our money where 

our mouth is? Scientific research and practicable response strateVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

gies don’t come free, and oyster farmers, swimming senators, and 

all the rest of us expect more than that. 

But given the importance of the research to the Chesapeake Bay 

in particular, I am surprised that this bill does not even at a minimum sustain the funding at its current level. Despite properly acknowledging the risk of HABs, the bill makes even further cuts to 

an already struggling program, actually rewinding the program 

funding to less than the 2008 levels. 

I look forward to the debate today—the discussion today about 

this bill, but I hope that it will not be that we give lip service only 

to the importance of research and fail to provide the funds necessary—or authorize the funds necessary to do it. The research 

community and the populations they serve have made it clear that 

they do need this bill, and it is important that we pass this legislation. That will be helpful to them in response to the problem. Right 

now, I fear with the funding issue this bill does not do that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER MILLER

Thank you. Mr. Harris. 

In June this Subcommittee heard expert witnesses testify on how the rapid overproduction of algae can have devastating impacts on aquatic plant and animal life, 

as well as human health. Unfortunately, despite years of research and growing public awareness, the frequency and duration of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia is 

on the rise, and affecting more of our coastlines and inland waters than ever before. 

In fact, just last month, the esteemed senior senator from Oklahoma and frequent 

contributor to the debate on environmental policy, Senator Inhofe, was made 

′′deathly sick′′ by swimming in a toxic algae outbreak in a lake in his home state. 

Recognizing the growing threat, we began work on the reauthorization of the 

Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in the last Congress, 

with the bill ultimately passing the House but stalling in the Senate. In some regards, today is a continuation of that effort. As with that bill, the bill before us 

today directs NOAA to implement research strategies and action plans to better understand and respond to these harmful blooms and hypoxic events. 

NOAA and the research community have made notable strides in advancing our 

understanding of harmful algae, and, under intense budget constraints, they have 

managed to devise a range of innovative solutions. The question for us is when will 

we stop paying lip service to this problem, take it seriously, and put our money 

where our mouth is? Scientific research and practicable response strategies don’t 

come for free. From oyster farmers to swimming senators, the public expects more 

from us. 

That said, given the importance of this research to the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

- your district, Mr. Chairman - I am surprised that your bill does not even, at minimum, sustain funding at its current level. Despite acknowledging the risk of HABs, 

you choose to make even further cuts to already struggling programs, actually rewinding funding to lower than 2008 spending levels. By what logic does that solve 

the problem? 

I look forward to discussing the bill more when we bring it up here for consideration. But if we are going to say we care about this research, and that we care 

enough about the impacts of HABs of coasts and inland waters to take action, then 

we actually have to invest in a way that will move this research forward and advance our understanding of these blooms and the hypoxic events they cause. Otherwise, it might actually be better if we didn’t care so much. 

The research community and the populations they serve have made it clear that 

they need this bill, and that it is important that we pass a piece of legislation that 

is both helpful to them and responsive to the problem. Right now, I cannot claim 

that this bill does either of those. 

Thank you Mr. Harris and I look forward to a productive markup and hope that 

we can find a way to make these programs even more, and certainly not less, effective. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Harris, before we bring this bill for consideration, I do have a parliamentary inquiry. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

Chairman HARRIS. Go ahead. 

Mr. MILLER. I understand that the protocols of the House, the 

rules of the House and of this committee does not allow any new 

authorization without having those authorizations offset. I understand that this bill offsets the appropriations or the authorization 

of—with reference to Section 9(b) and Section 9(d), that under Section 282 of the Environmental Research Development and Demonstration Authority Act of 1981, the administrator may utilize up 

to $3 million to carry out the authorized activities under this Act. 

The 1981 Act was an authorization for 1981 only, so that authorization has now expired for more than 30 years. 

I assume that when the rules require that there be an authorizing—an offsetting authorization, that it be an existing authorization, not one that has existed at some point in the past, 30 years 

ago or 50 years ago. Is that the rule, that there just must be some 

offset, regardless of whether it is in existence now? What is the 

current rule that must be offset before we can consider a bill? 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, I thank the gentleman for raising the 

issue. We have used the current spending in the program, current 

appropriation in the program as the baseline from which to operate. But the issue you bring up is the authorization with regards 

to the Act in 1981. The language as drafted clarifies that funding 

for these activities comes from the amounts that are being made 

available for the Clean Water Act, science and technology activities 

at EPA currently. 

Despite the fact that this account has not been authorized since 

1981, clean water research activities continue to receive funds 

through the appropriations process. For the science and technology 

research activities at EPA, which did receive $815 million for fiscal 

year 2011 and $848 million in fiscal year 2010. Clean Water research activities received—specifically, clean water research activities received $62 million in fiscal year 2010. This bill would allow 

EPA to use up to $3 million of those funds as well towards activities in this bill. 

This bill is a good faith effort to direct existing dollars which are 

being appropriated for this office to activities that this committee 

views as vital to the environment and clean water. Now, we have 

worked with the Congressional Budget Office and we will continue 

to work with the Congressional Budget Office to examine appropriate spending for these activities, based on actual agency estimates, and we will continue to work on this legislation as we move 

forward through the process to ensure that the funds are being allocated from the appropriate sources. 

Mr. MILLER. Further question, Mr. Chairman. Are you then saying that there have been appropriations based upon an authorization that has not been in effect for more than 30 years? 

Chairman HARRIS. That appears to be what is going on with the 

authorizations, that is right, with the appropriations. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. The rules do say match up an authorization 

to an authorization, but you were saying that—you understand, 

even though there is not an effective authorization now and has 

not been for 30 years, there continue to be appropriations based 

upon a 30-year-old out of date ineffective authorization. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, that does appear to be the way it works, 

because there are general authorities under which monies can be 

appropriated. 

Mr. MILLER. That may be true, but it certainly is not—— 

Chairman HARRIS. I hope it—— 

Mr. MILLER. Perhaps we can consider this point further when 

this bill comes before the full committee. 

Chairman HARRIS. Absolutely, and that was our intention, to 

continue working through that process and make sure we clarify 

that before it—— 

Mr. MILLER. All the politicals do say that a bill cannot be considered until there is an offsetting authorization. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

Without objection, all member opening statements will be placed 

in the record at this point. 

We will now consider H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and 

Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. Without 

objection, I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as 

read and open to amendment at any point, and that members proceed with amendments in the order listed on the roster. So ordered. 

[H.R. 2484 appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman HARRIS. Are there any amendments to the bill? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman HARRIS. The first amendment on the roster is the 

amendment offered by Mr. McNerney, and the clerk shall report 

the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 367, amendment to H.R. 2484 

authored by Mr. McNerney of California. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman HARRIS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

Before recognizing the gentleman to explain his amendment, I 

want to let the gentleman know, we are going to accept his amendment and that we would be happy to include your statement in the 

record at this point. Is that acceptable to the gentleman? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a fairly short statement, 

and I certainly appreciate the hard work that the committee has 

done, the Majority staff. It is a bipartisan issue, so with that, I 

guess I will forego my statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McNerney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MCNERNEY

Thank you Mr. Chairman. The amendment I am offering today is similar to a provision that was included in the harmful Algal Blooms reauthorization bill passed 

last Congress in this Subcommittee, this Committee, and in the House. 

The simple amendment adds back one of the duties to be undertaken by the 

Under Secretary of NOAA and Task Force. Specifically, the amendment directs 

them to encourage the appropriate exchange of information with the international 

research community. The U.S. research community has noted the importance of 

international collaboration and the successes they have had in the past because of 

the opportunity to learn from experts in other countries. 

As someone who spent a career as a mathematician and engineer, I have a deep 

appreciation for the importance of international scientific collaboration. This amendment will encourage U.S. researchers to tap into all resources of information available to them. Encouraging international collaboration has significant potential to 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

help us better control, mitigate, and respond to bloom outbreaks and hypoxic zones 

in our own U.S. waters. 

In no way does this amendment mandate the sharing of information sensitive to 

our interests and security, but simply encourages the sharing of relevant research 

information, when appropriate. 

I urge the adoption of his amendment. Thank you, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. I want to thank the 

gentleman for his amendment, and we do accept the amendment. 

Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the question is 

on the bill, H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, as amended. All 

those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the opinion 

of the Chairman, the ayes have it. 

I will now recognize myself to offer a motion. I move that the 

Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 2484 as amended to 

the full committee. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to 

prepare the Subcommittee legislative report and make necessary 

technical and conforming changes, and that the Chairman take all 

necessary steps to bring the bill, H.R. 2484 as amended, before the 

full committee for consideration. 

The question is on the motion to report the bill as amended. 

Those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say 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 may have 

2 subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental Minority or additional views on the measure. Without objection, so ordered. 

This concludes our Subcommittee markup. The Chairman declares the Subcommittee adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(53) 

Appendix: 

H.R. 2484, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT, 

AMENDMENT ROSTER


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC1.eps
55 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC2.eps
56 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC3.eps
57 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC4.eps
58 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC5.eps
59 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC6.eps
60 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC7.eps
61 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC8.eps
62 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC9.eps
63 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCa.eps
64 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCb.eps
65 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCc.eps
66 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCd.eps
67 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCe.eps
68 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCf.eps
69 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCg.eps
70 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCh.eps
71 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCi.eps
72 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCj.eps
73 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCk.eps
74 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCl.eps
75 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCm.eps
76 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC23.eps
77 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SC24.eps
78 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA

RESEARCH AND CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011 

Purpose: To reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Act of 1998 to include a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and for other purposes. 

Section 1: Short Title 

The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act 

of 2011 

Section 2: Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Act of 1998 - Explains that the text the bill modifies is the Harmful Algal 

Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, unless otherwise expressly 

stated. 

Section 3: Definitions - Provides definitions, including: Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Program; and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. 

Section 4: Inter-Agency Task Force - Restates the President’s establishment 

of an interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia through the 

Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources of the National Science and 

Technology Council. The bill reiterates representation and designation of the representative from the Department of Commerce to serve as the Chairperson of the 

Task Force. The bill directs the Task Force to meet at least once per year and to 

develop a coordinated budget to be submitted to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget at the time designated for agencies to submit annual budgets. 

