H.Con.Res. 279, H.Res. 395, H.R. 766,

H.R. 1081, H.R. 1085, H.R. 1297, H.R. 1578,

H.R. 2450, H.R. 2692, H.R. 2734,

H.R. 3245, H.R. 4546

COMPILATION OF MARKUPS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

DECEMBER 31, 2004

Serial No. 108–69

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

COMPILATION OF MARKUPS

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–803PS 2004

H.Con.Res. 279, H.Res. 395, H.R. 766,

H.R. 1081, H.R. 1085, H.R. 1297, H.R. 1578,

H.R. 2450, H.R. 2692, H.R. 2734,

H.R. 3245, H.R. 4546

COMPILATION OF MARKUPS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

DECEMBER 31, 2004

Serial No. 108–69

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

(This compilation includes Subcommittee and Full Committee markup

proceedings that did not get filed as part of a legislative report.)

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota**

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee, RMM*

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

JO BONNER, Alabama

+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut, RMM*

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

+BART GORDON, Tennessee

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman

NICK SMITH, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

VACANCY

+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

MARK UDALL, Colorado, RMM*

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

ZOE LOFGREN, California

+BART GORDON, Tennessee

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

VACANCY

+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, RMM*

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

ZOE LOFGREN, California

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

JIM MATHESON, Utah

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

VACANCY

+BART GORDON, Tennessee

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

+SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

NICK LAMPSON, Texas, RMM*

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

+BART GORDON, Tennessee

* Ranking Minority Member appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee assignments

** Vice Chair appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee assignments.

+ The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall serve as Ex-officio

Members of all Subcommittees and shall have the right to vote and be

counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all matters before the Subcommittees.

(IV)

C O N T E N T S

2003–2004

Page

H.Con.Res. 279—Recognizing the significance of the anniversary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional Science and

Engineering Fellowship Program, and reaffirming the commitment to support the use of science in governmental decision-making through such Program

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, October 16,

2003 ................................................................................................................ 3

H.Res. 395—Recognizing the importance of chemistry to our everyday lives

and supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, October 16,

2003 ................................................................................................................ 13

H.R. 766—Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, May 1, 2003 ........ 23

H.R. 1081—Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act

Proceedings of the markup by the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, March 13, 2003 ...................................................... 125

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, June 4, 2003 ....... 145

H.R. 1085—NASA Flexibility Act of 2003

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Space and

Aeronautics, June 26, 2003 .......................................................................... 179

H.R. 1297—Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, March 26, 2003 .. 249

H.R. 1578—Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2003

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, May 1, 2003 ........ 259

H.R. 2450—Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission Act

of 2003

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Space and

Aeronautics, October 8, 2003 ....................................................................... 305

H.R. 2692—United States Fire Administration Authorization Act of 2003

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Research, July

17, 2003 .......................................................................................................... 333

H.R. 2734—Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Space and

Aeronautics, June 26, 2003 .......................................................................... 355

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, July 22, 2003 ...... 391

H.R. 3245—Commercial Space Act of 2003

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Space and

Aeronautics, October 8, 2003 ....................................................................... 445

H.R. 4546—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Environment,

Technology, and Standards, September 29, 2004 ....................................... 465

(1)

MARKUPS OF H.CON.RES. 279, H.RES. 395, H.R.

766, H.R. 1081, H.R. 1085, H.R. 1297, H.R. 1578,

H.R. 2450, H.R. 2692, H.R. 2734, H.R. 3245, AND

H.R. 4546

2003–2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

(3)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP HELD BY

THE FULL COMMITTEE ON H.CON.RES. 279,

RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANNIVERSARY OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

CONGRESSIONAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM, AND REAFFIRMING THE COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE USE OF SCIENCE IN GOVERNMENTAL DECISION-MAKING THROUGH

SUCH PROGRAM

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

4

5

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Subcommittee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider the following measures. And incidentally, don’t get nervous.

This will be brief, and then we will get right to the main attraction

here today.

We will now consider House Concurrent Resolution 279. I ask

unanimous consent that the Concurrent Resolution be considered

as read and open to amendment at any point. Without objection,

so ordered.

[H.Con.Res. 279 follows:]

6

7

8

9

[The Summary of H.Con.Res. 279 follows:]

SUMMARY OF H.CON.RES. 279, RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANNIVERSARY

OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE CONGRESSIONAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

BY VERNON J. EHLERS

Purpose of the Resolution

To recognize the 30th anniversary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program.

Background

The AAAS Congressional Fellowship Program is celebrating its 30th anniversary

this fall. The program was the first of its kind to provide Ph.D.-level scientists the

chance to learn about policy-making while bolstering the technical expertise available to Members of Congress. Over the past 30 years this program has provided

more than 800 scientists the opportunity to work in a Congressional office for a year

and has been a valuable way to bring more people with strong technical and scientific skills to Congress.

AAAS Fellows represent the full range of engineering, natural, physical, and social sciences and make a significant public service contribution by working as legislative assistants on Congressional staffs. Fellows benefit from the program by learning about the legislative process and developing their leadership potential.

AAAS Fellows are selected through a competitive process by one of nearly 30

sponsoring professional societies (see list below). In early September, AAAS coordinates an extensive orientation program covering various aspects of the legislative

process, current issues before Congress, and agencies and organizations that interact with Congress. Throughout the year, Fellows are involved in supporting the

Congressional offices they work in by writing speeches and press releases, developing legislation, meeting with constituents and outside groups, acting as a liaison

to committees to which a Member is assigned, and organizing hearings on legislative issues of concern the their Members.

List of sponsoring professional societies:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy

American Chemical Society

American Dental Association

American Geological Institute

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society

American Nuclear Society

American Physical Society

American Psychological Association

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Agronomy

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

American Veterinary Medical Association

American Welding Society

Ecological Society of America

Federation of Animal Science Societies

Geological Society of America

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers–USA

Institute of Food Technologists

Institute of Navigation

Materials Research Society

Optical Society of America

10

International Society for Optical Engineering

Society for Research in Child Development

Chairman BOEHLERT. Are there any amendments? Hearing none,

the question is on the Concurrent Resolution, House—Dr. Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few words to enrich the Nation. Today we will be marking

up this Resolution recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program coordinated by

the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It recognizes a truly valuable educational program that gives scientists a

wonderful opportunity to step out of the lab and into the political

process. By working as legislative assistants in Congressional offices, the scientists get a better idea on how Congress operates. At

the same time, Members of Congress and other policy makers gain

a valuable new resource to help them better understand the scientific and technical issues underpinning complex policy debates.

Six different Fellows have served on my staff, and each one used

their unique talents and understanding to help shape my legislative agenda and therefore this committee’s legislative agenda. I

think it is a wonderful program that has helped the Congress. It

has brought some very bright, young, and little-aged people into

the Congress to help us, and I urge my colleagues to recognize the

success of this program by supporting this Resolution to honor the

AAAS Congressional Fellowship Program.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNON J. EHLERS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Today I am pleased that we are marking up this resolution recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program coordinated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This resolution has bipartisan support from 26 co-sponsors,

including many Members of this committee. It recognizes a truly valuable educational program that gives scientists a wonderful opportunity to step out of the lab

and into the political process. By working as legislative assistants in Congressional

offices, they get a-behind-the-scenes look at how our laws are made—writing speeches, developing legislation, and serving as liaisons to Committees on which a Member

serves. At the same time, Members of Congress and other policy-makers gain a valuable new resource to help them better understand the scientific and technical

issues underpinning complex policy debates. Six different fellows have served on my

staff and each one used their unique talents and understanding to help shape my

legislative agenda.

After 30 years this program is still going strong. Over 800 scientists have now

served Republican, Democratic and Independent Members of Congress, and many

are currently working for Congress and the Administration. These individuals have

contributed not only their scientific expertise but also a fresh perspective to policymaking.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the success of this program by supporting this

resolution to honor the AAAS Congressional Fellowship Program.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in supporting H.Con.Res. 279, which recognizes the 30th anniversary of the Congressional Fellowship Program instituted by

the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I congratulate Congressman Ehlers for taking the initiative to develop the resolution.

This fellowship program has provided Congressional committees and Members’ offices with scientific and technical expertise that has greatly benefited governmental

decision-making for three decades. The Science Committee has made frequent use

of AAAS Fellows over the life of the program, and I know that many of my colVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:06 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

leagues have repeatedly sought fellows for their personal offices because of the contributions they have made.

The issues confronting Congress increasingly involve scientific and technical aspects. Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers, serving as Congressional fellows, bring

to bear extensive knowledge and fresh insights and perspectives. Their presence enhances the public policy formulation process, as well as provides Fellows with a window on, and possible transition to, public service careers.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is to be congratulated

for creating the Congressional Fellows Program. I urge my colleagues to support

this worthy resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.

Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? We have Dr. Palmer,

Dr. Mimikakis, and Dr. Rooney, and all of the other AAAS Fellows

that daily enrich the offerings of this committee and add immensely to the intellectual capital available in this confine. This

one is for you.

Are there any amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the

House Concurrent Resolution 279, recognizing the significance of

the anniversary of the American Association for the Advancement

of Science Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program and reaffirming the commitment to support the use of science

in governmental decision-making through such Program. All of

those in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. In the opinion of the Chair,

the ayes have it.

I will now recognize Mr. Gordon for a motion.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report House Concurrent Resolution 279 to the House with the

recommendation that the Resolution be agreed to. Furthermore, I

move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report

and make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the

Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the Concurrent Resolution before the House for consideration.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the

Concurrent Resolution favorably. Those in favor of the motion will

signify by saying aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. And the Resolution is favorably reported.

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the House

of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to

offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to adopt and

pass House Concurrent Resolution 279. Without objection, so ordered.

That concludes our markup.

[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other

business.]

(13)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP HELD BY

THE FULL COMMITTEE ON H.RES. 395, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF CHEMISTRY TO OUR EVERYDAY LIVES AND SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CHEMISTRY WEEK

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

14

15

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Subcommittee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider the following measures. And incidentally, don’t get nervous.

This will be brief, and then we will get right to the main attraction

here today.

House Resolution 395, recognizing the importance of chemistry to

our everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideals of National

Chemistry Week, and House Concurrent Resolution 279, recognizing the significance of the anniversary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program and reaffirming the commitment to

support the use of science in governmental decision-making

through such Program.

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any time, and without objection, it is so ordered.

This markup will be very brief so that we can get to our important hearing. We are marking up two non-controversial resolutions:

one recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Fellows Program run

by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and

one recognizing American Chemistry Week. These are both worthy

endeavors that deserve congressional recognition, and I appreciate

that Dr. Ehlers has introduced the AAAS Resolution and Dr. Holt,

who was a former AAAS Fellow, has introduced the chemistry Resolution. I think these resolutions speak for themselves. The other

thing I would note is that we recognize the value of the AAAS program here daily as many of our staff members began their careers

on the Hill as Fellows. To take just three prominent examples, the

Minority Chief of Staff, Bob Palmer, and both of my Deputy Chiefs

of Staff, John Mimikakis and Peter Rooney, were AAAS Fellows.

Hopefully, everyone will view that as an advertisement for the program.

I look forward to the speedy passage of these Resolutions

through this committee and the House.

I now recognize Mr. Gordon to present any opening remarks he

might care to present.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I will place Mr. Hall’s opening remarks in the record and let us move forward.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join in supporting H.Res. 395, which recognizes National Chemistry Week.

This bipartisan resolution was introduced by Congressmen Rush Holt and Vern

Ehlers, who together constitute the congressional physics caucus, but who also appreciate the importance of chemistry. I want to congratulate them for bringing this

resolution forward.

National Chemistry Week was started as an annual event in 1987 by the American Chemical Society. It sponsors events and activities to make elementary and secondary school children, and the public generally, more aware of what chemistry is

and its importance to their everyday lives.

National Chemistry Week activities are carried out by local sections of the American Chemical Society working with local industry, schools and museums. Handson activities, chemical demonstrations, and exhibits, for example, provide opportunities to stimulate the interest of young people in science and in pursuing scientific

careers.

For 2003, the theme of National Chemistry Week is ‘‘Earth’s Atmosphere and Beyond’’ in honor of the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first powered flight.

I urge my colleagues to support this worthy resolution.

16

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

I now recognize Dr. Ehlers, the sponsor of both Resolutions before the Committee and the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee Chairman for any opening remarks that he

may have.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will not

read the entire statement, but I ask that both statements be entered into the record in full.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. All Members

may place opening statements in the record at this point in time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Today, I am pleased that we are marking up this resolution recognizing the importance of chemistry to our everyday lives. This resolution

supports the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week. It recognizes the important contributions of chemical scientists and engineers to technological progress and

the health of many industries. In addition, it encourages the people of the United

States to observe National Chemistry Week, which, this year, is October 19–25.

The chemical sciences provide an enabling infrastructure that delivers the foods,

fuels, medicine, and materials that are part of our everyday lives. The contributions

of chemical scientists and engineers are central to the technological progress and

the health of many industries.

I commend the American Chemical Society for establishing National Chemistry

Week in 1987. During National Chemistry Week, volunteers from across the United

States will teach children about air, the atmosphere and the solar system. The

theme in 2003, ‘‘Earth’s Atmosphere and Beyond,’’ was chosen to honor the 100th

anniversary of Orville and Wilbur Wright’s flight from Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

It is important to stimulate children’s interest in the chemical sciences so that they

will consider careers in these fields and potentially discover the innovations of the

future.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing the goals and ideals

of National Chemistry Week.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there anything else that you care to say?

Mr. EHLERS. Well, Mr. Chairman, are we taking both simultaneously or are we proceeding——

Chairman BOEHLERT. We are taking one at a time. We are doing

first the chemistry.

Mr. EHLERS. First the chemistry.

Let me just make a few comments, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today I am pleased that we are marking up this Resolution recognizing the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives. This

Resolution supports the goals and ideals of National Chemistry

Week that recognizes the important contributions of chemical scientists and engineers to technological progress and the health of

many industry. I would particularly like to commend the American

Chemical Society for establishing National Chemistry Week in

1987. I would also like to commend the American Chemical Society

for setting an example for other professional societies and its work

trying to make science relevant to the public and increasing and

improving science education throughout the country.

The theme of 2003, ‘‘Earth’s Atmosphere and Beyond!’’, was chosen to honor the 100th anniversary of Orville and Wilbur Wright’s

flight from Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. It is very important to

stimulate children’s interests in this week as well as the activities

17

of the various chemical societies is important in this endeavor. I

urge my colleagues to support this Resolution.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.

Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a chemistry graduate, math and science and chemistry from

the Georgia Institute of Technology, I certainly am very, very

happy with this Resolution and what the American Chemical Society has done in starting National Chemistry Week back in 1987

and realize how important it is to emphasize what chemistry really

means to our society. I know we are concerned about our youngsters, and I have four adult children who have held their nose, I

am sure, when they had to sign up for chemistry at the high school

or college level. And I am sure that most of our youngsters probably are more familiar—might be more familiar with Orville

Redenbacher than Orville Wright, but it is very important to emphasize what chemistry means to our society.

And as a Member of this Science Committee with that background, I understand the importance of the contributions of chemistry. It affects our everyday lives, as it is the core of every technology that we enjoy. Chemical scientists and engineers are central

to contributing to the technological progress and the health of

many industries that drive our economy, like pharmaceuticals, electronics, agriculture, automobile, and aerospace sectors. And I could

go on and on.

So I commend the 10,000 nationwide volunteers that will go out

next week and educate millions of children through hands-on

science activities in local schools, libraries, and museums and our

teachers who promote chemistry everyday in our classrooms.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for——

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Talking Points:

As a Member of the Science Committee with a background and degree in Chemistry, I understand the importance and contributions of Chemistry to our society.

Chemistry affects our everyday life, as it is the core of every technology that we

enjoy from refrigerators and washing machines to computers and cell phones.

Chemical scientist and engineers are central to contributing to the technological

progress and the health of many industries that drive our economy like pharmaceuticals, electronics, agriculture, automobile, and aerospace sectors.

These contributions create new jobs, boost economic growth, and improve our

health and standard of living.

It is critical for our nation’s future to remain a world leader in chemical advancements and for our children to strive to study Chemistry and realize the excitement,

profitability, and critical role that chemistry plays in our country.

I commend the 10,000 nationwide volunteers that will go out next week and educate millions of children through hands-on science activities in local schools, libraries, and museums and our teachers who promote chemistry everyday in the classroom.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. The Chair would

note that both Orvilles have made significant contributions to enrich our society.

The Chair recognizes Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would just

ask unanimous consent to place my statement in the record.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.

18

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you called this markup today on such an important

piece of legislation. As an author of similar legislation honoring scientists, in particular, African American Scientists, I speak in support of a National Chemistry

Week and ask for favorable consideration by the Committee today.

Since the late 1980’s, the Nation’s available scientific workforce has declined as

a share of the total workforce, and graduate school populations are flat or declining.

Moreover, a survey supported by the Sloan Foundation reports that there are now

trends showing that the best and the brightest students are avoiding graduate

science degree programs. Over the past ten years, those taking the Graduate Record

Exam intending to pursue science and engineering have declined by 16 percent.

Among students scoring near the top—that is over 700—the decline is even greater.

The only bright spot is that high-scoring minorities are entering science and engineering in greater numbers.

Clearly, it will be necessary to attract greater numbers to careers in science in

order to avoid devastating consequences for the future.

That is why it is so necessary to recognize the importance of the science, and especially in this instance, Chemistry.

The study of Chemistry has led to countless advances in our society. Without

Chemistry, we would not have the developments in agriculture that led to abundant

food supplies, even in the face of drought or pest; we could not depend on technological progress in health or pharmaceuticals that improve and extend our quality

of life; and we would have far fewer jobs that were created because of these advancements.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this markup. I recommend

H.Res. 395 to my colleagues and seek their approval to favorably report the legislation to the House.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And all Members have that permission to

do so at this juncture.

I ask unanimous consent that the—we will now consider H.Res.

395. I ask unanimous consent that the Resolution is considered as

read and open to amendment at any point. Without objection, so

ordered.

[H.Res. 395 follows:]

19

20

21

22

Chairman BOEHLERT. Are there any amendments? Hearing none,

the question is on the Resolution, House Resolution 395, recognizing the importance of chemistry to our everyday lives and supporting the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week. All of

those in favor, say aye. All of those opposed, say no. In the opinion

of the Chair, the ayes have it.

I will now recognize Mr. Gordon to offer a motion.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report House Resolution 395 to the House with the recommendation that the Resolution be agreed to. Furthermore, I

move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report

and make necessary technical and conforming changes, that the

Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the Resolution before

the House for consideration.

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. The question is on the motion to

report the Resolution favorably. Those in favor of the motion will

signify by saying aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. And the Resolution is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the House

of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to

offer such motions as may be necessary and the House to adopt

and pass House Resolution 395. Without objection, so ordered.

That concludes our markup.

[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other

business.]

(23)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP HELD BY

THE FULL COMMITTEE ON H.R. 766, TO

PROVIDE FOR A NATIONAL

NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Let us come to order, but let us start the

meeting the way I expect the end the meeting, on a most positive

note. This is a significant year, 2003. We are celebrating the birthday of our distinguished colleague from Texas, and every day we

are having a different celebration. This is our day right here to

have another celebration. Let us stand up and give him a round

of applause. Happy birthday Ralph.

All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The bill is

passed. Now did you say he was 100?

It is a pleasure to welcome——

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. You are entirely welcome, Mr. Hall. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider the following measures, H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, and H.R. 1578, Global Change

Research and Data Management Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point. And

without objection, it is so ordered. We will now consider the bill

H.R. 766.

[H.R. 766 follows:]

24

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H.R. 766

To provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Mr. BOEHLERT (for himself, Mr. HONDA, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. HALL, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. GORDON, Mrs. BIGGERT, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr.

BARTLETT of Maryland, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. GUTKNECHT, and Mr. BISHOP of New

York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Science

A BILL

To provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program, and

for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nanotechnology Research and Development Act

of 2003’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act———

(1) the term ‘‘advanced technology user facility’’ means a nanotechnology research and development facility supported, in whole or in part, by federal funds

that is open to all United States researchers on a competitive, merit-reviewed

basis;

(2) the term ‘‘Advisory Committee’’ means the advisory committee established under section 5;

(3) the term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy;

(4) the term ‘‘Interagency Committee’’ means the interagency committee established under section 3(c);

(5) the term ‘‘nanotechnology’’ means science and engineering aimed at creating materials, devices, and systems at the atomic and molecular level;

(6) the term ‘‘Program’’ means the National Nanotechnology Research and

Development Program described in section 3; and

(7) the term ‘‘program component area’’ means a major subject area established under section 3(c)(2) under which is grouped related individual projects

and activities carried out under the Program.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall implement a National Nanotechnology

Research and Development Program to promote federal nanotechnology research,

development, demonstration, education, technology transfer, and commercial application activities as necessary to ensure continued United States leadership in

nanotechnology research and development and to ensure effective coordination of

nanotechnology research and development across federal agencies and across scientific and engineering disciplines.

(b) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—The activities of the Program shall be designed

to———

(1) provide sustained support for nanotechnology research and development

through———

(A) grants to individual investigators and interdisciplinary teams of investigators; and

(B) establishment of interdisciplinary research centers and advanced

technology user facilities;

(2) ensure that solicitation and evaluation of proposals under the Program

encourage interdisciplinary research;

25

(3) expand education and training of undergraduate and graduate students

in interdisciplinary nanotechnology science and engineering;

(4) accelerate the commercial application of nanotechnology innovations in

the private sector; and

(5) ensure that societal and ethical concerns will be addressed as the technology is developed by———

(A) establishing a research program to identify societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology, and ensuring that the results of such research are widely disseminated; and

(B) integrating, insofar as possible, research on societal and ethical concerns with nanotechnology research and development.

(c) INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE.—The President shall establish or designate an

interagency committee on nanotechnology research and development, chaired by the

Director, which shall include representatives from the National Science Foundation,

the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Environmental Protection

Agency, and any other agency that the President may designate. The Interagency

Committee, which shall also include a representative from the Office of Management and Budget, shall oversee the planning, management, and coordination of the

Program. The Interagency Committee shall———

(1) establish goals and priorities for the Program;

(2) establish program component areas, with specific priorities and technical goals, that reflect the goals and priorities established for the Program;

(3) develop, within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and

update annually, a strategic plan to meet the goals and priorities established

under paragraph (1) and to guide the activities of the program component areas

established under paragraph (2);

(4) consult with academic, State, industry, and other appropriate groups

conducting research on and using nanotechnology, and the Advisory Committee;

and

(5) propose a coordinated interagency budget for the Program that will ensure the maintenance of a balanced nanotechnology research portfolio and ensure that each agency and each program component area is allocated the level

of funding required to meet the goals and priorities established for the Program.

SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT.

The Director shall prepare an annual report, to be submitted to the Committee

on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation of the Senate at the time of the President’s budget request to Congress, that includes———

(1) the Program budget, for the current fiscal year, for each agency that

participates in the Program and for each program component area;

(2) the proposed Program budget, for the next fiscal year, for each agency

that participates in the Program and for each program component area;

(3) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals and priorities established for the Program; and

(4) an analysis of the extent to which the Program has incorporated the recommendations of the Advisory Committee.

SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall establish an advisory committee on

nanotechnology consisting of non-federal members, including representatives of research and academic institutions and industry, who are qualified to provide advice

and information on nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, education, technology transfer, commercial application, and societal and ethical concerns. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall be considered by federal agencies in implementing the Program.

(b) ASSESSMENT.—The Advisory Committee shall assess———

(1) trends and developments in nanotechnology science and engineering;

(2) progress made in implementing the Program;

(3) the need to revise the Program;

(4) the balance among the components of the Program, including funding

levels for the program component areas;

(5) whether the program component areas, priorities, and technical goals

developed by the Interagency Committee are helping to maintain United States

leadership in nanotechnology;

(6) the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the

Program; and

26

(7) whether societal and ethical concerns are adequately addressed by the

Program.

(c) REPORTS.—The Advisory Committee shall report not less frequently than

once every two fiscal years to the President and to the Committee on Science of the

House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on its findings of the assessment carried out under subsection

(b), its recommendations for ways to improve the Program, and the concerns assessed under subsection (b)(7). The first report shall be due within 1 year after the

date of enactment of this Act.

(d) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT APPLICATION.—Section 14 of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the Advisory Committee.

SEC. 6. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY COORDINATION OFFICE.

The President shall establish a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office,

with full-time staff, which shall———

(1) provide technical and administrative support to the Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee;

(2) serve as a point of contact on federal nanotechnology activities for government organizations, academia, industry, professional societies, and others to

exchange technical and programmatic information; and

(3) conduct public outreach, including dissemination of findings and recommendations of the Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee, as

appropriate.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated

to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this Act———

(1) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(2) $385,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and

(3) $424,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

(b) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the

Secretary of Energy for carrying out this Act———

(1) $197,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(2) $217,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and

(3) $239,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

(c) NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.—There are authorized

to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for carrying out this Act———

(1) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(2) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and

(3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

(d) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for

carrying out this Act———

(1) $62,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(2) $68,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and

(3) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

(e) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency for carrying out this Act———

(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(2) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2005; and

(3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

SEC. 8. EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

Not later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director

shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct

periodic reviews of the Program. The reviews shall be conducted once every three

years during the 10-year period following the enactment of this Act. The reviews

shall include———

(1) an evaluation of the technical achievements of the Program;

(2) recommendations for changes in the Program;

(3) an evaluation of the relative position of the United States with respect

to other nations in nanotechnology research and development;

(4) an evaluation of the Program’s success in transferring technology to the

private sector;

(5) an evaluation of whether the Program has been successful in fostering

interdisciplinary research and development; and

27

(6) an evaluation of the extent to which the Program has adequately considered societal and ethical concerns.

Æ

28

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 766 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

THE NANOTECHNOLOGY R&D ACT OF 2003

Sec. 1. Short Title

‘‘Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003.’’

Sec. 2. Definitions

Defines terms used in the text.

Sec. 3. National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program

Establishes an interagency R&D program to promote and coordinate federal

nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, education, technology transfer, and commercial application activities. The program will provide sustained support for interdisciplinary nanotechnology R&D through grants to researchers and

through the establishment of interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology user facilities. Establishes a research program to identify societal and ethical

concerns related to nanotechnology and requires that such research be integrated

into nanotechnology R&D programs insofar as possible. Establishes an interagency

committee, chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,

and composed of representatives of participating federal agencies, as well as representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, to oversee the planning,

management, and coordination of all federal nanotechnology R&D activities. Requires the Interagency Committee to establish goals and priorities, establish program component areas to implement those goals and priorities, develop a strategic

plan to be updated annually, consult widely with stakeholders, and propose a coordinated interagency budget for federal nanotechnology R&D.

Sec. 4. Annual Report

Requires the Office of Science and Technology Policy to submit an annual report,

at the time of the President’s budget request to Congress, describing federal

nanotechnology budgets and activities for the current fiscal year, and what is proposed for the next fiscal year, by agency and by program component area. Requires

that the report include an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals

and priorities established for federal nanotechnology R&D, and the extent to which

the program incorporates the recommendations of the Advisory Committee (established in sec. 5).

Sec. 5. Advisory Committee

Establishes a Presidentially-appointed advisory committee, consisting of non-federal experts, to conduct a broad assessment of federal nanotechnology R&D activities and issue a biennial report.

Sec. 6. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office

Establishes a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office with full-time staff to

provide technical and administrative support to the Interagency Committee and the

Advisory Committee, to serve as a point of contact for outside groups, and to conduct public outreach.

Sec. 7. Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations for nanotechnology R&D programs at the National

Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

29

Sec. 8. External Review of the National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program

Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to contract

with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a triennial review of federal

nanotechnology R&D programs including technical progress, managerial effectiveness, and adequacy in addressing societal and ethical concerns.

30

Chairman BOEHLERT. It is a pleasure to welcome everyone here

this morning for a markup concerning two vitally important areas

of research: nanotechnology and climate change. I expect that we

are going to have a little more partisan sparring at today’s markup

than we generally do, so I do want to underscore our major broad

points of agreement at the outset.

On nanotechnology, we are bringing forward a bipartisan bill

that I introduced along with Mr. Honda, a bill that has broad bipartisan co-sponsorship on all sides of the aisle. And there is a

good reason for that consensus. H.R. 766 will give statutory

grounding to the Administration’s Nanotechnology Initiative while

authorizing some additional funding for interdisciplinary research

and interagency cooperation and assuring that attention is paid to

societal and ethical concerns. This bill, over time, will bolster our

economy as well as add to our storehouse of knowledge. Leadership

has tentatively scheduled Floor action for next week, appropriately

a week devoted to bills related to job creation.

The disagreements we will have today over H.R. 766 concern relatively minor issues: the nature of the advisory committee, whether

to allocate a precise amount to research on societal and ethical concerns, whether to explicitly authorize funds for the Advanced Technology Program. These are not trivial matters, but they do not detract from the broad agreement on the overall bill, including on the

need for an advisory committee, the need to study societal and ethical concerns, and the need to promote commercialization of

nanotechnology.

There will be quite a few amendments offered to H.R. 766 that

we will accept, some of which reflect the results of bipartisan staff

negotiation. So we are going to keep our eye on the ball, and we

will report out an important nanotechnology bill that will move

swiftly through the House. We are entering an era that will give

new meaning to the 60’s slogan: ‘‘Small is beautiful.’’

We will also have debate today about Mr. Udall’s bill on climate

change research, H.R. 1578, which I will oppose. Some may recall

that during the markup of the Energy Bill, I promised Mr. Udall

a vote on this measure, and I am keeping that promise.

I want everyone to understand that I view my disagreement with

Mr. Udall over this bill as one of tactics rather than substance. I

have long advocated the need for a strong, focused, coordinated research program and—in climate change. And I hope that this

Science Committee will be able to report out a bipartisan climate

research bill this year, preferably before the initiation of the Energy Bill conference, although that may not be possible. But I do

not believe that moving this bill at this time will promote the cause

of climate change.

Whatever happens today, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with the Administration to

craft a climate research bill that can move forward successfully. No

one should view our disagreement over this bill as a significant

substantive dispute that foretells any kind of realignment on the

climate issue. I look forward to today’s debate.

Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, the research that you have outlined

and the Nanotechnology Development Act, which, as you pointed

31

out, authorizes an interagency research program that is going to

have enormous consequences for the future of the Nation. Its applications are going to effect, of course, the information industry,

manufacturing, and medicine and health in many different and

very fundamental ways and indeed the scope of this technology,

which is based on the growing ability to control and manipulate

atoms, is so broad it is to leave virtually no product untouched.

The potential reach and impact of nanotechnology argues for

very careful attention at this time to the potential downsize of the

technology. I think it is important for the successful development

of nanotechnology that potential problems be addressed at this

stage and that to be addressed absolutely from the beginning and

in a straight forward and an open way. I am confident that the bill,

with some modifications that will be offered by you and by my colleagues, will accomplish this goal.

H.R. 766 is a bipartisan legislation introduced by the Chairman

and Congressman Honda and cosponsored by Members from both

sides of the aisle. It is going to authorize the National

Nanotechnology Initiative that is part of the President’s budget request. In addition, it is setting funding goals. The bill puts in place

mechanisms for planning and coordinating in the interagency research program. The bill also includes provisions for outside expert

advice to help guide the research program and ensure its relevance

to emerging technological opportunities and to industry.

I am pleased that the bill has identified the need for research to

provide understanding of potential problems that might arise from

nanotechnology applications. Some amendments are going to be offered today to strengthen this aspect of the bill, and additional

amendments will propose ways to help transition research results

into actual products and into commercial applications. These provisions seek to address the problem that was identified in the Committee’s hearings on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, as it is clear from the hearing record for H.R.

766, the bill enjoyed widespread support. It is an important bill. It

is going to help ensure the Nation maintain a vigorous research effort in a technology that is emerging as increasingly important for

the economy and for national security. The measure deserves the

support of the Committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act authorizes an

interagency research program that will have enormous consequences for the future

of the Nation.

Nanotechnology applications will affect the information industry, manufacturing,

and medicine and health in fundamental ways. Indeed, the scope of this technology,

which is based on the growing ability to control and manipulate atoms, is so broad

as to leave virtually no product untouched.

The potential reach and impact of nanotechnology argues for careful attention to

how it may affect society, and in particular, attention to potential downsides of the

technology. I believe it is important for the successful development of

nanotechnology that potential problems be addressed from the beginning in a

straightforward and open way. I am confident that the bill, with some modifications

that will be offered by my colleagues, will accomplish this goal.

H.R. 766 is bipartisan legislation introduced by the Chairman and Congressman

Honda, and co-sponsored by Members from both sides of the aisle. It will authorize

32

the National Nanotechnology Initiative that is part of the President’s budget request.

In addition to setting funding goals, the bill puts in place mechanisms for planning and coordinating the interagency research program. The bill also includes provision for outside, expert advice to help guide the research program and ensure its

relevance to emerging technological opportunities and to industry.

I am pleased that the bill has identified the need for research to provide understanding of potential problems arising from nanotechnology applications. Some

amendments will be offered to strengthen this aspect of the bill.

Additional amendments will propose ways to help transition research results into

actual products and commercial applications. These provisions seek to address a

problem that was identified in the Committee’s hearings on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, as is clear from the hearing record for H.R. 766, the bill enjoys

widespread support. This is an important bill that will help ensure the Nation maintains a vigorous research effort in a technology area that is emerging as increasingly

important for the economy and for national security. The measure deserves the support of the Committee.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. Without

objection, all Members may place opening statements in the record

at this point. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered

as read and open to amendment at any point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH

I want to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall for holding this

markup on the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. This government-wide coordination and direction legislation for federally funded nanotechnology

R&D will help us to capitalize on a rapidly emerging industry with great potential.

We are at an important stage of development in nanotechnology. While relatively

few nanotechnology products are on the market today, the industry is very close to

achieving several important breakthroughs. This legislation will help us to harness

this potential the development of nanotechnology applications that will improve our

lives in so many ways. Strengthened support of fundamental nanotechnology research at agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of

Energy, combined with improved coordination and technology transfer efforts, we

will be able to accelerate the realization of these breakthroughs.

My only reluctance is of a technical nature in that the bill authorizes more spending than is provided in our budget resolution. However, I commend Chairman Boehlert for his leadership on this legislation, and I urge all Members to support it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Congressman Honda

for introducing H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of

2003. H.R. 766 authorizes $2.1 billion over three years for nanotechnology research

and development programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department of

Energy, the Department of Commerce, NASA, and the Environmental Protection

Agency. In addition to establishing a research program to address societal and ethical concerns, the bill responds to a recent National Academy of Sciences report by

establishing a Presidential-appointed advisory committee and a committee headed

by the Office of Science and Technology Policy to promote interagency coordination.

Illinois is among the leaders in nanotechnology. During the last few years, success

in the areas of nanotechnology at Southern Illinois University–Carbondale (SIUC)

has included patented technology for conversion of carbon dioxide into methanol and

sensors to detect corrosion and stress in highway bridges. SIUC has also developed

industrial partnerships and collaborations with IBM, Proctor & Gamble, and Argonne National labs to further research and development at the atomic and molecular scale.

To keep America dominant in nanotechnology, I believe we must create a coordinated interagency effort that would support long-term nanoscale research and development, increase America’s competitiveness in nanoscale technology, and promote

effective education and training for the next generation of nanotechnology researchers and professionals. Although there is some debate concerning the advisory committee and certain funding priorities, I am hopeful they can be resolved so we can

33

move forward with this promising legislation. Increased understanding of

nanotechnology promises to underlie revolutionary advances that will contribute to

improvements in medicine, manufacturing, high-performance materials, information

technology, and environmental technologies.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this hearing is to consider H.R. 766,

the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. I am a proud original

co-sponsor of this legislation.

I am also happy to offer an amendment to the bill. My amendment will provide

for a citizen’s advisor council. It will create an advisory committee for the National

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and require the advisory committee carry out and

report on its assessments of various aspects of the initiative, including whether societal and ethical concerns are adequately addressed by the NNI.

The citizen panels will be modeled on the panels of lay people first established

by the Danish Board of Technology in the 1980s and subsequently made use of in

several countries over the past 15 years. Citizen panels provide policy-makers with

a sense of where the public stands on important questions associated with the development and application of new technology and also help to increase public understanding of the technology through informed public debate.