Section 5: National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program - Directs 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to utilize the resources of the Task Force to maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 

Program. The bill outlines tasks for the Under Secretary to ensure the Program, 1) 

develops a national strategy to address both marine and freshwater HABs and hypoxia; 2) coordinates all Federal programs related to HABs and hypoxia; 3) works 

with State, tribal, and local government agencies; 4) identifies additional research 

needs and priorities; 5) ensures the development and implementation of methods 

and technologies to protect ecosystems damaged by HABs; 6) coordinates existing 

education programs to improve public understanding; 7) provides resources for 

training of State, tribal and local water and coastal resource managers; 8) oversees 

the development of the Regional Research and Action Plans; and 9) administers 

peer-reviewed, merit-based competitive grant funding. In addition, the legislation directs the Under Secretary to work cooperatively and avoid duplication of efforts with 

other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA, as well as with States, tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies represented on the Task Force. 

The bill directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to work 

with the Under Secretary to utilize the resources of the task force to carry out freshwater activities. 

The bill also specifies duties for the Under Secretary to maintain existing competitive grant programs, conduct marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia event response activities, and ensure communication among Federal agencies 

and increase availability of resources. The bill stipulates that all monitoring and observation data collected shall conform to standards and protocols developed pursuant to the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009. 

The bill requires that research, development, and demonstration of technology to 

monitor, predict, prevent, control, mitigate and respond to marine and freshwater 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are maintained as a focus of the existing research 

programs. It also requires the Under Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a protocol to assess technology development 

timelines, coordinate local, State and Federal authorities to facilitate field testing, 

and work with State and local entities to conduct outreach and education on technology field testing projects. 

The bill directs the Under Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, to 

expand on the existing electronic information clearinghouse to provide information 

about marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Furthermore, the 

bill directs the Under Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, to develop 

a mechanism to provide a reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin standards for 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

comparative research and notify Congress of such in the report required under this 

section. 

Section 6: Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy - Directs the 

Under Secretary, through the Task Force, to oversee the development of a Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy by identifying the appropriate regions and sub-regions to be addressed by the Plan and requires that the Plan include the following: 1) regional priorities for ecological, economic, and social research 

related to the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 2) research, development, and demonstration activities to advance technologies and techniques for minimizing the occurrence and address the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of HABs events; 4) research and methods to address the impacts 

of HABs on human health; 5) mechanisms and the potential costs of these mechanisms to protect vulnerable ecosystems that could be or have been affected by HABs; 

6) mechanisms by which data is transferred between the Program and State, tribal, 

and local governments and relevant research entities; 7) communication, outreach, 

and dissemination methods used to educate and inform the public; and 8) the roles 

that Federal agencies can play to assist implementation of the Plan. 

Section 6 explicitly directs the utilization of existing peer-reviewed research, assessments, and reports in the development of the Plan. The bill provides a list of 

individuals and entities that the Under Secretary shall coordinate with in developing the Plan. The bill directs that the Plan be completed and approved within 24 

months after the date of enactment, and be periodically reviewed and updated as 

necessary. 

Section 7: Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia - Amends the underlying statute 

to require the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force to 

update its scientific assessment to include the following information: 1) the role of 

nutrient influx in the context of water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico; 2) the contribution 

of the topography of the Gulf of Mexico to water column stratification, seasonal 

flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics; 3) the amount of monitoring 

available to measure the size of the hypoxic zone; 4) the potential for hypoxia hotspot formation with the Gulf of Mexico and possible causes; 5) The contribution of 

wetland loss to the nutrient level in the Gulf of Mexico; 6) the actual effects of hypoxia on the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico and the benefits resulting from a reduced hypoxic zone; and 7) a scientifically generated, peer-reviewed goal for an appropriate size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico that will protect ecosystem 

functions. 

Section 7 also requires the Task Force to update its Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 

2008 to include the following: (1) a strategy to enhance the understanding of the 

contribution of topography, water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics on the size of the hypoxic zone; 2) the development of models to simulate the different shelf regions and the fundamental processes that act in each shelf region, differentiate between the separate effects of 

stratification and nutrient loading in the formation of hypoxia, and informed by realistic three-dimensional hydrodynamic and biogeochemical models; 3) a strategy to 

determine the appropriate amount of monitoring needed to get a scientifically robust 

accounting on the size of the hypoxic zone; and 4) an examination of several potential solutions based on the information provided by the updated assessment. 

Section 8: Chesapeake Bay Dead Zone - Directs the Task Force to complete 

and submit to Congress an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay 

that examines the current status of and gaps in research. The bill requires the Task 

Force to develop a research plan based on the integrated assessment for reducing, 

mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay, and directs the Task 

Force to consult with State and local governments and representatives from academic, agricultural, industry, and other stakeholder groups. It further directs the 

Plan to include incentive-based partnership approaches; and an economic cost-benefit analysis of the measure for reducing, mitigating, or controlling hypoxia events. 

Publication of the plan in the Federal Register and provide progress reports every 

two years on the activities leading toward attainment of the goals set forth in the 

plan. The bill states that the plan contents shall address the monitoring needs identified in the assessment; detail procedures for the development and verification of 

Chesapeake Bay hypoxia, including making all assumptions built into the model 

publicly available; and describe the efforts to improve the assessment of the impacts 

of hypoxia. 

Section 9: Authorization of Appropriations - Provides an authorization of 

$18,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to the Under Secretary 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

to carry out the Program. In addition, provides up to $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to the Administrator to carry out activities authorized 

in the bill. 

Section 10: Clerical Amendments - Amends section 2 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 to include an updated table of contents, and replaces any 

instance of ‘‘Clean Water Act or’’ with ‘‘Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the’’ 

in section 609 of the Act. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

AMENDMENT


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCMcNerney.eps
82 

AMENDMENT ROSTER


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484SCROSTER.eps
(83) 

XXII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY MARKUP OF H.R. 2484, HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS 

AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011Q18 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:38 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman HALL. Good morning. The Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology meets today to consider the following measures: H.R. 2484, 

the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 

Amendments Act of 2011. 

Pursuant to Committee rules and House Rule XI 2(h)(4), the 

Chair announces that he may postpone further proceedings today 

on any question of approving any measure or matter or adopting 

an amendment on which a recorded vote of the yeas or nays are 

ordered. We will make sure that everyone has enough time to get 

here as we do not want Mr. Neugebauer involved in another police 

chase. It is the Chair’s intention to provide at least 10 minutes’ notice prior to the commencement of roll votes. 

Let us proceed with the markup beginning with opening statements. I will begin. 

I want to welcome everyone here today for the markup of H.R. 

2484, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 

Amendments Act of 2011. Harmful algal blooms, or HABs, are a 

significant summertime problem that affects rivers, lakes, and tidal 

areas in almost every state. In addition to damaging ecosystems, 

harmful algal negatively impacts local economies that depend on 

healthy water for fishing, recreation, and tourism. 

The bill before us today attacks this problem at its core by 

strengthening the science necessary to understand HABs and advancing technological solutions to better prevent and respond to 

outbreaks of when they occur. I want to commend the Energy and 

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Harris on his effort to craft 

focused bipartisan legislation to reauthorize this small but important program. The product before us is a good bill that incorporates 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

input from Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the administration. I urge Members to support it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

I want to welcome everyone here today for the markup of H.R. 2484, the Harmful 

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. 

Harmful algal blooms, or HABs, are a significant summertime problem that affects rivers, lakes, and tidal areas in almost every state. In addition to damaging 

ecosystems, harmful algae negatively impacts local economies that depend on 

healthy water for fishing, recreation and tourism. 

The bill before us today attacks this problem at its core: by strengthening the 

science necessary to understand HABs and advancing technological solutions to better prevent and respond to outbreaks when they occur. 

I want to commend Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Harris on 

his effort to craft focused bipartisan legislation to reauthorize this small but important program. The product before us is a good bill that incorporates input from 

Members on both sides of the aisle as well as the Administration. I urge Members 

to support it. 

I yield back any remaining time. 

Chairman HALL. I now recognize Mrs. Johnson for five minutes 

to present her opening remarks, and as much as she is the leader 

of the Democratic faction here, we won’t hold her to exactly five 

minutes, but she has been pretty good at keeping up with five minutes. We hope she will continue to do that. But we are going to try 

to hold all those and I will hold myself to five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think I 

can do that. 

Today, we are marking up Mr. Harris’ Amendment in the Nature 

of a Substitute to H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. And I want 

to commend both you, Chairman Hall, and Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Harris, for taking on this important issue in what could 

have been a good bipartisan bill. In fact, with the exception of a 

few new activities and an approach to funding that I will discuss 

a little bit later, it is nearly the same as a former E and E Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird’s bill that passed the House last 

Congress. 

However, in this Congress, the Committee is supposed to be 

working within a new set of Republican protocols. Protocols, as 

based on the markups we have had to date, appear to be increasingly difficult for the majority to actually follow those protocols 

themselves. The outcome is more than just some procedural wrangling in Committee. It is also resulting in bad policy that in reality 

harms research activities that the sponsors profess to support. 

We have seen the same pattern play out all too often in this Congress. A bill is brought up that highlights the importance of a particular area of research and then fails to authorize the resources 

the agencies need to continue the work that they are already doing. 

And then on top of that it further burdens them with new unfunded mandates. 

I am afraid that today’s markup is continuing that trend. The 

issue before us is an important one–the need for a continued research and public awareness of the increasing frequency and duration of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, which are affecting more 

of our coastlines and inland waters than ever before. NOAA and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

the HAB’s research community have made great strides in advancing our understanding of harmful algal and hypoxia even under already severe budgetary constraints. They have managed to achieve 

scientific discoveries that improve many of our coastal and inland 

water management practices and have advanced our forecasting 

and early warning capabilities to minimize economic impacts and 

protect human health. 

Given that, it is beyond me why we would not at a minimum sustain authorizations for these research activities at their current 

levels. Despite acknowledging the risk of HABs and the progress 

this research has made, this bill makes even further cuts to already underfunded research activities, actually cutting back authorizations lower than 2008 spending levels. And I must ask how 

does this help? I cannot support such an approach to dealing with 

the problem that affects much of our country, including the Gulf 

Coast and the Florida coast and Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, 

and indeed the continued safety of our drinking water nationwide. 

There will be constructive amendments offered today to correct 

the shortcomings of the bill before us today by giving Members a 

clear choice–either increase the funding to pay the new mandates 

in the bill or cut back on the mandates if we are unwilling to pay 

for them. That is just common sense and good fiscal policy. And as 

much as I would regret it, unless we can adopt some of these 

amendments of Mr. Miller’s and others, I don’t see how I can support it. If we are going to say that we care about this research and 

that we care enough about the impacts of the HABs to take action, 

then we actually have to invest in a way that will move this research forward and not further damage the capabilities of the agencies. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Hall. Today we are marking up Mr. Harris’s Amendment 

in the Nature of a Substitute for H.R. 2484, T3the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011K. I want to commend both 

Chairman Hall and Subcommittee Chairman Harris for taking on this important 

issue with what could have been a good bipartisan bill. In fact, with the exception 

of a few new activities and an approach to funding that I will discuss in a minute, 

it is nearly the same as former E&E Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird’s bill that 

passed the House last Congress. 

However, in this Congress the Committee is supposed to be working within a new 

set of Republican protocols–protocols that, based on the markups we have had to 

date, appear to be increasingly difficult for the Majority to actually follow themselves. The outcome is more than just some procedural wrangling in Committee: it’s 

also resulting in bad policy that, in reality, harms research activities that the sponsors profess to support. 

We have seen the same pattern play out all too often this Congress–a bill is 

brought up that highlights the importance of a particular area of research, but then 

fails to authorize the resources the agencies need to continue the good work they 

are already doing. And then, on top of that, it further burdens them with new unfunded mandates. 

I’m afraid that today’s markup is continuing that trend. The issue before us is 

an important one–the need for continued research and public awareness of the increasing frequency and duration of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, which are affecting more of our coastlines and inland waters than ever before. NOAA and the 

HABs research community have made great strides in advancing our understanding 

of harmful algae and hypoxia, even under already severe budgetary constraints. 

They have managed to achieve scientific discoveries that improve many of our coastVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

al and inland water management practices, and have advanced our forecasting and 

early warning capabilities to minimize economic impacts and, protect human health. 

Given that, it is beyond me why we would not, at minimum, sustain authorizations for these research activities at their current levels. Despite acknowledging the 

risk of HABs and the progress this research has made, this bill makes even further 

cuts to already under-funded research activities, actually cutting back authorizations to lower than 2008 spending levels. I must ask, how does this help? 

I cannot support such an approach to dealing with a problem that affects much 

of our country, including the Gulf Coast and the Florida Coast, the Great Lakes, 

the Chesapeake Bay, and indeed the continued safety of our drinking water nationwide. There will be constructive amendments offered today to correct the shortcomings of the bill before us today by giving Members a clear choice–either increase 

the funding to pay for the new mandates in the bill, or cut back on the mandates 

if we are unwilling to pay for them. That is just common sense and good fiscal policy, and I may have to oppose the passage of this bill unless one of the amendments 

offered by Mr. Miller today is adopted. 

If we are going to say we care about this research, and that we care enough about 

the impacts of HABs to take action, then we actually have to invest in a way that 

will move this research forward and not further damage the capabilities of the agencies. 

Thank you Mr. Hall and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. Without objection, 

all Members’ opening statements will be placed in the record at 

this point. 

Chairman HALL. We will now consider H.R. 2484, the Harmful 

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act 

of 2011. 

I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, to describe 

his bill. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding this markup today on a very important piece of legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, this is the season for algal blooms 

in most parts of the country. In fact, an article in the Washington 

Post just this past week outlines the difficulties we face with algal 

blooms and dead zones and the announcement this week that in 

the Chesapeake Bay the dead zone is likely to be larger this year 

than it has in past years. 

H.R. 2484, the bill we are considering today, the Harmful Algal 

Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 

2011 is the product of an effort involving the administration, majority and Minority Members, and stakeholder and affected communities. The objective of this reauthorization bill is to provide greater 

coordination to the Federal Government’s harmful algal and hypoxia-related research monitoring, prevention, and response efforts. 

Generally, the bill does this through updated program guidance 

that adds budget and reporting requirements and an enhanced 

focus on accelerating technological solutions to reduce the harmful 

impacts of these outbreaks. 

I will now briefly summarize the specific provisions of the bill. 

The version passed out of Subcommittee is almost the same as 

what was introduced in the House. One amendment was offered by 

Mr. McNerney to include international cooperation and information 

sharing and it was agreed to by unanimous consent by the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. 

H.R. 2484 reauthorizes the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 

Research and Control Act of 1998, better known as HABHRCA. 

The bill restates language in the underlying statute that created 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

the interagency taskforce. However, it now requires budget coordination for the activities in the bill. This coordination will assist 

with budgetary planning and raise the visibility of the research 

programs within the agencies that participate in the taskforce. 

H.R. 2484 also directs the taskforce to maintain the program established by the 2004 reauthorization of HABHRCA and provides 

the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, who 

is also the Administrator of NOAA, with direction and specificity 

to carry out the program’s activities. As we heard at the hearing 

on June 1, there is a need for technologies to deal with HAB outbreaks in addition to looking for solutions to prevent or minimize 

them in the first place. 

H.R. 2484 directs NOAA and the EPA to maintain a focus on 

technology, research, and development for fresh water and marine 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It also requires NOAA and the 

EPA to develop protocols to determine when technologies are ready 

to move from lab testing to field testing, to maintain an electronic 

information clearing house to aid with the dissemination of information, and to develop a mechanism to ensure quality and cost-effective toxin standards for comparative research. 

H.R. 2484 directs NOAA to oversee the development of a comprehensive research plan and action strategy and identify the appropriate regions to be highlighted by such a plan. The action 

strategy outlines the specific activities to be carried out by the 

taskforce, a timeline for such activities, and the programmatic roles 

of each federal agency on the taskforce. The research plan must 

also identify research, activities, and technologies needed to detect, 

predict, monitor, prevent, control, and mitigate harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia. 

H.R. 2484 further directs the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico 

Watershed Nutrient Taskforce headed by EPA to update the assessment plan and update the assessment required under the current statute and subsequently update the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 

2008. The updated action plan must take into account available information and examine several potential solutions to reduce the 

hypoxic zone based on the information garnered in the updated assessment. 

H.R. 2484 also requires NOAA to assess and report on the dead 

zone in the Chesapeake Bay and develop a plan for reducing, mitigating, and controlling it. 

H.R. 2484 provides NOAA with an authorization of $18 million 

for each fiscal year from 2012 to 2015, a level just slightly below 

2010 spending levels. It also authorizes funding for the Administrator of EPA for each fiscal year from 2012 to 2015 to carry out 

the activities in the bill. 

Lastly, I would like to note that the authorization for the underlying statute expired in 2010. In the current fiscal environment, 

authorizations that have lapsed will be more likely to lose funding. 

This makes it even more imperative that we re-pass this reauthorization as soon as possible. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Chairman HALL. The author of the bill yields back his time. 

Does anyone else care to comment or be recognized on the bill? 

All right. Without objection, I ask unanimous consent that the 

bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point and 

that Members proceed with amendments in the order listed on the 

rosters. And it is so ordered. 

[H.R. 2484 appears in the Appendix:] 

Chairman HALL. The bill is open for amendments. First amendment on the roster is an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

offered by Dr. Harris. The clerk shall report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 371, Amendment in the Nature of a 

Substitute to H.R. 2484, offered by Mr. Harris of Maryland. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix] 

Chairman HALL. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And of 

course, the amendment is at the desk. 

The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute includes a few 

changes to H.R. 2484. The amendment removes the word ‘‘established’’ from the definitions of the program and the taskforce as 

both of these had already been established in the underlying statute. It changes the Fresh Water program to require that the Administrator of the EPA does not duplicate activities already ongoing and instead focuses on new approaches to addressing fresh 

water harmful algal blooms. 

Furthermore, the amendment includes a check on EPA by requiring the Administrator to submit a report on all the activities undertaken. The amendment changes the report that H.R. 2484 requires for the Undersecretary or the Administrator of NOAA to 

prepare and transmit to Congress in Section 5 of the bill. It now 

directs the Undersecretary through the taskforce to prepare such 

a report. It also removes the requirement that the report describe 

the implementation of the action strategy. NOAA has indicated 

that it feels that such an implementation, which would require 

checking on the actions of other federal agencies would be beyond 

its mission authority. 

The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute also includes an 

additional requirement in the development of the research plan for 

the Chesapeake Bay dead zone to ensures that the plan does not 

duplicate activities conducted by other federal or state agencies. 

Finally, the authorization of appropriations language in that the 

amendment changes H.R. 2484 to provide the Administrator with 

2.7 million for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015. This is 

possible due to the savings gain through the NOAA authorization 

of 18 million. 

Last but not least, the amendment includes a non-duplication requirement that the Administrator ensure that activities carried out 

under the bill do not duplicate research and development activities 

related to harmful algal blooms or hypoxia conducted by other federal agencies, states, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations. 

I yield back the balance. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

I support the amendment. Is there further discussion on the 

amendment? If not, are there any amendments to the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Maryland? 

Second amendment on the roster is an amendment I am offering. 

It is Amendment 373 at the desk. 

Clerk, report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 373, Amendment to the Amendment in 

the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Mr. Hall of 

Texas. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix] 

Chairman HALL. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

This amendment will simply provide clarity in the bill. When it 

says ‘‘Undersecretary,’’ it is simply referring to the Undersecretary 

of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. As there should be no 

need for further discussion, we can have further discussion, but on 

this amendment the vote occurs on the Amendment 373 to the 

amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed say no. 

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Now, for the second degree amendment offered to the Harris, are 

there any other amendments to—anyone—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Yes? Who seeks recognition? Mr. Sarbanes 

seeks recognition. The Chair recognizes you for five minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate it. I have an amendment to Congressman Harris’ Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. It is 

at the desk. 

Chairman HALL. Clerk, report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 015, Amendment to the Amendment in 

the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Mr. Sarbanes 

of Maryland. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix] 

Chairman HALL. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Before I recognize the gentleman, I want to let the gentleman 

know that we are going to accept the amendment so if he would 

agree to submit his statement for the record, we will move directly 

to voting on his amendment. 

Mr. SARBANES. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

Could I have just 30 seconds? 

Chairman HALL. Yes, sir. You can have 30 seconds to five minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that. 

Well, it is an important bill, the underlying bill, and as Mr. Harris indicated a moment ago, there has just recently been new attention to the dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay. What my amendment 

would do is ask the taskforce to consider potential beneficial uses— 

well, two things to address these algal blooms. On the one hand 

trying to deal with the issue on the front end by looking at what 

sorts of grasses like switchgrass and other kind of biofuel that you 

could plant that would capture some of these nutrients before they 

get into the bay so you can reduce the amount of algal bloom that 

results—as a result of the nutrients coming in. So it would ask to 

do research on that question. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

And it would also have them look at the potential to harvest 

some of these algal blooms once they occur and whether those can 

be turned into biofuel. Obviously, we don’t want it to happen in the 

first place, but if it does and if those algal blooms exist, then we 

ought to be looking at potential technologies and other opportunities to harvest that in a way that can be used in a beneficial way. 

And I think while there are some issues with that, it deserves some 

consideration. 