Under the Danish model, the lay members of a citizen panel are provided with

a planned program of reading and participate in discussions among themselves and

with a range of technical experts, as well as with spokespersons from public interest

groups representing different positions. The process, which culminates in an open

public forum to discuss the questions generated by the panel, ensures that panelists

become well informed prior to rendering judgments. The outcome of the process is

a report that focuses on social concerns, ethical judgments and recommendations for

the development of the technology under consideration.

The value of informing the public about nanotechnology and ensuring that public

concerns are taken into account as the technology develops was explored at the

Science Committee’s hearings on the legislation on March 19th and April 9th. At

the second hearing, which focused on societal and ethical issues, one of the witnesses, Dr. Langdon Winner, suggested that citizen panels be used as a mechanism

to introduce the views of the lay public into the planning for the NNI.

As nanotechnology is one of the most promising and exciting fields of science

today, it is imperative that we involve the general public in the process of its use.

I look forward to working with this committee to accomplish just that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA

I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Hall for holding

this markup, and for working with me on H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research

and Development Act.

It will take many years of sustained investment in the field of nanotechnology before the field matures and we realize its benefits, and there is an important role

for the Federal Government to play in the development of nanotechnology, since this

science is still in its infancy.

President Clinton recognized this when he created the multi-agency National

Nanotechnology Initiative, which President Bush has continued to support. The

House is now addressing the issue with the bill we are marking up today.

The interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology presents a challenge for the scientific community and the research and development bodies of governments and industry, since it transcends traditional areas of expertise.

In addition, nanotechnology will likely give rise to a host of novel social, ethical,

philosophical, and legal issues. To appropriately address these issues and challenges

will require a management structure and guidance that is responsive to the realities

of the science, as well as additional research to predict, understand, and alleviate

anticipated problems.

Other industrialized countries are already spending more per capita on

nanotechnology than the U.S. To succeed, we must be more productive at creating

new technologies and more efficient at bringing them to the marketplace. This will

require coordination and cooperation across a wide variety of institutions and disciplines such as we have never seen before in the U.S.

34

It is the laudable goal of this legislation to supply these necessary structures and

research programs, and to provide the funding necessary to sustain them.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

I would first just like to thank you and Ranking Member Hall for bringing this

excellent bill to us today. I would also like to commend our colleague from California, Mr. Honda for his great leadership on the issue of nanotechnology. I was

pleased to be a co-sponsor of his bill H.R. 5669 to make a Nanoscience advisory

board in the last Congress, and this one today.

Nanotechnology holds great promise bringing about substantive improvements in

quality of life for people in America and around the world. It is critical that as this

field emerges, that American research and American industry remain at the cutting

edge and in prime position to take advantage of market opportunities. We also must

ensure that as new technologies and products—in health care, in communications,

in energy—come about that they impact on all of the American population.

So as we go forward today, I hope we make this bill all it can be: maximizing

the efficiency and effectiveness of federal investments, spurring on this exciting

field, and ensuring the promise that it will produce good for all people.

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask Members to proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster.

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

35

36

37

38

Chairman BOEHLERT. First amendment up is the Manager’s

Amendment, and I will be very brief.

The Manager’s Amendment makes a number of changes to the

bill sought by the Administration. It allows the President to designate an existing advisory body to serve as the advisory committee

created by the bill. It makes an agency official, rather than the Director of the White House Science Office, the head of the interagency committee, and it makes several minor changes sought by

the Administration.

The amendment also changes the authorizations for the Department of Energy so that they match those in the recently passed Energy Bill, H.R. 6. I urge adoption of the amendment. The Clerk will

report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Boehlert.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert follows:]

39

40

41

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the full reading. Without objection, so ordered. Is there any further

discussion of this amendment? Mr. Honda, you are recognized.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last

word. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned, and I hope this is appropriate.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, not to bring up your amendment, to

discuss the Manager’s Amendment. Okay. Do you wish to discuss

that or do you want to——

Mr. HONDA. Yes, I wish to discuss the Manager’s Amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right, Mr. Honda. You are recognized

for five minutes.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned that this

amendment changes the advisory committee requirement to an option of either establishing a new committee or to designate an existing one to handle this issue.

I have heard the concern that the cost of running a new advisory

committee is too high, that we shouldn’t be wasting money in this

matter. If you look at the numbers, we are authorizing over $700

million annually, while the cost of running a committee is about $1

million. This amounts to little over 1/10 of 1 percent of the federal

investment in nanotechnology. And it seems to me that this is a

small price to pay for a committee designed to reassure the public

that we are adequately considering both the promise and the potential risks of nanotechnology, and it is well worth the investment.

It is my understanding that the Administration desires this

amendment so that it can designate the President Council and advisors on science and technology as the advisory committee, and I

have met the chairman of that committee, and he is a very well

thought of individual and a very good chairman of PCAST.

While I admire this distinguished group, it is my understanding

that none of the members of PCAST has direct technical expertise

in the field of nanotechnology or any professional expertise in dealing with the societal implications of new technologies, such as

nanotech. The point of the advisory committee is to allow expert

voices from outside the federal agencies to provide advice on

nanotech, and this amendment puts that mechanism at risk by allowing an advisory committee that is not composed of experts in

the field. I understand that the Administration has threatened to

block this bill unless this amendment is added.

And Mr. Chairman, I know that you share my interest in seeing

this bill move forward, and so I expect that it will pass so that the

bill may move on, but I must respectfully oppose this change to the

bill and hope that the sensible changes I will propose later in this

markup to try to ensure that the needed expertise is represented

on the panel will be given serious consideration both today and as

we move forward on bringing this bill to the full Floor. I ask my

colleagues to oppose this amendment on this item, and I yield back

the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Honda.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

42

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA

I am concerned about the provision in this amendment that changes the requirement currently in H.R. 766 that an Advisory Committee on Nanotechnology be established to an option that either a new committee be established or an existing one

designated to handle this responsibility.

I have heard the concern expressed that the cost of running a new advisory committee is too high, and that we shouldn’t ‘‘waste’’ funding in this manner. But if you

look at the numbers, we are authorizing over $700 million annually here, while the

cost of running a committee is approximately $1 million. It seems to me that spending a little over one tenth of one percent of the Federal Government’s investment

in nanotechnology on a committee designed to reassure the public that we are adequately considering both the promise and potential risks of nanotechnology is a

small price to pay, and well worth the investment.

It is my understanding that the Administration desires this amendment so that

it can designate the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology as

the advisory committee. While I admire this distinguished group, none of the members of PCAST has direct technical expertise in the field of nanotechnology or any

professional experience in dealing with the societal implications of new technologies

such as nanotechnology.

The point of the advisory committee is to allow expert voices from outside the federal agencies to provide advice on nanotechnology. This amendment puts that mechanism at risk, by allowing an advisory committee that is not composed of experts

in the field.

I understand that the Administration has threatened to block this bill unless this

amendment is added. I know you share my interest seeing this bill move forward,

Mr. Chairman, and so I expect that it will pass so that the bill may move. But I

must respectfully oppose this change to the bill, and hope that the sensible changes

to the bill I will propose later in this markup that would try to find some way to

ensure that the needed expertise is represented on the panel will be given serious

consideration both today and as we move on toward bringing this bill to the floor.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. It is my feeling that granting the President

the flexibility he has asked for to designate a standing presidential

advisory committee, such as PCAST, will enable the Executive

Branch to receive immediate advice on nanotechnology research, directions, and policy rather than wait for the formation of new a

committee. PCAST has already developed a work plan to oversee

federal nanotechnology programs, and this is not something the

Administration is viewing casually or something that the other

branch of government, and that is us, has developed and the Administration has little interest in. The Administration is really

pushing this Nanotechnology Initiative, and so are we on a bipartisan basis. And they want to get up and running as soon as possible. And they may conclude later that PCAST is not the vehicle

to carry this oversight forward in counseling, and they may suggest

that they create a new advisory committee. And we give them that

flexibility to do that.

So for that reason, I would urge my colleagues on the Committee

to embrace the Manager’s Amendment with this included, and I

would ask if there are any other Members who seek recognition before we proceed. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. No, Mr. Chairman. I submit your En

Bloc amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Anyone else care for any——

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. I think it is appropriate that Mr. Honda set out the

change in this amendment and the deviation from the established

articles. I think what really Mr. Honda pointed out is that PCAST

43

has their plate pretty well full loaded right now, but I think the

real decision that you have to make, and probably there will be differences on this side of the aisle, maybe some over there, as to how

much flexibility they want to give the Administration. Some of us

probably want—I want to give them more than probably a lot of

people want to give them, because I have high regard and high respect for the Administration and the decisions they have made to

date. I think it is just a decision each of us has to make for ourselves, but Mr. Honda does a service to point up the differences

and the difference that this amendment would suggest: you drop

the word ‘‘established’’ and leave ‘‘designated’’ as it is in there.

Thank you, Mr. Honda, for that, and I yield back my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. I just want to say no two people could have a closer relationship in developing this overall bill

than Mr. Honda and I have enjoyed. And these are not major differences, but if I am going to make an error, it is going to be an

error on the side of giving flexibility to the Administration. Because

once again, let me restate the position. This is not something the

Administration is casual about, Mr. Honda, as you and I well

know; this is something the Administration takes great pride in

this Nanotechnology Initiative. This is something that we have

been able to convince the Administration of, and it wasn’t a particularly hard sell, that we have to go forward with for all of the

right reasons, including following through on the commercial development and everything else. So I just wanted to stress that this is

critically important that we go forward. And I would hope that everyone else would agree with that observation.

Let us give them some flexibility. And once again, PCAST, I

think they are going to instantly be up and running, and they have

already developed a sort of—in the pre-planning process, a modus

operandi. And if the Administration determines that they are not

up to the job, look—the Administration is looking for a lot of opportunities for success, then they will quickly do something else, an

advisory committee.

Mr. Honda.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, yeah. Well, I don’t

disagree with the way you describe the importance of the bill and

the Administration’s attitude toward this bill. I think that I am

very happy about that.

What concerns me as a teacher is that in the future we will not

know what the unintended consequences of—that nanoscale technology may hold for us. And it seems to me that this advisory committee that would be made up of other folks with input into policy

making would broaden and enable us to anticipate different kinds

of questions. For instance, in stem cell research, I don’t think anyone ever anticipated a blocking of our progress on stem cell research. Well, we have—when we have talked about cloning and

things like that, but when the subject came up, Mr. Chair, it

brought up a great fear in a good segment of our population. And

I suspect that nanoscale technology, because of this ubiquitousness

and where it can go would require a good discussion, public dialogue, through this advisory committee and to bring the public

along in their education so that we can minimize anxiety and fears

and maximize science.

44

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? The Chair, using the authority—what was that? Mr. Gutknecht, the distinguished Vice-Chairman of the all-powerful and

all-prescient Science Committee.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to side with you in

this debate. And I think in some respects, this is a distinction without much difference. This is—we are embarking on a whole new

field, it seems to me, of science. And this committee, I think, and

the Congress in general are going to revisit this issue many times

in the future. And I think as we make this historic first step, I tend

to agree with the Chairman that we should give the Administration

the benefit of the doubt, at least for now. And we can revisit this

in the future. And if it seems that we are not getting the kind of

input from scientists around the country, then obviously we can

take another bite of this apple.

So this is the first chance, not the last. I would hope Members

would side with the Chairman and give him the benefit of the

doubt on this issue. I think he has been very fair and open with

all Members from all points of view. And so I hope we will give it

a chance to go forward and support the Manager’s Amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. Is there anyone else who seeks

recognition?

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chair.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Wait until I see—hear somebody. Oh, Mr.

Honda.

Mr. HONDA. As your partner on this bill, and I love my Chairman, but I would request a recorded vote on this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman has requested a recorded

vote. The Chair is going to take advantage of the position of the

Chair and call for a five-minute recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. Now that we have had our coffee break,

the question is on the Manager’s Amendment. All in favor say aye.

No. The ayes appear to have it. The Manager’s Amendment is

passed.

Oh, Mr. Honda would like a roll call.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes aye. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Smith votes aye. Mr. Weldon.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Barton.

Mr. BARTON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Barton votes aye. Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert votes aye. Mr. Nick Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Smith votes aye. Mr. Bartlett.

45

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. Mr. Ehlers.

Dr. EHLERS. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes aye. Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Nethercutt votes aye. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes aye. Mrs. Biggert.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes aye. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Johnson votes aye. Ms. Hart.

Ms. HART. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hart votes aye. Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sullivan votes aye. Mr. Forbes.

Mr. FORBES. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes votes aye. Mr. Gingrey.

Dr. GINGREY. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gingrey votes aye. Mr. Bishop.

Mr. BISHOP. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bishop votes aye. Mr. Burgess.

Mr. BURGESS. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Burgess votes aye. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes aye. Mr. Feeney.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Hall.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes no. Ms. Johnson.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lampson votes no. Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Larson votes no. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Honda.

Mr. HONDA. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Honda votes no. Mr. Bell.

46

Mr. BELL. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bell votes no. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes no. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Davis votes no. Ms. Jackson Lee.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman votes no. Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Moore.

Mr. MOORE. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Moore votes no. Mr. Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Weiner votes no. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson votes no. Mr. Cardoza.

Mr. CARDOZA. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Cardoza votes no.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. How am I recorded?

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is not recorded.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.

Chairman BOEHLERT. What is the vote?

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 22, no, 19.

47

48

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. Then the motion is passed. The

amendment is passed.

We are going to go next to amendment number 13, because we

have got all of the Members here, Mr. Honda’s amendment. Mr.

Honda, you are recognized on amendment number 13 for such—for

five minutes.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at

the desk.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Honda follows:]

49

50

Mr. HONDA. This amendment responds to the change that—made

by the Manager’s Amendment that made the establishment of a

new advisory committee on nanotechnology optional. The Administration has indicated that it feels the President’s Council on—advisors on science and technology can perform this role. Mr. Chairman, I think I made my point just during the Manager’s Amendment, so I would like to just drop this amendment and continue

with the work.

Chairman BOEHLERT. You withdraw the amendment?

Mr. HONDA. Yes.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA

This amendment comes in response to changes in the original bill made by the

Manager’s Amendment. That amendment changed the requirement that the President establish an Advisory Committee on Nanotechnology to an option of either creating a new advisory committee or designating an existing panel to serve in the advisory committee role.

The Administration has indicated that it feels that the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) can perform this role. While I respect

this distinguished group of advisors, the fact remains that none of them have direct

technical expertise in the field of nanotechnology, or in dealing with the societal

issues that nanotechnology may bring up. These are the qualities I envisioned in

an advisory board when I originally proposed it in the 107th Congress in H.R. 5669,

with the support of a number of my colleagues on this committee.

I could have moved to strike the phrase ‘‘or designate’’ from the Manager’s

Amendment, but I know that would have been defeated, since that was the whole

purpose of the amendment. I also appreciate that this option is better than eliminating the advisory committee language altogether, but I still believe that we need

to ensure that technical expertise in nanotechnology from academia and industry is

brought to the table when developing nanotechnology policy.

To achieve this goal, I offer this amendment, which adds clarifying language to

the bill regarding the qualifications expected of a nanotechnology advisory committee. The bill currently states that the committee should include ‘‘representatives

of research and academic institutions and industry, who are qualified to provide advice and information on nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, education, technology transfer, commercial application, and societal and ethical concerns.’’

Nowhere in this description is there mention of direct experience in the field. My

amendment requires that committee members have established records of distinguished fundamental and/or applied scientific service in the field of nanotechnology

or have professional expertise relevant to the societal, ethical, educational, legal,

and workforce issues related to nanotechnology.

These seem to me like reasonable qualifications for members of a committee providing advice on nanotechnology. If this expertise is not to be found among the

members of PCAST, the Executive Order creating the Council permits the establishment of a PCAST working group that draws members from outside the Council. In

this way, we would be sure to involve technical experts in the discussion. Without

my amendment, there is nothing requiring the Administration to talk with these

representatives, which is exactly the situation we have today with the National

Nanotechnology Initiative, where voices outside the agencies are not heard.

If my colleagues want this nation to develop a strong nanotechnology policy for

the future, they should support this amendment, and I urge them to do so.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Next amendment is amendment number

14 by Eddie Bernice Johnson. Is Ms. Johnson here? All right. We’ll

defer. She is due back at 11:00. We’ll defer action on that amendment.

Next amendment is amendment number 15 by Mr. Honda. Mr.

Honda is recognized for five minutes. Well, the Clerk will report

the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Honda.

51

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, could we move on the item on the

agenda, and I will be back presently?

Chairman BOEHLERT. You want to pass on this one?

Mr. HONDA. For the moment, please.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The next amendment is 16 by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Bell.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am bit surprised we are all the

way to amendment 16, but if——

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair is exercising its prerogative to

deal with the amendments where there might be some spirited discussion while we have a full compliment of Members in attendance.

Mr. Sherman is recognized for five minutes. The Clerk will report

the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Sherman

and Mr. Bell.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Bell follows:]

52

53

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Sherman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I feel obligated to provide that kind of ‘‘spirited discussion’’ that justifies the attendance of so many Members

of the Committee.

We are authorizing a science program here that is at the very

cutting edge and raises questions every bit as large as those faced

with when the nuclear fusion and nuclear fission were just ideas

on a piece of paper. And the—most of the programs we authorize

here are going to go to physical scientists who will produce wonderful reports, will add to our scientific knowledge, and at least include a footnote or two dealing with their view of the social implications, the ethical implications. As we have learned recently from

the debate on stem cell, as we have learned in Iraq, which is basically could be viewed as an enterprise under the jurisdiction of this

committee since the entire purpose of that enterprise was science

control to make sure that certain scientific knowledge and capacity

was not exercised by a dictator.

New technology raises important social problems, and we need to

make sure that it is not just a footnote in a physical science report,

but rather that a certain portion of the resources that we are authorizing here go to looking ahead and seeing what the problems

are. We had an entire panel here dealing with just some of the aspects of those issues. And so I think it makes sense to avoid what

I think would be the tendency. The tendency would be this is a

physical sciences program. It is going to authorize money controlled

by people who are interested in the physical sciences. And they will

produce great, cutting edge, new knowledge in the physical

sciences.

Only if we mandate that a certain portion of the money is used

to take a look at the societal implications are we likely to see the

societal work progress along with the physical sciences. I would

like to reserve the balance of any time I have and perhaps Mr. Bell

could also speak to this.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Bell is recognized.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The witnesses at the

Science Committee’s April 9 hearing unanimously recommended an

explicit five percent set aside for societal and ethical research.

Without proper funding, as Mr. Sherman correctly points out, the

research will not go forward.

In June 2002, the NNI implementation plan designated 5.6 percent of the Initiative’s total budget for these activities. The problem

is that the Initiative has not followed through. The 2002 National

Research Council assessment report of the NNI cites a failure of

the Initiative to meet its funding goal for societal and ethical activities for fiscal year 2001. The Committee’s best estimate is that

for fiscal year 2001, less than half the amount budgeted was actually spent on these activities.

The NNI funding targets for the societal and ethical activities

dropped from over five percent for fiscal year 2001 to 2.4 percent

for fiscal year 2002 and then to 2.2 percent for fiscal year 2003. If

we are going to be serious about addressing societal and ethical

concerns associated with nanotechnology, excuse me, we need to

54

make sure the funding for the research will be at the five percent

level, and this amendment will ensure that.

I would also point out that in connection with the human genome

research, there is a five percent set aside for to look at societal and

ethical concerns, and I think the same is certainly justified in relation to nanotechnology.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will thank both Mr. Sherman and Mr.

Bell. The Chair opposes this amendment. And let me say, I have

been pleased to work with both of you on some of the amendments

the Committee has already adopted, but I don’t—I do oppose this

amendment to set aside a fixed percentage of research funds specifically for research on societal and ethical concerns.

Perhaps there should be an amount set aside for societal and

ethical concerns, but I don’t think it is wise to set a precise number

in statute. We can’t know what the appropriations proportion will

be. That will depend on how nanotechnology develops and what

kind of research on societal and ethical concerns is proposed and

a lot of other factors. We will accept an amendment that will enable Congress to track how much is being spent on research on societal and ethical concerns, which I think is very important. And

we can take action if these—those fields are inadequately funded,

although I don’t think they will be.

I am concerned that setting a precise set aside may undercut another goal of the bill, which is to make sure that societal and ethical research is as closely integrated as possible with the physical

science research in this bill. Setting a—in mutable funding categories does not encourage that approach.

Is there anyone who seeks recognition? If not, the vote—Dr.

Ehlers.

Dr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to emphasize the point you made. Clearly we need some research on the

issue, but five percent is a really large chunk, particularly in the

early stages. There is going to have to be some thought put into

the issue before you can even begin the experiments defining the

societal implications. And by and large, it is going to take a lot less

money for equipment than you do for the other research. I think,

first of all, I am opposed to setting a percentage until we know just

what problems have to be addressed, and secondly, I am sure the

percentage should be much smaller than five percent, because that

type of research is far less expensive than the nanotechnology research.

I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now we have limited federal dollars going

into research. We have limited dollars that we are able to spend.

Most of us have projects that we would like to see funded. And for

us to take money away from the physical sciences and actually expanding the knowledge base that permits us to accomplish this or

that scientific end and put it into the ‘‘social discussion’’ of the social sciences, I think, is totally unjustified. I mean, what we are

talking about here is certifying a social elite that will be able to

discuss the ethical issues on a much higher plane, of course, than

55

the American people can discuss for themselves what the ethical

and social issues are of the research that we are talking about.

Furthermore, what are we elected for? This is our job as well to

discuss the social and ethical issues. The last thing we want to do

is to put together panels of pontificators in order to judge whether

or not ethically, from their superior vantage point, the work of our

physical scientists is appropriate or not. No, that is up for us to do.

And then we can explain ourselves to the voters. We don’t need a

social elite to put a rubber stamp of approval on what we believe

to be ethical or unethical. We are the ones who are voted by the

people to be accountable in this area.

Thank you.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes. Who seeks recognition?

Ms. WOOLSEY. I do.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who is I? The gentlelady is recognized.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. I would just like to, in response to the gentleman that—on the other side of the aisle, say

that we have no problem in making statements about stem cell research and about cloning and about other experiments and other

important things that we could be looking at in this nation. The

idea that we would expend federal funds for research and not care

what the results are until after the fact just shows the

shortsidedness of this argument we have going here. Maybe it

shouldn’t be five percent, but by golly there should be some money

set aside that we look at the effects of what we are doing.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. Being the quintessential moderate that I am, I agree that we should have some money reserved

for research on the societal and ethical concerns, but I just oppose

the specific amount suggested in the amendment, the five percent.

The Chair recognizes Dr. Gingrey.

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, just—I think one

of the authors mentioned the comparison of this bill and the

amount of—set aside for nanotechnology and compared it to the

Genome Project and stem cell research. You know, as a physician

Member, I would say that you are, really, I think, in that instance,

comparing apples and oranges. And it is not the same. I think as

far as genome and stem cell research and societal and ethical implications, I think, are a lot—potentially a lot more serious and a

five percent expenditure would seem appropriate, but it seems inappropriate for nanotechnology.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentlelady is recognized.

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that the amendment is worth supporting,

and in some ways, I am reminded of the early ’70s when we were

first getting into manipulation of genes. And there was science involved, but there were huge implications for society that needed

analysis. And certainly Mr. Rohrabacher is correct: ultimately the

Congress has the responsibility to vote and to craft public policy.

But I think we will do that job much better if we receive the information from scientists who know so much more than we do about

some of these technical issues. And if we can get the—their wisdom

56

so that hopefully we can make wise choices, the country will be better served.

And I would like to yield to the author of the amendment, Mr.

Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. First, I would like to indicate I have conferred

with Mr. Bell that if someone wants to suggest a different percentage, if five percent is thought to be too high, we would certainly

be interested in a friendly amendment. But this amendment does

not specify an exact number, it specifies a floor. And that floor is

the same that is found with the National Center for Human Genome Research.

And it is not apples and oranges. Nanotechnology includes genetic engineering or includes things so closely related to genetic engineering as to raise the same societal and ethical concerns. The

idea of creating molecules that will attach to human genes and

change who we are, who is to say that is not nanotechnology but

is only genome research technology. The distinction is to where a

nano starts and a gene ends is not going to be clear until the

science is developed and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. SHERMAN. I will yield for a question.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If we have limited resources, which we are

always operating on limited resources, and are you willing to take

money away from an investment in these—in research that might

come up with, for example, the cure for cancer or something like

that with nanotechnology in order to finance the philosophizing——

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me reclaim the time. The gentleman suggests

somehow that this bill or this amendment will create a social, philosophical elite. So I hope very much that he supports another

amendment that I will offer that will provide for public input in

getting the public energized, because if people out there understood

that the definition of what it is to be a human being may change

in the next generation or two, we would get input not only from

an elite group of advisors—self-appointed advisors, but from the

public as a whole.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much will it cost to get that?

Mr. SHERMAN. And then as to whether it is a good investment,

I would ask would it have been wise to have begun thinking about

a nuclear proliferation treaty before we develop nuclear weapons?

Obviously, with World War II we were not in a position to do that,

but this technology is every bit as explosive as nuclear weapons or

nuclear technology. And it behooves us to try to look at the social

implications before the science puts forward all of these new possibilities.

As to taking money away from physical research, look at all that

the Federal Government does and say does it make sense that we

take a look at where we are going as a species and what

nanotechnology, I certainly think it is a good investment of public

resources. Now you can postulate the idea that that takes money

away from something that will cure cancer. It could also just take

money away from something that would improve something in

Huntington Beach.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith.

57

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Societal and ethical concerns need to be

considered. They need to be dealt with. The question before us is

should we assign a specific percentage. And let me just remind everybody that it says ‘‘the program shall be designed to ensure that

societal and ethical concerns will be addressed as the technology is

developed by establishing the research program in that way.’’ So it

is already in the bill. It is demanded in the bill. And the only question is how much. Maybe it is going to be 1 percent. Maybe it is

going to be 10 percent, because the demand is already in the bill.

And I think our discussion should be should we assign a specific

percentage. And I think we should not limit it to five percent nor

maximize it to five percent. We should leave it as the bill is written

to say, ‘‘This is the responsibility. Do it.’’

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for that very concise explanation of the bill’s intent. That is the Subcommittee

Chairman, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research. And

the Chair here is friendly to your thrust with this amendment. We

are just opposed to the specific amount for the very reasons that

Chairman Smith has just outlined.

So Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman and move to strike the last

word. I commend my colleagues for their attention to this. I think

they are right on the money in the sense of the notion that we have

to address these societal implications.

But I also share the concern as a social scientist myself about

setting a dollar figure and somehow equating that because we

spend five percent or two percent or seven percent we somehow

have done our job. I would be more interested in finding some way

that we could periodically have a report back to this committee on

the implications, the societal implications, because I do think they

have raised an important issue. And I wonder if there might be

some way that rather than fixing a dollar amount, which doesn’t

in any way, shape, or form, in my judgment, guarantee that the result will be achieved, but if we might find a way that reports back

to this committee on a bi-annual basis on the implications of this

technology and on the inclusion or ways in which this is being addressed and the research. I would personally be happier with that

than a dollar figure.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Baird, let me just, if I may, just respond. There are other amendments that we are prepared to accept, which will do precisely that. And I thank you for that intervention, because you speak for a number of us in your approach to

the issue. So let me thank Mr. Bell and Mr. Sherman for their

amendment. I hope that they would agree that there is the general

consensus that we want to address societal and ethical concerns.

We want to do so with as much specificity. We want to require reports back to ensure that that is being done. We are just trying to

avoid an arbitrary figure, like five percent, or as Mr. Smith said,

10 percent or one percent.

Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. You

bring up trying to avoid an arbitrary number. Well, that is precisely the goal of this amendment is to prevent it from being arbitrary all down the line to set a percentage here on the front end.

58

And I would submit to this committee that we should learn from

our previous experience. Stem cell research, as Ms. Woolsey correctly points out, is a perfect example. Why look at the societal and

ethical concerns after the fact? This amendment gives this committee an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that we can act in

a proactive fashion.

One of the biggest criticisms of government is that we are always

reacting, that we do not take action on the front end. And this is

an opportunity to do just that. And we have heard from a panel

of experts that there will be serious societal and ethical concerns

associated with nanotechnology. Let us be looking at those as the

technology develops, not after the fact. And I would dare predict

that some of the people who sit here today and complain about setting a percentage for how much money should be spent studying

societal and ethical concerns will be some of the same—very same

people who will come down after the fact complaining about societal and ethical concerns associated with nanotechnology. Let us

act now on the front end so that we don’t have to be catching up,

playing a game of catch up down the line after the technology has

already been developed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Bell, just let me say the Chair finds

that—itself in agreement with the very distinguished social

sciences that we have on our Committee and he happens to be on

your side of the aisle. I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Baird

has said. And I find when we have expert opinion within, it is all

well and good to point to some diversity of opinion from outside,

but I would like to honor the expert opinion from within. And I

think there is general agreement on both sides of the aisle that you

have addressed a very important subject with your amendment.

And there is general agreement that we want to ensure that as we

go forward with nanotechnology research and development we pay

attention to societal and ethical concerns and moreover that we require annual reports to the Congress on how that is being addressed. And then if we find that to be inadequate, we can do

something more. But we are trying to avoid any arbitrary figure in

this bill, but not ignoring the legitimate needs of a comprehensive

bill.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes, Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. You must feel supportive, then, of Mr. Baird in that

his testimony coincides with the testimony of all of the witnesses

we had here, what, just a couple of weeks ago, from my understanding. Is that your understanding?

Chairman BOEHLERT. My understanding is that all of the witnesses said we had to address, we should address societal and

ethical——

Mr. HALL. And five percent was accepted by them, because that

is what the genome percentage was set at.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, no, we had a couple of witnesses who

suggested a five percent figure. We had a number—we had other

witnesses who were not arbitrary with any figure, but said we have

to address the overall issue, and that is what we are doing, addressing the overall issue. So we had some division or difference of

59

opinion on any percentage from the expert witnesses. We have an

expert number within our ranks, a very distinguished social scientist in his own right, who is also a pretty darn good legislator,

and I find myself in agreement with him.

So if there is anyone else seeking recognition, we don’t want to

prolong this, because this could be a long day.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Barton.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I attended briefly part of the hearing on this issue several weeks ago. I have a nanotechnology center

near my congressional district in the University of Texas at Arlington. I think some of these issues may need to be addressed, but I’m

not so sure that some elitist ivory tower of Ph.D. is any better off

at doing this than just rank-and-file Americans. So I—you know,

I think nanotechnology, in my mind, is just little science, tiny, tiny

science. And we can work on some of these things, but I don’t see

that we have to dedicate a certain percentage. So I am going to

support you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARTON. And I want to yield to Mr. Rohrabacher, because he

has something very profound to say on this.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Of course I will be supporting the Chairman,

but let me just note the different—I just disagree in the amount

of money that——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Microphones.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will just speak louder. I don’t care just

about the percentage, although I think mandating a specific percentage is in and of itself a threat, because it is very hard—and

it could lead to some loss of some very important resources that

might further help better the life of many people. But I also am

very afraid about this basic concept of setting up sociologists and

setting up a panel of sociologists, professors, religious experts, and

Ph.D.s to try to prevent what our scientists, what our physicists,

what our biologists can look into. This is ridiculous. And the American people will have an input. I do agree we should certainly go

out of the way to have public input, but that is what we are elected

for. We are elected to make ethical judgments as to how to implement knowledge once we have that knowledge. So we should be

making—and we should have town hall meetings and discuss

whether or not we should put money into stem cell research. We

should not have some religious philosophers, some sociologists or

whatever, or Ph.D.s preventing stem cell research before we do

anything.

Well, that is my argument. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We don’t have the microphones, so we are

trying to defer, because the recorder can’t—can you hear us okay?

Can we proceed?

Mr. WEIRICH. One at a time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. The Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

And make sure we can wrap this conversation up. I think it is clear

to everyone that there is widespread support for research on societal and ethical concerns. Where the difference is arbitrarily setting a figure at five percent.

60

Mr. Miller with what I hope will be the completing words on this

very thoughtful amendment.

Mr. MILLER. That would be fine. I just wanted to—I attended

most of the hearing on societal and ethical concerns, and if it were

not for the Chairman’s questions, I would have attended even more

of them. And the kind of societal and ethical concerns that we are

talking about, in my part of the country, a generation or two ago,

we imported an ornamental Japanese—nanotechnology is a manipulation of matter at the molecular level. And it gets pretty tedious

trying make—manipulate one molecule at a time. So part of the

technology is adding self-replicating molecules. That is a pretty

frightening concept. The phrase used was—which goes out of control, who knows how much it could reproduce. And I am very concerned about the prospect of having—I have been trying to figure

out what the real risk of that is, can it be controlled. It is something we ought to think about before we plunge in here. Okay. We

are not talking about just funding some college professors, Ph.D.

and philosophy circus. We are really talking about people who

know the science and can tell us what is the real risk and what

do we do to contain that risk.

So we need to be doing something to address societal and ethical

concerns, and whether it is five percent or three percent or regular

report back or something, I would like to know what is really happening.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And with that, I think we are—Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate your comments. I would like to disassociate myself from those that said—demeaned academics. We need

bright people.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I can’t hear you.

Mr. BAIRD. I would like to disassociate myself from those who

have demeaned academics. We need bright people looking at the economics, the cost benefit ratio of where we invest these dollars. We

need bright people, but I don’t contend that any of us on this committee are necessarily well qualified to look at some of those issues.

We need to get those people here. We need to listen to them. And

demeaning them, I think, is a mistake. So while I do not agree that

we set aside a two or five percent limited funding, I think it is a

mistake for this committee, the Science Committee, to demean any

branch of science that could inform us in our judgment and help

us—guide us with wisdom in how to spend these dollars.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

This committee never demeans, as a Committee, the contribution

of academics. I think we rely very heavily on their extensive input.

The gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HALL. I don’t demean them, but I don’t like them. When I

was in college, they ruined the curve for me.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The vote is on the amendment 16. All

those in favor, say aye. Opposed no. The nos have it.

The next amendment is amendment number 17 of Ms. Jackson

Lee. The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

61

62

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are we to—first of

all, I would like to say that this legislation is long and coming. And

I really do appreciate the fact that we now have legislation that

will include inprofitability, if you will, interaction between our scientific agencies, such as NASA, the National Science Foundation,

Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that I am offering now amendment number 3. Oh, we are going to number 17 then, I see.

Amendment number 17. And I hope that we will find a common

bond with this amendment as we have been able to find on many

others. This amendment will help to ensure that federal investments in nanotechnology yield optimal results for the American

public and the American economy. It will do this facilitating—it

will do this by facilitation the flow of information and technology

from the Federal Government and research scientists down to the

state level and private sectors.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that if this committee moves on this

amendment, we will make the many bright researchers, scientists,

and speakers in our state and local governments and the private

sector extremely pleased, because we will focus on the collaborative

response and the collaborative necessity of making the

nanotechnology effort prosperous, productive, and widespread.

During the recent nanotechnology hearing here in the Science

Committee, a Board Member of the Nanobusiness Alliance made

the suggestion that we need to support technology clusters in order

to fuel growth of the nanotechnology industry. I am please to say

that my home state of Texas, as well as California and New York,

already have statewide efforts in place to improve the efficiency of

nanotech development. Several other states have received—excuse

me, have recently announced their formation of statewide initiatives in nanotechnology. Obviously, this is an industry of the future, but it doesn’t make sense, Mr. Chairman, for every state to

have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to setting up such

nanotech initiatives.

My amendment will require the Technology Administration at

the Department of Commerce to work with states with existing

nanotechnology initiatives and with states that wish to develop

such initiatives. Now they will sponsor a series of seminars on developing nanotechnology hubs and state led nanotechnology initiatives. And these events would bring together researchers, government officials, corporations, industry leaders, start-ups, and other

interested parties who will drive the nanotech-industrial revolution.

My understanding of the work that Secretary of Commerce

Evans has been doing over the last couple of weeks is actually

going to states and talking about the connection of business between the Federal Government and the state governments. I believe this is a very comfortable fit, this amendment, with what we

are trying to do today and how we are trying to enhance our states

to get on the front lines, to get engaged, and to make this a very

successful effort.

The Technology Administration already has considerable expertise in promoting state led technology development efforts, such as

this, and promoting technology efforts generally. Currently, AT has

63

the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology

that supports innovation and technology-promoting partnerships

between state and local governments, institutions of higher education, non-profits, and the private sector. That program has been

very effective, so this new project should be successful as well.