So I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the Committee’s willingness to 

accept this amendment. I think it is a positive addition to the bill. 

And I yield back my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. Hearing no further 

discussion, a vote occurs on the second degree amendment offered 

by the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. 

The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments to the amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I would like to speak on the amendment for Ms. 

Edwards, who has not arrived yet. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

Chairman HALL. Let the clerk call the amendment first. 

The CLERK. Amendment 015, Amendment to the Amendment in 

the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Ms. Edwards of 

Maryland. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix] 

Chairman HALL. All right. I ask unanimous consent to dispense 

with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Before I recognize the gentlelady, I want to let her know we are 

going to accept her amendment, so if she would agree to submit her 

statement for the record, we will move directly to voting on her 

amendment. Is the gentlelady agreeable? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am agreeable. I accept that, and I will dispense 

with—— 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady accepts it. I want to thank the 

Member for the amendment. Hearing no further discussion, a vote 

occurs on amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. 

The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. 

All right. Are there any other amendments to the amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, Ms. Wilson came in, but she left I guess. But 

I would like to offer her amendment up for the Committee. 

Chairman HALL. All right. You are offering an amendment for 

Ms. Wilson and in her stead? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman HALL. Is there objection? Chair hears none and the 

Chair recognizes you for five minutes. Call up your amendment 

from the desk. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The amendment is at the desk. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 021, Amendment to the Amendment in 

the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Ms. Wilson of 

Florida. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix] 

Chairman HALL. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

Before I recognize the gentlelady, I want to let her know we are 

going to accept her amendment, so if she would agree to submit her 

statement or Mrs.—the Ranking Member in her stead if she has 

agreed to submit her statement for the record, we will move directly to voting on her amendment. Is the gentlelady ready? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I agree to just submit the language to the record 

and allow Mr. Hall to accept it. Plead with you as a matter of fact. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. You don’t have to do that. It helps but 

you don’t have to. 

Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor say aye. Those who oppose it say no. 

There are no noes; the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed 

to. 

Okay. Are there any other amendments to the amendment? And 

for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The amendment is offered by Ms. Edwards. 

Chairman HALL. And you stand in her stead. Is there objection? 

The Chair hears none. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The amendment should be at the desk. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The next amendment is offered by the 

gentlelady from Maryland. Are you ready to proceed? If so, the 

clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 016, Amendment to the Amendment in 

the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Ms. Edwards of 

Maryland. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix] 

Chairman HALL. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain the 

amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going 

to yield to Mr. Sarbanes a minute to make his statement on it. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. You are recognized. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The dead zone’s in the Chesapeake Bay, which we have been referring to and in the tributaries, of course, that flow into the 

Chesapeake Bay. It exists there and that is where the dissolved oxygen levels drop to levels that are too low to sustain marine life. 

These are growing at an alarming rate. The one that Mr. Harris 

referred to before is projected to be perhaps the biggest dead zone 

we have ever had. The effects of this can be seen in some of the 

statistics from the 1950s to the 1970s. Average annual oyster catch 

was about 25 million pounds per year and the blue crab harvest 

contributed nearly a third of the Nation’s catch. Now, that has 

dropped significantly so the oyster population is two percent of the 

historic level. And the reduced amounts of underwater grass habitat, in addition to low summer levels of dissolved oxygen continue 

to keep the crab population below where it should be. 

Don Boesch, who is President of the Center for Environmental 

Science at the University of Maryland and an expert on these zones 

said ‘‘this year’s water flow will rank at least among the five largVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

est,’’ a result of heavier-than-normal rains and snow melt mixed 

with high amounts of nitrogen phosphorus and sediment. And 

that—the dead zone is going to cover a third of the bay. That is 

about 83 miles when last measured. 

So this report underscores the effect nutrient-loading has on the 

Nation’s water systems. And there have been efforts to address the 

source in terms of the agricultural sources for this. So while we 

must support, obviously, the agricultural sector, we want to be 

looking at the effect of nutrient-loading from these kinds of sources. 

The amendment that the gentlelady has put forward, Amendment 

16, would ensure that that happens. 

And I would just add that my hope would be going forward, perhaps we could even further amend this perhaps on the Floor working with the Committee to look at all of the different sources that 

generate these algal blooms. In addition to agricultural sources, I 

am very interested in stormwater runoff from other sources as well. 

And to have a sense of the comparative source of these different 

harmful effects on the Chesapeake Bay I think would be a good result from the kind of study that the taskforce can do. 

And with that, I yield back to the gentlelady. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. And I would like to yield the remainder of the time to the author who has arrived, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank you very much. And I want to thank my 

colleague, Mr. Sarbanes. We share a deep interest in protecting the 

Chesapeake Bay, waterways like this, particularly in the impact of 

algal blooms on the plant and sea life in the bay and tributaries. 

And I know that there is much more actually that we can do, and 

this is—I think Mr. Sarbanes has articulated—a very limited way 

in which to tackle a problem that threatens the very life and health 

of the Nation’s largest bay in this respect. And so I thank Mr. Sarbanes for standing in my stead. I had a conflict. 

And I know that there are challenges even on our Eastern Shore 

with our farmers and others who we want to enjoy their livelihoods, but we also have the duty to protect waterways like the 

Chesapeake Bay to ensure that fertilizers and other sources of 

harmful pollutants don’t impact and threaten other kinds of industries that are very dependent on these waterways. And so I think 

that we are trying to strike a good balance here between what we 

need in terms of our—the economic health of areas like our eastern 

short but also ensuring that waterways like the bay in Maryland 

and other waterways across the country and those tributaries are 

protected from the harmful effect of algal blooms. 

And with that, I yield. 

Chairman HALL. Does the gentlelady yield back or does she request five minutes of her own time as the author? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Out of respect for the Committee, it was my fault 

I was late, so I really do appreciate the time, though. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The gentlelady refuses the offer of five 

minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. She kindly thanks the gentleman. 

Chairman HALL. I was really enjoying listening to her. All right. 

We have discussed and admitted the amendment. And as you 

know, we are proceeding under the five-minute rule. I want to 

thank the Member for the amendment. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. For what purpose does the gentleman request 

recognition? 

Mr. HARRIS. To discuss the amendment. 

Chairman HALL. Yields five minutes for you, Doctor. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I clearly understand that nutrient flows are an important issue and to contribute to the growth of harmful algal blooms. 

That is fairly well accepted. However, you know, numerous other 

programs already study the impact of nutrient flows and utilize 

other sources of funding from multiple agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and the EPA. This amendment would conflict with the non-duplication provision included in the bill under 

the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. 

Duplication of federal programs is a drain on scarce resources 

that do come at the expense of the research and technology development needed to directly suppress or eliminate harmful algal 

blooms. We all know about the GAO report that looked through the 

government and found numerous areas where multiple federal 

agencies do what appear to be the same thing, and I think this 

amendment would just do that. 

In addition, the amendment exclusively targets one source of nutrients to the apparent exclusion of all the others. And I am 

pleased that the gentleman from Maryland in his comments suggested that perhaps at some point we could introduce an amendment, perhaps before this bill comes to the Floor, that might expand that to look at all sources. But I will say that we offered that 

during discussions of the bill and that was refused by the author 

of the amendment. 

Now, agriculture manure, which is the one item specifically 

named actually is not the largest source of nitrogen in the bay. It 

happens to be in municipal wastewater plants. In fact, Blue Plains, 

the municipal wastewater plant that drains this building is in fact 

the largest single-point source accounting for 6 million pounds of 

nitrogen. And in fact they had to be taken to court two years ago 

in order to reduce that pollution level. So I would urge that if the 

Committee at some point or the body considers an amendment in 

this nature where we begin to duplicate what other agencies have 

done, if we are going to go ahead and duplicate what other agencies 

have done, I would urge the action by the body to be that we include all sources, particularly the largest single-point source of nitrogen, which are municipal wastewater plants. 

So, you know, we could have had a more inclusive amendment. 

I would offer that I would be willing to support that kind of amendment when this comes to the Floor, but as the amendment is currently written, I am unable to support the amendment. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Miller of North Carolina. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Miller of North Carolina, I recognize you 

for five minutes. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

I think Ms. Edwards has reconsidered her earlier decision to decline time on this. I yield to Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Look, I just want to—you know, to make sure that all the Members of the Committee are aware that I live in the metropolitan 

Washington area. We are nowhere near the Chesapeake Bay. Indeed, the area closest to the Chesapeake Bay is in the district of 

my colleague Mr. Harris, and what we recognize in this heavily industrialized and commercialized metropolitan Washington area is 

that some—that the things that we do here impact on tributaries— 

impact on estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay. That is true across 

the country. 

And one of the things that we have attempted to do on numerous 

occasions and as well as the Environmental Protection Agency is 

to look at those nitrogen loads that the gentleman speaks of. And 

we have received tremendous opposition, frankly, from the other 

side when the Environmental Protection Agency, when through our 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we try to look at 

these issues. And so I think that what we are trying to accomplish 

here is to simply acknowledge that in this one respect—and there 

may be other things, as my other colleague from Maryland suggests, that we can do to look at other nutrients. I think it is really 

helpful for us to be very focused on something that is having a really tremendous impact on this major estuary, the largest estuary in 

this great Nation. And we have an obligation to do something 

about that. 

I would point out that in 2010, environmental activists filed a 

suit against Purdue Farms on the Eastern Shore claiming that the 

manure-laden runoff into the Chesapeake Bay led to further pollution of the waters. The Maryland Department of the Environment 

found high bacteria levels in ditches draining from the farm property into the Chesapeake tributary. 

And this isn’t just about the Chesapeake Bay. We are talking 

about other waterways across the country. And so while I share 

and appreciate the gentleman’s concern that we haven’t done everything, I would urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to acknowledge that where there is an opportunity to do 

something, then we have an obligation to act. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentlelady yield for a question? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Sure. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Was our colleague right in saying that some 

of the research we are talking about is duplicative of research that 

is already going on? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I don’t agree with that at all. I mean I think that 

we are not trying at all to duplicate what is going on in the Department of Agriculture. They sit on the taskforce and they can bring 

their expertise to the table. I think that that would actually be 

helpful to us. 

Thank you. And I will yield. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back the gentleman from 

North Carolina’s time. 

Is there further discussion? 

Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

Chairman HALL. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. RIGELL. Rigell from Virginia. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman from Virginia recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. RIGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly appreciate the gentlelady offering the amendment and I share her—I can see the passion and I share the deep 

concern over the Chesapeake Bay. It is truly a national treasure. 

I have the great privilege of representing Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes all the Eastern Shore, Virginia 

Beach, and a good part of Norfolk and Hampton as well. So this 

is shoreline that well fits within and defines really the boundary 

of the Chesapeake Bay in the southeast portion. 

I want to associate myself with the remarks of Dr. Harris, and 

rather than go through all the rationale that he presented, as I 

carefully evaluated the bill—the amendment and the logic both for 

and against, I have come to the conclusion that it would indeed be 

a duplicative effort. And so for that reason I will not be supporting 

the amendment. But I want us to continue to work together as a 

Committee to ensure that that great national treasure is taken 

care of. And I will fully support, you know, efforts as they go forth 

to make that happen. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

The Chair hears none. Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say 

no. 

The noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. I recognize the gentlelady for what purpose? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I would ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman HALL. A recorded vote has been requested. Under the 

Chair’s prior announcements, proceedings on this motion will be 

postponed. 

Are there any other amendments to the amendment? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? 

Mr. MILLER. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The next amendment is offered from 

the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller. 

Are you ready to proceed with your amendment, sir? 

Mr. MILLER. I am. 

Chairman HALL. Clerk, report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 372, Amendment to the Amendment in 

the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Mr. Miller of 

North Carolina. 

[The amendment appears in the Appendix] 

Chairman HALL. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

I agree with everything that has been said today. Members of 

this Committee have said all the right things. Harmful algal 

blooms and hypoxia are very serious problems affecting our coast, 

our lakes, our waterways; they are harming our economy; they hurt 

the tourist economy of Florida when there are beach closures; they 

hurt the fishing and shellfish industries in the Gulf of Mexico; they 

are obviously devastating the harvest of the Chesapeake Bay; and 

in every district, every corner of America they pose a deadly threat 

to safe drinking water supplies. So harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are serious issues that really deserve a serious response. 

But while I have agreed with what people have said, I have not 

agreed with—I do not agree with what this bill does. This bill actually cuts the funding to do all the things that this bill requires 

below the existing levels of funding for 2008. Now, that—this is not 

an appropriating committee; this is an authorizing committee, but 

here is how it works. If the appropriating committee is not going 

to give more than is authorized and if we cut back what is authorized, usually what is authorized by the authorizing committee, 

which is what we are for purposes of this bill, the authorizing committee will decide what is the amount that the agency really needs 

to do the job properly. And it is not at all unusual at all for the 

Appropriations Committee to appropriate less than that amount 

but they never give more than that amount. In fact, that is the ceiling on what will be available. So while saying we are going to require NOAA and EPA to do all these things that I think we all 

agree need to be done, we are actually cutting back their ability to 

do it. 

And so this bill—this amendment is very simple. It takes the authorization up to what it was in 2008 to 2010 and extends that authorization, that level, through 2015. 

I ask the support for this amendment. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Is there further discussion? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from 

California is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let’s just note that in California we have 

problems with red tide and I know all about red tide. I know I have 

gotten it all over my legs and gotten rashes and things from it 

when I am out surfing and such, so I know the implication on fish 

because I have seen dead fish due to this very problem that we are 

talking about. So no one is denying that there is a big problem 

when we discuss the amendments that have been suggested. If 

something is duplicative, we can no longer afford duplicative research. 

And perhaps your amendment, Mr. Miller, exemplifies what this 

fight about balancing the budget or trying to bring the level of deficit spending down is all about. We cannot afford to do everything 

that we used to do. The fact is, as we are doing it, it is a $1.5 trillion deficit. So if—yes, this does decrease the level and we are— 

down a bit, that is—if we can’t even do that, our currency will 

eventually collapse because this exemplifies the spirit of what we 

got to do. They call it taking a haircut. We got to have a haircut 

across the board of everything the Federal Government is doing, 

asking our federal employees to do their job more efficiently and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

more effectively, eliminating it when there are duplications that 

happen, and in fact cutting down the level of spending in every one 

of the programs that we are talking about if it can be done without 

causing the program itself not to be able to accomplish its mission. 

Now, there is no reason for us to think that this type of efficiency 

effort can’t be made in science programs as well as anything else. 

So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very good—I 

mean this is a very good proposal that we have before us, but the 

amendment that we have to this would take away the benefits that 

we are trying to receive to the overall budget. And so I would oppose the amendment. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Does the gentleman yield back his time? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Who seeks further discussion? The gentlelady 

from Maryland, recognize you for five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to yield as much of my time as he would consume to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Chairman HALL. I think that is a fair thing to do. The gentleman 

from North Carolina—— 

Mr. MILLER. We have an arrangement this end of the dais. 

Let’s be honest with the American people. If we really aren’t 

going to do these things, the things that the bill says we are going 

to do, let us tell them that honestly. But this bill as it now 

stands—and as Mr. Rohrabacher just explained it—is fundamentally dishonest. We are telling the American people we are going 

to do all the things in this bill but we are not going to provide the 

agency the funds that it takes to do it. 

Now, I understand your argument about trying to make them do 

with less, but there has not been the first suggestion from the majority on how they will do that. It is just cutting the funding, requiring them to do more, telling the American people—promising 

the American people we are going to do all these things to address 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, we are going to do it, but we 

are not going to provide the funds necessary to do it. That is fundamentally dishonest. If we are not going to do it—and that will 

be my next amendment—let us tell the American people the truth. 

But as it is now, this amendment misleads the American people. 

This Amendment does not tell the truth to the American people. 

Mr. HARRIS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HARRIS. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. MILLER. I do yield. 

Chairman HALL. To which one of them. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will take the first shot. 

So you are suggesting there is not any efficiencies that we could 

be making in the federal budget whenever we try to reduce it by 

a small amount? 

Mr. MILLER. You know, Mr. Rohrabacher, I am sure there are. 

Actually, my experience on this Committee is I spotted several 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

things where the Federal Government is spending too much. A lot 

of it had to do with well-connected private contractors, many of 

whom had great friends on the Republican side of the aisle who 

protected all those appropriations. 

Now, if the gentleman from California—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is a fairly partisan thing to say. 

Mr. MILLER. —or the gentleman from Georgia knows of a cheaper way for them to do all these things, all that they have been 

doing and more for less money, then you should step forward and 

say how that is, but just saying we are going to make you—we are 

going to promise the American people that all this is going to happen but we are going to provide a funding level that is less than 

what we have provided before. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman agree that when departments and agencies come to us, they quite often add a little bit 

to their request so that they will get more money? Isn’t this sort 

of a standard operating procedure with many departments and 

agencies? 

Mr. MILLER. And Mr. Rohrabacher, perhaps you should seek to 

be on the Appropriations Committee. That may be but we have not 

heard anybody from the other side of the aisle—from the majority 

say how these savings can be achieved. It is just giving more 

money—less money than agencies that have had to do the same 

work—actually less work and tell them now you have got to do— 

we are promising the American people you are going to do all this 

other work. We are promising the American people we really are 

serious about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. And the people of 

Florida, we understand the disruption to your economy, you know, 

beach closures; to the people at Chesapeake Bay, we understand 

the harm to your economy from what hypoxia and what dead zones 

are doing to your harvest; we are telling people who have got 

drinking water that is being compromised by hypoxia and by harmful algal blooms saying we are serious about this. We understand 

it. We are going to do this stuff. But the truth is the agencies are 

getting less funding to do more, and not a word, not a suggestion 

from the majority on how that is going to happen. I think my—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman HALL. Will the gentleman—— 

Mr. MILLER. I yield time to Mr. Sarbanes. 

Chairman HALL. All right. 

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I just want to support the amendment. I think you have to properly resource the function that we are giving to NOAA here. And 

on the economic argument that was raised, the fact of the matter 

is that the research that NOAA does is critical to policymakers at 

the federal level and at the state level and at the local level in 

terms of making decisions about how to protect and preserve these 

natural resources that we have. So if you are talking about the 

Chesapeake Bay where the economy of a region is heavily dependent on the health of that bay, then making sure that the resources 

are there so the research can be done so the policymakers can put 

in place the kinds of things to protect those natural resources is absolutely fundamental. And if you shortchange that, you are going 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

to have tremendous negative economic consequences for the region 

at a time when the country is looking for economic recovery. 

And I yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. MILLER. Reclaiming my time. It is still my time. 

There was not a—there has been a hearing on this topic. There 

was not one word of witness testimony that these programs—the 

existing programs were being handled inefficiently and this amendment does not increase funding; it provides flat funding. 

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman’s time is up. 

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Harris. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let us be honest. Let us look at the actual amount spent—because we have heard that we are reducing this funding below 2008 

levels. Now, this is just simple math. Let us add up the authorizations in this bill. It is 20.7 million. The total amount spent on 

harmful algal blooms in fiscal year 2008 was 18.1. Now, I know I 

went to school a while ago, and I know that is old math, but 20.7 

is more than 18.1. This actually authorizes at a higher level than 

the actual expenditures in fiscal year 2008 and matches the actual 

expenditures in fiscal year 2010. Matches. Not a dollar less. 

Now, let me address specifically the comment from the gentleman from North Carolina because I am not sure he was here for 

my statement on this amendment in the nature of substitute. The 

fact is that we cut ten reports out. I am just going to repeat it because the gentleman from North Carolina is not paying attention. 

We cut 10 reports out. That is how we create the efficiencies. Our 

estimate is that that saves $3 million freeing it up from writing a 

report to actually doing research. 

So to the Ranking Member rather of the Subcommittee that I 

chair, I would suggest we will spend more on actual research and 

not writing reports than we do now. But that is not all. The point 

from the gentleman in—and I am sorry—to the gentleman in California, I am sorry to disappoint you and he has left, but we actually spend more. We are actually increasing the amount we spent 

over fiscal year 2008. You are there. 

Chairman HALL. Don’t let Dr. Broun hear you. 

Mr. HARRIS. We don’t cut the total amount spent. Yeah, I am 

afraid the gentleman from Georgia will offer an amendment later 

to cut even that amount. 

But we don’t spend less. We spend it better. We cut out reports, 

we eliminate duplication, and we do exactly what the American 

people have sent us here to do, recognize a program that is important, maintain the funding, and do it more efficiently, truly doing 

more with less. That is what our challenge is. 