As the program progresses, the AT will also maintain an electronic archive of best practices for promoting and developing

nanotechnology hubs and state led initiatives. As an aside, Mr.

Chairman, in a meeting with the Committee on Homeland Security

Issues, we have heard that it was very helpful that they understood from the local level what are the best practices that they utilized to ensure the safety of their communities. Here is another example of best practices could be gleaned naturally and we could

have states not reinvent the wheel. The archive will help states

stimulate growth in the emerging industry to help propel the

United States into a continuing dominant role in nanotechnology

research and in developing products and technology to improve

human existence.

Mr. Chairman, I have always said that this is a very important

Committee. I continue to maintain one of the most important committees of this Congress. And I maintain that science will be the

job creator of the 21st Century. We are in the 21st Century. We

are in need of jobs being created. Jobs are created on the ground

in our local states—our respective states and our local communities. What better partnership than to pass this amendment so

that the agency can—the agencies or the agency can focus on working with states constructively to promote nanotechnology so that

jobs can be created. And I would ask my colleagues to support this

amendment.

And with that, I reserve my time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

This amendment will help to ensure that federal investments in nanotechnology

yield optimal results for the American public and the American economy. It will do

this facilitating the flow of information and technology from the Federal Government and research scientist, down to the State level and to the private sector.

During the recent nanotechnology hearing here in the Science Committee, a Board

Member of the NanoBusiness Alliance made the suggestion that we need to support

technology clusters in order to fuel growth of the nanotechnology industry. I am

pleased to say that my home state of Texas, as well as California, and New York

already have statewide efforts in place to improve the efficiency of nanotech development. Several other states have recently announced their formation of statewide initiatives in nanotechnology. Obviously, this is an industry of the future. But it

doesn’t make sense for every state to have to re-invent the wheel when it comes to

setting up such nanotech-initiatives.

My amendment will require the Technology Administration at the Department of

Commerce to work with states with existing nanotechnology initiatives, and with

states that wish to develop such initiatives. They would sponsor a series of seminars

on developing nanotechnology hubs and State-led nanotechnology initiatives. These

events would bring together researchers, government officials, corporations, industry

leaders, start-ups, and other interested parties, who will drive the nanotech-industrial revolution.

The Technology Administration already has considerable expertise in promoting

state-led technology development efforts such as this, and promoting technology efforts generally. Currently TA has the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology that supports innovation and technology-promoting partnerships beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:06 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
64

tween state and local governments, institutions of higher education, non-profits, and

the private sector. That program has been very effective. So, this new project should

be successful as well.

As the program progresses, the TA will also maintain an electronic archive of best

practices for promoting and developing nanotechnology hubs and State-led initiatives. The archive will help states stimulate growth in this emerging industry, and

help propel the United States into a continuing dominant role in nanotechnology research and in developing products and technology to improve human existence.

This amendment will ensure that federal investments yield maximal payoffs. I

hope you will support it.

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I have been pleased to work with you on

two of the amendments that we will accept, because they are good

amendments. They add strength to it. And I think this is a good

approach, but I think it is overly prescriptive, and it doesn’t rise

to the level of necessarily be codified. I think in report language,

we could deal with this in a way that will make you happy and

make all of us happy. So I would offer that—a pledge to you that

we will work cooperatively with you to have report language that

will address the subject and I hope that will be satisfactory.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, if—could I engage with you

just for a moment?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Sure.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I guess I would have to ask you to yield or——

Chairman BOEHLERT. I would be glad to yield.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to seek some other procedural form. Mr. Chairman, the concern I have, and I appreciate the

fact that we have worked collaboratively. I think there is merit to

the amendment from the perspective that our states will go wanting if we don’t have an actual, if you will, fix. I would had to call

it structural, because I think there is flexibility, but an actual partnership established by the legislation. And I would humbly ask the

Chairman to consider even to the extent of whether or not you feel

that it is too constrictive, I don’t think it is, but certainly I think

that——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Prescriptive.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. You are being more relaxed then, so

we are not constrictive, but we are restricting and prescriptive. But

I would be happy to suggest or work with language that could get

in that added a measure of additional flexibility. But I think putting the language in the actual text of the bill just helps put our

states on the map. And they are so very important, Mr. Chairman,

in terms of making this work and creating jobs. That is the only

intent that I had was to try to make sure that they were viable

partners in this process. I am wondering would we find any sort

of way we could have the language in so that the states would be

on the map and be part of the job creation that I think

nanotechnology is going to generate in creating these partnerships

that are so very important. That is the gist of what this is.

When I say sponsor seminars, Mr. Chairman, we do that all of

the time. That is why I made the point of suggesting Secretary

Evans has been on the road. He has been doing road trips all

across the Nation speaking to businesses. I think that is what you

65

call a seminar. So we could indicate sponsored events, sponsored efforts. But I just think it is so very important. We have each of our

states—if I might, just one moment. Each of our states have the—

I am trying to think what they are called, trade promotion departments and other departments that deal with generating businesses

dealing with technology. That is the kind of partnership that I am

talking about. They have a direct link to this legislation, Mr.

Chairman, and so that is what I would hope that we might be able

to look at. The state hubs, my state happens to have a sort of a

hub scenario. But I think this would be very helpful for the states

to wake up and say, ‘‘Look, we are in the bill. We get a chance to

work directly with this great partnership.’’

Chairman BOEHLERT. Do you think that we would send the proper wake up call to the states if we included it in the report language?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, that is why I am trying to convince my

esteemed Chairman that if we could find a way to have——

Chairman BOEHLERT. You have already made the sale, in short

language, now the question is do we have a handshake and go forward?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, what is your issue for not having it in, if I could understand that, in the legislation? I was trying

to offer some softer language to get in the legislation versus the report language. I——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well——

Ms. JACKSON LEE.—am concerned that the—you know, how

many people will turn to the report language and find it, that is

really the sense of my concern.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, my experience is that people that are

deeply and intimately involved in these programs look at the report

language. The rest just ignore it, but we are not concerned so much

about the rest as we are of those who are totally immersed in the

overall endeavor.

And my general feeling is, and this is from years of experience

in the House as well as my previous experience as a staff member

for 15 years. The fact of the matter is, we could pass a bill that

you couldn’t lift. You would get a hernia if you lift it, because we

would prescribe every phase of activity, and I don’t think that is

our job to prescribe every phase of activity to say every single thing

that should happen as the program goes forward, particularly in a

program that is in its infancy and is emerging. So if—we will do

this. If you are willing to come to some understanding that we will

work with you to develop strong report language, fine. If not, we

will go to the vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, Mr. Chairman, if the language—if you

are willing to develop strong report language that would include

the particulars that I have in the amendment, and if you say

that—well, I won’t say if you say, because I think that it has to

be my judgment on the question of how many people read the report language, but if I have—if the language points out the particular suggestions that are made in this amendment, and I think

benign suggestions, by the way, but effective and helpful suggestions, I would be willing to work with staff. I am—I would like to

get on the record, though, Mr. Chairman, that I would hope that

66

we would have—that the report language then would allow us to

be more instructive. And that would include the language that is

in this particular amendment that we have before us. And I would

be glad to work with the language in this amendment to include

it as report language.

Chairman BOEHLERT. So be it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I thank the gentleman for his consent to

work with the language of this amendment and to work with me.

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. And does the gentlelady withdraw her amendment?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the

amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. Now the

next amendment is amendment number 14, Mrs. Eddie Bernice

Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. I apologize for——

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. JOHNSON. Oh, sorry.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Johnson follows:]

67

68

69

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment

puts into the bill a citizen’s panel advisory committee. And the rationale for this is to make sure that there is not just a lot of controversy. Nanotechnology can create a lot of questions in the public

mind and to make sure that it doesn’t just consist of the researchers who are not communicating with the general public. In the subsection—this subsection is also asking that we use the model developed by the Danish Board of Technology for citizen panels for technology assessment, which allows regular citizens to apply and be

considered for joining this panel.

I think that it is a—the intent is to have a group of people that

can get their concerns and get their questions answered, pose questions so that the research can go forward without a great deal of

controversy, whether they think that we are using cloning or whatever. This could be diffused by having a citizen’s panel advisory

committee as a part of this to be somewhat of the—somewhat of

a watchdog, but also a PR kind of thing in order to keep the major

controversy out of this type of research. And I would move its adoption.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The Chair opposes

this amendment. I think this is one more example of micromanaging. The amendment sets in stone an elaborate process for seeking citizen input that we might find is not the best way to promote

debate in this particular issue. I support the idea of promoting a

broader and better-informed debate on nanotechnology, but I don’t

think this is the way to achieve it.

I offered the gentlelady an opportunity to scale—to have a

scaled-down version of the amendment, which I thought would fit

better into the bill, but there was a reluctance on the part of the

author to alter her amendment. So with that, the Chair will have

to reluctantly oppose the amendment. I am not in opposition to

public citizen input; I just don’t want to be guilty of micromanaging

every single phase of this new program.

Is there anyone else that——

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT.—seeks recognition?

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Barton.

Mr. BARTON. I am going to say up front I am going to support

you on your position, because you are the Chairman, and I don’t

know all of the implications, and I am told the White House has

approached you on this and asked you to oppose it. But I have got

to admit, if we oppose the elites advising, how can we oppose the

average citizens advising? I mean, it just seems to me that some

version—there is some happy medium between the amendment

that we defeated and this amendment. And if I have got to choose

between, I would go with Eddie Bernice and try to find a way to

accommodate it, because I see no problem in having average citizen’s panels advise on these ethical problems, because that is what

society is is an amalgamation of the average citizen. And there are

obviously some elites that are going to be a part of it. But you

know, I am going to oppose it with you, but I think Mrs. Johnson

has a pretty good idea here.

70

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and we offered to

work on that idea, but there was a reluctance to make any adjustments.

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, what was your offering? I am

sorry.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The staff will have to—that is a topic for

another discussion.

Ms. JOHNSON. I mean, under provisions of desperation, I might

go with it.

Mr. BARTON. Can I reclaim my time just briefly, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Barton.

Mr. BARTON. I just—you know, to show that there is at least one

Texas Republican with some class on the Committee, Mr. Smith

has quoted to me the charge of the live brigade is why I should be

with you. Ours is not the reason why. Ours is but to do or die.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there anyone else who seeks recognition?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. I believe the quote is, ‘‘Do and

die.’’ And it is not do or die in California. And I would like to know

whether or not there are going to be any Ph.D.s and sociologists

on these citizen panels. I would——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Fine. Anyone else seeking recognition? If

not, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye.

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, just before the vote, you didn’t answer my question about what you offered as——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Staff worked the better part of yesterday

talking with your staff and the minority staff on this very issue.

Now I don’t know the details——

Ms. JOHNSON. I am sorry. I was supposed to be in four places at

one time this morning, that is why I am asking.

Chairman BOEHLERT. As we all are every single day, and we are

all burdened by conflicting commitments. But the fact of the matter

is a good deal of time and effort was spent trying to work out something that would be acceptable, and essentially we were told not in

this arena. So we have to accept that as gospel and move on.

So the vote is on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed

no. The nos appear to have it.

The next amendment——

Ms. JOHNSON. You will be sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Don’t mess with Eddie Bernice. Amendment number 2. The Clerk will read the amendment. All right.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Smith of

Michigan, Ms. Hart, and Mr. Wu, and Mr. Matheson.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Smith, Ms. Hart, Mr. Wu, and

Mr. Matheson follows:]

71

72

73

Chairman BOEHLERT. Let me point out that this is an amendment, a bipartisan amendment. All four of the principle sponsors

worked long and hard to develop it, and they have come to agreement. You all have the amendment before you. I think we should

come to agreement. The Chair is prepared to accept it. Is there

anyone who seeks recognition?

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. I just wanted to say——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith first, then Mr. Wu.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Well, it is about time we got back to

the bipartisanship of this committee, and this is a bipartisan

amendment with Ms. Hart and Mr. Wu and Mr. Matheson. It—

we—very briefly, we just simply met with leaders in the nanotech

industry. They said we should consider microscale as a way to implement nanotech. This, in addition to developing the kind of environment that we could move ahead efficiently is why it is a bipartisan amendment and why I think there is no disagreement to including it in the bill.

And I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Now to Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you and Mr. Smith

and the good work of the Committee staff on both sides of the aisle.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM MATHESON

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Honda, thank you both for your leadership on the important issue of nanotechnology.

I join my colleagues, Mr. Wu, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Hart in asking for the Committee’s support of this amendment to establish a network of shared academic facilities

and technology centers.

The interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology is one of the most interesting applications of science. I hope that by developing a network of research centers, we

can take full advantage of the strengths of the major players in nanotechnology, be

they academic institutions, and State governments or industry leaders.

Nanotechnology research at the University of Utah, for instance, is already benefiting from the assistance of state-run Centers of Excellence program, which focus

on commercialization of research and technology. I look forward to seeing similar

ventures throughout the Nation, as work in this field of science continues.

I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan amendment, thank

you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. If there are no

other comments, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor say

aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed.

The next amendment, amendment number 3, Ms. Jackson Lee

and Mr. Wu. And let me say at the outset that the Chair is prepared to accept this excellent amendment in the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that dominates so much of our consideration.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee and Mr. Wu follows:]

74

75

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am delighted to sing from that page, Mr.

Chairman. And in order to ensure that the room remains at least

somewhat attended by Members, I will not sing.

I am delighted to work with my friend and colleague, Mr. Wu,

on this. And this again goes to the idea of how crucial this legislation is. Simply what it says it that we expect for the

nanotechnology industry to yield great opportunities for America,

Americans, and the American industry. And nanotechnology may

well dominate our research institutions in a few decades. It is critical as we kick off this very important initiative that we ensure

that all institutions with great skill and expertise that could be involved would be involved in this revolution.

This nation has a rich and diverse institutions of higher learning.

And so the Jackson Lee–Wu amendment makes sure that we tap

into all of the resources that the system has to offer. And this

amendment in particular just simply says that we work to the

maximum extent practical with the diverse institutions, including

historically black colleges and universities, those serving large populations of Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian American, or other

underrepresented populations. We hope clearly that what this does

is answer the question again of the idea of creating work for the

21st Century but also creating the scientists, the thinkers, the researchers, the inventors of the 21st Century, and certainly that

should be representative of America and that is representative of

all of the, excuse me, diverse groups of America. And I would simply ask for my colleagues to support this. And I am delighted to

join with Congressman Wu.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

I am pleased to offer this amendment with my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Wu.

I also appreciate the cooperation of you and your staff on development of this

amendment.

Nanotechnology will yield great opportunities for America and American industry.

Nanotechnology may well dominate our research institutions in a few decades. It is

critical that as we kick off this exciting initiative, that we ensure that all institutions with great skills and expertise, that could enable the nano-revolution, are

brought to the table. This nation has a rich and diverse system of institutions of

higher learning. This Jackson Lee/Wu amendment makes sure that we tap into all

the resources that that system has to offer by stating that activities in the new program will include, to the maximum extent practicable, diverse institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and those serving large proportions

of Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, or other under-represented populations.

This amendment will have other benefits as well. It will ensure that the next generation of leaders in this important emerging field, represent the diverse views and

experiences of the American population. This is especially critical in a field such as

nanotechnology, with such great potential for impacting our society and culture.

I am pleased that institutions like Texas Southern University, a fine Historically

Black University in my district, has already taken a lead on many key issues in

their College of Science and Technology. But we must ensure that such programs

continue to flourish and produce results.

Again, I thank you for working with Mr. Wu and me on this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you so much. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to

take a moment again to thank you and thank my co-author, Ms.

76

Jackson Lee. But I also wanted to, in this instance, take a moment

to talk about something, which I think most of us, including yours

truly, did not understand well until fairly recently. And that is

that, you know, we need to encourage all Americans to go on in the

education cycle and to better themselves and better society.

There is a very broad assumption about Asian American populations. And by looking at detailed data within the last few months,

I have finally come to a better understanding of the phenomena

that I did not understand very well before. If you disaggregate

Asian-Pacific Americans by income level and by education, what

you find is an unusual sort of bi-model distribution, a statistical bimodel distribution. That is you will find a—what I will technically

refer to as a hump in the graph. That is an overrepresentation of

Asian Americans in the high-income level, and you will find an

overrepresentation in the low-income level, that is it doesn’t come

toward the center as it does in many—in a usual distribution

curve. It is really a hump in the low-income level and a hump in

the high-income level.

And it is similarly true of education. You have a, for Asian American populations, a hump in the high school or below education

pool, and you also have a hump in the graduate school and above

level. So again, you have a—not rising toward the center of the

education curve, but really a driving toward the extremes, if you

will. And I think that the popular media tends to focus upon the

distribution curves at the high end, the high income, the high education. And there is a lack of attention to the low education and

low income and of Asian-Pacific Americans, you know, distributed

statistically. And I think that America is a country where we believe in mobility, in the ability to move from that curve, you know,

from any particular part to any other part of the curve. And that

is part of what we try to do in education in science and research

and part of what we are trying to do with this amendment and others.

And thank you very much.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, thank you very much for that enlightenment, and I do say this is a valued addition to the overall

bill, and I thank both of you for offering it. Did you notice that, Ms.

Johnson?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will make this very quickly. Booker T.

Washington made magnificent contributions to the United States of

America and led way—led his way—the way for many black Americans who had been held in slavery to look at the sciences and education as a means of not only improving themselves but making

major contributions to our society. And I think that this is done

right in the same spirit of Booker T. Washington and very much

in the tradition of our country.

And thank you very much.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The vote is on the

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it.

The amendment is passed.

77

Next amendment, amendment number 4, another amendment

from Ms. Jackson Lee, who so often contributes so much to so much

of our work. And this, too, is a worthy addition to the bill. And the

Chair is prepared to accept it. The Chair recognizes Ms. Jackson

Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. I am

very pleased——

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. I

am sorry.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Ms. Jackson

Lee of Texas.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

78

79

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. I am

pleased that the response and the further edification given to the

previous amendment by Mr. Wu and by Mr. Rohrabacher. And I

might add that this follows somewhat in line with the thinking of

trying to advance people from all walks of life. But just recently,

though, we don’t discuss particular finites numbers, and the

Science Committee, in particular, a report was issued suggesting

that African American children in the United States are living in

a higher degree of poverty than had been expected.

This amendment deals with recognizing that nanotechnology can

help those who are struggling to make ends meet without health

insurance, living in dilapidated houses or homes, or poor access to

good nutritious food or prescription medications. We are now also

seeing that the have-nots are finding themselves on the wrong end

of the technological divide. So as we have a backdrop of people living in poverty, we still have the continued challenge, Mr. Chairman, of the technological divide.

As the Internet and other technology are making many of our

lives so much easier and more productive, change has not come to

all communities. And so it is very important that we ensure that

we address that question. This amendment helps to ensure that

nanotechnology advances bring about real improvements in quality

of life for all of the American people, not just a few. It is a small

wording change, I do recognize, that makes a profound statement

of commitment to the well being of all Americans.

And so it just simply focuses, in conclusion, on integrating research on societal and ethical concerns with nanotechnology research and development and ensuring that advances in

nanotechnology bring about improvements in quality of life for all

Americans. We never—we may never know, Mr. Chairman, where

this research may wind up. We don’t know whose lives it may impact, but as we are doing so, let us think about those who are living, possibly, in squalor, who are living in poor homes or living

without access to technology. Let us make sure that as we advance,

we try to lift all votes.

And that is the gist of this amendment, and I appreciate very

much the kindness of the Chairman in accepting this amendment.

I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

We live in a society where the rift between the haves and the have-nots is becoming increasingly troubling. While we have some of the richest people in the world,

we have others who are struggling to make ends meet: without health insurance,

living in dilapidated homes, with poor access to good nutritious food or prescription

medications.

We are now also seeing that the have-nots are finding themselves on the wrong

end of a ‘‘technological divide.’’ As the Internet, and other technology, are making

many of our lives so much easier and more productive, change has not reached all

of our communities. Too many, especially in inner cities like my district, or in rural

areas are missing out on the tech revolution.

These people are already fighting to keep up and compete in school, or in the

workforce, and the technological divide makes that fight even harder. I do not want

advances in nanotechnology to further exacerbate the divide. It seems possible that

nanotechnology could bring about spectacular advances in health care, or commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:06 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
80

nication—things that we cannot yet even dream of. It would be inappropriate if federal tax dollars, from hard working Americans at all levels of the socio-economic

spectrum, ultimately only helped the upper crust.

I am pleased that the underlying bill includes provisions to provide for research

into the societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology. That research will

address many of the concerns I have.

This amendment further helps to ensure that nanotechnology advances bring

about real improvements in quality of life for all the American people, not just the

select few. It is a small wording change that makes a profound statement of commitment to the well-being of all Americans.

I hope you will support it. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. You just articulated a compelling case for

the amendment. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor say

aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed.

The next amendment is amendment number 5 by Mr. Sherman,

another amendment that the Chair is prepared to accept. There

have been extensive negotiations, and the staff will distribute the

amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And the Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Sherman.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Sherman follows:]

81

82

Chairman BOEHLERT. And Mr. Sherman is recognized for five

minutes.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be concise.

I want to thank you and your staff for working with me on this and

helping to identify some of the specific components of what it will

mean to look at the societal and ethical implications of

nanotechnology.

What we did is we inserted some language in the bill, which is

on amendment—the amendment now being distributed. And it is

my understanding that you are willing to accept strong report language that will deal with some of my other concerns. In particular,

that this review of societal concerns will include an effort of forecast future long-term developments so that we can identify the societal implications that they raise. We will include, and I know Mr.

Rohrabacher will be pleased with this, efforts to involve the public

and seek public input and will address the societal concerns raised

by molecular engineering and molecular assembly technology. So I

didn’t get all I wanted in the bill, but if I can get that and some

good report language, I would be absolutely thrilled.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. And your understanding is absolutely correct. We will work with you on the report language.

And the amendment addresses a number of the issues that were

brought before the Committee at our hearing on April 9, making

it clear that societal and ethical concerns include environmental

concerns and the potential implications of technologies that may result in the development of non-human intelligence.

Is there anyone else who seeks recognition on this amendment?

If not, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed

no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.

The next amendment is amendment number 6 offered by Mr.

Bell. The Clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Bell.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Bell follows:]

83

84

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Bell is recognized for five minutes with

the assurance that the Chair will accept this amendment as a worthy addition to the bill.

Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate

your acceptance of this amendment. While not setting forth a precise percentage for funding, this amendment requires that interdisciplinary research centers, which will be established under the

bill, include activities that address societal and ethical concerns of

nanotechnology. This amendment requires that the interdisciplinary centers include activities that address those societal and ethical concerns, some of which have been discussed here at the table

today. While there may be disagreement as to how much should be

spent on this type of research, I think that what we have heard

today makes it very clear that we all see the importance of studies

on the societal and ethical concerns connected to what is likely to

be the future technological reality.

It is clear that social scientists and ethicists need to partner with

physicists, chemists, and engineers who are the nanotechnology

subject matter experts. By explicitly requiring these activities as

part of the interdisciplinary research centers, there is a better

chance of establishing close collaboration between the social scientists and the scientists and engineers engaged in developing

nanotechnology, and I would urge everyone’s support for this

amendment.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. It simply says that for that portion

there should be a report back to Congress on the societal and ethical as in addition to what is already in the bill on reports, and we

should support the amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. I move to strike the last word. I want to commend

Mr. Bell. I think he is absolutely right, as discussed earlier. We

have got to address these issues. They should be addressed early

on, and a multi-disciplinary approach is increasingly applied across

the scientific disciplines and with good results as we address not

only the micro-level, and in this case, nano-level implications and

the biological and economic implications, but the broad social implications. This technology is going to change our society, I think, in

more ways than the microcomputer has done.

And Mr. Bell and Mr. Sherman’s leadership on this are to be

commended, and I strongly support this passage.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay. Anyone else seek recognition? If not,

the vote is on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed

no. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed.

Next amendment is amendment number 7, Mr. Sherman and Mr.

Bell. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Sherman

and Mr. Bell.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Bell follows:]

85

86

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And the Chair also

is prepared to accept this. It is a worthy addition to the bill, and

the Chair recognizes Mr. Sherman for any comments he might

make.

Mr. SHERMAN. We have discussed the importance of getting at

least an annual report on how we are dealing with the review of

the sociological issues or societal issues. And that is what this

amendment does.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Bell, any comments? No. And the vote

is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. No. The ayes have it.

The amendment is passed.

The next amendment, number 8, Mr. Matheson. The Clerk will

report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Matheson.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Matheson follows:]

87

88

Chairman BOEHLERT. This is an amendment that the Chair is

prepared to accept. It is a clarifying amendment. The Chair recognizes Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real briefly. First, I

want to thank you and your staff for your cooperation.

This is a rather subtle change, but in the bill right now, section

4 does call for an annual report to be submitted to Congress from

the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. And

this amendment adds to the section in the bill talking about what

should be in that report. It should also address information on

nanotechnology research infrastructure needs. And simply stated,

this is just an effort that allow the scientific community and supporters here in Congress to determine whether or not

nanotechnologies facilities and instrumentation needs are being

adequately met.

And with that, I will yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM MATHESON

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Hall, thank you for your consideration.

Research facilities and instrumentation are a crucial aspect of any serious scientific endeavor, especially something as precise as nanotechnology. This amendment requires the annual report to include information on research infrastructure

needs.

This information will allow the scientific community and its supporters here in

Congress to determine whether or not nanotechnology’s facilities and instrumentation needs are being adequately met.

Now that Congress is making a long-term commitment to nanotechnology research, let us also make a commitment to ensuring our scientists have the appropriate tools and facilities in which to carry out their work.

I hope my colleagues can join me in supporting this amendment, thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The vote is on the

amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it,

and the amendment is adopted.

Next amendment, amendment number 9 by Mr. Honda. And the

Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Honda.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Honda follows:]

89

90

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair, after extensive negotiation with

the co-author of this bill, as agreed to. The Chair recognizes Mr.

Honda.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate all of the

work that you have done and the leadership that you have exhibited on this bill.

And I had a five-page typewritten report, but I thought I would

just condense it right down to two sentences thanking you and

then indicating that the amendment requires a plan for the—for

using the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business

Technology Transfer Research Programs to support nanotech development. And two, an annual report assessing the information of

the implementation of the plan.

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to thank you for also inviting a member

from the private sector who made the suggestion, Alan Marty of JP

Morgan that reminded—who reminded us that it is not enough to

focus only on basic research, but also suggested that we include the

federal funding to promote the commercialization of nanotech. And

he provided a number of reasons why federal efforts in this area

are necessary. So I commend the Chair for inviting that witness.

And I would yield the remainder of my time, Mr. Chair.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA

This is a very straightforward amendment, developed in response to recommendations made by witnesses during our committee hearing and concerns that have been

expressed to me by companies trying to break into the field of nanotechnology.

My amendment would require the development of a plan to utilize federal programs, such as the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) and the

Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program (STTR), in support of the

goals of accelerating the commercial application of nanotechnology innovations in

the private sector. It would also require reporting to assess how agencies are implementing this plan, including the amount of SBIR and STTR funds supporting the

plan.

At our first hearing, our only private sector witness, Alan Marty of JP Morgan,

reminded us that we need a balanced approach to funding nanotechnology, that it

is not enough to focus only on basic research. Mr. Marty suggested that we include

federal funding to promote the commercialization of nanotechnology. He provided

the Committee with a number of reasons, from a venture capitalist’s point of view,

why federal efforts in this area are necessary. I commend the Chairman for inviting

this witness with his private sector perspective on how to promote the commercial

development of nanotechnology.

Fortunately, the Federal Government has already created programs to engage in

the sort of activities that Mr. Marty has suggested we include in our

Nanotechnology R&D Program.

The SBIR program is designed to encourage small businesses to realize their technological potential and provides them with an incentive to profit from its commercialization. Between 1983 and 2001, federal agencies have funded more than $12 billion in SBIR awards. In FY 2001, the five agencies included in this bill made a total

of $265 million in SBIR awards.

STTR is designed to encourage commercialization of university and federal lab

R&D by small companies. The STTR provides funding for research proposals that

are developed and executed cooperatively between a small firm and a scientist at

a non-profit laboratory. In FY 2001, agencies authorized in this bill spent almost

$16 million on the STTR program.

The SBIR and STTR programs represent significant federal resources devoted to

technology development and commercialization by small firms. These are the type

of entrepreneurial firms where most nanotechnology R&D is occurring. During a period of budgetary problems, we need to ensure that these programs support the goal

of promoting the development of nanotechnology.

91

My amendment will do just that, giving us a better idea about how well federal

agencies are able to promote the private-sector development of nanotechnology. I

urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And the vote is on

the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have

it, and the amendment is adopted.

The next amendment, amendment number 10 by Mr. Wu. The

Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Wu.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Wu follows:]

92

93

94

Chairman BOEHLERT. He is coming. We will—bear with us for

one minute. The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman, Mr.

Wu. No explanation of amendment number 10, which we have accepted enthusiastically.

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, based on the collegial cooperation, which

we have had over the last number of amendments, all I would like

to do is thank you and the staff on both sides for your fine cooperation and their hard work on this amendment. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you so very much. And you point

out something that deserves being emphasized. This committee has

had a history of working exceptionally well on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Except for Eddie Bernice.

Chairman BOEHLERT. From time to time, we do have some differences, as you would expect it. We are dealing with some important work here shaping——

Ms. JOHNSON. I don’t have any difference with you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT.—department and public policy. And Eddie

Bernice Johnson, we love you to tears. But the amendment is offered by Mr. Wu, and the vote is on that amendment. All in favor,

say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is

adopted.

Now for the good of the order, Ms. Johnson, you feel it necessary

to say something constructive?

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for your

bipartisan handling this committee. We have not had any problems. I am from Texas. When get to offer something, I am just determined to do it.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And we know your determination, and we

know of your many contributions to the work of this committee.

And we thank you for both.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The next amendment is amendment number 11 offered by Mr. Sherman. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Sherman.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Sherman follows:]

95

96

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Sherman, you know this is a result of

extensive negotiations, and the Chair is prepared to accept it. You

are recognized for such comments as you feel necessary to make.

Mr. SHERMAN. This amendment provides that—for a study to

look at the safety of nanotechnology, particularly the self-replicating nanoscale machines and devices. And I want to chime in on

the bipartisan nature of this committee. Most of my experience in

the Congress has been on my two other committees. I just joined

this committee a few months ago, and it is, indeed, the most bipartisan Committee that I am acquainted with, and I want to thank

the Chairman for accepting this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Committee is a vehicle for reason in

a sea of confusion. Thank you very much.

The vote is on Mr. Sherman’s amendment. All in favor, say aye.

Opposed no. The ayes have it. Very appropriate, social scientist.

And the amendment is adopted. The gentleman is recognized for

five minutes to explain his outstanding amendment.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. This amendment mirrors an amendment that we adopted for the Energy Bill, and it is—

it, of course, has its roots in some of the hearings that we have had

where we were told by various people in government, especially in

NASA, that they were having trouble finding people in the hard

sciences and with mathematics and backgrounds and education

backgrounds to be able to hire for their organizations.

So what we do is we permit various agencies and departments

in the government, including NASA and NIST, etc., to set up a

scholarship program in order to pay for the graduate studies. We

are talking about the graduate students for Master’s degrees and

Ph.D.s in physics and science and biology, et cetera, in those areas

of the sciences and engineering that are—where the skills are

needed in those various departments and agencies. So they will set

up the scholarship program that meets their need. And then students, U.S. citizens who are—would like to further their education

but can’t afford it, will receive a scholarship, will receive full funding for their education. And but for every year of their education

they receive their full funding through the scholarship program,

they will be expected to work for the government for two years.

Now they are not being—they won’t be volunteers; they will get

paid for working for the government, just like anybody else, but we

will expect them to work and that those skills be put to use. Let

me just say that when we are talking about nanotechnology, for example, we need people in the patent office who are going to be able

to have the skills necessary to work with the various companies

and organizations and research laboratories to patent their findings, but the people in the patent office have to have the educational background necessary to do that job. And right now, the

patent office is sorely in need of people with the educational backgrounds to help them in things just like what we are talking about

today, nanotechnology.

So this will go a long way to filling that gap throughout the Federal Government and permit people to earn their college—higher

college education.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. I just have one question for the author of the

amendment. Has he taken careful drafting steps to make sure that

none of this money could go to anyone studying the social sciences?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will defer to——

Chairman BOEHLERT. People of good cheer. The vote is on the

amendment by Mr.——

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. I would like to thank Mr. Rohrabacher for his kind comments earlier and for this fine amendment. I very recently visited

the Johnson Space Center, and I know that many of our Members

have. And it is in the home districts of many of the Members on

this committee. And if you just take a walk around and note the

personnel, but also if you speak with the people there and talk

with them about brain drain issues and challenges in recruiting,

this is a very, very important and positive amendment.

114

I would inquire as of the gentleman from California, I have reviewed this amendment. There is a provision in here, as he states,

that the folks who are eligible for these scholarships must be U.S.

citizens. And I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he would

consider changing that provision from citizens only to both citizens

and permanent residents of the United States.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would be happy to accept permanent residents, yes.

Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman. Would the Chair permit that as

a secondary——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Counsel, tell me how to go about this. We

just got agreement here. How do we go about amending? So you

will have the amendment. I—the Chair recognizes Mr. Wu to offer

an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. WU. If I could borrow Mr. Udall’s copy right here, I would

move that on page two of the gentleman’s amendment, subsection

B2, the words ‘‘be a United States citizen,’’ that we would add the

words ‘‘or permanent resident.’’

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I would accept this amendment and just

suggest that this amendment definitely helps the—with the overall

spirit of what I am trying to do, it will ensure as we—Ms. Jackson

Lee is trying to ensure that we have broad minority representation

in every program that we do. And I think this amendment will ensure even more minority participation.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the amendment offered

by Mr. Wu to the amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher. All in

favor, say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And the amendment

to the amendment is embraced.

Now the question is on the original amendment, as amended. All

in favor, say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. And the amendment, as amended, is passed. Thank you for that cooperation.

The next amendment, amendment number 15 from Mr. Honda.

The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Honda.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Honda follows:]

115

116

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. This amendment addresses the concerns

raised by the private sector witness during our hearing that we

need to not only fund a program on basic research, but also small

but robust program to bridge the gap between the research lab and

the marketplace. This amendment would transfer a nominal

amount of the funds authorized in this bill, less than five percent

of the annual total, to the National Institute of Standards and

Technology’s Advanced Technology Program for Funding,

nanotechnology grants only. This amounts to $20 million in the

first year and 24 by the third year.

This amendment was prompted in part by a question that our

Chair asked during the hearing about the commercialization of

the—commercialization part of the equation in asking ATP for example. The witness, Mr. Marty, gave a lengthy explanation about

the unique role that ATP could play in promoting a strong

nanotechnology industry. Based on this exchange, I am offering

this amendment to transfer funds to ATP. And my colleagues in

the House are often concerned that funds in programs are well

managed. ATP has a proven management track record. In OMB’s

management assessment review, ATP had a perfect score in the

management category.

Of the 234 agency programs reviewed, less than 10 percent received a score of 100 for management. Time and time again, Members of this committee have expressed a support for ATP, praising

it during the hearings on the science and tech budget and working

to save it from termination. If we are really serious about supporting the robust development of nanotech and ensuring that the

benefits of huge federal investments in this basic research reach

the public, as our questions and comments suggested during our

hearings, then it would seem to me that the Members of this committee would be concerned about it.

I understand, Mr. Chair, that there is some concern on your part

as to the viability or the wisdom of having discussion of ATP on

this bill, and I was hoping perhaps that the Chair wouldn’t mind

working with me, and I would like to work with you to find some

way that we can get some sort of full Committee markup of the—

of this during the NIST reauthorization by July 1.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah. Let me just say, I mean, I have to

reluctantly oppose this amendment. And it might surprise some,

because I was one of those who helped create and strongly support

the Advanced Technology Program. But you know, it has proven to

be very controversial, and I don’t think it is a matter we should entertain in this bill, because it is just going to slow down progress

on something we all agree on. And I don’t want to slow down

progress on something we all agree.

So I will make this pledge to you. I will continue to work with

you to figure out the best approach to take to get where we want

to get with the Advanced Technology Program, which you and I

agree makes a contribution.

Mr. HONDA. I would love to do that, Mr. Chair. Thank you very

much for that opportunity.