Now, I have five kids. They come to me all the time wanting 

more. Believe me. Anybody who has a child knows that. And sometimes you have to say, you know, we can’t afford it. This is what 

we can afford. Let us make do with what we have and let us do 

it more efficiently, more thoughtfully. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

Now, furthermore, there has been a suggestion that if these 

amendments don’t pass, this bill shouldn’t be passed. I would suggest that is a dangerous strategy in an environment where we are 

looking to cut trillions of dollars in spending. And remember, the 

authorization has expired on this program. I suspect that when 

push comes to shove, folks will look at what hasn’t had a reauthorization and simply cut the funding. This reauthorization level 

funds—not only level funds totally. It is 3.6 million more—sorry, 

2.6 million more than fiscal year 2008 and cuts $3 million worth 

of reports, and furthermore, in the statute ends duplicative work 

in the Federal Government. That is what the majority thinks is the 

way you have to handle budgets and authorizations in this current 

environment we are in. 

This is an incredibly important program. My colleagues from 

Maryland have outlined the importance of this program. Harmful 

algal blooms are something that we need to continue studying. We 

need to know why dead zones occur and how to deal with them and 

how to minimize their effect. I would urge rejection of this amendment and passage of the reauthorization bill. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Down here, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Woolsey. 

Chairman HALL. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Your girlfriend. 

Chairman HALL. I can’t turn you down. The Chair recognizes you 

for five minutes and I recognize you for 10 minutes and five minutes is already gone. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. There you go. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I just would like to remind everybody that in 

order to vote for this bill, many of us want a few absolutes, and 

Mr. Miller’s amendment provides this for us. So think about that. 

I mean not that it is going to make a difference if it is—the vote 

is on a—you know, right down on a bipartisan—down the line, 

but—I mean partisan. We would like it to be bipartisan. 

And with that I would like to yield the rest of my time to Mr. 

Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, for yielding. 

Again, my information is simply different from what Mr. Harris 

has just said. My information is that expenditures in this fiscal 

year for NOAA for this program was 20.7. To get around, to play 

games with cut-go rules that the majority adopted, they have cut 

that—the authorization for that to move part of the funding to 

EPA, but the result is that the amount authorized is less than 

what has been spent in the recent past. Again, we had a hearing 

on this. There was a word about reports and by eliminating a report we could save $3 million in funding. Not a word to support 

that argument. And not a word to suggest that—what those reports 

were that are duplicative or unnecessary or whatever else or that 

not doing those would save $3 million. This simply appears to be 

requiring the same agencies to do more work with less money and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

telling the American people that we are going to do things that we 

are not really going to allow federal agencies the resources to get 

done. It is not honest with the American people. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. Hearing no further 

discussions, request the vote occurs on the amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. For what purpose does the gentlelady request 

recognition? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Strike the last word. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes you for five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We all recognize that we are an authorization committee and not 

an appropriations committee, but we also know that it has a lot of 

influence in what we authorize. My concern is that when we authorize more activity than what we are willing to authorize the expense to do it, we make the agencies feel that they have failed and 

then we really get on the agencies because they have failed if it is 

not done. 

My concern is that we are expecting so much more than what we 

are willing to authorize. Now, we know whatever we authorize, the 

appropriators are probably going to cut it some. Now, I am not suggesting that we over-authorize, but what I am suggesting perhaps 

is we look at the activities that we are requiring—which I believe 

are very important activities—and recognize that these are human 

beings that we are authorizing to do this work. And there is just 

so much you can do if you don’t have the people to do it. And if 

you don’t have the funds, you don’t have the people to do the work. 

And so I would just make an appeal to the Committee that if we 

cannot support this amendment, take a look at the next one so that 

when it is impossible to do the work that they simply will report 

that they cannot do it with that amount of money and we all will 

be even. We will know that from the beginning. But I don’t think 

it is fair to the agencies, nor is it fair to the public, for us to do 

all this authorization and know that it is very likely the work cannot be done. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

If there is no further discussion—hearing no further discussion, 

the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. 

The noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? 

Mr. MILLER. Request a recorded vote. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Roll call vote has been requested. 

Under the Chair’s prior announcement, proceedings on this motion 

will be postponed. 

Are there any other amendments to the amendment? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? 

Mr. MILLER. I have an amendment at the desk. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

Chairman HALL. The next amendment is offered from the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller. 

Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. MILLER. I am. 

Chairman HALL. Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment 374, Amendment to the Amendment in 

the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Mr. Miller of 

North Carolina. 

[The amendment appears in Appendix] 

Chairman HALL. Ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I hope that this amendment does not really become necessary. I 

will withdraw this amendment if the previous amendment passes 

when the time comes for a recorded vote. This amendment is just 

about being truthful to the American people that we are not going 

to tell them that we are going to do all these important things to 

address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia when we know perfectly 

well we aren’t giving the agency the resources to do it. This—I 

think the Ranking Member earlier said that this bill authorizes the 

agency to do more things. No, it requires the agency to do more 

things. And it doesn’t authorize—even authorize the funds to do it. 

This amendment says that if they don’t get the funding to do 

their work, they are going to be relieved of these mandates that 

they can’t possibly get done. Let us be honest with the American 

people. Let us not tell them we are going to do all kinds of important work and it is all going to be free or next to it. If we really 

are not willing to provide the resources to get things done, let us 

tell the American people that and not tell the American people that 

oh, yes, we are really serious about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. We really want to protect the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf 

Coast and drinking water everywhere. Let us not tell people—the 

American people something that is not true. And if we have real 

ideas on how we can save money, let us—you know, fine to hear 

it. Let us give that to the Appropriations Committee with those 

suggestions but not tell the American people that we can do it, no 

problem. It is just a matter of the Federal Government agencies 

doing their work better and then when they can’t get it done say, 

you know, those government employees, they just can’t get it done. 

I hope this amendment does not become necessary, but I think 

in order to be truthful to the American people, we need to pass this 

amendment at the very least. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. HARRIS. The sponsor of the bill. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair recognizes you for five minutes, Mr. 

Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I won’t take five minutes. I 

won’t prolong this. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

But let us look mechanistically at what this amendment does. 

This amendment removes our Committee’s ability to make a statement on how important algal blooms are and hypoxia by saying 

that if NOAA appropriations are $1 less, $1 less, then this entire 

program doesn’t have to be done by NOAA. $1. 

Now, let us look at NOAA’s appropriations. A big chunk of 

NOAA’s appropriations for satellite program, in future years—by 

this kind of amendment—let us say the decision was made the satellite program shouldn’t be done so appropriations are lowered because we don’t want to fund a satellite program. We want to 

change the funding of a large segment of a budget. Then this says 

they don’t have to worry about algal blooms. In fact, the Committee 

tells them quite specifically don’t worry about it. You don’t have to 

do any of this. It completely eliminates everything—all the emphasis that we put on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 

So although I appreciate how important the sponsor of the 

amendment feels this program is, I actually feel this amendment— 

if you think this program is important, this is a harmful amendment. This tells the agency we don’t really want to be prioritized 

in your budget because if your funding goes down $1, you don’t 

have to study harmful algal blooms. You can do whatever else you 

want. 

It is the prerogative of this Committee to spell out in this kind 

of reauthorizations what we think those agencies should do, and 

that is why this amendment, although it sounds good on the surface—says, sure, you know, if fundings go down, we should stop 

mandating things. In fact, in practicality, a $1 decrease in—and I 

would be willing to—you know, I will yield to the author of the 

amendment if he can attest today a $1 decrease in appropriations 

completely negates the requirements of the bill. 

So I would urge that we do not adopt this amendment. We need 

this reauthorization. We are in a very hazardous time for programs 

here in Washington. You just have to look at the current discussion. Again, we are looking to cut trillions of dollars. We should 

have to give the clearest signal possible that this is in fact a very 

important program and not give the ability to an agency—who, in 

all likelihood, as other agencies, may have their appropriations cut 

below current levels—the ability to prioritize. That is our job to 

prioritize. That is not the job of the departments and agencies. So 

I would urge a no vote on this amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady from Maryland recognized for 

five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just be really 

quick and I would yield a minute to my colleague from North Carolina. 

I represent the headquarters of NOAA, and I think one of the 

things that happens is that we are telling the people in the State 

of Maryland and across this country that we are doing something 

that we are really not going to be able to do because the agency 

has no money. And I—you know, I thank the gentleman from 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

Maryland, but I think that he ought to be honest with the people 

on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that he is not doing a thing here 

that is going to protect the Chesapeake Bay that is in his home district from harmful algal blooms because we haven’t provided the 

resources to do it. 

And I think this is a bit of truth in advertising. We will go and, 

you know, and just flat-fund and slice off the top of an agency and 

then say to all the good workers at NOAA and the scientists at 

NOAA but we still want you to do it anyway. We still want it to 

be part of your agenda. Well, how about a little truth in advertising? And truth in advertising for the people who live in all of our 

Congressional districts who, on the one hand, because of an agency’s mission, expect one thing out of them but know that they are 

going to be delivered something far less because this Congress refuses to provide the resources that are necessary for them to do the 

job. 

And I want NOAA—I want our agencies to have the resources 

that they need to protect the Chesapeake Bay. And I would hope 

that the gentleman from Maryland whose district is the Chesapeake Bay would want the agency to have those resources as well. 

And with that, I would yield to my colleague from North Carolina. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

If we are truly going to cut trillions of dollars, let us tell the 

American people what that is going to mean. Let us not mislead 

the American people. Let us not claim that we are going to do all 

the same things that we have been doing before. There has not 

been any suggestion from this Committee at all about how the 

work of these agencies in addressing hypoxia, dead zones, harmful 

algal blooms, how that is going to be done more efficiently. We are 

just saying here is less money. Good luck. If you get the job done, 

we will take credit because we have said you had to do it. If you 

can’t get the job done, we are going to blame you. 

That is pretty much how the majority appears to be working. I 

think it is pretty cynical. I hope and believe the American people 

will see through it, but that is where we are right now. Let us be 

honest with the American people. Let us say that if we are not 

going to provide the funds to the Federal Government agencies to 

get their work done, we are not going to tell you—tell the American 

people that we have required all that to happen when it cannot 

possibly happen. 

And again, this amendment is flat-funding, not increase in funding to do more work. And it does not say they can’t do it if they 

can do it with that amount of money. It just says they won’t be required to do it. So we aren’t telling the American people the untruth that we are going to make sure that they get all this stuff 

done, this important work done while we are not providing them 

the resources to do it. 

I yield back to Ms. Edwards, who I think probably yields back 

to the Chair. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose 

does the gentleman from Illinois seek recognition? To strike the 

last word? 

Mr. HULTGREN. To strike the last word. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. I do want to yield my five minutes 

to Dr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much to my colleague for yielding 

the time. 