117

Chairman BOEHLERT. Then will the gentleman withdraw his

amendment at this time?

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chair, I will withdraw this amendment.

[The prepared statement by Mr. Honda follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA

This amendment addresses the concerns raised by the private sector witness during our hearing and that I have heard from many companies working in or trying

to break into the field of nanotechnology. Their point is that we need to not only

fund a program on basic research, but also a small but robust program to bridge

the gap between the research lab and the market place.

This amendment would transfer a nominal amount of the funds authorized in this

bill, less than five percent of the annual total, to the National Institute of Standards

and Technology’s (NIST) Advanced Technology Program (ATP) for funding

nanotechnology grants only. This amounts to $20 million in the first year, $22 million in the second year, and $24.2 million in the third year.

This amendment was prompted in part by a question that the Chairman asked

during the hearing about ‘‘the commercialization part of the equation, ATP, for example?’’ The witness, Mr. Marty, gave a lengthy explanation about the unique role

that ATP could play in promoting a strong nanotechnology industry, in addition to

comments in his written testimony. So, based on the testimony and the Chair’s

question and the witnesses’ response I am offering this amendment.

These transferred funds would only be used to fund nanotechnology grants. ATP

already has sufficient administrative funds. In addition, ATP has a proven management track record. In OMB’s Performance Management Assessment review, ATP

had a perfect score in the management category. This is an important fact. Of the

234 agency programs reviewed by OMB, less than 10 percent received a score of 100

for management.

My colleagues in the House are often concerned that funds and programs are wellmanaged. Well, here we have a case where OMB has determined that a program

manages its funds well. It seems to make sense to me that rather than have agencies try to develop programs of their own, we should utilize an existing, well-managed program. My colleagues on this committee have time and again expressed their

support for ATP, working to save it from being de-funded by this Administration

and praising it during hearings on the overall Science and Technology budget.

I know that the Administration, for reasons that change each time we ask why,

wants to terminate ATP. This has raised opposition to my amendment on the

grounds that by even bringing up the subject of ATP, we will no longer have the

support of the Administration.

This may be so, but if my colleagues are serious about supporting the robust development of nanotechnology and ensuring that the benefits of huge federal investments basic research reach the public, as their questions and comments suggested

during our hearings, then they should support this amendment and I urge them to

do so.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. The Chair

recognizes Mr. Baird. Does he have an amendment? All right. The

amendment—the Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. I have an amendment at the desk to H.R. 766 offered by Mr. Baird.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Baird follows:]

118

119

120

121

Chairman BOEHLERT. And the Clerk will distribute the amendment. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chair. It is my intent to actually withdraw this amendment in favor of—I would hope you would consider

report language.

Let me explain why I am offering this and why we are willing

to consider report language. This deals with a particular application of nanotechnology known as systems biology. Systems biology

is being pioneered by some researchers in our state and also in

California. And it is, I believe, the next step in applying

nanotechnology to our virgining knowledge of genomics and also

our improved information management capacity.

Essentially, it involves analysis, a simultaneous analysis of multiple aspects of biological and chemical data. Using

nanotechnological devices, we will soon, I believe, be able to, with

a small sample of tissue or blood, simultaneously evaluate many,

many, possibly thousands, of various factors in an instant. That allows us to provide advanced diagnosis with minimal interference in

tremendously potential predictive capacities.

The reason I am going to—what we are doing here is trying to

emphasize the importance of this without applying a particular dollar figure to it or a particular percentage figure to it. We just want

the Committee’s recognition of the importance of this. Dr. Leroy

Hood, and many others, who are recognized as among the world

leaders in nanotechnology, are behind this. These initiatives have

attracted literally hundreds of millions of dollars of capital funding,

and I really believe will move us forward to the full potential of

nanotechnology. But I did not feel it appropriate to say let us put

a particular amount on this just for the Committee to say, ‘‘We recognize the importance of this.’’ And I would be happy to provide

other Members with data about this. But when you meet with the

scientists who are doing this, read the studies they are involved in.

It is mind boggling and exciting work. And I am prepared to withdraw the amendment as an amendment, but would appreciate the

Committee’s consideration of report language.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Do you wish to speak to the amendment,

Mr. Sherman?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, just briefly. I think that Mr. Baird’s comments show that nanotech—the lines between nanotechnology on

the one hand and genetic technology on the other are going to

breakdown in the midterm and the long-term, and that is why it

is important that our review of the long-term societal impacts of

nanotechnology include genetic engineering and genetic sciences.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. And Mr. Baird, thank you for

your contribution and in response to your request that we have

unanimous consent to have your amendment withdrawn, without

objection, that is so ordered.

Now are there any other amendments? Hearing none——

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman, I——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I do have a comment on the final passage of the bill, if this is the appropriate time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. This would be an appropriate time, Mr.

Smith.

122

Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. My only reluctance is somewhat technical. And that is we are authorizing at a level that is greater than

the budget resolution that we passed. And with my particular concerns that we are approaching for 2004, borrowing $560 billion to

accommodate our spending, it is the kind of precedent that I think

we should try to avoid. And so I still encourage everybody to—well,

I vote for final passage, but I do want to express that it should be

one of our concerns that not only the appropriators but the authorizers have some responsibility to stay within the budget.

Thank you, and I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for that contribution.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I guess I am going to be partisan, but we could

withdraw the tax cuts and afford all of this.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well——

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield.

Chairman BOEHLERT.—it is nice to have a little levity to any

hearing. With that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Recognized for five seconds.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The—a comment

was made earlier in the debate, and as I indicated, I think the

Science Committee does a lot of good work. This is a cutting edge—

somewhat cutting edge legislation on a cutting edge topic.

My question to you, Mr. Chairman, is how can we be more effective as Members of Congress, and I might have associated myself

with the words of my esteemed colleague from California, but it

has already been said. But how can we be more effective that when

we pass legislation that includes issues of working with historically

black colleges and other minority colleges, or as Mr. Rohrabacher’s

very effective amendment, reaching out to diverse groups in terms

of the kind of scientists and technologists that we will have that

the agencies follow the legislation? It is a very difficult challenge.

And I would just raise to the Chairman that I hope as we pass this

legislation and ultimately gets to the Floor and reaches the Senate

and gets signed, it is so vital, it is so, sort of, cite specific that we

can be assured that it is going to be followed and some of these

very important unique aspects that Members have worked on will

actually get implemented. I don’t know how we can do that, Mr.

Chairman, but I would like to join you with the Members of this

committee to see that this legislation gets implemented as we have

at least attempted to design it.

And I yield back to the Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And that is one of the things we have to

get better at, all of us on both sides of the Capital, in terms of oversight. We have got to make sure that when we pass legislation and

we are specific in our intent that the Executive Branch follows the

intent. And it is our obligation when they appear before us to reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:06 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
123

mind them of their obligations and to make certain they do what

we want them to do.

Thank you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the bill, H.R. 766, the

Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed no. In the opinion of the

Chair, the ayes have it.

I now recognize Mr. Gordon to offer a motion.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 766, as amended, to the House with

recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore,

I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report

and make necessary technical and conforming changes, and that

the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the

House for consideration.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the

bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying

aye. Opposed no. The ayes appear to have it, and the bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid

upon the table.

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in

which to submit minority or additional views on the measure. I

move pursuant to clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the House of

Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to

offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 766 or a similar Senate

bill.

[The markup of H.R. 1578 followed.]

[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(125)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS ON H.R. 1081,

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES RESEARCH

ACT

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. EHLERS. Good morning. I would like to call the Subcommittee to order. I apologize for the delay in starting, but because this is a markup, we need a sufficient number of Members

here for that. And also, I was delayed in a meeting with the Director, Office of Management and Budget, as were a few other Members here.

Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards is meeting today to consider the following

measure: H.R. 1081, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. I

ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without objection, so ordered.

I will begin with my opening remarks. And before we turn to our

new Ranking Member, whom I will welcome in the hearing portion

of this meeting, welcome to the first meeting of the Environment,

Technology, and Standards Subcommittee. We are off to a fast start

in this Congress, as we will be reviewing two important matters

today. The first item of business is marking up legislation I authored with Congressman Gilcrest and Baird to further research on

aquatic invasive species. After the markup, we will hold the hearing reviewing research on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

And I just wanted to mention, I just mentioned to Congressman

Gilcrest, as a co-sponsor of this, that I would like to inform everyone with some sad news that Congressman Gilcrest’s father passed

away two days ago, and he will not be able to be present here. And

on behalf of the Subcommittee, and I am sure the Full Committee,

we want to extend to him and his family our deepest sympathies

for that tragedy.

126

Before we begin the markup, let me take care of a few housekeeping items. I want to congratulate Congressman Udall for taking over the reins as the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee. In the last Congress, I worked very closely with your

predecessor, and I look forward to having an equally close, if not

more close, working relationship with you. It is good to have a

Ranking Member I can look up to in several ways, and I look forward to a fruitful relationship with you, Mr. Udall.

I also want to welcome all of the Members who have joined us

on this subcommittee and let you know my door and my ears are

always open for ideas or suggestions that you have about what

issues this subcommittee should be reviewing. I would parenthetically insert here that we hope to also include some travel this year

in investigating various problems, and any suggestions anyone has

on that, please pass them on to me or on to the Chief of Staff of

this subcommittee, Eric Webster.

Now let us move on to the markup of the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. Any of you who were on this subcommittee last

year know that dealing with the threat posed by invasive species

has always been a top priority of mine. Last Congress, we held

three hearings dealing with this topic, all of which helped in the

development of the legislation before us today.

Invasive species are a tremendous threat to our economy and environment. Researchers at Cornell University estimate that the

total economic cost of invasive species to Americans is $137 billion,

with a B, annually. Beyond economic impacts, invasive species

cause ecological costs that are even more difficult to quantify. In

fact, invasive species now are second only to habitat loss as threats

to endangered species.

While there are many federal programs focused on addressing

the threat of aquatic invasive species, the introduction of invasive

species into U.S. waters is accelerating. Many of the failures of

these programs are due to inadequate research, particularly on the

means to prevent invasive species from being introduced in the

first place. This point was clearly articulated to this subcommittee

last Congress by Dr. David Lodge, a professor at the University of

Notre Dame, who found that we only spend about $27 million a

year on aquatic invasive species research programs, only 22 percent of which is spent on prevention research. This is a very tiny

fraction of the amount we spend annually to deal with species that

have already invaded the United States.

The legislation before us corrects this fundamental problem by

authorizing new research programs so that Federal, State, and

local agencies can better understand how invasive species are coming into the United States and improve ways of dealing with them

once they take hold in our environment.

There are four main programs authorized by this legislation. The

first is a comprehensive, ecological and pathway research program

run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the

United States Geological Survey, and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center so that policy makers will be able to assess how these species get into our waterways and whether or not

management decisions are helping to reduce invasions. The second

is a development, demonstration and verification program run by

127

the Environmental Protection Agency to develop environmentally

sound technologies to control and eradicate invasive species so that

Federal, State and local managers will have more tools to combat

invasive species. The third is a research program to support the

Coast Guard’s efforts to reduce the threat that ships pose for the

introduction of new species into U.S. waters. These efforts will spur

the development of technology to prevent invasive species from entering U.S. waters. The final program is a grant program within

the National Science Foundation to support academic research in

systematics and taxonomy so that we will maintain U.S. expertise

in these areas and enhance our ability to identify invaders once

they arrive.

It is time to change our strategy in dealing with aquatic invasive

species. It is time for Congress to realize that this threat continues

to grow and will not go away unless we act. Finally, the time has

come for us to move this legislation forward. Invasive species don’t

respect political boundaries or timelines, and they are arriving here

even as we speak today.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I look forward

to their input during this markup. Let me also add that in addition

to this bill, Congressman Gilcrest has sponsored, and I have

worked with him as a co-sponsor of the bill, to reauthorize the current invasive species activities of the Federal Government and, in

fact, improve them. We have been joined by Senator Collins and

Senator Levin in introducing a bill that encompasses both of our

bills. And we look forward to working with the Senate. We hope we

will be able to transform these bills into law very quickly and that

we will soon be able to attack the invasive species problem in a

very direct, thoughtful, thoroughly researched manner.

I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Udall, the brand new Ranking

Minority Member of this subcommittee, for his opening statement.

Mr. Udall.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

Good Morning! Welcome to the first meeting of the Environment, Technology and

Standards Subcommittee. We are off to a fast start this Congress, as we will be reviewing two important matters today. The first item of business is marking up legislation I authored with Congressmen Gilchrest and Baird to further research on

aquatic invasive species. After the markup, we will hold a hearing reviewing research on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

Before we begin the markup, let me take care of a few housekeeping items. I want

to congratulate Congressman Udall for taking over the reigns as the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee. Last Congress, I worked very closely with your

predecessor, Mr. Barcia, and I look forward to having an equally close working relationship with you. I also want to welcome all the Members who have joined us on

this subcommittee, and let you know that my door is always open for ideas or suggestions you have about what issues this subcommittee should be reviewing.

Last Congress, this subcommittee was very busy. We focused our energy, in a bipartisan manner, on issues upon which the American public demanded action and

on which we could make a difference. As a result, we passed important legislation

dealing with—to name just a few items—cyber security, research on voting standards and equipment, reforms to the Sea Grant Program, improving manufacturer’s

supply chains, improving the flood warning system, and improving science at the

Environmental Protection Agency.

I expect that we will be just as busy this Congress. We will review issues such

as—again, just to name a few—legislation to reauthorize and improve the harmful

algal bloom research program, legislation to reauthorize the transportation research

and development programs created under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

128

Century, climate change research, the laboratory programs at the National Institute

of Standards and Technology (which I know is near and dear to Mr. Udall’s heart),

and science programs at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Now let us move on to the markup of the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act.

Any of you who were on this subcommittee last year know that dealing with the

threat posed by invasive species has always been a top priority of mine. Last Congress, we held three hearings dealing with this topic, all of which helped in the development of the legislation before us today.

Invasive species are a tremendous threat to our economy and environment. Researchers at Cornell University estimate that the total economic cost of invasive

species to Americans is $137 billion annually. In the Great Lakes basin alone, various entities have spent an estimated $3 billion over the past decade in cleaning

water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment and other efforts to fight the

zebra mussel infestation. Beyond economic impacts, invasive species cause ecological

costs that are even more difficult to quantify. In fact, invasive species now are second only to habitat loss as threats to endangered species.

While there are many federal programs focused on addressing the threat of aquatic invasive species, the introduction of invasive species into U.S. waters is accelerating. Many of the failures of these programs are due to inadequate research, particularly on how to prevent invasive species from being introduced in the first place.

This point was clearly articulated to this subcommittee last Congress by Dr. David

Lodge, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, who found that we only spend

about $27 million a year on aquatic invasive species research programs, only 22 percent of which is spent on prevention research. This is a tiny fraction of the amount

we spend annually to deal with species that have already ‘‘invaded’’ the U.S. The

legislation before us corrects this fundamental problem by authorizing new research

programs so that Federal, State and local agencies can better understand how

invasive species are coming into the United States, and improve ways of dealing

with them once they take hold in our environment.

There are four main programs authorized by this legislation. The first is a comprehensive ecological and pathway research program, run by the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological Survey and the

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, so that policy-makers will be able to

assess how these species get into our waterways and whether or not management

decisions are helping to reduce invasions. The second is a development, demonstration and verification program run by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop environmentally sound technologies to control and eradicate invasive species,

so that Federal, State and local managers will have more tools to combat invasive

species. The third is a research program to support the Coast Guard’s efforts to reduce the threat that ships pose for the introduction of new species into U.S. waters.

These efforts will spur the development of technology to prevent invasive species

from entering U.S. waters. The final program is a grant program within the National Science Foundation to support academic research in systematics and taxonomy, so that we will maintain U.S. expertise in these areas and enhance our ability to identify invaders once they arrive.

It is time to change our strategy in dealing with aquatic invasive species. It is

time for Congress to realize that this threat continues to grow and will not go away

unless we act. Finally the time has come for us to move this legislation forward—

invasive species don’t respect political boundaries or timelines, and they are arriving

here even as we speak today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and

I look forward to their input during this markup.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want you to know

I appreciate your kind words. And let us set the record straight:

I look up to you when it comes to matters of science, given your

great background in the field. And I do look forward to some collaborative efforts in the future on behalf of the Subcommittee and

on behalf of the Committee, and I wanted to thank you here today

for the journey you made out to my hometown of Boulder last year

for an important Congressional delegation trip. And I know we

have talked about some future travels we can make together to

look at the state of science, and particularly the Subcommittee

portfolio around the country. I hope we don’t have the same kind

of experience we had when we traveled to Turkey late last year

where our airplane had to make two or three return trips to GanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:06 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
129

der, Newfoundland because of fueling problems, but we survived

that great journey together.

I would tell the assembled audience that this subcommittee has

been one of the most productive in the Congress, and I anticipate

it will be so in this Congress. We are pleased to—on the Democratic side, to have been joined by two new Members of the Science

Committee, Congressman Miller from North Carolina, who is obviously busy this morning, but I look forward to his productive involvement. And we are joined by Congressman Lincoln Davis of

Tennessee, and I wanted to welcome both of them to the Subcommittee.

As the Chairman mentioned, we have quite a great deal of business this morning within the House, so I want to be brief. The bill

before us addresses an issue, as the Chairman mentioned, that affects every state in the Nation: invasive species. Regardless of the

billions of dollars that are lost each year due to invasive species,

research monitoring and eradication have been and continue to be

under-funded. Today’s bill is a step in the right direction in addressing the research elements of an aquatic invasive species program.

Because Members on our side were just appointed last week, we

have not had time to adequately circulate the bill among their constituencies. So therefore today we will not be offering any amendments, but I wanted to note that our Members may offer amendments at the full Committee markup, and I want to assure Chairman Ehlers that we will work with him and his staff as the bill

moves forward.

With that, I would like to yield, Mr. Chairman, the balance of my

time to my good friend Mr. Baird, who is the co-sponsor of the bill.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming everyone this morning. And I

want to welcome all the new Members to the Committee. Since I’ve served on this

subcommittee it has been one of the most productive in the Congress and I anticipate that it will be so again this Congress.

I would like to introduce to introduce two new Members of the Science Committee—Brad Miller of North Carolina and Lincoln Davis of Tennessee.

I know that Members have markups in other Committees this morning, so I will

be brief. The bill before us this morning addresses an issue that affects every state

in the Nation—invasive species. Regardless of the billions of dollars that are lost

each year due to invasive species, research, monitoring and eradication have been

and continue to be under-funded. Today’s bill is a step in the right direction in addressing the research elements of an aquatic invasive species program.

Because Democratic Members were just appointed last week, our Members have

not had the time to circulate the bill among their constituencies. Today, we will not

be offering any amendments, but I want to make clear that our Members may offer

amendments at the Full Committee markup. I want to assure Chairman Ehlers that

we will work with him and his staff as the bill moves forward.

And now I would like to yield the balance of my time to my good friend Mr. Baird

who is a co-sponsor of this bill.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Udall, and our

good Chairman, Mr. Ehlers, for his long-standing interest in this.

As I often say on this topic, it is easy as an elected official or politician to work on legislation that has large financial interests backing it or great, huge constituencies back home. But invasive species

are the kind of quiet menace, which as the Chairman correctly

130

pointed out, cost our nation $120 billion a year, $137 billion a year,

but people don’t even know about it until the problem arises. What

Mr. Ehlers’s bill does, and the other bills we have been working on

in this committee, are basically two things. They try to address the

existing problems in invasive species, and they try to prevent new

problems from arising by keeping new invasive species from arriving. This is a benefit in two ways. Exactly as the Chair and the

Ranking Member pointed out, it helps protect our environment,

and it helps protect our economy.

In my home state, we have a magnificent estuary called the

Willapa Bay, which has been infested with spartina grass, and if

we don’t control that, we are going to soon have the Willapa Prairie

instead of the Willapa Bay. And that is a central area for migrating

bird habitat, salmon, oyster growing, and crab fishing. It is an absolutely fundamental, critical ecosystem to the Pacific Northwest.

And this spartina grass, which I understand is not a problem here

on the East Coast, but on the West Coast, it is a heck of a problem,

is just really threatening a huge economic loss and an environmental devastation. We are trying to prevent one of Mr. Ehlers’s

good friends, the zebra mussel, from coming into our region and,

because he knows well and I know well that the challenge this has

wreaked on the Great Lakes Region and the Mississippi Basin,

etcetera, we have just got to stop these organisms from coming in

to begin with. And once they do get in, we must identify them

quickly and eradicate them quickly, because most of these critters

and plants have the potential to multiply exponentially.

So I commend the Chair and the Ranking Member and thank

them for the opportunity to work on this, and I yield back my time.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank both gentlemen for their comments.

And if we could only train zebra mussels to eat spartina grass, we

would both be in good shape.

Without objection, all other Members may place opening statements in the record.

I will make one brief exception for Senator—pardon me, Congressman Smith, Chair of the Research Committee, for a brief

opening statement.

Mr. SMITH. I don’t know if this is going to work, Mr. Chairman,

without a Ranking Member from Michigan, but——

Chairman EHLERS. Yes.

Mr. SMITH.—I am also delighted to be a co-sponsor of the bill. Of

course Michigan with the zebra mussels, not aquatic, but the emerald ash boar from Asia just came in in some crates, so invasive species are something that need to be considered and evaluated.

And I need to leave in about 60 seconds, so thank you for the

time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH

I am happy to be a co-sponsor of H.R. 1081, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. This legislation is critically important for the environment and the economy.

Invasive aquatic species (IAS) inflict billions of dollars worth of damage every

year. Foreign to the area that they inhabit, IAS disrupt the ecosystem leading to

far reaching and often unexpected consequences. In the State of Michigan, zebra

mussels native to Europe infest intake and discharge pipes from facilities that use

Great Lakes water, requiring costly maintenance.

131

My district has been directly by a different type of invasive species. The Emerald

Ash Borer, native to Asia, was discovered ravishing ash trees in southeast Michigan

last summer. So far it has infested about 5.5 million trees and is expected to spread.

Whether aquatic or not, these unwanted guests take a considerable toll on society.

I feel that it is important that we all continue to work to control and eradicate all

forms of harmful invasive species.

This legislation will provide the funding and coordination necessary to allow us

to begin fighting IAS comprehensively. For the first time, we will be able to determine the exact routes that IAS take to get here so that new infestations can be prevented. H.R. 1081 will lead to the development of new, environmentally friendly

methods for exterminating IAS. It will also establish a research project to come up

with standards to eliminate the risk of ships transporting new species into our waters. And finally, a new grant program within the National Science Foundation will

be funded to support academic research to make us better able to identify IAS after

they arrive. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1081.

And I want to thank Chairman Ehlers for holding the additional hearing today

to look for ways to combat the threat of harmful algal blooms (HAB) and hypoxia.

Protecting our water resources is particularly important to the people in my home

state of Michigan. Michigan relies on the Great Lakes, as well as an abundance of

inland lakes, rivers and streams for economic, agricultural, scientific and leisure

purposes. HABs threaten this resource by damaging fisheries, closing beaches, and

disrupting the ecosystem.

HABs are increasingly becoming a problem in the Great Lakes. However, research

on freshwater HABs has fallen behind similar efforts targeting marine HABs. This

committee should take into account the unique circumstances and consequences

posed by each form of HAB, and support legislation that does the same.

One of the main problems that we face in fighting HABs is that it is still unclear

what has triggered their increased rate of incidence. There is anecdotal evidence

that aquatic invasive species (AIS) are contributing to this unfortunate trend. Earlier today, this committee approved legislation that would address the threats posed

by AIS and I hope that similar attention will be paid to the problem of HABs.

Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. And we hope we may finish this

before you leave. There are no amendments that have been offered,

to the best of my knowledge. I am sorry. We will now consider H.R.

1081, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act.

[H.R. 1081 follows:]

132

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1081

To establish marine and freshwater research, development, and demonstration programs to support efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species, as

well as to educate citizens and stakeholders and restore ecosystems.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 2003

Mr. EHLERS (for himself, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. ORTIZ, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. CAMP, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. EMANUEL, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. FARR, Mr.

CUMMINGS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr.

QUINN, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mrs.

MALONEY, Mr. DINGELL, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. LEE, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. DICKS, Ms.

BORDALLO, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WALSH, Mr. UPTON, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. SMITH of

Michigan, Mr. CASE, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr.

PALLONE, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. ALLEN, Mrs. MILLER of

Michigan, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. HOUGHTON, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr.

MCGOVERN, Mr. MCCOTTER, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. LEACH, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr.

NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. HONDA, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. WEINER, Mr. KIND, Mr. EVANS, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr.

KLECZKA, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, and Mr. LATOURETTE) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Resources, and

House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of

the committee concerned

A BILL

To establish marine and freshwater research, development, and demonstration programs to support efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species, as

well as to educate citizens and stakeholders and restore ecosystems.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Aquatic invasive species damage infrastructure, disrupt commerce,

outcompete native species, reduce biodiversity, and threaten human health.

(2) The direct and indirect costs of aquatic invasive species to our Nation’s

economy number in the billions of dollars per year. In the Great Lakes region,

approximately $3,000,000,000 dollars have been spent in the past 10 years to

mitigate the damage caused by one invasive species, the zebra mussel.

(3) Recent studies have shown that, in addition to economic damage,

invasive species cause enormous environmental damage, and have cited

invasive species as the second leading threat to endangered species.

(4) Over the past 200 years, the rate of detected marine and freshwater invasions in North America has increased exponentially.

(5) The rate of invasions continues to grow each year.

(6) Marine and freshwater research underlies every aspect of detecting, preventing, controlling, and eradicating invasive species, educating citizens and

stakeholders, and restoring ecosystems.

(7) Current federal efforts, including research efforts, have focused primarily on controlling established invasive species, which is both costly and often

unsuccessful. An emphasis on research, development, and demonstration to support efforts to prevent invasive species or eradicate them upon entry into

United States waters would likely result in a more cost-effective and successful

approach to combating invasive species through preventing initial introduction.

133

(8) Research, development, and demonstration to support prevention and

eradication includes monitoring of both pathways and ecosystems to track the

introduction and establishment of nonnative species, and development and testing of technologies to prevent introduction through known pathways.

(9) Therefore, Congress finds that it is in the United States interest to conduct a comprehensive and thorough research, development, and demonstration

program on aquatic invasive species in order to better understand how aquatic

invasive species are introduced and become established and to support efforts

to prevent the introduction and establishment of, and to eradicate, these species.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) ADMINISTERING AGENCIES.—The term ‘‘administering agencies’’

means——

(A) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (including

the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory);

(B) the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; and

(C) the United States Geological Survey.

(2) AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM.—The term ‘‘aquatic ecosystem’’ means a freshwater, marine, or estuarine environment (including inland waters and wetlands) located in the United States.

(3) BALLAST WATER.—The term ‘‘ballast water’’ means any water (with its

suspended matter) used to maintain the trim and stability of a vessel.

(4) INVASION.—The term ‘‘invasion’’ means the introduction and establishment of an invasive species into an ecosystem beyond its historic range.

(5) INVASIVE SPECIES.—The term ‘‘invasive species’’ means a species——

(A) that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration; and

(B) whose introduction causes or may cause harm to the economy, the

environment, or human health.

(6) INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL.—The term ‘‘Invasive Species Council’’ means

the council established by section 3 of Executive Order No. 13112 (42 U.S.C.

4321 note).

(7) PATHWAY.—The term ‘‘pathway’’ means 1 or more routes by which an

invasive species is transferred from one ecosystem to another.

(8) SPECIES.—The term ‘‘species’’ means any fundamental category of taxonomic classification or any viable biological material ranking below a genus or

subgenus.

(9) TASK FORCE.—The term ‘‘Task Force’’ means the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force established by section 1201(a) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4721(a) ).

(10) TYPE APPROVAL.—The term ‘‘type approval’’ means an approval procedure under which a type of system is certified as meeting a standard established pursuant to federal law for a particular application.

SEC. 4. CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION.

(a) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The administering agencies shall enter

into a memorandum of understanding regarding implementation of this Act.

(b) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out this Act, the administering agencies shall

consult with——

(1) the Task Force and Invasive Species Council;

(2) the Environmental Protection Agency; and

(3) other appropriate Federal and State agencies.

(c) COOPERATION.—In carrying out this Act, the administering agencies shall

contract, as appropriate, or otherwise cooperate with academic researchers.

SEC. 5. ECOLOGICAL AND PATHWAY RESEARCH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The administering agencies shall develop and conduct a marine and fresh-water research program which shall include ecological and pathway

surveys and experimentation to detect nonnative aquatic species in aquatic ecosystems and to assess rates and patterns of introductions of nonnative aquatic species in aquatic ecosystems. The goal of this marine and freshwater research program

shall be to support efforts to prevent the introduction of, detect, and eradicate

invasive species through informing early detection and rapid response efforts, informing relevant policy decisions, and assessing the effectiveness of implemented

policies to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species. Surveys

and experiments under this subsection shall be commenced not later than 18

months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

134

(b) PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT.—The administering agencies shall establish

standardized protocols for conducting ecological and pathway surveys of nonnative

aquatic species that are integrated and produce comparable data, and shall recommend a standardized approach for classifying species. For ecological surveys, two

protocols shall be developed, one to support early detection surveys that may be conducted by Federal, State, or local agencies involved in the management of invasive

species, and a second protocol to support the surveys conducted under subsection

(a). Protocols shall, as practicable, be integrated with existing protocols and data

collection methods. Upon the development of protocols to support early detection

surveys, the Task Force shall make appropriate efforts to disseminate the protocols

to appropriate Federal, State, and local entities. In developing the protocols under

this subsection, the administering agencies shall draw on the recommendations

gathered at the workshop under subsection (g). The protocols shall be peer reviewed,

and revised as necessary. Protocols shall be completed within 1 year after the date

of the enactment of this Act.

(c) ECOLOGICAL AND PATHWAY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS.—(1) Each ecological survey conducted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum——

(A) document baseline ecological information of the aquatic ecosystem including, to the extent practicable, a comprehensive inventory of native species,

nonnative species, and species of unknown origin present in the ecosystem, as

well as the chemical and physical characteristics of the water and underlying

substrate;

(B) for nonnative species, gather information to assist in identifying their

life history, environmental requirements and tolerances, the historic range of

their native ecosystems, and their history of spreading from their native ecosystems;

(C) track the establishment of nonnative species including information

about the estimated population of nonnative organisms in order to allow an

analysis of the probable date of introduction of the species; and

(D) identify the likely pathway of entry of nonnative species.

(2) Each pathway survey conducted under this section shall, at a minimum——

(A) identify what nonnative aquatic species are being introduced or may be

introduced through the pathways under consideration;

(B) determine the quantities of organisms being introduced through the

pathways under consideration; and

(C) determine the practices that contributed to or could contribute to the

introduction of nonnative aquatic species through the pathway under consideration.

(d) NUMBER AND LOCATION OF SURVEY SITES.—The administering agencies shall

designate the number and location of survey sites necessary to carry out marine and

freshwater research required under this section. In establishing sites under this

subsection or subsection (e), emphasis shall be on the geographic diversity of sites,

as well as the diversity of the human uses and biological characteristics of sites.

(e) COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM.—The administering agencies (acting through

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) shall administer a program

to award grants to academic institutions, State agencies, and other appropriate

groups, in order to assist in carrying out subsections (b) and (h). This program shall

be competitive, peer-reviewed, and merit-based.

(f) SHIP PATHWAY SURVEYS.—Section 1102(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4712(b)(2)(B)(ii) )

is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(ii) examine other potential modes for the introduction of nonnative aquatic species by ship, including hull fouling.’’.

(g) WORKSHOP.—In order to support the development of the protocols and design

for the surveys under subsections (b) and (c), the administering agencies shall convene a workshop with appropriate researchers from Federal and State agencies and

academic institutions to gather recommendations. The administering agencies shall

make the results of the workshop widely available to the public. The workshop shall

be held within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(h) EXPERIMENTATION.—The administering agencies shall conduct laboratory

and field-based marine and freshwater research experiments on a range of taxonomic groups to identify the relationship between the introduction and establishment of nonnative aquatic species, including those legally introduced, and the circumstances necessary for those species to survive and thrive.

(i) NATIONAL PATHWAY AND ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS DATABASE.——

(1) IN GENERAL.—The United States Geological Survey shall develop, maintain, and update, in consultation and cooperation with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:06 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
135

tion, and the Task Force, a central, national database of information concerning

information collected under this section.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The database shall——

(A) be widely available to the public;

(B) be updated not less than once a quarter;

(C) be coordinated with existing databases collecting similar information; and

(D) be, to the maximum extent practicable, formatted such that the

data is useful for both researchers and Federal and State employees managing relevant invasive species programs.

SEC. 6. ANALYSIS.

(a) INVASION ANALYSIS.——

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

of this Act, and every year thereafter, the administering agencies shall analyze

data collected under section 5 and other relevant research on the rates and patterns of invasions by aquatic invasive species in waters of the United States.

The purpose of this analysis shall be to use the data collected under section 5

and other relevant research to support efforts to prevent the introduction of, detect, and eradicate invasive species through informing early detection and rapid

response efforts, informing relevant policy decisions, and assessing the effectiveness of implemented policies to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive

species.

(2) CONTENTS.—The analysis required under paragraph (1) shall include

with respect to aquatic invasive species——

(A) an analysis of pathways, including——

(i) identifying, and characterizing as high, medium, or low risk,

pathways regionally and nationally;

(ii) identifying new and expanding pathways;

(iii) identifying handling practices that contribute to the introduction of species in pathways; and

(iv) assessing the risk that species legally introduced into the

United States pose for introduction into aquatic ecosystems;

(B) patterns and rates of invasion and susceptibility to invasion of various bodies of water;

(C) how the risk of establishment through a pathway is related to the

identity and number of organisms transported;

(D) rates of spread and numbers and types of pathways of spread of

new populations of the aquatic invasive species and an estimation of the

potential spread and distribution of newly introduced invasive species based

on their environmental requirements and historical distribution;

(E) documentation of factors that influence an ecosystem’s vulnerability

to a nonnative aquatic species becoming invasive;

(F) a description of the potential for, and impacts of, pathway management programs on invasion rates;

(G) recommendations for improvements in the effectiveness of pathway

management;

(H) to the extent practical, a determination of the level of reduction in

live organisms of various taxonomic groups required to reduce the risk of

establishment to receiving aquatic ecosystems to an acceptable level; and

(I) an evaluation of the effectiveness of management actions (including

any standard) at reducing species introductions and establishment.

(c) RESEARCH TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTRODUCED SPECIES.—Within two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

administering agencies shall develop a profile, based on the general characteristics

of invasive species and vulnerable ecosystems, in order to predict, to the extent

practical, whether a species planned for importation is likely to invade a particular

aquatic ecosystem if introduced. In developing the profile, the above agencies shall

analyze the research conducted under section 5, and other research as necessary,

to determine general species and ecosystem characteristics (taking into account the

opportunity for introduction into any ecosystem) and circumstances that can lead to

establishment. Based on the profile, the Task Force shall make recommendations

to the Invasive Species Council as to what planned importations of nonnative aquatic organisms should be restricted. This profile shall be peer-reviewed.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out this section and section 5 of this Act, and section 1102(b)(2)

of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16

U.S.C. 4712(b)(2) ) for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008——

136

(1) $4,000,000 for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center;

(2) $4,500,000 for the United States Geological Survey, of which $500,000

shall be for developing, maintaining, and updating the database under section

5(i); and (3) $17,000,000 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of which $13,000,000 shall be for the grant program under section 5(e).

SEC. 7. DISSEMINATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Invasive Species Council, in coordination with the Task

Force and the administering agencies, shall be responsible for disseminating the information collected under this Act to Federal, State, and local entities, including relevant policymakers, and private researchers with responsibility over or interest in

aquatic invasive species.

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Invasive Species Council shall report actions and findings

under section 6 to the Congress, and shall update this report once every three years

thereafter, or more often as necessary.

(c) RESPONSE STRATEGY.—The Invasive Species Council, in coordination with

the Task Force, the administering agencies, and other appropriate Federal and

State agencies, shall develop and implement a national strategy for how information

collected under this Act will be shared with Federal, State, and local entities with

responsibility for determining response to the introduction of potentially harmful

nonnative aquatic species, to enable those entities to better and more rapidly respond to such introductions.