This is pretty amazing. We have heard the phrase let us be honest, suggesting that there is dishonesty here. And then let us—I 

am not being truthful in some way with people in my district. Here 

is the truth. We borrow 41 cents out of every dollar we spend. 41 

cents out of every dollar we spend. Our AAA rating will likely become a AA rating. We are having a nation-dividing discussion 

about how bad our debt and our deficit issue is and we are having 

an argument over the amendment about whether level funding is 

adequate. Level funding is adequate. Wow. I hope the American 

people are watching. I hope they are watching Members asking the 

body to just go ahead and write the wish list and fund the wish 

list and don’t worry, your next generation, your children and 

grandchildren are going to pay for it. 

And to my colleagues from Maryland, I suggest that before you 

offer amendments about the Chesapeake Bay, let us start offering 

amendments about Blue Plains. Let us start offering amendments 

about wastewater treatment where you could spend millions and 

millions of dollars, as we actually have improving the bay by some 

of those mechanisms. 

But I would suggest that the person representing the Chesapeake Bay might have a better idea about how to represent it and 

what programs are needed fitting within the context of our budgetary problems. Now, I haven’t been down here to vote for those 

budgets. Some of you may have been down here to vote for those 

budgets that went way overboard. We were sent here last year— 

I believe the elections of 2010 were about coming down here, looking at what is an important thing to do in government and funding 

it. That is exactly what this bill does. And what this amendment 

says is that if there is a—now, imagine how unrealistic this amendment is. This amendment suggests that we perhaps should fund all 

the federal agencies at exactly the same level we had this year. 

Well, that is great, but let us call up China and see if they are still 

willing to float our bonds if that is what we are going to do. If that 

is what this body and this chamber and this government is going 

to do, let us just call up China and see how big our credit card 

limit is with them. 

That budget is full of programs that are important, chock full of 

programs that are important. We can’t possibly increase the funding in all of them. This is what is called discretionary spending, ladies and gentleman. This isn’t a mandatory program. And I would 

welcome the Members from across the aisle to suggest where we 

go into entitlement programs, the nondiscretionary spending in 

order to free up money for this. I haven’t heard suggestions. 

So we are left with looking at discretionary spending. I would 

offer to the Committee that level funding a discretionary program, 

even that is a reach. But we need to make that reach because this 

is an important program. And that has been pointed out by every 

single Member offering an amendment to this is how important 

this program is. It is important enough that in the midst of a huge 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

fiscal crisis, this Committee has decided to take up its time to reauthorize a program at existing levels. Now, I know that is not trendy 

in Washington to just level fund because actually we all know that 

in Washington-speak, a cut in funding is a decrease in the increase. 

America knows we can’t play that game anymore. The game 

being played is the game of let us shame someone into agreeing to 

spend a whole lot of money and make a whole lot of promises we 

know we can’t keep. The promises we know we can’t keep have 

been made. They total up to $14.2 trillion. Those are the promises 

we can’t keep. If we accept in the final vote the prior amendment 

of the author of this amendment, we would be making a promise 

to the American people we know we can’t keep. We can’t possibly 

increase the funding for necessary programs by over 50 percent because we are already borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar. 

But what I really don’t like and really find objectionable is language like let us be honest or suggesting that a Member is not 

truthful. I am sorry. Maybe I was just raised differently, but I find 

that very intriguing. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman yields back. 

If there is no further discussion on the amendment—the Chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from Texas—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Strike the last word. 

Chairman HALL. —to strike the last word. You are recognized for 

five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. I would like to yield my time to Ms. 

Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And I want to be very brief because 

I want to point out another truth and that is that there is an average of $82 million in damage each year due to the harmful impacts 

of harmful algal blooms. And we spend on the order of $20 to $25 

million a year. I don’t think that sounds like savings. And I would 

point out to all of us on the Committee that we are even in the 

process in this Congress debating an Interior Appropriations bill 

that doesn’t allow us to deal with things like stormwater runoff 

and protecting our ground water because we have slashed and 

burned those budgets, too. And so I would point out to the gentleman and my colleague from Maryland and to all of us that what 

we are trying to do here is to make sure that if we are giving an 

agency a mission that we are reasonable in terms of what we indicate they require to fulfill that mission. Otherwise, let us not give 

them the mission and let us be truthful about the resources that 

it takes to do the job. And that is what this amendment seeks. 

And with that, I would yield. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Does the gentlelady yield back? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I yield back the balance of the time. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back. 

Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. 

The noes have it. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. The Chair—who seeks recognition? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Miller of North Carolina. 

Chairman HALL. Mr.—North Carolina? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

Mr. MILLER. Request a recorded vote. 

Chairman HALL. Go ahead and state your question. 

Mr. MILLER. Request a recorded vote. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Requested vote has been called for. 

Under the Chair’s prior announcement, proceedings on this motion 

will be postponed. 

Pursuant to the Chair’s earlier announcement and ensure Members have notice of the time, further proceedings on the postponed 

questions will resume within five minutes. The Committee stands 

in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HALL. The Committee will come to order. And pursuant to the Chair’s earlier announcement and ensure Members have 

notice of the time, further proceedings on the postponed questions 

will resume at 1:00 p.m. We are in recess until 1:00 p.m. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HALL. The Committee will come to order. 

Are there any other amendments to the amendment? Hearing 

none, the unfinished business of the Committee is postponed. Roll 

call on the amendment offered by Mrs. Edwards, Edwards Amendment 016 to the Harris Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall? 

Chairman HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes no. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. 

Mrs. Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Adams votes no. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

Mr. Quayle? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes no. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes no. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes no. 

Mr. Brooks? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

[No response]. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes no. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes no. 

Mr. Benishek? 

Mr. BENISHEK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Benishek votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes aye. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes aye. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. 

Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Fudge? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

Mr. LUJAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan votes aye. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes aye. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes aye. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes aye. 

Ms. Sewell? 

Ms. SEWELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sewell votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes aye. 

Mr. Clarke? 

Mr. CLARKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke votes aye. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 

Mr. LUCAS. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Lucas, Oklahoma. 

Chairman HALL. The gentleman from Oklahoma. 

Mr. LUCAS. I will be recorded as a no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Chairman? Hultgren from Illinois. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. Hultgren votes no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Chairman HALL. Are there others? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Costello votes aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes aye. 

Chairman HALL. Are there others? Okay. All right. The clerk will 

call the roll. Excuse me. Hold up on that request of calling the roll. 

We will ask if all Members voted. Do any Members wish to change 

their vote? All right. Ask the clerk to call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 14 Members vote aye and 18 Members vote no. 

Chairman HALL. On this vote there were 18 noes, 14 ayes. The 

amendment is not agreed to. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLV1.eps
111 

All right. The unfinished business of the Committee is to postpone roll call on the amendment offered by Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller 

is Amendment 372 to the Harris Amendment in the Nature of a 

Substitute. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall? 

Chairman HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes no. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. 

Mrs. Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Adams votes no. 

Mr. Quayle? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes no. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes no. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes no. 

Mr. Brooks? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. No. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes no. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes no. 

Mr. Benishek? 

Mr. BENISHEK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Benishek votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes aye. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes aye. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes aye. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. 

Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Fudge? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan? 

Mr. LUJAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan votes aye. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes aye. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes aye. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes aye. 

Ms. Sewell? 

Ms. SEWELL. Aye. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

The CLERK. Ms. Sewell votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes aye. 

Mr. Clarke? 

Mr. CLARKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke votes aye. 

Chairman HALL. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 

Have all Members voted? Do any Members want to change their 

vote? 

All right. The clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 14 Members vote aye and 18 Members vote no. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The amendment is not agreed to. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLV3.eps
115 

All right. The unfinished business of the Committee is to postpone roll call on the amendments offered by Mr. Miller. Miller 

Amendment 374 to the Harris Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall? 

Chairman HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes no. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes no. 

Mrs. Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Adams votes no. 

Mr. Quayle? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes no. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes no. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes no. 

Mr. Brooks? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. No. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes no. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes no. 

Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes no. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes no. 

Mr. Benishek? 

Mr. BENISHEK. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Benishek votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes aye. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes aye. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes aye. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes aye. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. 

Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Fudge? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan? 

Mr. LUJAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan votes aye. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes aye. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes aye. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes no. 

Ms. Sewell? 

Ms. SEWELL. Aye. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

The CLERK. Ms. Sewell votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes aye. 

Mr. Clarke? 

Mr. CLARKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke votes aye. 

Chairman HALL. The clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members vote aye and 19 Members vote no. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The amendment is not agreed to. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLV4.eps
119 

All right. The questions on agreeing to the Amendment to the 

Nature of a Substitute offered by Dr. Harris as amended, all in 

favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it and the 

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, as amended, is agreed 

to. 

Who seeks recognition? Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Roll call vote has been requested. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall? 

Chairman HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall votes aye. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. 

Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. 

Mr. McCaul? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. 

Mrs. Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Adams votes aye. 

Mr. Quayle? 

Mr. QUAYLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Quayle votes aye. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes aye. 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. Aye. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes aye. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes aye. 

Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes aye. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes aye. 

Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes aye. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes aye. 

Mr. Benishek? 

Mr. BENISHEK. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Benishek votes aye. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes no. 

Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. 

Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. 

Ms. Fudge? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan? 

Mr. LUJAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan votes no. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 

Mr. McNerney? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes no. 

Ms. Sewell? 

Ms. SEWELL. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sewell votes no. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes no. 

Mr. Clarke? 

Mr. CLARKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke votes no. 

Chairman HALL. Are there other Members who wish to vote? Are 

there other Members who wish to change their vote? All right. 

The clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 20 Members vote aye and 15 Members vote no. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The amendment is agreed to. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLV2.eps
123 

The question now occurs on adopting the bill, H.R. 2484 as 

amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill as 

amended is agreed to. 

Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I do. 

Chairman HALL. Mrs. Johnson seeks recognition. For what purpose, Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Request a record vote. 

Chairman HALL. All right. A record vote has been requested. 

Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall? 

Chairman HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Chairman Hall votes aye. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. 

Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. 

Mr. McCaul? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. 

Mrs. Adams? 

Mrs. ADAMS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Adams votes aye. 

Mr. Quayle? 

Mr. QUAYLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Quayle votes aye. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye. 

Mr. Rigell? 

Mr. RIGELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rigell votes aye. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

Mr. Palazzo? 

Mr. PALAZZO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Palazzo votes aye. 

Mr. Brooks? 

Mr. BROOKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brooks votes aye. 

Mr. Harris? 

Mr. HARRIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes aye. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Mr. HULTGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hultgren votes aye. 

Mr. Cravaack? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cravaack votes aye. 

Mr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bucshon votes aye. 

Mr. Benishek? 

Mr. BENISHEK. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Benishek votes aye. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes no. 

Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. 