(d) PATHWAY PRACTICES.—The Invasive Species Council, in coordination with

the Task Force and the administering agencies, shall disseminate information to,

and develop an ongoing educational program for, pathway users (including vendors

and customers) on how their practices could be modified to prevent the intentional

or unintentional introduction of nonnative aquatic species into aquatic ecosystems.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appro- priated for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 $500,000 for the Invasive Species Council for carrying out this section.

SEC. 8. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND VERIFICATION.

(a) ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND VERIFICATION.—— (1) GRANT PROGRAM.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment

of this Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the Office of

Research and Development, in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers

and the administering agencies, shall develop and begin administering a grant

program to fund research, development, demonstration, and verification of environmentally sound cost-effective technologies and methods to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species.

(2) PURPOSES.—Proposals funded under this subsection shall——

(A) seek to support Federal, State, or local officials’ ongoing efforts to

control and eradicate aquatic invasive species in an environmentally sound

manner;

(B) increase the number of environmentally sound technologies or

methods Federal, State, or local officials may use to control or eradicate

aquatic invasive species;

(C) provide for demonstration or dissemination of the technology or

method to potential end-users; and

(D) verify that any technology or method meets any appropriate criteria

developed for effectiveness and environmental soundness by the Environmental Protection Agency.

(3) PREFERENCE.—The Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency shall give preference to proposals that will likely meet any appropriate

criteria developed for environmental soundness by the Environmental Protection Agency.

(4) MERIT REVIEW.—Grants shall be awarded under this subsection through

a competitive, peer-reviewed, merit-based process.

(5) REPORT.—Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of

this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall prepare and submit a report to Congress on the program conducted under this subsection. The report shall include findings and recommendations of the Administrator with regard to technologies and methods.

(b) DISPERSAL BARRIER RESEARCH PROGRAM.—Not later than 1 year after the

date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for the Corps

of Engineers, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:06 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
137

priate federal agencies and academic researchers, shall establish a research, development, and demonstration program to study environmentally sound methods and

technologies to reduce dispersal of aquatic invasive species through interbasin waterways and assess the potential for using those methods and technologies in other

waterways.

(c) SHIP PATHWAY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION.——

(1) REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM.—Section 1301(e) of the Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4741(e) ) is

amended by striking ‘‘$2,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008’’.

(2) EXPANSION OF PROGRAM.—Section 1104(b) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4714(b) ) is

amended——

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6),

respectively; and

(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:

‘‘(4) ADDITIONAL PURPOSES.—The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce may also demonstrate and verify technologies under this

subsection to monitor and control pathways of organism transport on ships

other than through ballast water.’’.

(3) CRITERIA AND WORKSHOP.—Section 1104 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4714) is amended by

adding at the end the following new subsections:

‘‘(d) CRITERIA.—When issuing grants under this section, the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration shall give preference to those technologies that will

likely meet the criteria laid out in any testing protocol developed by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development’s Environmental

Technology Verification Program.

‘‘(e) WORKSHOP.—The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall

hold an annual workshop of principal investigators funded under this section and

researchers conducting research directly related to ship pathway technology development, for information exchange, and shall make the proceedings widely available

to the public.’’.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008——

(1) $2,500,000 for the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out subsection (a); and

(2) $1,000,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to carry out subsection (b).

SEC. 9. RESEARCH TO SUPPORT THE SETTING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SHIP PATHWAY

STANDARDS.

(a) RESEARCH PROGRAM.—The Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection

Agency, in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

the Task Force, and other appropriate federal agencies and academic researchers,

shall develop a coordinated research program to support the promulgation and implementation of standards to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species

by ships that shall include——

(1) characterizing physical, chemical, and biological harbor conditions relevant to ballast discharge into United States waters to inform the design and

implementation of ship vector control technologies and practices;

(2) developing testing protocols for determining the effectiveness of vector

monitoring and control technologies and practices;

(3) researching and demonstrating methods for mitigating the spread of

invasive species by coastal voyages, including exploring the effectiveness of alternative exchange zones in the near coastal areas and other methods proposed

to reduce transfers of organisms;

(4) verifying the practical effectiveness of any type approval process to ensure that the process produces repeatable and accurate assessments of treatment effectiveness; and

(5) evaluating the effectiveness and residual risk and environmental impacts associated with any standard set with respect to the ship pathway

through experimental research.

(b) PERFORMANCE TEST.—Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this

Act, the Coast Guard, in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and

Technology and the Maritime Administration, shall design a performance test for

ballast water exchange such as a dye study to measure the effectiveness of ballast

water exchange.

138

(c) NATIONAL ACADEMY STUDY.—The Secretary of the Department in which the

Coast Guard is operating shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which the Academy shall——

(1) identify the relative risk of transfer of various taxonomic groups by different ship modes;

(2) assess the extent to which a ballast water standard that virtually eliminates the risk of introduction of invasive species by ballast water may relate

to the risk of introductions by all ship modes, and explain the degree of uncertainty in such assessment; and

(3) recommend methods for reducing organism transfers by ships by addressing all parts and systems of ships and all related modes of transport of

invasive species, and identify the research, development, and demonstration

needed to improve the information base to support such methods, including economic information.

Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall transmit to the Congress a report on the results of the study under this subsection.

(d) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later than the later of one year after the date of

submission of the report under subsection (c), or three years after the date of the

enactment of this Act, the Task Force, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, the administering agencies, and other appropriate Federal and State

agencies and academic researchers, shall submit to the Coast Guard a report that

describes recommendations for——

(1) a ship pathway treatment standard that incorporates all potential

modes of transfer by ships; and

(2) methods for type approval and accurate monitoring of treatment performance that are simple and streamlined and follow established protocols.

(e) WORKING GROUP.—Not later than two years after the issuance by the Coast

Guard of any standard relating to the introduction by ships of invasive species, the

Coast Guard shall convene a working group including the Environmental Protection

Agency, the administering agencies, and other appropriate Federal and State agencies and academic researchers, to evaluate the effectiveness of that standard and accompanying implementation protocols. The duties of the working group shall, at a

minimum, include——

(1) reviewing the effectiveness of the standard in reducing the establishment of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems, taking into consideration the

data collected under section 5; and

(2) developing recommendations to the Coast Guard for the revision of such

standard and type approval process to ensure effectiveness in reducing introductions and accurate shipboard monitoring of treatment performance that is simple and streamlined, which shall be made widely available to the public.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be

appropriated——

(1) for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 $1,500,000 for the Coast

Guard and $1,500,000 for Environmental Protection Agency to carry out subsection (a);

(2) for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2006 $500,000 for the Coast

Guard to carry out subsection (b); and

(3) for fiscal year 2004 $500,000 for the Coast Guard to carry out subsection

(c), to remain available until expended.

SEC. 10. RESEARCH IN SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The National Science Foundation shall establish a program

to award grants to researchers at institutions of higher education and museums to

carry out research programs in systematics and taxonomy.

(b) GOALS.—The goals of the program under this section are to——

(1) encourage scientists to pursue careers in systematics and taxonomy to

ensure a continuing knowledge base in these disciplines;

(2) ensure that there will be adequate expertise in systematics and taxonomy to support Federal, State, and local needs to identify species;

(3) develop this expertise throughout the United States with an emphasis

on regional diversity; and

(4) draw on existing expertise in systematics and taxonomy at institutions

of higher education and museums to train the next generation of systematists

and taxonomists.

(c) CRITERIA.—Grants shall be awarded under this section on a merit-reviewed

competitive basis. Emphasis shall be placed on funding proposals in a diverse set

of ecosystems and geographic locations, and, when applicable, integrated with the

139

United States Long Term Ecological Research Network. Preference shall be given

to proposals that will include student participation, and to institutions and museums that actively train students to become experts in taxonomy and systematics.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this section $2,500,000

each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

Æ

140

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

H.R. 1081, AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES RESEARCH ACT

Section 1. Short Title

This Act is named the ‘‘Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act.’’

Section 2. Findings

The legislation establishes several findings in support of the legislation, and finds

that aquatic invasive species pose significant direct and indirect costs to the U.S.

economy and environment, and that more research is needed to better direct federal

efforts toward effectively preventing the introduction of invasive species.

Section 3. Definitions

The administering agencies of the Act are defined as the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and

the United States Geological Survey.

The following additional terms are defined: aquatic ecosystem, ballast water, invasion, invasive species, invasive species council, pathway, species, task force, and

type approval.

Section 4. Consultation and Cooperation

The administering agencies shall enter into a memorandum of agreement regarding implementation of this Act. In carrying out the Act, they shall consult with the

Task Force, the Invasive Species Council, the Environmental Protection Agency and

other appropriate State and Federal agencies, and shall cooperate with academic researchers.

Section 5. Ecological and Pathway Research

The administering agencies shall conduct surveys of ecosystems and of pathways

(such as ships’ ballast water) by which invasive species enter U.S. waters in order

to track the introduction of invasive species. They shall also conduct experiments

to understand the relationship between the conditions under which an invasive species is introduced and the likelihood that it will become established, and maintain

a database of all of the information gathered under this section. Ecosystem surveys

will review the patterns and rates of invasion at the site, track the establishment

of species in ecosystems, monitor the circumstances accompanying that establishment, and document factors that may influence an ecosystem’s vulnerability to invasion. Pathway surveys will identify the species being introduced through a given

pathway, the quantity being introduced, and handling practices that contribute to

the introduction. In carrying out this program the administering agencies will develop standardized protocols for carrying out the surveys and will coordinate their

efforts to establish long-term survey sites to collect strong baseline information. A

grant program is established to fund academic researchers and state agencies to

carry out the surveys at diverse sites distributed geographically around the country.

Section 6. Analysis

The administering agencies shall analyze the survey and experimental results collected under Section 5. Specifically, they will, among other things, identify the highest risk pathways, identify handling practices within pathways that contribute to

introductions, and evaluate how much effort is required in reducing introductions

for various taxonomic groups to reduce the risk that they will become established.

The agencies shall recommend and review pathway management programs to reduce introductions of invasive species. A profile, based on information about species

characteristics, ecosystem characteristics and environmental circumstances that

favor invasion, will be developed to predict, to the extent practical, whether a species planned for importation is likely to invade a particular ecosystem.

Authorization of Appropriations—To carry out Sections 5 and 6 for FY04 through

FY08, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is authorized $17 million ($13 million of which is for the grant program), the Smithsonian Environmental

Research Center is authorized $4 million, and the United States Geological Survey

is authorized $4.5 million ($500,000 million of which is to administer the database).

Section 7. Dissemination

The National Invasive Species Council shall disseminate the information developed under Section 6 to relevant audiences. This includes a report to Congress, a

mechanism to provide survey findings to support rapid response efforts, and dissemination to users of the various pathways invasive species exploit of information

regarding how their practices should be modified to prevent the introduction of nonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
141

native species. The National Invasive Species Council is authorized for FY04

through FY08 $500,000 million per year.

Section 8. Technology Development and Demonstration

The Act establishes and expands several programs to develop technologies to prevent, control and eradicate invasive species. These include (authorizations are for

FY04 through FY08):

• The creation of an Environmental Protection Agency grant program to fund

research, development, demonstration and verification of a suite of environmentally sound technologies to control and eradicate invasive species. (authorized at $2.5 million per year)

• The creation of an Army Corps of Engineers dispersal barrier research program. (authorized at $1 million per year)

• The expansion of the Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program to include the demonstration of technologies to treat all ship pathways of introduction (including hull fouling). (authorized at $7.5 million per year)

Section 9. Research to Support the Setting and Implementation of Standards

The Act establishes a research program to support the setting, implementation

and evaluation of standards for treatment of ship pathways of introduction. This includes:

• The creation of a Coast Guard and EPA research program to conduct experiments and answer relevant policy questions associated with standards and

their implementation, such as the identification of possible circumstances in

which a ship may encounter invasive species and in which a treatment technology must be effective. (authorized at $1.5 million for EPA and $1.5 million

for Coast Guard for FY04 through FY08)

• Coast Guard research to design a performance test for ballast water exchange. (authorized at $500,000 million for FY04 through FY06)

• A study by the National Academy of Sciences to develop recommendations for

a standard. (authorized at $500,000 for FY04)

• An interagency working group to evaluate the effectiveness of the standard

and make recommendations for revision.

Section 10. Research in Systematics and Taxonomy

The National Science Foundation shall establish a competitive, peer-reviewed program to award grants to researchers at institutions of higher education and museums to carry out research in systematics and taxonomy. The program is authorized

at $2.5 million for FY04 through FY08.

142

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered.

Hearing no amendments being offered, we will—the question is

on the bill, H.R. 1081. I am sorry. Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I was considering offering an

amendment, because we have had an awful lot of discussion about

this between you and I and various committees. And I wonder if

we shouldn’t offer a line at the very end of the bill that simply

says, ‘‘And we really mean it,’’ because it really has been difficult

for me to see that some of the agencies that are involved in this

have not been taking this as seriously as they really need to. And

I don’t know if it requires more oversight by this committee or

other committees, but this is a very serious problem. I agree with

you and the Ranking Member. And we have to do all we can. It

seems to me—and passing this legislation is an important step. But

it seems to me we have to be much more vigilant about this, because some of the answers that I have heard in talking to some of

the folks in my state and others is that yes, they take it seriously.

But they don’t take it as seriously as I believe they should. And

so I am not going to offer that amendment, but I do want to put

that out for the record that we do take this seriously. And we hope

that the agencies will respond accordingly, and that it is not

enough just to control some of these invasive species. We would

like to see plans to eliminate them.

Chairman EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield back.

Chairman EHLERS. I am pleased to second your comment, and

that is the intent of both of these bills. And the other bill, Mr.

Gilcrest’s bill, does make it clear there are specific requirements

agencies have to meet. But I share your disappointment, particularly with the Coast Guard on the aquatic invasive species. They

have had the responsibility for more than a decade now, and very

little has transpired. We hope—and we have had meetings with

them, and I would be delighted to have oversight meetings to impress on everyone involved that we mean it.

The gentleman’s time is expired. Hearing no amendments on the

bill, the question is on the bill, H.R. 1081. All those in favor will

say ‘‘aye.’’ All opposed will say ‘‘no.’’ In the opinion of the Chair,

the ayes have it. And we will note the presence of a quorum.

I know recognize Mr. Udall for a motion.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would

move that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 1081 to

the full Committee with a recommendation that it be favorably reported to the House. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the

staff be instructed to make all necessary technical and conforming

changes to the bill in accordance with the recommendations of the

Subcommittee.

Chairman EHLERS. The Committee has heard the motion. Those

in favor will say ‘‘aye.’’ Those opposed will say ‘‘no.’’ The ayes have

it, and the motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

This concludes our Subcommittee markup, and I am very pleased

that we can now move into the hearing portion of this assembly.

143

[Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to other

business.]

(145)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE

FULL COMMITTEE ON H.R. 1081, AQUATIC

INVASIVE SPECIES RESEARCH ACT

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 12:05 p.m.,

in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman BOEHLERT. This is a markup on the Invasive Species

Research Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to

recess the Committee at any point. And without objection, it is so

ordered. We will now consider the bill H.R. 1081. I will keep my

remarks brief, and I would appreciate others doing the same.

I want to congratulate Dr. Ehlers and all of the other Members

of the Committee who worked on this important bill. I know that

Chairman Ehlers and his staff have put in well over a year talking

to every interested party and refining this bill. Mr. Gilchrest and

Mr. Baird have been especially active. The hard work shows, and

has resulted in an excellent bipartisan bill.

All of us know the damage that is caused by invasive species, because we see it in our own Districts, and mine is no exception. This

bill will, over time, enable us to prevent new invasive species from

gaining a tow hold here, although perhaps that is the wrong terminology for aquatic creatures, and will enable us to do a better job

of controlling or eradicating the pests that have already made their

way to our shores. We will work closely with the other Committees

of jurisdiction that have an interest and with the Senate. And I am

hopeful that this bill can move either separately or as part of a

larger invasive species legislation during this Congress.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Hall.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

I’ll keep my remarks brief as we have worked out all the amendments to this bill,

and we should have an expeditious markup.

I just want to congratulate Dr. Ehlers and all the other Members of the Committee who worked on this important bill. I know that Chairman Ehlers and his

staff have put in well over a year talking to every interested party and refining this

bill. Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Baird have been especially active. The hard work shows

and has resulted in an excellent, bipartisan bill.

All of us know the damage that is caused by invasive species because we see it

in our own districts. Mine is no exception. This bill will, over time, enable us to prevent new invasive species from gaining a toehold here—although perhaps that’s the

146

wrong terminology for aquatic creatures—and will enable us to do a better job of

controlling or eradicating the pests that have already made their way to our shores.

We will work closely with the other committees of jurisdiction that have an interest in this matter, and with the Senate, and I am hopeful that this bill can move

either separately, or as part of larger invasive species legislation, during this Congress.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I, too, will be brief, and I thank you.

H.R. 1081 is going to help us find a lot of more economical and effective ways to prevent invasive species. And I have a copy of

Texas Parks and Wildlife Newsstand with the then Governor

George Bush operating a machine that harvested hydrilla, an exotic water plant that chokes a lot of lakes in Texas. It will be some

help to that. And this tells me that when we pass this bill that the

President will put some wet ink on it quickly.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

I thank the Chairman for bringing this bill before the Committee today and for

working with us on the amendments. H.R. 1081 will help us to find more economical

and effective ways to prevent invasive species from being introduced to our lakes,

rivers, and coastal areas and to eliminate and control those that are already established.

In Texas, we have serious problems due to aquatic invasive plants such as

hydrilla and water hyacinth in our reservoirs, rivers, and lakes. I expect each of us

could produce a list of the 10 most unwanted organisms for our home states. I hope

through these programs we will provide some help to the state and local agencies

struggling to deal with the problems created by invasive species. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. I now recognize Dr.

Ehlers, the bill’s sponsor, and the Chairman of the Environment,

Technology, and Standards Subcommittee, for any opening remarks

he may have.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for

bringing this timely and important legislation before the Committee, for even as we work on this legislation, invasive species are

crossing our borders, invading our lands and waterways, and causing us enormous economic and environmental harm.

I recognize the desire of the Committee and the Chairman to proceed rapidly, so I will summarize my statement and ask that the

full statement be entered into the record.

The basic problem this bill addresses is dealing with aquatic

invasive species. And one of our biggest problems with that is we

simply don’t know what to do. The research has to be done first.

It has to be done well so that we don’t waste money by taking the

wrong approach and finding out it doesn’t work. So this bill provides arrangements, standards, and funding for conducting research on aquatic invasive species. Particularly, it will involve the

U.S. Geological Survey, which has been very active in this. It will

involve NOAA, which of course, has a responsibility for it. It will

involve the Smithsonian Institution, which has been one of the

leaders in studying invasives. And it also will tangentially involve

the Coast Guard, which will have the authority to investigate ballast water problems. And finally, it will involve the National

Science Foundation in establishing a grant program aimed at supporting the academic research in systematics and taxonomy, which

is so badly needed.

147

So it is a companion piece to the legislation by Mr. Gilchrest, also

of this committee. His bill will go through the Resources Committee, first. And this one will join up with it at some point, or may

be passed independently simply because the research part of it has

to be done first before the other parts can be implemented.

So I thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for taking it up. And I

urge the Committee to give an affirmative vote.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for bringing this timely and

important legislation before the Committee, for even as we work on this legislation,

invasive species are crossing our borders, invading our lands and waterways, and

causing us enormous economic and environmental harm. Many Members have

heard about these invaders from press accounts of the voracious snakehead fish that

invaded Maryland waterways last summer, or zebra mussels that have plagued the

Great Lakes for over a decade, or specific invasive plants or animals that are affecting their districts. The overwhelming support this legislation has received, with 85

cosponsors, shows that Members and the public understand this growing threat.

I’m pleased to bring this legislation before the Committee because it addresses

this threat by providing a comprehensive research program focused on informing

and improving the management of aquatic invasive species. For example, when regulatory agencies, in this case the Coast Guard, need to develop standards aimed at

preventing invasive species from being introduced by ships, they must ask: What

is the risk that invasive species in ballast water—or for that matter, on hulls and

other parts of vessels—pose to our environment, and are the management decisions

that we have already made working? This legislation sets up a research program

to answer these and other difficult management questions. By developing this understanding, we can arrive at better decisions about how to prevent, control and

eradicate invasive species.

Now that I’ve given some sense of the bill’s purpose, let me describe it in more

detail. The first main component of the bill authorizes a comprehensive ecological

and pathway research program, which will enable policy-makers to assess how these

species get into our waterways and whether or not management decisions are helping reduce invasions.

The next major piece authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to begin a

development, demonstration and verification program focused on giving Federal,

State and local managers more environmentally sound tools to combat invasive species once they arrive.

The next part authorizes a research program to support the Coast Guard’s efforts

to reduce the threat that ships pose for the introduction of new species into U.S.

waters, efforts that will spur the development of technologies to prevent invasive

species from entering U. S. waters.

Finally, the last part authorizes the National Science Foundation to establish a

grant program aimed at supporting academic research in systematics and taxonomy,

so that we will maintain U.S. expertise in these areas and enhance our ability to

identify invaders once they arrive.

This legislation complements bills introduced by Mr. Gilchrest in the House and

Mr. Levin in the Senate to reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act. Taken together, both my legislation and Mr. Gilchrest’s represent an important step forward

in our efforts to prevent invasive species from ever crossing our borders and to combat them once they arrive. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to deal with

this problem, and so I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And without objection, all Members may place opening statements in the record at

this point in time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE KEN CALVERT

I appreciate the great efforts, of my dear friend and colleague from Michigan, Mr.

Ehlers, to move H.R. 1081 forward. The eradication of non-native invasive species

is extremely important in my district and throughout California. In my state a new

pest is introduced every 60 days and, as history has shown, many have become esVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
148

tablished and destructive to agriculture and native habitats. Non-native invasive

species will continue to be introduced as international air transport, tourism, human

immigration, and movement of infested agricultural products increase. While H.R.

1081 specifically addresses aquatic invasive species, it serves to highlight all

invasive species problems that threaten billions of dollars in agricultural products

and jeopardize our water resources. This legislation stresses early detection and coordinated scientific efforts which will have positive results in our communities to

combat invasive species in watersheds, rivers, lakes, and coastal areas. I urge my

colleagues to support this common sense legislation and with that I want to thank

Mr. Ehlers again and thank you Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith of Michigan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE NICK SMITH

I want to thank Chairman Boehlert for holding this hearing today to vote on H.R.

1081, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. I am a co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe that it is critically important for the environment and the

economy.

Invasive aquatic species (IAS) inflict billions of dollars worth of damage every

year. Foreign to the area that they inhabit, IAS disrupt the ecosystem leading to

far reaching and often unexpected consequences. In the State of Michigan, zebra

mussels native to Europe infest intake and discharge pipes from facilities that use

Great Lakes water, requiring costly maintenance.

My district has been directly affected by a different type of invasive species. The

Emerald Ash Borer, native to Asia, was discovered ravishing ash trees in southeast

Michigan last summer. So far it has infested about 5.5 million trees and is expected

to spread. Whether aquatic or not, these unwanted guests take a considerable toll

on society. I feel that it is important that we all continue to work to control and

eradicate all forms of harmful invasive species.

This legislation will provide the funding and coordination necessary to allow us

to begin fighting IAS comprehensively. For the first time, we will be able to determine the exact routes that IAS take to get here so that new infestations can be prevented. H.R. 1081 will lead to the development of new, environmentally friendly

methods for exterminating IAS. It will also establish a research project to come up

with standards to eliminate the risk of ships transporting new species into our waters. And finally, a new grant program within the National Science Foundation will

be funded to support academic research to make us better able to identify IAS after

they arrive. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1081.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. Thank you Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers for working

with me to reach a compromise on my amendment to initiate a survey by the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to gather information about the experience of state

and federal agencies in eradicating and controlling invasive species.

I look forward to further collaboration with you as this bill moves closer to consideration by the House. I hope we will be able to develop a provision that will move

beyond planning to implementation of a data collection effort by USGS and NOAA.

Resource managers in State and local agencies continue to struggle with an increasing list of invasive species, both aquatic and terrestrial. That is why it is crucial we establish a centralized database to determine what has and has not worked

for control and eradication as applied in management setting. In my area, invasive

species including Asian Carp and zebra mussels, have been invading our fresh

water sources. The invasion of these species has been costly to our boaters and our

ecosystems. Our state and local agencies would benefit from a national database

that included information about the effectiveness of prevention and control methods

as well as cost of each method.

There is more to research than merely documenting the pattern and consequences

of invasions. Our states and local areas need to be able to access a wide variety of

information, including effectiveness and cost, on a broad range of species.

I want to thank Chairman Ehlers for introducing H.R. 1081 and Chairman Boehlert for working with me on this amendment.

149

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Baird will have first priority for his

statement. He is—has a conflict that requires him to be elsewhere,

but we will put him first in line for the statements.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as open and

read to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed

with the amendments in the order of the roster.

[H.R. 1081 follows:]

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1081

To establish marine and freshwater research, development, and demonstration programs to support efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species, as

well as to educate citizens and stakeholders and restore ecosystems.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 2003

Mr. EHLERS (for himself, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. ORTIZ,

Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. CAMP, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. EMANUEL,

Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. FARR, Mr.

CUMMINGS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr.

QUINN, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mrs.

MALONEY, Mr. DINGELL, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. LEE, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. DICKS, Ms.

BORDALLO, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WALSH, Mr. UPTON, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. SMITH of

Michigan, Mr. CASE, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr.

PALLONE, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. ALLEN, Mrs. MILLER of

Michigan, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. HOUGHTON, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr.

MCGOVERN, Mr. MCCOTTER, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. LEACH, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr.

NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. HONDA, Mr. LIPINSKI,

Mr. WEINER, Mr. KIND, Mr. EVANS, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr.

KLECZKA, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, and Mr. LATOURETTE) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Resources, and

House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of

the committee concerned

A BILL

To establish marine and freshwater research, development, and demonstration programs to support efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species, as

well as to educate citizens and stakeholders and restore ecosystems.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Aquatic invasive species damage infrastructure, disrupt commerce,

outcompete native species, reduce biodiversity, and threaten human health.

(2) The direct and indirect costs of aquatic invasive species to our Nation’s

economy number in the billions of dollars per year. In the Great Lakes region,

approximately $3,000,000,000 dollars have been spent in the past 10 years to

mitigate the damage caused by one invasive species, the zebra mussel.

(3) Recent studies have shown that, in addition to economic damage,

invasive species cause enormous environmental damage, and have cited

invasive species as the second leading threat to endangered species.

(4) Over the past 200 years, the rate of detected marine and freshwater invasions in North America has increased exponentially.

150

(5) The rate of invasions continues to grow each year.

(6) Marine and freshwater research underlies every aspect of detecting, preventing, controlling, and eradicating invasive species, educating citizens and

stakeholders, and restoring ecosystems.

(7) Current federal efforts, including research efforts, have focused primarily on controlling established invasive species, which is both costly and often

unsuccessful. An emphasis on research, development, and demonstration to support efforts to prevent invasive species or eradicate them upon entry into

United States waters would likely result in a more cost-effective and successful

approach to combating invasive species through preventing initial introduction.

(8) Research, development, and demonstration to support prevention and

eradication includes monitoring of both pathways and ecosystems to track the

introduction and establishment of non-native species, and development and testing of technologies to prevent introduction through known pathways.

(9) Therefore, Congress finds that it is in the United States interest to conduct a comprehensive and thorough research, development, and demonstration

program on aquatic invasive species in order to better understand how aquatic

invasive species are introduced and become established and to support efforts

to prevent the introduction and establishment of, and to eradicate, these species.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) ADMINISTERING AGENCIES.—The term ‘‘administering agencies’’ means——(A) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (including

the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory);

(B) the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; and

(C) the United States Geological Survey.

(2) AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM.—The term ‘‘aquatic ecosystem’’ means a freshwater, marine, or estuarine environment (including inland waters and wetlands) located in the United States.

(3) BALLAST WATER.—The term ‘‘ballast water’’ means any water (with its

suspended matter) used to maintain the trim and stability of a vessel.

(4) INVASION.—The term ‘‘invasion’’ means the introduction and establishment of an invasive species into an ecosystem beyond its historic range.

(5) INVASIVE SPECIES.—The term ‘‘invasive species’’ means a species——

(A) that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration; and

(B) whose introduction causes or may cause harm to the economy, the

environment, or human health.

(6) INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL.—The term ‘‘Invasive Species Council’’ means

the council established by section 3 of Executive Order No. 13112 (42 U.S.C.

4321 note).

(7) PATHWAY.—The term ‘‘pathway’’ means 1 or more routes by which an

invasive species is transferred from one ecosystem to another.

(8) SPECIES.—The term ‘‘species’’ means any fundamental category of taxonomic classification or any viable biological material ranking below a genus or

subgenus.

(9) TASK FORCE.—The term ‘‘Task Force’’ means the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force established by section 1201(a) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4721(a) ).

(10) TYPE APPROVAL.—The term ‘‘type approval’’ means an approval procedure under which a type of system is certified as meeting a standard established pursuant to federal law for a particular application.

SEC. 4. CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION.

(a) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The administering agencies shall enter

into a memorandum of understanding regarding implementation of this Act.

(b) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out this Act, the administering agencies shall

consult with——

(1) the Task Force and Invasive Species Council;

(2) the Environmental Protection Agency; and

(3) other appropriate Federal and State agencies.

(c) COOPERATION.—In carrying out this Act, the administering agencies shall

contract, as appropriate, or otherwise cooperate with academic researchers.

SEC. 5. ECOLOGICAL AND PATHWAY RESEARCH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The administering agencies shall develop and conduct a marine and fresh-water research program which shall include ecological and pathway

151

surveys and experimentation to detect non-native aquatic species in aquatic ecosystems and to assess rates and patterns of introductions of non-native aquatic species in aquatic ecosystems. The goal of this marine and freshwater research program

shall be to support efforts to prevent the introduction of, detect, and eradicate

invasive species through informing early detection and rapid response efforts, informing relevant policy decisions, and assessing the effectiveness of implemented

policies to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species. Surveys

and experiments under this subsection shall be commenced not later than 18

months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT.—The administering agencies shall establish

standardized protocols for conducting ecological and pathway surveys of non-native

aquatic species that are integrated and produce comparable data, and shall recommend a standardized approach for classifying species. For ecological surveys, two

protocols shall be developed, one to support early detection surveys that may be conducted by Federal, State, or local agencies involved in the management of invasive

species, and a second protocol to support the surveys conducted under subsection

(a). Protocols shall, as practicable, be integrated with existing protocols and data

collection methods. Upon the development of protocols to support early detection

surveys, the Task Force shall make appropriate efforts to disseminate the protocols

to appropriate Federal, State, and local entities. In developing the protocols under

this subsection, the administering agencies shall draw on the recommendations

gathered at the workshop under subsection (g). The protocols shall be peer reviewed,

and revised as necessary. Protocols shall be completed within 1 year after the date

of the enactment of this Act.

(c) ECOLOGICAL AND PATHWAY SURVEY REQUIREMENTS.—(1) Each ecological survey conducted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum——

(A) document baseline ecological information of the aquatic ecosystem including, to the extent practicable, a comprehensive inventory of native species,

non-native species, and species of unknown origin present in the ecosystem, as

well as the chemical and physical characteristics of the water and underlying

substrate;

(B) for non-native species, gather information to assist in identifying their

life history, environmental requirements and tolerances, the historic range of

their native ecosystems, and their history of spreading from their native ecosystems;

(C) track the establishment of non-native species including information

about the estimated population of non-native organisms in order to allow an

analysis of the probable date of introduction of the species; and

(D) identify the likely pathway of entry of non-native species.

(2) Each pathway survey conducted under this section shall, at a minimum——

(A) identify what non-native aquatic species are being introduced or may

be introduced through the pathways under consideration;

(B) determine the quantities of organisms being introduced through the

pathways under consideration; and

(C) determine the practices that contributed to or could contribute to the

introduction of non-native aquatic species through the pathway under consideration.

(d) NUMBER AND LOCATION OF SURVEY SITES.—The administering agencies shall

designate the number and location of survey sites necessary to carry out marine and

freshwater research required under this section. In establishing sites under this

subsection or subsection (e), emphasis shall be on the geographic diversity of sites,

as well as the diversity of the human uses and biological characteristics of sites.

(e) COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM.—The administering agencies (acting through

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) shall administer a program

to award grants to academic institutions, State agencies, and other appropriate

groups, in order to assist in carrying out subsections (b) and (h). This program shall

be competitive, peer-reviewed, and merit-based.

(f) SHIP PATHWAY SURVEYS.—Section 1102(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4712(b)(2)(B)(ii) )

is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(ii) examine other potential modes for the introduction of non-native aquatic species by ship, including hull fouling.’’.

(g) WORKSHOP.—In order to support the development of the protocols and design

for the surveys under subsections (b) and (c), the administering agencies shall convene a workshop with appropriate researchers from Federal and State agencies and

academic institutions to gather recommendations. The administering agencies shall

make the results of the workshop widely available to the public. The workshop shall

be held within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

152

(h) EXPERIMENTATION.—The administering agencies shall conduct laboratory

and field-based marine and freshwater research experiments on a range of taxonomic groups to identify the relationship between the introduction and establishment of non-native aquatic species, including those legally introduced, and the circumstances necessary for those species to survive and thrive.

(i) NATIONAL PATHWAY AND ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS DATABASE.—— (1) IN GENERAL.—The United States Geological Survey shall develop, maintain, and update, in consultation and cooperation with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Task Force, a central, national database of information concerning

information collected under this section.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The database shall——

(A) be widely available to the public;

(B) be updated not less than once a quarter;

(C) be coordinated with existing databases collecting similar information; and

(D) be, to the maximum extent practicable, formatted such that the

data is useful for both researchers and Federal and State employees managing relevant invasive species programs.

SEC. 6. ANALYSIS.

(a) INVASION ANALYSIS.——

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

of this Act, and every year thereafter, the administering agencies shall analyze

data collected under section 5 and other relevant research on the rates and patterns of invasions by aquatic invasive species in waters of the United States.

The purpose of this analysis shall be to use the data collected under section 5

and other relevant research to support efforts to prevent the introduction of, detect, and eradicate invasive species through informing early detection and rapid

response efforts, informing relevant policy decisions, and assessing the effectiveness of implemented policies to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive

species.

(2) CONTENTS.—The analysis required under paragraph (1) shall include

with respect to aquatic invasive species——

(A) an analysis of pathways, including——

(i) identifying, and characterizing as high, medium, or low risk,

pathways regionally and nationally;

(ii) identifying new and expanding pathways;

(iii) identifying handling practices that contribute to the introduction of species in pathways; and

(iv) assessing the risk that species legally introduced into the

United States pose for introduction into aquatic ecosystems;

(B) patterns and rates of invasion and susceptibility to invasion of various bodies of water;

(C) how the risk of establishment through a pathway is related to the

identity and number of organisms transported;

(D) rates of spread and numbers and types of pathways of spread of

new populations of the aquatic invasive species and an estimation of the

potential spread and distribution of newly introduced invasive species based

on their environmental requirements and historical distribution;

(E) documentation of factors that influence an ecosystem’s vulnerability

to a non-native aquatic species becoming invasive;

(F) a description of the potential for, and impacts of, pathway management programs on invasion rates;

(G) recommendations for improvements in the effectiveness of pathway

management;

(H) to the extent practical, a determination of the level of reduction in

live organisms of various taxonomic groups required to reduce the risk of

establishment to receiving aquatic ecosystems to an acceptable level; and

(I) an evaluation of the effectiveness of management actions (including

any standard) at reducing species introductions and establishment.

(c) RESEARCH TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTRODUCED SPECIES.—Within two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

administering agencies shall develop a profile, based on the general characteristics

of invasive species and vulnerable ecosystems, in order to predict, to the extent

practical, whether a species planned for importation is likely to invade a particular

aquatic ecosystem if introduced. In developing the profile, the above agencies shall

analyze the research conducted under section 5, and other research as necessary,

153

to determine general species and ecosystem characteristics (taking into account the

opportunity for introduction into any ecosystem) and circumstances that can lead to

establishment. Based on the profile, the Task Force shall make recommendations

to the Invasive Species Council as to what planned importations of non-native

aquatic organisms should be restricted. This profile shall be peer-reviewed.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out this section and section 5 of this Act, and section 1102(b)(2)

of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16

U.S.C. 4712(b)(2) ) for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008——

(1) $4,000,000 for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center;

(2) $4,500,000 for the United States Geological Survey, of which $500,000

shall be for developing, maintaining, and updating the database under section

5(i); and

(3) $17,000,000 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

of which $13,000,000 shall be for the grant program under section 5(e).

SEC. 7. DISSEMINATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Invasive Species Council, in coordination with the Task

Force and the administering agencies, shall be responsible for disseminating the information collected under this Act to Federal, State, and local entities, including relevant policymakers, and private researchers with responsibility over or interest in

aquatic invasive species.

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Invasive Species Council shall report actions and findings

under section 6 to the Congress, and shall update this report once every three years

thereafter, or more often as necessary.

(c) RESPONSE STRATEGY.—The Invasive Species Council, in coordination with

the Task Force, the administering agencies, and other appropriate Federal and

State agencies, shall develop and implement a national strategy for how information

collected under this Act will be shared with Federal, State, and local entities with

responsibility for determining response to the introduction of potentially harmful

non-native aquatic species, to enable those entities to better and more rapidly respond to such introductions.

(d) PATHWAY PRACTICES.—The Invasive Species Council, in coordination with

the Task Force and the administering agencies, shall disseminate information to,

and develop an ongoing educational program for, pathway users (including vendors

and customers) on how their practices could be modified to prevent the intentional

or unintentional introduction of non-native aquatic species into aquatic ecosystems.

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 $500,000 for the Invasive Species Council for carrying out this section.

SEC. 8. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND VERIFICATION.

(a) ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION,

AND VERIFICATION.——

(1) GRANT PROGRAM.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment

of this Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the Office of

Research and Development, in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers

and the administering agencies, shall develop and begin administering a grant

program to fund research, development, demonstration, and verification of environmentally sound cost-effective technologies and methods to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species.

(2) PURPOSES.—Proposals funded under this subsection shall——

(A) seek to support Federal, State, or local officials’ ongoing efforts to

control and eradicate aquatic invasive species in an environmentally sound

manner;

(B) increase the number of environmentally sound technologies or

methods Federal, State, or local officials may use to control or eradicate

aquatic invasive species;

(C) provide for demonstration or dissemination of the technology or

method to potential end-users; and

(D) verify that any technology or method meets any appropriate criteria

developed for effectiveness and environmental soundness by the Environmental Protection Agency.

(3) PREFERENCE.—The Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency shall give preference to proposals that will likely meet any appropriate

criteria developed for environmental soundness by the Environmental Protection Agency.

154

(4) MERIT REVIEW.—Grants shall be awarded under this subsection through

a competitive, peer-reviewed, merit-based process.

(5) REPORT.—Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of

this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall prepare and submit a report to Congress on the program conducted under this subsection. The report shall include findings and recommendations of the Administrator with regard to technologies and methods.

(b) DISPERSAL BARRIER RESEARCH PROGRAM.—Not later than 1 year after the

date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for the Corps

of Engineers, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other appropriate federal agencies and academic researchers, shall establish a research, development, and demonstration program to study environmentally sound methods and

technologies to reduce dispersal of aquatic invasive species through interbasin waterways and assess the potential for using those methods and technologies in other

waterways.

(c) SHIP PATHWAY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION.——

(1) REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM.—Section 1301(e) of the Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4741(e) ) is

amended by striking ‘‘$2,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008’’.

(2) EXPANSION OF PROGRAM.—Section 1104(b) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4714(b) ) is

amended——

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6),

respectively; and

(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:

‘‘(4) ADDITIONAL PURPOSES.—The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce may also demonstrate and verify technologies under this

subsection to monitor and control pathways of organism transport on ships

other than through ballast water.’’.

(3) CRITERIA AND WORKSHOP.—Section 1104 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4714) is amended by

adding at the end the following new subsections:

‘‘(d) CRITERIA.—When issuing grants under this section, the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration shall give preference to those technologies that will

likely meet the criteria laid out in any testing protocol developed by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development’s Environmental

Technology Verification Program.

‘‘(e) WORKSHOP.—The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall

hold an annual workshop of principal investigators funded under this section and

researchers conducting research directly related to ship pathway technology development, for information exchange, and shall make the proceedings widely available

to the public.’’.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008——

(1) $2,500,000 for the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out subsection (a); and

(2) $1,000,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to carry out subsection (b).

SEC. 9. RESEARCH TO SUPPORT THE SETTING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SHIP PATHWAY

STANDARDS.

(a) RESEARCH PROGRAM.—The Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection

Agency, in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

the Task Force, and other appropriate federal agencies and academic researchers,

shall develop a coordinated research program to support the promulgation and implementation of standards to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species

by ships that shall include——

(1) characterizing physical, chemical, and biological harbor conditions relevant to ballast discharge into United States waters to inform the design and

implementation of ship vector control technologies and practices;

(2) developing testing protocols for determining the effectiveness of vector

monitoring and control technologies and practices;

(3) researching and demonstrating methods for mitigating the spread of

invasive species by coastal voyages, including exploring the effectiveness of alternative exchange zones in the near coastal areas and other methods proposed

to reduce transfers of organisms;

155

(4) verifying the practical effectiveness of any type approval process to ensure that the process produces repeatable and accurate assessments of treatment effectiveness; and

(5) evaluating the effectiveness and residual risk and environmental impacts associated with any standard set with respect to the ship pathway

through experimental research.

(b) PERFORMANCE TEST.—Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this

Act, the Coast Guard, in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and

Technology and the Maritime Administration, shall design a performance test for

ballast water exchange such as a dye study to measure the effectiveness of ballast

water exchange.

(c) NATIONAL ACADEMY STUDY.—The Secretary of the Department in which the

Coast Guard is operating shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under which the Academy shall——

(1) identify the relative risk of transfer of various taxonomic groups by different ship modes;

(2) assess the extent to which a ballast water standard that virtually eliminates the risk of introduction of invasive species by ballast water may relate

to the risk of introductions by all ship modes, and explain the degree of uncertainty in such assessment; and

(3) recommend methods for reducing organism transfers by ships by addressing all parts and systems of ships and all related modes of transport of

invasive species, and identify the research, development, and demonstration

needed to improve the information base to support such methods, including economic information.

Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall transmit to the Congress a report on the results of the study under this subsection.

(d) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later than the later of one year after the date of

submission of the report under subsection (c), or three years after the date of the

enactment of this Act, the Task Force, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, the administering agencies, and other appropriate Federal and State

agencies and academic researchers, shall submit to the Coast Guard a report that

describes recommendations for——

(1) a ship pathway treatment standard that incorporates all potential

modes of transfer by ships; and

(2) methods for type approval and accurate monitoring of treatment performance that are simple and streamlined and follow established protocols.

(e) WORKING GROUP.—Not later than two years after the issuance by the Coast

Guard of any standard relating to the introduction by ships of invasive species, the

Coast Guard shall convene a working group including the Environmental Protection

Agency, the administering agencies, and other appropriate Federal and State agencies and academic researchers, to evaluate the effectiveness of that standard and accompanying implementation protocols. The duties of the working group shall, at a

minimum, include——

(1) reviewing the effectiveness of the standard in reducing the establishment of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems, taking into consideration the

data collected under section 5; and

(2) developing recommendations to the Coast Guard for the revision of such

standard and type approval process to ensure effectiveness in reducing introductions and accurate shipboard monitoring of treatment performance that is simple and streamlined, which shall be made widely available to the public.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be

appropriated——

(1) for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 $1,500,000 for the Coast

Guard and $1,500,000 for Environmental Protection Agency to carry out subsection (a);

(2) for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2006 $500,000 for the Coast

Guard to carry out subsection (b); and

(3) for fiscal year 2004 $500,000 for the Coast Guard to carry out subsection

(c), to remain available until expended.

SEC. 10. RESEARCH IN SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The National Science Foundation shall establish a program

to award grants to researchers at institutions of higher education and museums to

carry out research programs in systematics and taxonomy.

(b) GOALS.—The goals of the program under this section are to——

156

(1) encourage scientists to pursue careers in systematics and taxonomy to

ensure a continuing knowledge base in these disciplines;

(2) ensure that there will be adequate expertise in systematics and taxonomy to support Federal, State, and local needs to identify species;

(3) develop this expertise throughout the United States with an emphasis

on regional diversity; and

(4) draw on existing expertise in systematics and taxonomy at institutions

of higher education and museums to train the next generation of systematists

and taxonomists.

(c) CRITERIA.—Grants shall be awarded under this section on a merit-reviewed

competitive basis. Emphasis shall be placed on funding proposals in a diverse set

of ecosystems and geographic locations, and, when applicable, integrated with the

United States Long Term Ecological Research Network. Preference shall be given

to proposals that will include student participation, and to institutions and museums that actively train students to become experts in taxonomy and systematics.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this section $2,500,000

each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

Æ

157

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1081 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

H.R. 1081, AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES RESEARCH ACT

Section 1. Short Title

This Act is named the ‘‘Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act.’’

Section 2. Findings

The legislation establishes several findings in support of the legislation, and finds

that aquatic invasive species pose significant direct and indirect costs to the U.S.

economy and environment, and that more research is needed to better direct federal

efforts toward effectively preventing the introduction of invasive species.

Section 3. Definitions

The administering agencies of the Act are defined as the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and

the United States Geological Survey.

The following additional terms are defined: aquatic ecosystem, ballast water, invasion, invasive species, invasive species council, pathway, species, task force, and

type approval.

Section 4. Consultation and Cooperation

The administering agencies shall enter into a memorandum of agreement regarding implementation of this Act. In carrying out the Act, they shall consult with the

Task Force, the Invasive Species Council, the Environmental Protection Agency and

other appropriate State and Federal agencies, and shall cooperate with academic researchers.

Section 5. Ecological and Pathway Research

The administering agencies shall conduct surveys of ecosystems and of pathways

(such as ships’ ballast water) by which invasive species enter U.S. waters in order

to track the introduction of invasive species. They shall also conduct experiments

to understand the relationship between the conditions under which an invasive species is introduced and the likelihood that it will become established, and maintain

a database of all of the information gathered under this section. Ecosystem surveys

will review the patterns and rates of invasion at the site, track the establishment

of species in ecosystems, monitor the circumstances accompanying that establishment, and document factors that may influence an ecosystem’s vulnerability to invasion. Pathway surveys will identify the species being introduced through a given

pathway, the quantity being introduced, and handling practices that contribute to

the introduction. In carrying out this program the administering agencies will develop standardized protocols for carrying out the surveys and will coordinate their

efforts to establish long-term survey sites to collect strong baseline information. A

grant program is established to fund academic researchers and state agencies to

carry out the surveys at diverse sites distributed geographically around the country.

Section 6. Analysis

The administering agencies shall analyze the survey and experimental results collected under Section 5. Specifically, they will, among other things, identify the highest risk pathways, identify handling practices within pathways that contribute to

introductions, and evaluate how much effort is required in reducing introductions

for various taxonomic groups to reduce the risk that they will become established.

The agencies shall recommend and review pathway management programs to reduce introductions of invasive species. A profile, based on information about species

characteristics, ecosystem characteristics and environmental circumstances that

favor invasion, will be developed to predict, to the extent practical, whether a species planned for importation is likely to invade a particular ecosystem.

Authorization of Appropriations—To carry out sections 5 and 6 for FY04 through

FY08, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is authorized $17 million ($13 million of which is for the grant program), the Smithsonian Environmental

Research Center is authorized $4 million, and the United States Geological Survey

is authorized $4.5 million ($500,000 million of which is to administer the database).

Section 7. Dissemination

The National Invasive Species Council shall disseminate the information developed under Section 6 to relevant audiences. This includes a report to Congress, a

mechanism to provide survey findings to support rapid response efforts, and dissemination to users of the various pathways invasive species exploit of information

158

regarding how their practices should be modified to prevent the introduction of nonnative species. The National Invasive Species Council is authorized for FY04

through FY08 $500,000 million per year.

Section 8. Technology Development and Demonstration

The Act establishes and expands several programs to develop technologies to prevent, control and eradicate invasive species. These include (authorizations are for

FY04 through FY08):

• The creation of an Environmental Protection Agency grant program to fund

research, development, demonstration and verification of a suite of environmentally sound technologies to control and eradicate invasive species. (authorized at $2.5 million per year)

• The creation of an Army Corps of Engineers dispersal barrier research program. (authorized at $1 million per year)

• The expansion of the Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program to include the demonstration of technologies to treat all ship pathways of introduction (including hull fouling). (authorized at $7.5 million per year)

Section 9. Research to Support the Setting and Implementation of Standards

The Act establishes a research program to support the setting, implementation

and evaluation of standards for treatment of ship pathways of introduction. This includes:

• The creation of a Coast Guard and EPA research program to conduct experiments and answer relevant policy questions associated with standards and

their implementation, such as the identification of possible circumstances in

which a ship may encounter invasive species and in which a treatment technology must be effective. (authorized at $1.5 million for EPA and $1.5 million

for Coast Guard for FY04 through FY08)

• Coast Guard research to design a performance test for ballast water exchange. (authorized at $500,000 million for FY04 through FY06)

• A study by the National Academy of Sciences to develop recommendations for

a standard. (authorized at $500,000 for FY04)

• An interagency working group to evaluate the effectiveness of the standard

and make recommendations for revision.

Section 10. Research in Systematics and Taxonomy

The National Science Foundation shall establish a competitive, peer-reviewed program to award grants to researchers at institutions of higher education and museums to carry out research in systematics and taxonomy. The program is authorized

at $2.5 million for FY04 through FY08.

159

[The Summary of H.R. 1081 follows:]

THE AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES RESEARCH ACT SUMMARY

BY VERNON J. EHLERS

JUNE 2003

What exactly is an invasive species?

Last summer, a voracious fish known as the Northern Snakehead became a media

cause celebre and a serious threat to Maryland waterways. This predator wipes out

native fish and once it is done feeding in one pond, it literally gets up and crawls

across land to the next one. Once discovered in Maryland, Federal, State and local

governments undertook rapid and successful efforts to wipe out this fish before it

could establish itself and destroy native species. This is only one example out of

thousands of non-native species that have been either intentionally or unintentionally introduced into United States waters. These ‘‘invasive species’’ take hold and

multiply in ecosystems where they don’t have any competition, causing tremendous

economic and environmental harm. This legislation seeks to address the threat to

U.S. waterways posed by all aquatic invasive species.

What harm do invasive species cause?

Invasive species can cause tremendous harm. Estimating the total economic impact of invasive species is extremely difficult, as no single organization accumulates

such statistics comprehensively. However, researchers at Cornell University estimate that invasive species cost Americans $137 billion annually. This includes the

cost of control, damage to property values, health costs and other factors. However,

it only takes one species to cost government and private citizens billions of dollars.

For example, zebra mussels have cost the various entities in the Great Lakes basin

an estimated $3 billion during the past 10 years for cleaning water intake pipes,

purchasing filtration equipment, etc. (Zebra mussels are bivalves native to European waters that scientists believe were first introduced to the Great Lakes through

ships’ ballast water exchanges in the late 1980s.)

Beyond economic impacts, invasive species cause ecological costs that are even

more difficult to quantify. For example, sea lamprey control measures in the Great

Lakes cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually. However, we do not

have a good measure of the cost of lost fisheries due to this invader, which was first

discovered in the Great Lakes in the early 1900s. In fact, invasive species now are

second only to habitat loss as threats to endangered species. Quantifying the loss

due to extinction caused by these invasive species is nearly impossible.

What does the legislation do to combat invasive species?

The Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act establishes a comprehensive research

program to assist policy-makers to make good decisions on the best methods to prevent invasive species from entering U.S. waters. It also enhances our ability to detect invasive species early and respond to eradicate them rapidly once they are established. The major provisions of the legislation are:

• A comprehensive ecological and pathway research program, combining surveys and experimentation, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological Survey and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, so that policy-makers will be able to assess how

these species get into our waterways and whether or not management decisions are helping reduce invasions;

• A development, demonstration and verification program run by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop environmentally sound technologies to

control and eradicate invasive species, so that Federal, State, and local managers will have more tools combat invasive species;

• A research program to support the Coast Guard’s efforts to reduce the threat

that ships pose for the introduction new species into U.S. waters, efforts that

will spur the development of technology to prevent invasive species from entering U.S. waters;

• A grant program within the National Science Foundation to support academic

research in systematics and taxonomy, so that we will maintain U.S. expertise in these areas and enhance our ability to identify invaders once they arrive; and,

• Adequate funding to conduct the necessary research to assist policy-makers

in making decisions that effectively reduce this threat, and to advance the deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
160

velopment of the technologies necessary to control the threat. The bill is authorized at approximately $43.5 million per year from 2004 until 2008.

161

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

162

Chairman BOEHLERT. And the roster lists just three amendments—yeah, three amendments. The first amendment up, Mr.

Ehlers, En Bloc.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendments to H.R. 1081 offered by Mr. Ehlers

and Mr. Baird.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Baird follows:]

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The En Bloc Amendment that Mr. Baird and I are offering makes several primarily

technical changes to the bill and clarifies our intent with respect

to how the Act would be carried out. Among other things, the

amendment would clarify that those involved in managing invasive

species at the State level are included in the workshop that we require in this legislation and clarifies that grant money should be

used to fund research on aquatic invasive species in both coastal

and inland aquatic ecosystems.

The amendment also includes language proposed by Mr. Davis to

increase state input into the program, language proposed by Mr.

Matheson to recognize the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research

Program, and language proposed by Mr. Costello to develop a plan

to evaluate current control and eradication technologies. This

amendment is not controversial. It has been put together by the

Minority and the Majority, and I hope that all of my colleagues will

support it.

Chairman BOEHLERT. This is the traditional bipartisan Manager’s Amendment worked out with Mr.—with Dr. Baird and Dr.

Ehlers. And I assume there is no controversy. Is there anyone that

feels compelled to speak to these——

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. I would move to strike the last word.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. UDALL. I want to just speak on behalf of our colleague, Congressman Baird; he has been, unfortunately, detained, as you mentioned. And so that we don’t hold up the proceedings, he asked me

to express his gratitude and the gratitude of the Committee to

Chairman Ehlers for working with us on the bill and to you, Mr.

Boehlert—Mr. Chairman, as well.

So I would ask unanimous consent that Representative Baird’s

statement would be placed in the record, and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying bill.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN BAIRD

I want to thank Chairman Boehlert for moving this bill forward today. I also want

to thank Subcommittee Chairman Ehlers for working with me on this Manager’s

amendment.

Invasive species are now found throughout the country, and they are causing extensive ecological and economic damage. States and local resource management

agencies are struggling with problems created by invasive species—everything from

degradation of habitat for ecologically and commercially important native species to

clogging of waterways and water infrastructure. The list of damaging species is long

and it is growing rapidly. Assuming we can provide the additional resources authorized in this bill, we will gather the information we need to prevent introduction of,

and to respond quickly to eradicate and control invasive species. Prevention and

quick response will enable us to save millions of dollars and to maintain the productivity of our land and water resources.

This bill will now proceed to the Resources, Transportation, and House Administration Committees. I welcome the opportunity to continue working with Chairman

Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers over in the Transportation Committee to further improve this bill and the companion bill on invasive species management. I urge all

my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill.

170

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and I do—the Chair

does acknowledge the outstanding contribution that Dr. Baird has

made to this subcommittee and the Full Committee. And we miss

him, but we know there are conflicts, and we all have conflicts.

Is there anyone else who feels—yes, sir, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to thank the Chairman for allowing the particular amendment that I have offered to

be allowed to be in the Manager’s Amendment. And I would like

unanimous consent to include a statement.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN DAVIS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend, Chairman Ehlers for his work on

this legislation. Invasive species cost the United States billions of dollars every year.

We need to work smarter to control invasive species and H.R. 1081 is a step in the

right direction.

As we all know, states and localities bear the brunt of controlling and eradicating

invasive species. H.R. 1081 develops a number of protocols to help states identify

invasive species, before they become a problem. I was concerned there wasn’t a good

tie between what the research community would develop and the actual users of

their activities. My amendment would ensure that there is coordination between the

federal agencies implementing this legislation and state officials. At a hearing before the Subcommittee on Harmful Algal Bloom, one state manager said that researchers pursue a path of enquiry or develop a plan that doesn’t really suit the

needs of state officials. In this time of scarce budget resources, I wanted to ensure

that research agendas and protocols will yield results and data that can be used by

State and local officials.

This is not a major change to the legislation, it simply strengthens existing language in Sec. 4 of the bill.

I want to thank Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Ehlers for working with me

on this amendment. And I would urge everyone to support this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. If there is no further discussion, Mr.

Boehlert——

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, could I just——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, just—I have a statement I would

like to submit for the record. And I just want to thank you and

your staff for being very helpful in incorporating some language in

the Manager’s Amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM MATHESON

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Chairman of the Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee for including my amendment in the Manager’s

amendment. As you know, drought continues to be a great problem in the West.

Tamarisk and other invasive riparian species overwhelmingly contribute to this ongoing problem. Tamarisk is helping to reshape the large river ecosystems throughout the Colorado River System. This plant changes river hydrology and

geomorphology, affecting habitats for organisms living in the river. The Green and

Colorado Rivers in Utah are particularly vulnerable to additional disruption of ecosystem functions. Tamarisk occupies more than a million acres of riparian habitat

in the West. Tamarisk consumes as much water as California’s allotment of the Colorado River. A single plant can absorb up to 300 gallons of water a day through

taproots that reach deep into the water table. The West is losing from 2.0 to 4.5

171

million acre-feet of water per year over what native plants would use. This is

enough water to supply over 20 million people or to irrigate over one million acres

of land. For example, Spring Lake in New Mexico was overrun by Tamarisk; eventually it occupied the entire shoreline causing a lake that was 40 to 45 feet deep to

dry up. This lake was vital for Texas water users. Something similar is bound to

happen along the Green and Colorado Rivers unless something is done. Research

is needed to both understand the reasons why this species is so dominant and to

control and reverse these invasions. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. If there are no further discussion, the vote

occurs on the amendments. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. The

ayes have it. And the amendment is agreed to.

The next amendment, amendment number two, is offered by Mr.

Hall on behalf of Ms. Jackson Lee. And I will let Mr. Hall know

that the Chair will recommend this as a good amendment and is

prepared to accept it.

Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. I won’t ruin my chances of passage by explaining it.

I yield back my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Everyone has a copy of the amendment

before——

Mr. HALL. I ask unanimous consent to put Mrs. Jackson Lee’s

statement in the record.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

This is a good bill, and I commend you and Ranking Member Hall for your hard

work. This bill will definitely bring protection to our nation’s waterways, like in Galveston Bay and the Port of Houston. This amendment simply makes sure that we

get the most we can out of our federal research investment, by ensuring that the

Act harnesses the power of the diverse pool of excellent colleges and universities in

the United States.

All of our major colleges and universities have dual purposes—producing data—

and producing the intellectual leaders of tomorrow. As written, this Act will enable

our nation’s research facilities to produce scientific data which will guide better policy and procedures and products, that will make our waterways cleaner, clearer for

traffic, and more hospitable to the fish and wildlife that are supposed to be there.

As an added benefit, much of that research will be done by graduate students and

post-doctoral fellows, who will then become the leaders in oceanographic and biological research in the future.

My amendment also has a dual purpose. In the section of the bill establishing the

competitive grant program, it adds that the program will include Historically Black

Colleges and Universities, those serving large proportions of Hispanics, Native

Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, and other populations under-represented in the

sciences. It will ensure that the research programs we create take advantage of the

excellent expertise and experience of these institutions. This will make the science

better. Furthermore, it will make it more likely that the future leaders in this exciting field reflect the diversity of this great nation, so that all Americans can benefit

from the way we spend their tax dollars.

This amendment will make sure that these great institutions and the young people in them, are included and not excluded from the program we establish here. Mr.

Chairman, I understand that my staff has been working with yours on this amendment. I hope you and my colleagues will support it.

Thank you.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

172

173

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee, and I urge its adoption.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. If there is no further discussion, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say

aye. Nays. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

The third and final amendment on our list is an amendment offered by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Wu, who is recognized

for—first of all, the Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 1081 offered by Mr. Wu.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Wu follows:]

174

175

1The Committee recognizes the significant problems experienced in many of the Nation’s rivers, streams, and lakes due to invasive aquatic plants. The Committee intends to have the interagency programs authorized in this bill address the problems of aquatic invasive plants by

drawing upon the expertise and experience of Federal programs, and their State and local cooperating organizations. The program should be national in scope and strive for balanced coverage of the problems of aquatic invasive species that impact all waters of the United States.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Wu is recognized for the traditional 30

seconds.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we have invasive species in the Pacific Northwest

ranging from fish to mussels to plants. And there is, appropriately,

a lot of focus on the Great Lakes and other bodies of water where

there are larger populations and people who are concerned about

these things. We have a relatively benign environment where a lot

of invasive species can thrive and lower population and so we don’t

kick up as much of a ruckus as sometimes we could or should. We

do have a problem with certain invasive aquatic plant species.

I understand from staff discussion that the particular centers,

which this amendment is aimed at encouraging work on aquatic

species, invasive aquatic species, that these particular centers are

under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. And unless

the Chairman would like to take a poke at slightly expanding the

jurisdiction of this committee, I would certainly—I offer this

amendment and would like to work with the Chairman and the

rest of the Committee in finding a place in report language and

then in statutory language, perhaps, in an appropriate bill, in an

appropriate vehicle to effectively address these invasive aquatic

species and problems that we have in the Columbia River and the

Pacific Northwest.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

• Millions of acres of inland waterways are choked with non-native aquatic

plants. With no natural enemies, these invasive species choke native aquatic

plants, serve no value to fish and wildlife, and contribute to water quality

problems. Some of these plants also interfere with navigation, flood control,

hydropower production, and waterborne recreational uses.

• I support the intent of H.R. 1081, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act,

and applaud the sponsor of this piece of legislation, Mr. Ehlers, for H.R. 1081.

While I understand that the Army Corps of Engineers is not within the

Science Committee’s jurisdiction, the Corps’ Aquatic Plant Control Research

Program (APCRP) does have the capacity and the expertise to deal with this

issue. The APCRP is the Nation’s only federally research program directed to

develop technology for the management of non-indigenous aquatic plant species.

• I believe my amendment would help solve the aquatic invasive plants problem

by providing funding and directing the Corps to work with those regional expertise to control and eradicate invasive aquatic plants. I ask my colleagues

to work with me to address this important issue.

• I understand that staff had discussions last night about report language1 to

address the invasive aquatic plants issue. I appreciate the Chairman’s willingness to work with me on this issue.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We compliment the gentleman. Our staffs

have worked well together, and it is my understanding you are prepared to withdraw the amendment with the understanding that we

have—we will work out agreeable language for the Committee Report and will continue to work together.

176

The difference between Oregon and New York just hit me like a

ton of bricks as you were speaking. In Oregon, you raise a ruckus.

In New York, we raise hell, but we end up accomplishing a great

deal by working on a bi-coastal basis. And so is it—my understanding correct that you have agreed to withdraw the amendment,

we—understanding that we have report language that will deal on

a very responsible way with the subject matter?

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there is an

Astoria, New York, and there is an Astoria, Oregon in my Congressional District. We have a lot in common. Ruckus and otherwise

notwithstanding, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. We look forward to continued working and productive partnership.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition? Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I just wanted to have my comments. I

think Mr. Wu has—is in the right direction in offering this amendment. I disagree with one of his comments in which he said he

didn’t make enough of a ruckus. I find that he makes plenty of

ruckuses. Fortunately, they are constructive ruckuses.

I would also point out that whereas you may do similar things

in New York, it is the Midwest that quietly goes around solving all

of the problems. And so——

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. EHLERS. But I just wanted to say I agree with the action

taken. The amendment would not be appropriate, because it would

lead to tremendous jurisdictional problems in the future. But I

think it is a good idea, and let us put it in the report language and

talk about ways we can bring it into effect.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. If there are no further amendments—pardon me. It has already had unanimous consent. That is withdrawn. No further amendments. So I move that—

let us see. Now I will recognize distinguished Ranking Member.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably

report H.R. 1081, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I move that

the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make

necessary technical and conforming changes and that the Chairman take all of the necessary steps to bring the bill before the

House for consideration.

Chairman BOEHLERT. That is great. And we will hold that in reserve, because the—we have got to actually pass the bill. And so

H.R. 1081, the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, as amended.

The question is on passage. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The

ayes have it, and the bill is passed.

And Mr. Hall has already given his statement, which——

Mr. HALL. I will read it again, if you——

Chairman BOEHLERT. No, you don’t need to. We will properly insert it at the correct spot in the record.

The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The question is on the

motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion

will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And the

bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
177

sider is laid upon the table. I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental Minority or

additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of

Rule 22 of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions, as may be necessary

in the House, to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R.

1081, or a similar Senate bill. Without objection, so ordered.

This concludes our Committee markup, and I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. We were in a Transportation Committee—Subcommittee hearing. I wanted to enter

into a colloquy with you. I would ask that I submit this for the

record. I think that we have an understanding on Section 11 where

you have accepted some of the language, but we are to work out

the rest before the bill goes to the Floor. Without going through the

entire colloquy, I would ask, is that your understanding?

Chairman BOEHLERT. That is my understanding. I will be happy

to work with the gentleman, and we will have the colleague, which

we will submit, without objection, for the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Section 11 which is added by the amendment before us is an important addition,

but less ambitious than the language I originally proposed for inclusion in this legislation. I commend my colleagues for their willingness to have the administering

agencies, in cooperation with appropriate state agencies, develop a plan to survey

current methods used by the Federal and State governments to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species, facilitate exchange of information on best practices,

and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the various approaches to control of invasive

species. While the amendment also requires the plan to be submitted to the Congress, in its current form, it does not require implementation. The last thing we

need is to receive yet another plan from the Executive Branch that sits on the shelf

and gathers dust. It is my hope that we can refine this amendment to the point

where it once again becomes a full-fledged program. I agreed to the current formulation after receiving the Chairman’s assurances that there was time to improve this

provision as this bill moves through the legislative process. Is this the Chairman’s

understanding?

Chairman BOEHLERT. I will be happy to work with the gentleman. I am as committed as you are to solving this problem, but I just did not feel that we had enough

information at this point to understand how this Section 11 relates to ongoing state

activities and what the costs of such a program would be. You are correct that we

have some time before this bill reaches the Floor and I am happy to work with the

gentleman over the coming weeks to understand the implications of his original proposal and to see if we can design an implementation provision to complement the

very important step we are taking here today.

Mr. COSTELLO. I would ask that instead of having the colloquy

now that I be able to submit it for the record and we can work to

work this out.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and without objection, so ordered. And with that, let me state that the Committee

now concludes its business. Thank you all very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(179)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

ON H.R. 1085, NASA FLEXIBILITY ACT OF

2003

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. I now call the Subcommittee on Space

and Aeronautics to order. Good morning. And pursuant to notice to

the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is that we are meeting

today to consider the following measures: H.R. 1085, the NASA

Flexibility Act of 2003, and then the Committee Print for the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act.

And I welcome everyone to this markup this morning. And this

is the first markup of this subcommittee for the 108th Congress.

Let me also be the first to thank Chairman Boehlert for his leadership. Is he here with us yet? He will be. Chairman Boehlert is on

his way, and we appreciate his leadership for tackling a difficult,

yet crucial, issue and that is NASA’s workforce needs.

Today’s markup concerns H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility Act of

2003. NASA is facing a crisis regarding its workforce. A significant

portion of the workforce will be eligible to retire soon, so action

needs to be taken. H.R. 1085 is intended to provide NASA the flexibility necessary to attract the best of the brightest talent in the

fields of engineering and science by helping NASA address the

problems of recruiting and retaining highly skilled technical personnel. H.R. 1085 provides NASA with the authority needed to ensure that our skilled workforce continues to be our greatest asset

for pushing the boundaries of this great new frontier of space.

We will also markup the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act. This bill authorizes

funding for civil aviation research and development. It also calls for

a joint FAA and NASA initiative aimed at resolving the problems

facing our national air traffic management system.

This morning, I look forward to working with my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle, and I am confident that our efforts will help

maintain America’s leadership role in aerospace.

180

I also would like to thank Bart Gordon, the Ranking Member of

the Subcommittee, for his hard work on this and his openness and

willingness to work in a very bipartisan manner on this bill. And

I know there were some rough edges we had to work out, and I appreciate that he did this with goodwill and went forward in trying

to make sure that we could get this job done. And I certainly now

would recognize you for any opening remarks that you would like

to make.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Rohrabacher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANA ROHRABACHER

I want to welcome everyone here this morning for the Space Subcommittee’s first

markup of the 108th Congress. Let me also be the first to thank Chairman Boehlert

for his leadership in tackling a difficult, and yet, crucial issue—NASA’s workforce

needs.

Today’s markup concerns H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility Act of 2003. NASA is

facing a crisis regarding its workforce. A significant portion of the workforce will

be eligible to retire soon. So action needs to be taken. H.R. 1085 is intended to provide NASA the flexibility necessary to attract the best and brightest talent in the

fields of engineering and science.

By helping NASA address the problem of recruiting and retaining highly skilled

technical personnel, H.R. 1085 provides NASA with the authority needed to ensure

that a skilled workforce continues to be our greatest asset for pushing the boundaries of new frontiers.

We will also markup the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act.

This bill authorizes funding for civil aviation research and development. It also calls

for a joint FAA and NASA initiative aimed at solving the problems facing our national air traffic management system.

This morning I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the

aisle. I am confident that our efforts today will help to maintain our leadership role

in aerospace.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, you are going to make me feel bad

here with all of those nice words. This is a very important issue,

and I think that there was sincere effort to get this workforce issue

off to the right direction, but somewhere between here and the

barn, I am afraid it got turned around a little bit. And so I will

not be able to support the proposal today. And I would like to

spend just a few minutes explaining why.

On May the 13th of this year, all of the Members of the Democratic caucus of the Science Committee sent a joint letter to Chairman Boehlert. And I would like to ask unanimous consent that

that letter be inserted into the record of this markup.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Without objection.

[The information follows:]

181

182

183

184

Mr. GORDON. In that letter, we asked him to delay the markup

of any NASA workforce legislation until the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has reported and the Committee has had a

chance to review its findings and recommendations. Admiral

Gehman has said on several occasions that the Accident Investigation Board is examining issues related to the NASA personnel, contractors, and culture as it attempts to assert the root causes of the

accident. In fact, Admiral Gehman was quoted yesterday in the

Washington Post as saying a ‘‘goodly portion of the report, perhaps

half,’’ will deal with the issues of management at NASA. Now in

all fairness, not all of that will be dealing with the issue at hand,

but certainly, I think, that a good portion will be. We should wait

to hear what the Board concludes before we adopt the legislative

provisions that might prove either counterproductive or insufficient

to address the underlying problems identified by the Board.

No case for urgency appears to exist that would outweigh the

benefits of waiting until we have the Board’s report. The July the

25th deadline given to the Science Committee for its consideration

of H.R. 1836 is not relevant. We are not marking up H.R. 1836

today. The bill that is before us, on the other hand, is not scheduled for a Full Committee markup until just before the August recess and will not be ready for Floor consideration until the fall,

under the best of circumstances.

I have an additional concern about today’s markup. The proposed

amendment in the nature of a substitute that we received just 72

hours ago contained numerous provisions that were not in H.R.

1085. It also retains provisions that are questionable. Last night,

we were informed that we are now proposing another version of the

bill. The new bill appears to make some movement in a positive direction, and I hope that this signals the potential for a meaningful

discussion on a consensus approach prior to Full Committee consideration of this bill.

At the same time, I think we have to consider the concerns of

all of NASA’s 18,000 employees, not just a portion. For example,

the ‘‘enhanced demonstration project authority’’ contained in the

bill before us today still represents a change to the existing civil

service statute. Despite our questions, NASA has still not said why

they need this new authority or what they will use it for. In fact,

they currently have authority for a demonstration project of 5,000

employees. What this bill does is add—increase that to an additional 8,000, which means all of the non-collective employees. And

I think that it is instructive to note that the Senate Governmental

Affairs Committee chose not to include that provision in the bill

that it reported out on June the 17th by a 10 to 1 bipartisan vote.

Now I will concede that you probably will prevail on a party-line

vote on the bill before us today, as was the case in the House Government Reform. However, I continue to believe that the party-line

votes are not a signal that more work needs—or is a signal that

more work needs to be done on legislation that should not be controversial. Concern for the wellbeing of the NASA workforce is not

unique to one party. We all want to ensure that NASA has the

skilled workforce it needs to carry out its mission in the years

ahead. And we are prepared to consider whatever legislative measures are needed to strengthen that workforce.