Ms. Giffords? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. 

Ms. Fudge? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan? 

Mr. LUJAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lujan votes no. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. 

Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes votes no. 

Ms. Sewell? 

Ms. SEWELL. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sewell votes no. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wilson votes no. 

Mr. Clarke? 

Mr. CLARKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Clarke votes no. 

Chairman HALL. Are there other Members who wish to vote? Are 

there any Members who want to change their vote? All right. 

The clerk will call—report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 20 Members vote aye and 15 Members vote no. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLV5.eps
127 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. On that vote there were 20 ayes and 15 noes. 

The bill is agreed to. 

Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HALL. Yes? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would—I was detained and had I been present 

I would have voted aye on Ms. Edwards’ and both of Mr. Miller’s 

amendments, and I would ask that the record be noted to reflect 

that. And I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. 

Chairman HALL. It will be noted. Is there objection? Chair hears 

none. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, to 

offer a motion. 

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 

report H.R. 2484 as amended to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to repair 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 HALL. Questions on the motion to report the bill favorably, those in favor will say aye. Those opposed say no. 

Ayes have it. The bill is favorably reported. Without objection, 

the Motion to Reconsider is laid on the table. 

All right. Members may have 2 subsequent calendar days in 

which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on the 

major. This concludes our full Committee markup. Chairman now 

declares the full Committee adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(129) 

Appendix I: 

H.R. 2484, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENTS, 

AMENDMENT ROSTER


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL1.eps
131 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL2.eps
132 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL3.eps
133 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL4.eps
134 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL5.eps
135 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL6.eps
136 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL7.eps
137 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL8.eps
138 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL9.eps
139 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL10.eps
140 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL11.eps
141 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL12.eps
142 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL13.eps
143 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL14.eps
144 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL15.eps
145 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL16.eps
146 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL17.eps
147 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL18.eps
148 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL19.eps
149 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL20.eps
150 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL21.eps
151 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL22.eps
152 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL23.eps
153 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULL24.eps
154 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 2484, 

THE HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM & HYPOXIA RESEARCH

& CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011 

(AS REPORTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT) 

Changes from the Subcommittee Reported version are in bold and underlined. 

Purpose: To reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Act of 1998 to include a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and for other purposes. 

Section 1: Short Title The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 

Control Amendments Act of 2011 

Section 2: Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 

and Control Act of 1998 Explains that the text the bill modifies is the Harmful 

Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, unless otherwise expressly stated. 

Section 3: Definitions Provides definitions, including: Administrator, Program, 

Task Force, and Under Secretary. In the definitions for Program and Task Force 

strikes the word ‘‘established’’ as both the Program and Task Force already exist 

in current law. 

Section 4: Inter-Agency Task Force Restates the President’s establishment of 

an interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia through the Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council. The bill reiterates representation and designation of the representative from the Department of Commerce to serve as the Chairperson of the Task 

Force. The bill directs the Task Force to meet at least once per year and to develop 

a coordinated budget to be submitted to the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget at the time designated for agencies to submit annual budgets. 

Section 5: National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program Directs the 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to utilize the resources 

of the Task Force to maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program. The bill requires the Under Secretary to: 1) develop a national strategy to 

address both marine and freshwater HABs and hypoxia; 2) coordinate all Federal 

programs related to HABs and hypoxia; 3) work with State, tribal, and local government agencies; 4) identify additional research needs and priorities; 5) ensure the development and implementation of methods and technologies to protect ecosystems 

damaged by HABs; 6) encourage the appropriate exchange of research information 

with other countries; 7) coordinate existing education programs to improve public 

understanding; 8) provide resources for training of State, tribal and local water and 

coastal resource managers; 9) oversee the development of the Plan; and 10) administer peer-reviewed, merit-based competitive grant funding. In addition, the legislation directs the Under Secretary to work cooperatively and avoid duplication of efforts with other offices, centers, and programs within NOAA, as well as with States, 

tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies represented on the Task 

Force. 

The bill directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

work with the Under Secretary to utilize the resources of the task force to carry 

out freshwater activities. It also instructs the Administrator to ensure that such activities do not duplicate existing research and development programs authorized 

under this or any other Act. Furthermore, the bill requires the Administrator to 

submit a report to Congress detailing the budget explanation for all the activities 

conducted by the Administrator under the authority of this Act. 

The bill also specifies duties for the Under Secretary to maintain existing competitive grant programs, conduct marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia event response activities, and ensure communication among Federal agencies 

and increase availability of resources. The bill stipulates that all monitoring and observation data collected shall conform to standards and protocols developed pursuant to the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009. 

The bill requires that the existing research programs maintain a focus on research, development, and demonstration of technology to monitor, predict, prevent, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
155 

control, mitigate and respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and 

hypoxias. It also requires the Under Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a protocol to assess technology development 

timelines, coordinate local State and Federal authorities to facilitate field testing, 

and work with State and local entities to conduct outreach and education on technology field testing projects. 

The bill directs the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, to 

expand on the existing electronic information clearinghouse to provide information 

about marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Furthermore, the 

bill directs the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, to develop 

a mechanism to provide a reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin standards for 

comparative research and notify Congress of such in the report required under this 

section. The bill also directs the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, to report 

to Congress describing the activities carried out under the Program and the Plan. 

Section 6: Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy Directs the Under 

Secretary, through the Task Force, to oversee the development of a Comprehensive 

Research Plan and Action Strategy by identifying the appropriate regions and subregions to be addressed by the Plan and requires that the Plan include the following: 1) regional priorities for ecological, economic, and social research related to 

the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 2) research, development, and demonstration activities to advance technologies and techniques for minimizing the occurrence and 

address the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of HABs events; 4) research and methods to address the impacts of HABs on 

human health; 5) mechanisms and the potential costs of these mechanisms to protect vulnerable ecosystems that could be or have been affected by HABs; 6) mechanisms by which data is transferred between the Program and State, tribal, and local 

governments and relevant research entities; 7) communication, outreach, and dissemination methods used to educate and inform the public; and 8) the roles that 

Federal agencies can play to assist implementation of the Plan. 

Section 6 explicitly directs the utilization of existing peer-reviewed research, assessments, and reports in the development of the Plan. The bill provides a list of 

individuals and entities that the Under Secretary shall coordinate with in developing the Plan. The bill directs that the Plan be completed and approved within 2 

years after the date of enactment, and be periodically reviewed and updated as necessary. 

Section 7: Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Amends the underlying statute 

to require the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force to 

update its scientific assessment to include the following information: (1) the role of 

nutrient influx in the context of water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico; (2) the contribution 

of the topography of the Gulf of Mexico to water column stratification, seasonal 

flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics; (3) the frequency and availability of monitoring to measure the size of the hypoxic zone; (4) the potential for 

hypoxia hot-spot formation with the Gulf of Mexico and possible causes; (5) The contribution of wetland loss to the nutrient level in the Gulf of Mexico; (6) the actual 

effects of hypoxia on the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico and the benefits resulting 

from a reduced hypoxic zone; and (7) a scientifically generated, peer-reviewed goal 

for an appropriate size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico that will protect 

ecosystem functions. 

Section 7 also requires the Task Force to update its Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 

2008 to include the following: (1) a strategy to enhance the understanding of the 

contribution of topography, water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics on the size of the hypoxic zone; (2) the development of models to simulate the different shelf regions and the fundamental processes that act in each shelf region, differentiate between the separate effects of 

stratification and nutrient loading in the formation of hypoxia, and informed by realistic three-dimensional hydrodynamic and biogeochemical models; (3) a strategy to 

determine the appropriate amount of monitoring needed to get a scientifically robust 

accounting on the size of the hypoxic zone; and (4) an examination of several potential solutions based on the information provided by the updated assessment. 

Section 8: Chesapeake Bay Dead Zone Directs the Task Force to complete and 

submit to Congress an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay 

that examines the current status of and gaps in research. The bill requires the Task 

Force to develop a research plan based on the integrated assessment for reducing, 

mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay, and directs the Task 

Force to consult with State and local governments and representatives from acaVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:55 Dec 19, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR333P1.XXX HR333P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 

demic, agricultural, industry, and other stakeholder groups. The bill also directs the 

Task Force to ensure that the plan does not duplicate activities conducted by other 

Federal or State agencies. It further directs the Plan to include incentive-based 

partnership approaches; and an economic cost-benefit analysis of the measure for 

reducing, mitigating, or controlling hypoxia events. Publication of the plan in the 

Federal Register and provide progress reports every two years on the activities leading toward attainment of the goals set forth in the plan. The bill states that the 

plan contents shall address the monitoring needs identified in the assessment; detail procedures for the development and verification of Chesapeake Bay hypoxia, including making all assumptions built into the model publicly available; and describe 

the efforts to improve the assessment of the impacts of hypoxia. 

Section 9: Authorization of Appropriations Provides an authorization of 

$18,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to the Under Secretary 

to carry out the Program. In addition, provides up to $2,700,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to the Administrator to carry out activities authorized 

in the bill. Furthermore, instructs that the Administrator ensure that activities carried out using authorized appropriations do not duplicate research and development 

activities related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia conducted by Federal agency 

represented on the Task Force, States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations 

concerned with marine and freshwater aquatic issues. 

Section 10: Clerical Amendments Amends Section 2 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 to include an updated table of contents, and replaces any 

instance of ‘‘Clean Water Act or’’ with ‘‘Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the’’ 

in section 609 of the Act. 

*In certain places in the bill, the ANS make technical corrections to the use of the 

word ‘‘bloom’’ and ‘‘blooms’’. Simply replacing the singular version of ‘‘bloom’’ with 

the plural version ‘‘blooms’’ and vice versa for accuracy in the use of the term. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
157 

AMENDMENTS


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS1.eps
158 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS2.eps
159 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS3.eps
160 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS4.eps
161 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS5.eps
162 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS6.eps
163 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS7.eps
164 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS8.eps
165 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS9.eps
166 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS10.eps
167 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS11.eps
168 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS12.eps
169 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS13.eps
170 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS14.eps
171 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS15.eps
172 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS16.eps
173 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS17.eps
174 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS18.eps
175 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS19.eps
176 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS20.eps
177 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS21.eps
178 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS22.eps
179 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS23.eps
180 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS24.eps
181 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS25.eps
182 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS26.eps
183 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS27.eps
184 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS28.eps
185 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS29.eps
186 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS30.eps
187 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS31.eps
188 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS32.eps
189 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS33.eps
190 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLANS34.eps
191 

AMENDMENT ROSTER


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLAR1.eps
192 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGHR2484FULLAR2.eps