185

We also need to ensure that the rights of NASA workers are protected. Moreover, NASA already has one of the highest percentages

of workforce contracted out in the Federal Government. For better

or worse, that level of contracting has a significant impact on the

roles and responsibilities of the NASA civil servants. We need to

understand the implications of that reality, also, and the Gehman

Board may be able to assist us in that task.

Mr. Chairman, I would propose that this subcommittee defer this

markup on this legislation until after we have a chance to review

what the Gehman Board has to say. Let us also take a look at what

the Senate has done on a 10 to 1 bipartisan basis. And let us sit

down and try to come up with legislation that reflects a consensus

of this subcommittee and the Full Science Committee. It is likely

that we are going to have the chance to do only one NASA workforce bill this year, so let us take the time and do it right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the proposal before us today, and I would like

to spend a few minutes explaining why. On May 13th of this year, all of the Members of the Democratic caucus of the Science Committee sent a joint letter to Chairman Boehlert. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the letter be inserted into

the record of this markup. In that letter, we asked him to delay the markup of any

NASA workforce legislation until the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has reported and the Committee has had a chance to review its findings and recommendations. Admiral Gehman has said on several occasions that the Accident Investigation Board is examining issues related to NASA’s personnel, contractors, and culture

as it attempts to ascertain the root causes of the accident. Indeed, Admiral Gehman

was quoted in yesterday’s Washington Post as saying a ‘‘goodly portion of the report,

perhaps half,’’ will deal with issues of management at NASA. We should wait to

hear what the Board concludes before we adopt legislative provisions that might

prove either counterproductive or insufficient to address the underlying problems

identified by the board.

No case for urgency appears to exist that would outweigh the benefits of waiting

until after the Board reports. The July 25th deadline given to the Science Committee for its consideration of H.R. 1836 is not relevant: we are not marking up H.R.

1836 today. The bill that is before us, on the other hand, is not scheduled for a Full

Committee markup until just before the August recess and will not be ready for

Floor consideration until the fall under the best of circumstances.

I have an additional concern about today’s markup. The proposed amendment in

the nature of substitute that we received just 72 hours ago contains numerous provisions that were not in H.R. 1085. It also retains provisions that are controversial

to say the least. For example, the so-called ‘‘enhanced demonstration project authority’’ contained in the bill before us today was opposed by all of the Democratic Members of the House Government Reform committee at the recent markup of H.R.

1836. As they noted in their Minority View, ‘‘This provision would allow NASA to

exempt the entire agency from most federal civil service laws.’’ It is instructive to

note that the Senate Governmental Affairs committee chose not to include that provision in the bill that it reported out on June 17th.

I will concede that you might prevail on a party line vote today, as was the case

in the House Government Reform markup. Yet it is also highly likely that such a

provision ultimately will not survive a House-Senate conference. More to the point,

I believe that party-line votes are a signal that more work needs to be done on legislation that should be non-controversial. Concern for the well being of the NASA

workforce is not unique to one party. We all want to ensure that NASA has the

skilled workforce that it needs to carry out its mission in the years ahead. And we

are prepared to consider whatever legislative measures are needed to strengthen

that workforce.

We also need to ensure that the rights of NASA’s workers are protected. Moreover, NASA has one of the highest percentages of work contracted out in the Federal Government. For better or worse, that level of contracting has a significant impact on the roles and responsibilities of the NASA civil servants. We need to underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
186

stand the implications of that reality too, and the Gehman Board may be able to

assist us in that task.

Mr. Chairman, I would propose that this subcommittee defer its markup of this

legislation until after we have had a chance to review what the Gehman Board has

to say. Let’s also take a look at what the Senate has done. And then let’s sit down

and try to come up with legislation that reflects a consensus of the subcommittee

and the Full Science Committee. We are probably going to have only one chance this

year to pass a NASA workforce bill. Let’s take the time to do it right.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.

And no, that was a very good opening statement. And Sherwood

Boehlert has instructed me, as Subcommittee Chairman, to make

sure we get this job done and move forward as soon as possible.

And although I think your requests were very reasonable, and I,

of course, follow the direction of my Full Committee Chairman and

respect his judgments as well. So we will be moving forward, but

I appreciate your concerns.

I would ask unanimous consent to—for the authority to recess

this subcommittee at any point. Without objection, so ordered. So—

and let me say, I think that this may be the time we are going to

have to recess until Chairman Boehlert blesses us with his presence. And he has an amendment to offer, and that is the most important issue of the day to get through. So I think that I will declare—yes. Do you want to do that? That is a good idea.

Okay. We have to—this parliamentary procedure has to be exactly right. That is right. Wait a minute, we don’t have a first reading of the bill yet, right? All right. We are going to have a short

recess. So we are now in recess for five minutes.

[Recess.]

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And we are called back into order, of

course. And let us see. We will now consider bill H.R. 1085. And

I recognize Mr. Boehlert, the bill’s sponsor, and the Chairman, of

course, of the Full Committee on Science for any opening remarks

that he may have. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

thank you for the courtesy of delaying, somewhat, the opening. I

apologize to my colleagues, but when you get in the middle of a

conversation that is important on the telephone, you just can’t say,

‘‘Sorry, Dana is summoning me.’’ But I cut it short, because I said

you were summoning me.

I am pleased to be able to take this bill up today, Mr. Chairman.

We need to act as soon as possible to assist NASA at this critical

time. I think it is simple and obvious that NASA needs to improve

its ability to attract and retain the best and the brightest. Within

five years, a quarter of the NASA workforce will be eligible to retire. That point has been made in numerous reports by the Government Accounting Office, including the latest report issued in January, not long before the loss, the tragic loss, of the Space Shuttle

Columbia. So I don’t think we can afford to wait any longer in dealing with this issue.

I know that my Democratic colleagues suggested that we wait

until Admiral Gehman reports before taking up this bill. I heartily

disagree. Admiral Gehman’s report is not likely to say anything

specific about workforce reforms. That is hardly the Gehman

Board’s focus. If anything, Admiral Gehman will simply reiterate

187

what we already know, that NASA needs to do more to attract and

retain the best possible workforce. We can begin to help NASA do

that today by approving 1085. This bill is a carefully tailored approach to NASA’s problems. I will discuss some of the details of the

bill when I offer my amendment.

I just want to make two points right now. First, we just didn’t

take what NASA gave us. Quite frankly, we don’t just take what

any agency gives us. We have great respect for the agencies. We

value their input, but we exercise some judgment on this committee. We rejected some ideas immediately, such as creating an

industry exchange program and allowing demonstration projects to

become permanent automatically. We altered the language of

NASA’s proposals to make sure they accomplish their stated purpose and no more. And we added significant reporting requirements without saddling the agency with anything onerous or pointless.

Second, the authorities that we provide NASA in this bill are not

radical departures from current law. They are extensions of existing authorities. For example, the bill allows NASA to pay higher

bonuses than it can now, but it can already pay bonuses. In short,

H.R. 1085 is a moderate, targeted, careful approach to enable

NASA to overcome one of its fundamental pressing problems. In

the next few months, this committee is going to spend a lot of time

figuring out how to address a range of issues at NASA. Here is

something we know how to do and we know how to do it now. It

is time to act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. It is the Chairman’s intention that we try to get this job done in the next 15 minutes so we

can just——

Chairman BOEHLERT. You tell me if you think it is doable or not,

but I would ask unanimous consent to put in the record my letter

to Mr. Gordon about his request for delay. And I want to stress

this. This committee has not suddenly changed its modus operandi.

We have continually, throughout my chairmanship, worked across

the center aisle on a bipartisan basis. We continue to keep the Minority Staff advised of what we are doing as we proceed. We don’t

just one day walk in and say, ‘‘Now here is what we are going to

do, we have decided, because we are in the Majority.’’ That is not

the way this committee operates. And it is not going to operate any

differently in the future.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And you keep the Chairman of the

Subcommittee informed as well.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, because the Chairman is a very important part of the leadership structure on this committee, as are

the Ranking Members, I might add.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay.

Chairman BOEHLERT. This is not a solo act.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Without your—without objection, your letter will be placed in the record.

[The information follows:]

188

189

190

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And all Members with opening remarks may place them into the record at this point and—or at any

point in the future.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feeney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM FEENEY

I commend Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Rohrabacher for resolutely focusing

on this issue and crafting a workable and needed solution.

NASA possesses an aging skilled workforce and a threatened loss of significant

skills and knowledge. Four challenges must be faced: (1) retaining key personnel,

(2) shaping a workforce responding to spaceflight’s demanding and unique needs, (3)

preserving and transferring institutional memory, and (4) recruiting new and energetic talent.

After careful study and patient negotiation, Chairman Boehlert and Committee

staff have constructed a package of personnel management tools that can and

should be used to assemble this required human capital. The time to act is now,

not later. Delay and endless analysis are unacceptable options. Let’s move forward.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

First, I would like to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for calling us together

today to mark up this very important legislation.

The space exploration research program has been one of the most successful research programs in the history of this country. The Space Shuttle Program has

yielded many lifesaving medical tests, accessibility advances for the physically challenged, and products that make our lives more safe and enjoyable.

Unfortunately the world has new evidence of the dangers associated with space

exploration. Human space exploration is inherently risky. Distance, speed and an

environment that can not support human life combine to make human space flights

particularly precarious.

I pledge to do what I can to help our space program recover from this terrible

setback so these important endeavors can flourish in the future. As a Senior Member of the Science Committee and the Ranking Member of the Science Subcommittee

on Basic Research, I will work closely with my House colleagues to assist NASA and

Harold Gehman Jr., who will lead the special investigative commission.

I am a firm believer that the United States will continue our space program that

has accomplished so much in the areas of research and science. With two Americans

and a Russian still stationed at the International Space Station, it is imperative

that this program not come to a halt.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And the bill is open for discussion.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. I don’t mean to belabor this, but since Mr. Boehlert

just came in, let me just quickly say that I think there was a good

faith effort to try to move this bill. I am concerned that it has

taken a different direction along the way. Although we had been

given notification, we didn’t get this bill until last night, so it is a

little hard to be a partner when we don’t get it until last night.

And the previous one, we didn’t get it until 72 hours before.

And——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Would you yield just for one second?

Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir. Certainly.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I would like to point out that every step

of the way you have had information exchanges. The final language, which is—should come as no surprise to anyone, was just

put together yesterday, so you got it as I did, too. But I want to

stress, Mr. Gordon, and I hope you will appreciate this, that we

have worked Staff to Staff every step of the way. And we have high

regard for your Professional Staff, and I know that regard, I think,

191

is mutual. And this is a committee where we work across the center aisle.

Mr. GORDON. Well, thank you, sir. And I also—let me compliment you on not including the industry exchange program. I

think that was a wise decision. But I—and I did receive your letter

concerning Admiral Gehman. It is one of the situations where I

guess we heard things differently, and I will have my response to

that as part of the record with unanimous consent.

And I also remind you that yesterday Admiral Gehman was

quoted in the New York Post [sic, Washington Post] as saying that

a ‘‘goodly portion of the report, perhaps half,’’ will deal with issues

of management of NASA. Now in all fairness, clearly all of that

wasn’t going to deal with this issue at point, but it would certainly

seem that there would be something to be learned from this. Particularly this is a management-oriented board, so I don’t think that

there would be any type of bad surprises for NASA. And as I had

pointed out earlier, just—we are only going to have a chance to do

this once, so we ought to do it right, and it just doesn’t seem reasonable not to wait 24—or one month until we get this information

from Admiral Gehman.

And I would also point out that in the Senate, there was a bipartisan bill that passed 10 to 1 that worked out some of these other

problems, as I had mentioned in my earlier statement, which I

won’t reiterate right now.

But thank you, and in an effort to move forward, I will leave it

at that.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. So I ask for unanimous consent that the bill is considered—let me just say, as far as I am concerned, this is a good bill. It is needed. There is an honest disagreement on timing here. Sherry wants to get on with the job and get

it done. And Mr. Gordon has made some points that I think are

very reasonable points on the other side that we should wait until

after the Gehman Report. But as I say, I respect the Chairman’s

leadership and his decision to make sure that we move forward and

try to get the job done. So with that, I ask unanimous consent that

this bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point

and that amendments proceed in order of the roster. And without

objection, so ordered.

[H.R. 1085 follows:]

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1085

To make certain workforce authorities available to the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 2003

Mr. BOEHLERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

192

A BILL

To make certain workforce authorities available to the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NASA Flexibility Act of 2003’’.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN EXCEPTED PERSONNEL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 203(c)(2) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(2)(A) ) is amended by striking ‘‘the

highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949,

as amended,’’ and inserting ‘‘the rate of basic pay payable for level III of the Executive Schedule,’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall take effect on

the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after the date of enactment of

this Act.

SEC. 3. WORKFORCE AUTHORITIES.

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451 and following)

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘TITLE V—WORKFORCE AUTHORITIES

‘‘DEFINITIONS

‘‘SEC. 501. For purposes of this title——

‘‘(1) the term ‘employee’ means an individual employed in or under the Administration;

‘‘(2) the term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means——

‘‘(A) the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations

of the House of Representatives; and

‘‘(B) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the

Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;

‘‘(3) the term ‘critical need’ means a specific and important requirement of

the Administration’s mission that the Administration is unable to fulfill because

the Administration lacks the appropriate employees either because of the inability to fill positions or because employees do not possess the requisite skills;

‘‘(4) the term ‘Workforce Plan’ means the plan required under section

502(a); and

‘‘(5) the term ‘redesignation bonus’ means a bonus under section 504 paid

to an individual described in subsection (a)(2) thereof.

‘‘PLANNING, NOTIFICATION, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

‘‘SEC. 502. (a) Not later than 90 days before first exercising any of the workforce

authorities made available by this title, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a written plan, which shall include a description

of——

‘‘(1) each critical need of the Administration and the criteria used in its

identification;

‘‘(2) the functions, approximate number, and classes or other categories of

positions or employees that address critical needs and that would be eligible for

each authority proposed to be exercised under section 503, and how the exercise

of those authorities with respect to the eligible positions or employees involved

would address each critical need identified under paragraph (1);

‘‘(3) any critical need identified under paragraph (1) which would not be addressed by the authorities made available by section 503, and the reasons why

those needs would not be so addressed;

‘‘(4) the specific criteria to be used in determining which individuals may

receive the benefits described in sections 504, 505, and 506 (including, in the

case of sections 504 and 505, the criteria for granting bonuses in the absence

of a critical need), and how the level of those benefits will be determined;

‘‘(5) the safeguards or other measures that will be applied to ensure that

this title is carried out in a manner consistent with merit system principles;

193

‘‘(6) the means by which employees will be afforded the notification required

under subsection (b) and the third sentence of subsection (c)(1), respectively;

and

‘‘(7) the methods that will be used to determine if the authorities exercised

under section 503 have successfully addressed each critical need identified

under paragraph (1).

‘‘(b) Not later than 60 days before first exercising any of the workforce authorities made available by this title, the Administrator shall provide to all employees

the Workforce Plan, along with any additional information which the Administrator

considers appropriate.

‘‘(c)(1) The Administrator may from time to time modify the Workforce Plan.

Not later than 90 days before implementing any such modifications, the Administrator shall submit a description of the proposed modifications to the appropriate

committees of Congress. Not later than 60 days before implementing any such modifications, the Administrator shall provide an appropriately modified plan to all employees of the Administration.

‘‘(2) Any reference in this title or any other provision of law to the Workforce

Plan shall be considered to include any modification made in accordance with this

subsection.

‘‘(d) None of the workforce authorities made available by section 503 may be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the Workforce Plan.

‘‘(e) Not later than six years after the date of enactment of this title, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress an evaluation and

analysis of the actions taken by the Administration under this title, including——

‘‘(1) an evaluation, using the methods described in subsection (a)(7), of

whether the authorities exercised under section 503 successfully addressed each

critical need identified under subsection (a)(1);

‘‘(2) to the extent that they did not, an explanation of the reasons why any

critical need (apart from the ones under subsection (a)(3) ) was not successfully

addressed; and

‘‘(3) recommendations for how the Administration could address any remaining critical need and could prevent those that have been addressed from

recurring.

‘‘(f) Whenever the Administration submits its performance plan under section

1115 of title 31, United States Code, to the Office of Management and Budget for

any year, the Administration shall at the same time submit a copy of such plan to

the appropriate committees of Congress.

‘‘WORKFORCE AUTHORITIES

‘‘SEC. 503. (a) The workforce authorities made available by this title are as follows:

‘‘(1) The authority to pay recruitment, redesignation, and relocation bonuses, as provided by section 504.

‘‘(2) The authority to pay retention bonuses, as provided by section 505.

‘‘(3) The authority to apply subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 5, United

States Code (relating to voluntary separation incentive payments), as added by

section 1313(a)(1)(A) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–

296), in accordance with section 506.

‘‘(4) The authority to make term appointments and to take related personnel actions, as provided by section 507.

‘‘(5) The authority to fix rates of basic pay for critical positions, as provided

by section 508.

‘‘(6) The authority to extend intergovernmental personnel act assignments,

as provided by section 509.

‘‘(b) No authority under this title may be exercised with respect to any officer

who is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

‘‘(c) Unless specifically stated otherwise, all authorities provided under this title

are subject to section 5307 of title 5, United States Code. For purposes of applying

such section 5307, cash payments made under authority of this title shall be treated

in the same way as if they had instead been made under the corresponding provisions of such title 5 (if any).

‘‘RECRUITMENT, REDESIGNATION, AND RELOCATION BONUSES

‘‘SEC. 504. (a) Notwithstanding section 5753 of title 5, United States Code, the

Administrator may pay a bonus to an individual, in accordance with the Workforce

Plan and subject to the limitations in this section, if the Administrator determines

194

that the Administration would be likely, in the absence of a bonus, to encounter difficulty in filling a position, and if the individual——

‘‘(1) is newly appointed as an employee of the Federal Government;

‘‘(2) is currently employed by the Federal Government and is newly appointed to another position in the same geographic area; or

‘‘(3) is currently employed by the Federal Government and must relocate to

a different geographic area to accept a position with the Administration.

‘‘(b) If the position is described as addressing a critical need in the Workforce

Plan pursuant to section 502(a)(2), the amount of a bonus may not exceed——

‘‘(1) 50 percent of the employee’s annual rate of basic pay (including comparability payments under sections 5304–5304a of title 5, United States Code)

as of the beginning of the service period multiplied by the service period specified pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(A); or

‘‘(2) 100 percent of the employee’s annual rate of basic pay (including comparability payments under sections 5304–5304a of title 5, United States Code)

as of the beginning of the service period.

‘‘(c) If the position is not described as addressing a critical need in the Workforce Plan pursuant to section 502(a)(2), the amount of a bonus may not exceed——

‘‘(1) 25 percent of the employee’s annual rate of basic pay (including comparability payments under sections 5304–5304a of title 5, United States Code)

as of the beginning of the service period multiplied by the service period specified pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(A); or

‘‘(2) 100 percent of the employee’s annual rate of basic pay (including comparability payments under sections 5304–5304a of title 5, United States Code)

as of the beginning of the service period.

‘‘(d)(1) Payment of a bonus under this section shall be contingent upon the individual entering into a service agreement with the Administration. The service

agreement shall, at a minimum, set forth——

‘‘(A) the required service period;

‘‘(B) the method of payment, including a payment schedule; the method of

payment may include a lump-sum payment, installment payments, or a combination thereof;

‘‘(C) the amount of the bonus and the basis for calculating such amount;

and

‘‘(D) the conditions under which the agreement may be terminated before

the agreed-upon service period has been completed, and the effect of the termination.

‘‘(2) For purposes of determinations under subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), the employee’s service period shall be expressed as the number equal to the full years and

twelfth parts thereof, rounding the fractional part of a month to the nearest twelfth

part of a year. The service period may not be less than 6 months and may not exceed four years.

‘‘(3) A bonus under this section may not be considered to be part of the basic

pay of an employee.

‘‘(e) Before paying a bonus under this section, the Administration shall establish

a plan for paying recruitment, redesignation, and relocation bonuses, subject to approval by the Office of Personnel Management.

‘‘(f) The Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress,

not later than February 28 of each year, a summary of all bonuses paid under subsections (b) and (c) during the previous calendar year. Such summary shall include

the number of bonuses paid, the total amount of bonuses paid, and the average percentage used in calculating the total average bonus amount, under each such subsection.

‘‘RETENTION BONUSES

‘‘SEC. 505. (a) Notwithstanding section 5754 of title 5, United States Code, the

Administrator may pay a bonus to an employee, in accordance with the Workforce

Plan and subject to the limitations in this section, if the Administrator determines

that——

‘‘(1) the unusually high or unique qualifications of the employee or a special

need of the Administration for the employee’s services makes it essential to retain the employee; and

‘‘(2) the employee would be likely to leave in the absence of a retention

bonus.

‘‘(b) If the position is described as addressing a critical need in the Workforce

Plan pursuant to section 502(a)(2), the amount of a bonus may not exceed 50 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
195

cent of the employee’s annual rate of basic pay (including comparability payments

under sections 5304–5304a of title 5, United States Code).

‘‘(c) If the position is not described as addressing a critical need in the Workforce Plan pursuant to section 502(a)(2), the amount of a bonus may not exceed 25

percent of the employee’s annual rate of basic pay (including comparability payments under sections 5304–5304a of title 5, United States Code).

‘‘(d)(1) Payment of a bonus under this section shall be contingent upon the employee entering into a service agreement with the Administration. The service

agreement shall, at a minimum, set forth——

‘‘(A) the required service period;

‘‘(B) the method of payment, including a payment schedule; the method of

payment may include a lump-sum payment, installment payments, or a combination thereof;

‘‘(C) the amount of the bonus and the basis for calculating such amount;

and

‘‘(D) the conditions under which the agreement may be terminated before

the agreed-upon service period has been completed, and the effect of the termination.

‘‘(2) The employee’s service period shall be expressed as the number equal to

the full years and twelfth parts thereof, rounding the fractional part of a month to

the nearest twelfth part of a year. The service period may not be less than six

months and may not exceed four years.

‘‘(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a service agreement is not required if the

Administration pays a bonus in biweekly installments and sets the installment payment at the full bonus percentage rate established for the employee with no portion

of the bonus deferred. In this case, the Administration shall inform the employee

in writing of any decision to change the retention bonus payments. The employee

shall continue to accrue entitlement to the retention bonus through the end of the

pay period in which such written notice is provided.

‘‘(e) A bonus under this section may not be considered to be part of the basic

pay of an employee.

‘‘(f) An employee is not entitled to a retention bonus under this section during

a service period previously established for that employee under section 5753 of title

5, United States Code, or under section 504.

‘‘(g) Before paying a bonus under this section, the Administration shall establish

a plan for paying retention bonuses, subject to approval by the Office of Personnel

Management.

‘‘(h) The Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress,

not later than February 28 of each year, a summary of all bonuses paid under subsections (b) and (c) during the previous calendar year. Such summary shall include

the number of bonuses paid, the total amount of bonuses paid, and the average percentage used in calculating the total average bonus amount, under each such subsection.

‘‘VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS

‘‘SEC. 506. (a) In applying subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 5, United States

Code, the Administrator may provide for voluntary separation incentive payments

in excess of the dollar-amount limitation that would otherwise apply under section

3523(b)(3)(B) of such title, subject to subsection (b).

‘‘(b) Voluntary separation incentive payments described in subsection (a)——

‘‘(1) may not exceed 50 percent of the annual rate of basic pay of the employee receiving such payments (computed disregarding any comparability payments under sections 5304–5304a of title 5, United States Code);

‘‘(2) may not, in any calendar year, be made to more than——

‘‘(A) 10 employees; or

‘‘(B) such greater number of employees as the Administrator may, with

the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, establish in lieu of

the number specified in subparagraph (A) following notification to the appropriate committees of Congress;

‘‘(3) may not be made to an employee if the employee has within the last

12 months received, or if the employee is then receiving, a bonus or allowance

under section 5753 or 5754 of title 5, United States Code, or under section 504

or 505; and

‘‘(4) may be made only if the position in which the employee is serving addresses a critical need identified in the Workforce Plan pursuant to section

502(a)(2).

196

‘‘(c)(1) The proposed use of workforce authorities in this section shall be included in the plan required by section 3522 of title 5, United States Code.

‘‘(2) Whenever the Office of Personnel Management approves the Administration’s plan required in such section 3522, the Administration shall submit a copy

of the approved plan to the appropriate committees of Congress within 15 days after

the date on which it is so approved.

‘‘TERM APPOINTMENTS

‘‘SEC. 507. (a) The Administrator may authorize term appointments within the

Administration made under authority of subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5, United

States Code, for a period of not less than one year and not more than six years.

‘‘(b) Notwithstanding chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, or any other provision of law relating to the examination, certification, and appointment of individuals in the competitive service, the Administrator may convert an employee serving

under a term appointment to a permanent appointment in the competitive service

within the Administration without further competition if——

‘‘(1) such individual was appointed under open, competitive examination

pursuant to provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5, United States

Code, to the term position;

‘‘(2) the announcement for the term appointment from which the conversion

is made stated that there was potential for subsequent conversion to a careerconditional or career appointment;

‘‘(3) the employee has completed at least two years of current continuous

service under a term appointment in the competitive service;

‘‘(4) the employee’s performance under such term appointment was at least

fully successful or equivalent; and

‘‘(5) the position to which such employee is being converted under this section is in the same occupational series, is in the same geographic location, and

provides no greater promotion potential than the term position for which the

competitive examination was conducted.

‘‘(c) Notwithstanding chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, or any other provision of law relating to the examination, certification, and appointment of individuals in the competitive service, the Administrator may convert an employee serving

under a term appointment to a permanent appointment in the competitive service

within the Administration through internal competitive promotion procedures if the

conditions under paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (b) are met.

‘‘(d) An employee converted under this section becomes a career-conditional employee, unless the employee has otherwise completed the service requirements for

career tenure.

‘‘(e) An employee converted to career or career-conditional employment under

this section acquires competitive status upon conversion.

‘‘(f) Not later than February 28 of each year, the Administrator shall submit to

the appropriate committees of Congress——

‘‘(1) the total number of term appointments converted during the previous

calendar year; and

‘‘(2) of that total number, the number of conversions that were made to address a critical need described in the Workforce Plan pursuant to section

502(a)(2).

‘‘PAY AUTHORITY FOR CRITICAL POSITIONS

‘‘SEC. 508. (a) For the purpose of this section, the term ‘position’ means——

‘‘(1) a position to which chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, applies,

including a position in the Senior Executive Service;

‘‘(2) a position under the Executive Schedule under sections 5312–5317 of

title 5, United States Code;

‘‘(3) a position established under section 3104 of title 5, United States Code;

or

‘‘(4) a senior-level position to which section 5376(a)(1) of title 5, United

States Code, applies.

‘‘(b) Authority under this section——

‘‘(1) may be exercised only with respect to a position which is described as

addressing a critical need in the Workforce Plan pursuant to section 502(a)(2),

and which requires expertise of an extremely high level in a scientific, technical,

professional, or administrative field;

‘‘(2) may be exercised only to the extent necessary to recruit or retain an

individual exceptionally well qualified for the position; and

197

‘‘(3) may be exercised only in retaining employees of the Administration or

in appointing individuals who were not employees of another federal agency as

defined by section 5102(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

‘‘(c)(1) Notwithstanding section 5377 of title 5, United States Code, the Administrator may fix the rate of basic pay for a position in the Administration in accordance with this section. The Administrator may not delegate this authority.

‘‘(2) The number of positions with pay fixed under this section may not exceed

10 at any time.

‘‘(d)(1) The rate of basic pay fixed under this section may not be less than the

rate of basic pay (including any comparability payments) which would otherwise be

payable for the position involved if this section had never been enacted.

‘‘(2) The annual rate of basic pay fixed under this section may not exceed the

per annum rate of salary payable under section 104 of title 3, United States Code.

‘‘(3) Notwithstanding any provision of section 5307 of title 5, United States

Code, in the case of an employee who, during any calendar year, is receiving pay

at a rate fixed under this section, no allowance, differential, bonus, award, or similar cash payment may be paid to such employee if, or to the extent that, when

added to basic pay paid or payable to such employee (for service performed in such

calendar year as an employee in the executive branch or as an employee outside the

executive branch to whom chapter 51 of such title 5 applies), such payment would

cause the total to exceed the per annum rate of salary which, as of the end of such

calendar year, is payable under section 104 of title 3, United States Code.

‘‘(e) The Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress,

not later than February 28 of each year, the number of critical pay positions that

were established and the number of critical pay positions that were disestablished

during the previous calendar year.

‘‘ASSIGNMENTS UNDER THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT MOBILITY PROGRAM

‘‘SEC. 509. For purposes of applying the third sentence of section 3372(a) of title

5, United States Code (relating to the authority of the head of a federal agency to

extend the period of an employee’s assignment to or from a State or local government, institution of higher education, or other organization), the Administrator may,

with the concurrence of the employee and the government or organization concerned, take any action which would be allowable if such sentence had been amended by striking ‘two’ and inserting ‘four’.

‘‘ENHANCED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AUTHORITY

‘‘SEC. 510. When conducting a demonstration project at the Administration, section 4703(d)(1)(A) of title 5, United States Code, may be applied by substituting

‘such numbers of individuals as determined by the Administrator’ for ‘not more than

5,000 individuals’.

‘‘TERMINATION

‘‘SEC. 511. The workforce authorities under section 503 shall terminate as of October 1, 2009, except that nothing in this section shall——

‘‘(1) affect any bonus payment under sections 504 or 505 agreed to by the

employee and the Administration before the termination date;

‘‘(2) prevent an employee from being allowed to complete a term appointment made under section 507(a) if the appointment was made before the termination date;

‘‘(3) prevent the Administrator from converting any term employees to career or career-conditional status under section 507 if the term appointment was

made before the termination date;

‘‘(4) prevent an employee from continuing to receive a rate of basic pay fixed

under section 508 before the termination date; or

‘‘(5) prevent an employee assigned under section 3372 of title 5, United

States Code, from completing the extended term made under section 509 if the

extension was made before the termination date.’’.

Æ

198

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1085 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

H.R. 1085, NASA FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2003

Section 1. Short Title.

‘‘The NASA Flexibility Act of 2003.’’

Section 2. Compensation for Certain Excepted Personnel.

Amends section 203(c) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to tie

the pay scale for NASA Excepted (NEX) Employees to level III of the Executive

Schedule rather than the obsolescent pay scale of grade 18 of the General Schedule.

Directs that the amendment in this section takes effect on the first day of the first

pay period beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 3. Workforce Authorities.

Amends the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to provide an additional

title, ‘‘Title V Workforce Authorities’’ with the following sections included under that

title.

Section 501. Definitions.

Defines terms used in the text. Defines the term ‘‘critical need’’ as a specific and

important requirement of NASA’s mission that the agency is unable to fulfill because NASA lacks the appropriate employees either because of the inability to fill

positions or because employees lack the requisite skills. Defines the term ‘‘redesignation bonus’’ as a bonus which could be paid to an employee moving from one government job to another, including within NASA, without relocating to a different geographic region.

Section 502. Planning, Notification, and Reporting Requirements.

Requires the NASA Administrator to submit a Workforce Plan to Congress not

later than 90 days before exercising any of the authorities under this title. The

Workforce Plan shall be developed in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management. Requires that this Workforce Plan describe: (1) each of NASA’s critical

needs and the criteria used in its identification; (2) the functions, approximate number, and classes or other categories of positions or employees that address critical

needs and that would be eligible for each workforce authority provided in this title

and proposed to be exercised, and how the exercise of those authorities with respect

to the eligible positions or employees involved would address each critical need identified; (3) any critical need which would not be addressed by the workforce authorities provided in this title and the reasons why those needs would not be so addressed; (4) the specific criteria to be used in determining which individuals may

receive the benefits described in sections 504, 505, and 506 (including, in the case

of sections 504 and 505, the criteria for granting bonuses in the absence of a critical

need), and how the level of those benefits will be determined; (5) the safeguards or

other measures that will be applied to ensure that this title is carried out in a manner consistent with merit system principles; (6) the means by which NASA employees will be afforded the notification required for the Workforce Plan or any modifications thereof; and (7) the methods that will be used to determine if the workforce

authorities provided in this title have successfully addressed each critical need identified. Requires that NASA provide the Workforce Plan to all employees 60 days before exercising any of the workforce authorities provided in this title. Authorizes the

NASA Administrator to modify the Workforce Plan, provided that not later than 90

days before implementing any such modifications the Administrator submit a description of proposed modifications to Congress and submit such description not

later than 60 days beforehand to all employees. Directs that none of the workforce

authorities provided in the title may be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the

Workforce Plan. Requires the NASA Administrator to submit an evaluation and

analysis of the actions taken under this title not later than six years after its enactment. Requires that this evaluation and analysis include: (1) an evaluation using

the methods described in the Workforce Plan of whether the authorities exercised

under this title successfully addressed each critical need identified; (2) to the extent

that they did not, an explanation of the reasons why any critical need was not successfully addressed; and (3) recommendations for how the Administration could address any remaining critical need and could prevent those that have been addressed

from recurring. Directs NASA to submit its annual performance plan to the Congress that it already submits to OMB under current law.

199

Section 503. Workforce Authorities.

Specifies the workforce authorities provided in each of the following sections of

this title. Prohibits all Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees at NASA from

being eligible to benefit from the workforce authorities under this title.

Section 504: Recruitment, Redesignation, and Relocation Bonuses.

Authorizes the NASA Administrator to pay recruitment, redesignation, and relocation bonuses to an individual in accordance the authority provided in this section

and the Workforce Plan if the individual is: (1) newly appointed as an employee of

the Federal Government; (2) currently employed by the Federal Government and is

newly appointed to another position in the same geographic area; or (3) currently

employed by the Federal Government and must relocate to a different geographic

area to accept a position with the Administration. Authorizes recruitment, redesignation, and relocation bonuses under the following formula: (1) If the position addresses a critical need, the amount of a bonus may not exceed 50 percent of an employee’s annual salary (including comparability payments) multiplied by an agreedupon service period; (2) If the position does not address a critical need, the amount

of a bonus may not exceed 25 percent of an employee’s annual salary (including

comparability payments) multiplied by an agreed-upon service period; and (3) In either case, the total bonus may not exceed the employee’s annual salary (including

comparability payments) at the beginning of the employee’s period of service. Requires that payment of a bonus is contingent on the employee entering into a service

agreement with NASA. Requires that the service agreement, at a minimum, establish: (1) the required service period; (2) the payment schedule and method of payment which may include a lump-sum payment, installment payments, or a combination thereof; (3) the amount of the bonus and the basis for calculating such amount;

and (4) the conditions under which the agreement may be terminated before the

agreed-upon service period has been completed, and the effect of the termination.

Requires that an employee’s service period may not be less than six months and

may not exceed four years. Requires NASA to establish a plan for paying such bonuses, subject to OPM approval, before paying a bonus under this section. Directs

the NASA Administrator to submit an annual report to Congress with specific information about the bonuses paid under this section for the previous calendar year not

later than February 28 of each year.

Section 505. Retention Bonuses.

Authorizes the NASA Administrator to pay higher retention bonuses than is provided under current law and in accordance with the authority provided in this section and the Workforce Plan if the Administrator determines that the unusually

high or unique qualifications of the employee or a special need of NASA makes it

essential to retain the employee and the employee would be likely to leave in the

absence of a retention bonus. Authorizes retention bonuses under the following formula: (1) If the position addresses a critical need, the amount of a bonus may not

exceed 50 percent of an employee’s annual salary (including comparability payments); or (2) If the position does not address a critical need, the amount of a bonus

may not exceed 25 percent of an employee’s annual salary (including comparability

payments). Requires that payment of a bonus is contingent on the employee entering into a service agreement with NASA unless NASA pays a retention bonus in

biweekly installments to the employee. Requires that the service agreement, at a

minimum, establish: (1) the required service period; (2) the payment schedule and

method of payment which may include a lump-sum payment, installment payments,

or a combination thereof; (3) the amount of the bonus and the basis for calculating

such amount; and (4) the conditions under which the agreement may be terminated

before the agreed-upon service period has been completed, and the effect of the termination. Requires that the service period may not be less than six months and may

not exceed four years. Requires that an employee is not entitled to a retention bonus

under this section during a service period when other bonuses were previously established for the employee. Requires NASA to establish a plan for paying retention

bonuses, subject to OPM approval, before paying a retention bonus under this section. Directs the NASA Administrator to submit an annual report to Congress with

specific information of the retention bonuses paid under this section for the previous

calendar year not later than February 28 of each year.

Section 506. Voluntary Separation Incentives.

Authorizes the NASA Administrator to pay Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI)

payments up to 50 percent of an employee’s annual salary if the employee is in a

position that fills a critical need. Requires that VSI payments under this section are

200

limited to only 10 employees in any calendar year, unless OMB approves a greater

number of employees and Congress is notified. Requires that a NASA employee is

not eligible to receive a VSI payment authorized under this section if the employee

received certain other bonuses in the previous twelve months. Requires the proposed

use of workforce authorities in this section be included in the agency’s plans to OPM

on the intended use voluntary separation incentive payments required under current law. Directs NASA to submit a copy of its plan on the use of incentive payments to Congress within 15 days after OPM’s approval of the plan.

Section 507. Term Appointments.

Authorizes the NASA Administrator to make term appointments within NASA for

not less than one year and not more than six years. Authorizes the NASA Administrator to convert a term appointment to a permanent appointment in the competitive service within NASA without further competition if: (1) the individual was

hired under the open, competitive examining procedures under current law; (2) the

original announcement stated the appointment may be converted from term to career-conditional; (3) the individual has completed at least two years of the term appointment; (4) the employee’s performance was at least fully successful or equivalent; and (5) the position is in the same occupational series and geographic location

and provides no greater promotion potential than the term appointment. Authorizes

the NASA Administrator to convert a term appointment to a permanent appointment in the competitive service within NASA through internal competitive procedures if conditions (1) through (4) above are met. Directs that an employee converted under this section becomes a career-conditional employee unless the employee has otherwise completed the service requirements for career tenure. Directs

that an employee converted to career or career-conditional employment under this

section acquires competitive status upon conversion. Directs the NASA Administrator to submit an annual report to Congress on the number of term appointments

and conversions made for the previous calendar year not later than February 28 of

each year.

Section 508. Pay Authority for Critical Positions.

Authorizes the NASA Administrator to fix the salary for up to 10 administrative,

technical and professional positions described in the section to the salary level of

the Vice-President prescribed in current law if the position addresses a critical need

identified in the Workforce Plan and the position requires expertise of an extremely

high level in scientific, technical, professional, or administrative fields. Directs that

the NASA Administrator may not delegate this authority. Requires that an employee receiving pay at a rate fixed under this section may not be paid an allowance,

differential, bonus, award, or similar cash payment during any calendar year that

would cause the employee’s salary total to exceed the annual rate of salary prescribed for the Vice-President under current law. Directs the NASA Administrator

to submit an annual report to Congress on the number of critical positions established or disestablished during the previous calendar year not later than February

28 of each year.

Section 509. Assignments under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act.

Authorizes the NASA Administrator to extend the period of an employee’s Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment up to four years, rather than two

years provided under current law, following an initial two-year assignment with the

concurrence of the employee and the government or organization concerned.

Section 510. Enhanced Demonstration Project.

Authorizes NASA when conducting a demonstration project to apply that project

to ‘‘such number of individuals determined by the Administrator’’ rather than ‘‘not

more than 5,000 individuals’’ as specified under current law.

Section 511. Termination.

Directs that the workforce authorities listed under section 503 shall terminate on

October 1, 2009, except if certain specified conditions for salary, bonuses, or appointments made before the termination date are satisfied. Requires that this termination shall not: (1) affect any bonus payment under sections 504 or 505 agreed to

by the employee and the Administration before the termination date; (2) prevent an

employee from being allowed to complete a term appointment made under section

507 if the appointment was made before the termination date; (3) prevent the Administrator from converting any term employees to career or career-conditional status under section 507 if the term appointment was made before the termination

date; (4) prevent an employee from continuing to receive a salary fixed under section

201

508 before the termination date; or (5) prevent an employee assigned under the

Intergovernmental Personnel Act from completing the extended term made under

section 509 if the extension was made before the termination date.

202

[The Summary of H.R. 1085 follows:]

SUMMARY OF H.R. 1085, NASA FLEXIBILITY

ACT OF 2003 (UNDERLYING BILL)

NASA Flexibility Act of 2003—Authorizes the NASA Administrator certain workforce authorities greater than existing civil service authority that are more remunerative and flexible to implement.

(Sec. 2) Amends the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to tie the pay

scale for NASA Excepted (NEX) Employees to level III of the Executive Schedule

rather than the obsolescent pay scale of grade 18 of the General Schedule.

(Sec. 3) Amends the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to provide an

additional title, ‘‘Title V—Workforce Authorities’’ with the following sections included under that title.

(Sec. 501) Defines several terms used in the title.

(Sec. 502) Directs the NASA Administrator to submit to Congress and NASA employees a Workforce Plan and any subsequent modifications developed in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management before exercising any of the authorities under this title. Directs the NASA Administrator to submit to Congress an evaluation of whether or not the authorities exercised under this bill successfully addressed NASA’s critical needs and recommendations for how NASA could address

any remaining critical need six years after enactment of this title. Directs NASA

to submit its annual performance plan to the Congress that the agency currently

submits to OMB.

(Sec. 503) Specifies the workforce authorities and restrictions of this title.

(Sec. 504) Authorizes the NASA Administrator to pay higher recruitment and relocation bonuses than provided under current law. Defines a new category of bonus,

a redesignation bonus, which could be paid to an employee moving from one government job to another, including within NASA, without relocating to a different geographic region. Authorizes recruitment, redesignation, and relocation bonuses under

the following formula: (1) If the position addresses a critical need, the amount of

a bonus may not exceed 50 percent of an employee’s annual salary (including comparability payments) multiplied by an agreed-upon service period; (2) If the position

does not address a critical need, the amount of a bonus may not exceed 25 percent

of an employee’s annual salary (including comparability payments) multiplied by an

agreed-upon service period; and (3) In either case, the total bonus may not exceed

the employee’s annual salary (including comparability payments) at the beginning

of the employee’s period of service. Requires that payment of a bonus is contingent

on the employee entering into a service agreement with NASA. Requires that the

service period may not be less than six months and may not exceed four years. Requires NASA to establish a plan for paying such bonuses, subject to OPM approval,

before paying a bonus under this section. Directs the NASA Administrator to submit

an annual report to Congress of the bonuses paid under this section for the previous

calendar year.

(Sec. 505) Authorizes the NASA Administrator to pay higher retention bonuses

than is provided under current law if the Administrator determines that the unusually high or unique qualifications of the employee or a special need of NASA makes

it essential to retain the employee and the employee would be likely to leave in the

absence of a retention bonus. Authorizes retention bonuses under the following formula: (1) If the position addresses a critical need, the amount of a bonus may not

exceed 50 percent of an employee’s annual salary (including comparability payments); or (2) If the position does not address a critical need, the amount of a bonus

may not exceed 25 percent of an employee’s annual salary (including comparability

payments). Requires that payment of a bonus is contingent on the employee entering into a service agreement with NASA unless NASA pays a retention bonus in

biweekly installments to the employee. Requires that the service period may not be

less than six months and may not exceed four years. Requires that an employee is

not entitled to a retention bonus under this section during a service period when

other bonuses were previously established for the employee. Requires NASA to establish a plan for paying retention bonuses, subject to OPM approval, before paying

a retention bonus under this section. Directs the NASA Administrator to submit an

annual report to Congress of the retention bonuses paid under this section for the

previous calendar year.

203

(Sec. 506) Authorizes the NASA Administrator to pay Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) payments up to 50 percent of an employee’s annual salary if the employee

is in a position that fills a critical need. Requires that VSI payments under this section are limited to only 10 employees in any calendar year, unless OMB approves

a greater number of employees and Congress is notified. Requires that a NASA employee is not eligible to receive a VSI payment authorized under this section if the

employee received certain other bonuses in the previous twelve months. Directs

NASA to submit a copy of its plan on the use of incentive payments to Congress

within 15 days after OPM’s approval of the plan.

(Sec. 507) Authorizes the NASA Administrator to make term appointments within

NASA for not less than one year and not more than six years. Authorizes the NASA

Administrator to convert a term appointment to a career-conditional appointment

under certain conditions: (1) the individual was hired under the open, competitive

examining procedures in title 5; (2) the original announcement stated the appointment may be converted from term to career-conditional; (3) the individual has completed at least two years of the term appointment; (4) the employee’s performance

was at least fully successful or equivalent; and (5) the position is in the same occupational series and geographic location and provides no greater promotion potential

than the term appointment. Directs the NASA Administrator to submit an annual

report to Congress on the number of tern appointments and conversions made for

the previous calendar year.

(Sec. 508) Authorizes the NASA Administrator to fix the salary for up to 10 administrative, technical and professional positions described in the section to the salary level of the Vice-President if the position addresses a critical need identified in

the Workforce Plan and the position requires expertise of an extremely high level

in scientific, technical, professional, or administrative fields. Directs that the NASA

Administrator may not delegate this authority. Directs the NASA Administrator to

submit an annual report to Congress on the number of critical positions established

or disestablished during the previous calendar year.

(Sec. 509) Authorizes the NASA Administrator to extend the period of an employee’s Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment up to four years with the

concurrence of the employee and the government or organization concerned.

(Sec. 510) Authorizes NASA when conducting a demonstration project to apply

that project to ‘‘such number of individuals determined by the Administrator’’ rather

than ‘‘not more than 5,000 individuals’’ as specified under current law.

(Sec. 511) Directs that the workforce authorities listed under section 503 shall terminate on October 1, 2009, except if certain specified conditions for salary, bonuses,

or appointments made before the termination date are satisfied.

204

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

205

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The first amendment on the roster is

an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature

of a substitute be treated as original text. Without objection, so ordered.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert follows:]

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

Mr. Boehlert, you—are you ready to proceed with your amendment?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will

make this brief, and I will submit the full statement for the record,

in its entirety, but just a couple of opening comments.

This amendment reflects extensive negotiations with NASA and,

as Mr. Gordon so rightly observed, they wanted some things that

we didn’t agree to, and we rejected them, and extensive negotiations with the Government Reform Committee, and with the unions

that represent NASA employees. They must be considered. They

have a point of view. And we listened, and I am glad we did. These

have been productive negotiations. This version of the bill is endorsed enthusiastically by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the largest union at NASA. Labor

and management have to work together to have success, and we

are.

NASA, too, supports passage today, and we know of no concerns

on the part of Chairman Davis from the Government Reform Committee. This version of the bill is also closer to the bill reported out

of the Senate Government Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis,

so I am hopeful we will be able to get this bill to the President’s

desk early this fall. And let me point out that if we report this out,

as I anticipate we will, in the Subcommittee, we will know more

from Admiral Gehman and his people before the Full Committee

acts. But I don’t think this is a time for delay. I think we must

move forward.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

Is there any further discussion? If no, then thus all in favor, I

would say, all in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes

seem to have it. And the amendment is agreed to.

Let us see. The next amendment to the roster was supposed to

be my amendment. And I have reached agreement with Chairman

Boehlert to defer my—offering my amendment until the bill goes

to Full Committee for consideration. And I have been assured that

my amendment will be acceptable to, at least to offer at that time,

and perhaps we can work out some of our minor differences that

we have with the concept.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Certainly.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And I would point out that the amendment

you are referring to is scholarship for service, and that is an enlightened approach to a problem that has to be addressed. And I

very much look forward to working with you to make sure we target it specifically, as is needed, to accomplish what we hope to accomplish. So there is no disagreement in principle. We are both enamored with the concept of scholarship for service to help these

youngsters pay for their college education in return for a commitment to serve in the agency, and so I am confident we can work

this out.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Right. And there is a commitment on

both sides of the aisle and from both Chairmen to make sure that

gets done.

Are there any—and so I am withdrawing my amendment.

248

Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, the question

is on the bill, H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility Act of 2003, as

amended. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In

the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

I will now recognize Mr. Boehlert to offer a motion.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report H.R. 1085, as amended, to the Full

Committee. Furthermore, I ask unanimous consent that the Staff

be instructed to make all necessary technical and conforming

changes to the bill, as—well, to the bill, in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The Chair notes the presence of a

quorum. The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably

to Full Committee. Those in favor for the motion, signify by saying

aye. Those opposed. The ayes appear to have it. The bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid

upon the table.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

And this concludes our Committee markup. And without any objection, we will declare this committee adjourned. So I do declare

this committee meeting adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(249)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE

FULL COMMITTEE ON H.R. 1297, COLUMBIA

ORBITER MEMORIAL ACT

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Good morning. The Committee on Science

will be in order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee is meeting

today to consider H.R. 1297, the Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act.

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee

at any point. Without objection, so ordered.

Due to the fact that we have an extremely important hearing following this markup and our witnesses have time constraints, I ask

unanimous consent that each side of the dais be given a total of

seven minutes to be controlled by the Chairman and Ranking

Member accordingly. Without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize Mr. Hall on his side of the dais for their seven minutes to

present their remarks.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I express my strong support for H.R. 1297. This bill, of course, provides the construction of

a memorial in Arlington Cemetery to the crew of the Space Shuttle

Columbia, and I think that is, of course, a wonderful thing to do

and a fitting thing to do. And it carries out the attention that

NASA, the President, you, and all of the other Members have and

that we went to Houston for the memorial service. There have been

a number of memorial services since that time.

These seven brave men and women perished in the service of

this country, and three of them now rest out in Arlington. The bill

also allows NASA to accept gifts to help pay the cost of a memorial

whether it be at Arlington Cemetery or somewhere else. A lot of

citizens who want to participate in honoring this crew, and the legislation that you have led here gives us that opportunity to give

them that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Now how do I do it in my remainder of my—I have got about six

and a half minutes left. Could I ask one up and down the line here

whether they want——

Chairman BOEHLERT. You know, it is with such great respect

that I have for you that I let you precede the Chairman’s comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
250

ments. And so I am reminded that I have to have some comments,

and then we will alternate back and forth.

Mr. HALL. Well, that is what you meant a while ago when you

said that the decision of the Chairman and the Ranking—you

didn’t say it is a decision of the Ranking and the Chairman. Go

ahead, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. This morning, we

are going to consider H.R. 1297, the Columbia Orbiter Memorial

Act. The bill was introduced by Chairman Bill Young of the Appropriations Committee on March 13, 2003. The Senate has already

approved the companion measure sponsored by Senator Ted Stevens. Following a model established after the Challenger disaster,

this legislation authorizes the creation of a memorial to the crew

of the Space Shuttle Columbia to be located in Arlington Memorial

Cemetery. This is a fitting tribute for the seven courageous astronauts.

No act of Congress can assuage the deep loss felt by the families

of these brave men and women. They left behind friends, husbands

and wives, and sons and daughters, all of whom must go about the

business of rebuilding their lives. We can, and we must, however,

honor their dedication exploring the frontiers of science and draw

upon the example they provided to inspire the next generation of

explorers and scientists. That will be a living legacy.

This legislation marks an important step toward honoring their

memory. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle to see that it is speedily enacted.

[H.R. 1297 follows:]

251

252

253

254

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1297 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

H.R. 1297, COLUMBIA ORBITER MEMORIAL ACT

The following summarizes each section of the Act.

Section 1: Short Title.

Section 2: Construction of the Memorial to Crew of Columbia Orbiter at Arlington National Cemetery. This section makes $500,000 available from the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 (P.L. 107–248) for construction of a

memorial marker to honor the seven astronauts of the Columbia Orbiter who perished on February 1, 2003. The Secretary of the Army in consultation with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) shall be

responsible for its construction.

Section 3: Donations for Memorial for Crew of Columbia Orbiter. This section allows the NASA Administrator to accept gifts and donations of services,

money, and property for the purpose of an appropriate memorial to the seven astronauts that perished on February 1, 2003, whether the memorial is constructed by

the Administrator or is the memorial described in Section 2. The Section allows the

NASA Administrator to transfer the funds mentioned in this section to the Secretary of the Army for the purposes of constructing the memorial required in Section

2.

255

Chairman BOEHLERT. Now the Chair will now recognize Mr.

Rohrabacher, Chairman of the Subcommittee of jurisdiction.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A few

thoughts, and that is Arlington is a place where we honor our—and

memorialize our greatest heroes, thus it is fitting for us to have a

memorial there to the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia. I would

hope that 100 years or 200 years from now, when some young people are walking through the Arlington Cemetery, that they will

come across this memorial. They will remember these heroes, space

frontiersmen, leading the way for the United States of America. I

support this bill and congratulate Mr. Young for sponsoring it.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to—just

like to add my support for H.R. 1297. It is proper that we honor

the memory of these seven brave astronauts who perished on Columbia. They died serving this country, and I urge my colleagues

to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Dr. Gingrey.

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to

commend Mr. Young and Chairman Boehlert and Mr. Hall. This is

an entirely appropriate thing to do. I think it is a wonderful tribute. It is so easy to forget. We are now engaged in this Iraqi Freedom war and thinking about the men and women who are heroes

and are in harm’s way, and some of whom will not come back to

us. But we don’t ever want to forget the seven astronauts who indeed are every much as heroic in giving their lives to this country.

And I am not—I don’t—think each and every one of those astronauts are eligible to be interred at Arlington National Cemetery,

and to have this memorial there, recognizing all of them no matter

where they are buried. I think is an entirely appropriate thing to

do, and I commend the leadership of this bill. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I join you and

Ranking Member Hall and the other Members of this committee in

honoring the seven extraordinary men and women aboard the

Space Shuttle Columbia who gave their lives for the pursuit of

science and discovery. This memorial will be a place of honor for

the seven astronauts, their vision, and their legacy.

We are fortunate to have an astronaut corps comprised of highly

trained men and women who regularly bear this risk. Their strong

passion for space exploration has benefited our nation and our

world. We will never forget the dedication and sacrifice of the crew

of Columbia, and I strongly support this legislation.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Burgess.

Dr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would add my

support for what is truly a fitting tribute to the brave crew of the

Columbia. I think it is not only fitting that we do it, I believe it

is our obligation to honor their memory, so I commend Chairman

Young for introducing the legislation. Chairman Boehlert, thank

you for bringing this to the Committee, and Mr. Hall, as always,

I value your leadership, and I learn something every time I hear

you speak. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Doctor. Ms. Johnson.

256

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask

unanimous consent to file my full statement, and simply say that

I really do agree with this legislation and hope that we will also

memorialize this outstanding group by continuing space exploration, because I think that we have got much more than what we

have given in the research. Thank you very much.

[The statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Let me express my appreciation to the leadership for bringing this forth and to

say how important it is that we take the time to give recognition to those heroic

persons who did lose their lives. I am very certain, however, that they did not lose

their lives in vain.

This space exploration research program has been one of the most successful research programs in the history of this country, and I know that we will investigate

well to see what happened and improve upon it.

I also know that, over 40 years ago, the foresight of persons that came along before us caused us to get into this type of research. We also owe those leaders some

homage for their foresight, and I am hoping that we will then have the foresight

to continue this type of research.

Human space exploration is inherently risky. Distance, speed and an environment

that cannot support human life combine to make human space flights particularly

precarious.

Unfortunately, the world has new evidence of the dangers associated with space

exploration. Millions watched as images of a singular, brilliant point of light in the

sky became two, three, and four points of light, as Space Shuttle Columbia broke

apart over my home State of Texas.

STS–107, which was lost on February 1, 2003, was a 16-day mission dedicated

to research in physical, life, and space sciences, conducted in approximately 80 separate experiments, comprised of hundreds of samples and test points. With two

Americans and a Russian still stationed at the International Space Station, it is imperative that this program not comes to a halt. This most unfortunate and tragic

loss of five men and two women, representing a mosaic of races and nationalities,

will be mourned and these great American heroes will not be forgotten.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. So that we can continue, unless someone feels the need to say something, without objection, all

Members’ opening statements will be placed in the record at this

point. Is there anyone that feels—thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 1297, the Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act. I would ask unanimous consent that

the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.

I would ask the Members to proceed with the amendments in the

order of the roster, and there are no amendments, so are there any

proposed at this juncture? If not, the question is on the bill, H.R.

1297, the Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act. All of those in favor say

aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes

have it unanimously.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Is this the time for me to move that the Committee

favorably report H.R. 1297 to the House with a recommendation of

the bill to pass? Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to

prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and

conforming changes and that the Chairman take all necessary

steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. And I

yield back my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Committee has heard the motion.

Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid

257

on the table. I move, pursuant to clause one of rule 22 of the rules

of the House of Representatives, that the Committee authorize the

Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House

to go to conference with the Senate on the bill, H.R. 1297, or a

similar Senate bill. Without objection, so ordered. That concludes

the markup of 1297. And we will proceed with the regular order.

[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other

business.]

(259)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE

FULL COMMITTEE ON H.R. 1578, TO PROMOTE AND COORDINATE GLOBAL CHANGE

RESEARCH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Let us come to order, but let us start the

meeting the way I expect the end the meeting, on a most positive

note. This is a significant year, 2003. We are celebrating the birthday of our distinguished colleague from Texas, and every day we

are having a different celebration. This is our day right here to

have another celebration. Let us stand up and give him a round

of applause. Happy birthday Ralph.

All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The bill is

passed. Now did you say he was 100?

It is a pleasure to welcome——

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. You are entirely welcome, Mr. Hall. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider the following measures, H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, and H.R. 1578, Global Change

Research and Data Management Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point. And

without objection, it is so ordered. We will now consider the bill

H.R. 766.

It is a pleasure to welcome everyone here this morning for a

markup concerning two vitally important areas of research:

nanotechnology and climate change. I expect that we are going to

have a little more partisan sparring at today’s markup than we

generally do, so I do want to underscore our major broad points of

agreement at the outset.

We will also have debate today about Mr. Udall’s bill on climate

change research, H.R. 1578, which I will oppose. Some may recall

that during the markup of the Energy Bill, I promised Mr. Udall

a vote on this measure, and I am keeping that promise.

I want everyone to understand that I view my disagreement with

Mr. Udall over this bill as one of tactics rather than substance. I

have long advocated the need for a strong, focused, coordinated reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
260

search program and—in climate change. And I hope that this

Science Committee will be able to report out a bipartisan climate

research bill this year, preferably before the initiation of the Energy Bill conference, although that may not be possible. But I do

not believe that moving this bill at this time will promote the cause

of climate change.

Whatever happens today, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with the Administration to

craft a climate research bill that can move forward successfully. No

one should view our disagreement over this bill as a significant

substantive dispute that foretells any kind of realignment on the

climate issue. I look forward to today’s debate.

We will now consider the bill H.R. 1578. Let us. . .[audio malfunction]e. The Clerk will report the bill. H.R. 1578, I must reluctantly, and let me add most reluctantly, oppose Mr. Udall’s bill.

And I will oppose all amendments to it, as well.

There is much in the bill that I agree with. As a matter of fact,

there is a great deal I agree with. And as I said when we opened

this markup, I hope that once this debate is over, the Committee

can move forward on a bipartisan basis with climate change legislation, but unfortunately, I don’t think this bill fits the bill.

At our energy markup, I promised Mr. Udall as swift vote as we

could get on this measure, and I am following through on that commitment. But I think a more cooperative and deliberative process

would yield a more productive result, given all of the other considerations that have to be looked at. I will urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and the proposed amendments.

[H.R. 1578 follows:]

261

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H.R. 1578

To promote and coordinate global change research, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 2, 2003

Mr. UDALL of Colorado introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To promote and coordinate global change research, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Global Change Research and Data Management

Act of 2003’’.

TITLE I—GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH

SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Industrial, agricultural, and other human activities, coupled with an expanding world population, are contributing to processes of global change that

are significantly altering the Earth habitat.

(2) Such human-induced changes, in conjunction with natural fluctuations,

may lead to significant alterations of world climate patterns. Over the next century, these changes could adversely effect world agricultural and marine production, coastal habitability, biological diversity, human health, global social

and political stability, and global economic activity.

(3) Developments in interdisciplinary Earth sciences, global observing systems, and satellite and computing technologies make possible significant scientific understanding of global changes and their effects, and have resulted in

the significant expansion of environmental data and information.

(4) Development of effective policies to prevent, mitigate, and adapt to global change will rely on improvement in scientific understanding of global environmental processes and on development of information that is of use to decisionmakers at the local, regional, and national levels.

(5) Although the United States Global Change Research Program has made

significant contributions to understanding Earth’s climate and the anthropogenic influences on Earth’s climate and its ecosystems, that Program has not

produced sufficient information to meet the expressed needs of decisionmakers.

(6) Predictions of future climate conditions for specific regions have considerable uncertainty and are unlikely to be confirmed in a time period necessary

to inform decisions on land, water, and resource management. However, improved understanding of global change should be used to assist decisionmakers

in the development of policies to ensure that ecological, social, and economic

systems are resilient under a variety of plausible climate futures.

(7) In order to most effectively meet the needs of decisionmakers, both the

research agenda of the United States Global Change Research Program and its

implementation must be informed by continuous feedback from documented

users of information generated by the Program.

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this title is to provide for the continuation and

coordination of a comprehensive and integrated United States observation and research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess,

262

predict, and respond to the effects of human-induced and natural processes of global

change.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title—

(1) the term ‘‘global change’’ means human-induced or natural changes in

the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity,

oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, biodiversity, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life;

(2) the term ‘‘global change research’’ means study, monitoring, assessment,

prediction, and information management activities to describe and

understand—

(A) the interactive physical, chemical, and biological processes that regulate the total Earth system;

(B) the unique environment that the Earth provides for life;

(C) changes that are occurring in the Earth system; and

(D) the manner in which such system, environment, and changes are

influenced by human actions;

(3) the term ‘‘interagency committee’’ means the interagency committee established under section 103;

(4) the term ‘‘Plan’’ means the National Global Change Research Plan developed under section 105; and

(5) the term ‘‘Program’’ means the United States Global Change Research

Program established under section 104.

SEC. 103. INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND COORDINATION.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President shall establish an interagency committee to

ensure cooperation and coordination of all federal research activities pertaining to

processes of global change for the purpose of increasing the overall effectiveness and

productivity of federal global change research efforts. The interagency committee

shall include representatives of both agencies conducting global change research and

agencies with authority over resources likely to be affected by global change.

(b) FUNCTIONS OF THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE.—The interagency committee

shall—

(1) serve as the forum for developing the Plan and for overseeing its implementation;

(2) serve as the forum for developing the vulnerability assessment under

section 107;

(3) ensure cooperation among federal agencies with respect to global change

research activities;

(4) work with academic, State, industry, and other groups conducting global

change research, to provide for periodic public and peer review of the Program;

(5) cooperate with the Secretary of State in—

(A) providing representation at international meetings and conferences

on global change research in which the United States participates; and

(B) coordinating the federal activities of the United States with programs of other nations and with international global change research activities;

(6) work with appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local authorities to

ensure that the Program is designed to produce information needed to develop

policies to reduce the vulnerability of the United States and other regions to

global change; and

(7) identify additional decisionmaking groups that may use information

generated through the Program.

SEC. 104. UNITED STATES GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

The President shall establish an interagency United States Global Change Research Program to improve understanding of global change, to respond to the information needs of communities and decisionmakers, and to provide periodic assessments of the vulnerability of the United States and other regions to global change.

The Program shall be implemented in accordance with the Plan.

SEC. 105. NATIONAL GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PLAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall develop a National Global Change Research Plan for implementation of the Program. The Plan shall contain recommendations for global change research. The President shall submit the Plan to

the Congress within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and shall submit

a revised Plan at least once every four years thereafter. In the development of each

Plan, the President shall conduct a formal assessment process to determine the

263

needs of appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local authorities and other interested parties regarding the types of information needed by them in developing policies to reduce society’s vulnerability to global change and shall utilize these assessments in developing the Plan.

(b) CONTENTS OF THE PLAN.—The Plan shall—

(1) establish, for the 10-year period beginning in the year the Plan is submitted, the goals and priorities for federal global change research which most

effectively advance scientific understanding of global change and provide information of use to Federal, State, regional, and local authorities in the development of policies relating to global change;

(2) describe specific activities, including efforts to determine user information needs, research activities, data collection and data analysis requirements,

assessment of model predictability, participation in international research efforts, and information management, required to achieve such goals and priorities;

(3) identify relevant programs and activities of the federal agencies that

contribute to the Program directly and indirectly;

(4) set forth the role of each federal agency in implementing the Plan;

(5) consider and utilize, as appropriate, reports and studies conducted by

federal agencies, the National Research Council, or other entities;

(6) make recommendations for the coordination of the global change research activities of the United States with such activities of other nations and

international organizations, including—

(A) a description of the extent and nature of international cooperative

activities;

(B) bilateral and multilateral efforts to provide worldwide access to scientific data and information; and

(C) improving participation by developing nations in international global change research and environmental data collection;

(7) detail budget requirements for federal global change research activities

to be conducted under the Plan;

(8) catalog the type of information identified by appropriate Federal, State,

regional, and local decisionmakers needed to develop policies to reduce society’s

vulnerability to global change and indicate how the planned research will meet

these decisionmakers’ information needs; and

(9) identify the observing systems currently employed in collecting data relevant to global change research and prioritize additional observation systems

that may be needed to ensure adequate data collection and monitoring of global

change.

(c) RESEARCH ELEMENTS.—The Plan shall include at a minimum the following

research elements:

(1) Global measurements, establishing worldwide to regional scale observations prioritized to understand global change and to meet the information needs

of decisionmakers on all relevant spatial and time scales.

(2) Information on economic and demographic trends that contribute to

changes in the Earth system and that influence society’s vulnerability to global

change.

(3) Development of indicators and baseline databases to document global

change, including changes in species distribution and behavior, extent of glaciations, and changes in sea level.

(4) Studies of historical changes in the Earth system, using evidence from

the geological and fossil record.

(5) Assessments of predictability using quantitative models of the Earth

system to simulate global and regional environmental processes and trends.

(6) Focused research initiatives to understand the nature of and interaction

among physical, chemical, biological, and social processes related to global

change.

(7) Focused research initiatives to determine and then meet the information

needs of appropriate Federal, State, and regional decisionmakers.

(d) INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.—The Plan shall incorporate, to the extent practicable, the recommendations relating to data acquisition, management, and

archiving made by the interagency climate and other global change data management working group established under section 203.

(e) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES EVALUATION.—The President shall enter

into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences under which the Academy

shall—

(1) evaluate the scientific content of the Plan; and

(2) recommend priorities for future global change research.

264

(f) NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION EVALUATION.—The President shall seek

to enter into an agreement with the National Governors Association Center for Best

Practices under which that Center shall—

(1) evaluate the utility to State, local, and regional decisionmakers of each

Plan and of the anticipated and actual information outputs of the Program for

development of policies to reduce vulnerability to global change; and

(2) recommend priorities for future global change research.

(g) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developing the Plan, the President shall consult

with academic, State, industry, and environmental groups and representatives. Not

later than 90 days before the President submits the Plan, or any revision thereof,

to the Congress, a summary of the proposed Plan shall be published in the Federal

Register for a public comment period of not less than 60 days.

SEC. 106. BUDGET COORDINATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall provide general guidance to each federal

agency participating in the Program with respect to the preparation of requests for

appropriations for activities related to the Program.

(b) CONSIDERATION IN PRESIDENT’S BUDGET.—The President shall identify in

each annual budget request submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of title

31, United States Code, those items in each agency’s annual budget which are elements of the Program.

SEC. 107. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.

Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, and at least once every

four years thereafter, the President shall submit to the Congress an assessment

which—

(1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and

discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings;

(2) based on indicators and baselines developed under section 105(c)(3), as

well as other measurements, analyzes changes to the natural environment, land

and water resources, and biological diversity in—

(A) major geographic regions of the United States; and

(B) other continents;

(3) analyzes the effects of global change, including the changes described in

paragraph (2), on agriculture, energy production and use, transportation,

human health and welfare, and human social and economic systems, including

providing information about the differential impacts on specific geographic regions within the United States, on people of different income levels within those

regions, and for rural and urban areas within those regions;

(4) analyzes the vulnerability of different geographic regions of the world

to global change, including analyses of the implications of global change for

international assistance, population displacement, and national security; and

(5) analyzes the adoption rates of policies and technologies available to reduce the vulnerability of society to global change with an evaluation of the market and policy barriers suppressing their adoption in the United States.

SEC. 108. POLICY ASSESSMENT.

Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, and at least

once every three years thereafter, the President shall submit to the Congress a policy assessment which—

(1) documents current policy options being utilized by Federal, State, and

local governments to mitigate or adapt to the effects of global change;

(2) evaluates the realized and anticipated effectiveness of those current policy options in addressing global change; and

(3) identifies and evaluates additional policy options for mitigating or

adapting to the effects of global change.

SEC. 109. ANNUAL REPORT.

Each year at the time of submission to the Congress of the President’s budget

request, the President shall submit to the Congress a report on the activities conducted pursuant to this title, including—

(1) a summary of the achievements of the Program during the period covered by the report;

(2) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals of the Plan;

and

(3) a list of the State, local, and regional decisionmakers identified as potential users of the information generated through the Program and a description

of the consultations with this community coordinated through the work of the

interagency committee.

265

SEC. 110. RELATION TO OTHER AUTHORITIES.

The President shall ensure that relevant research activities of the National Climate Program, established by the National Climate Program Act (15 U.S.C. 2901

et seq.), are considered in developing national global change research efforts.

SEC. 111. REPEAL.

The Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2921 et seq.) is repealed.

TITLE II—CLIMATE AND OTHER GLOBAL

CHANGE DATA MANAGEMENT

SEC. 201. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Federal agencies have a primary mission to manage and archive climate

and other global change data obtained through their research, development, or

operational activities.

(2) Maintenance of climate and global change data records is essential to

present and future studies of the Earth’s atmosphere, biogeochemical cycles,

and climate.

(3) Federal capabilities for the management and archiving of these data

have not kept pace with advances in satellite and other observational technologies that have vastly expanded the type and amount of information that can

be collected.

(4) Proposals and plans for expansion of global observing networks should

include plans for the management of data to be collected and budgets reflecting

the cost of support for management and archiving of data.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this title are to establish climate and other

global change data management and archiving as federal agency missions, and to

establish federal policies for managing and archiving climate and other global

change data.

SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title—

(1) the term ‘‘metadata’’ means information describing the content, quality,

condition, and other characteristics of climate and other global change data,

compiled, to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of

the ‘‘Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata’’ (FGDC–STD–001–

1998) issued by the Federal Geographic Data Committee, or any successor

standard approved by the working group; and

(2) the term ‘‘working group’’ means the interagency climate and other global change data management working group established under section 203.

SEC. 203. INTERAGENCY CLIMATE AND OTHER GLOBAL CHANGE DATA MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The President shall establish an interagency climate and

other global change data management working group to make recommendations for

coordinating federal climate and other global change data management and

archiving activities.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The working group shall include the Administrator of the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Administrator of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of

Defense, the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Director of the United

States Geological Survey, the Archivist of the United States, the Administrator of

the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,

or their designees, and representatives of any other federal agencies the President

considers appropriate.

(c) REPORTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the

working group shall transmit a report to the Congress containing the elements described in subsection (d). Not later than three years after the initial report under

this subsection, and not later than once every four years subsequent to that, the

working group shall transmit reports updating the previous report. In preparing reports under this subsection, the working group shall consult with expected users of

the data collected and archived by the Program.

(d) CONTENTS.—The reports and updates required under subsection (c) shall—

(1) include recommendations for the establishment, maintenance, and accessibility of a catalog identifying all available climate and other global change

data sets;

266

(2) identify climate and other global change data collections in danger of

being lost and recommend actions to prevent such loss;

(3) identify gaps in climate and other global change data and recommend

actions to fill those gaps;

(4) identify effective and compatible procedures for climate and other global

change data collection, management, and retention and make recommendations

for ensuring their use by federal agencies and other appropriate entities;

(5) develop and propose a coordinated strategy for funding and allocating

responsibilities among federal agencies for climate and other global change data

collection, management, and retention;

(6) make recommendations for ensuring that particular attention is paid to

the collection, management, and archiving of metadata;

(7) make recommendations for ensuring a unified and coordinated federal

capital investment strategy with respect to climate and other global change

data collection, management, and archiving;

(8) evaluate the data record from each observing system and make recommendations to ensure that delivered data are free from time-dependent biases and random errors before they are transferred to long-term archives; and

(9) evaluate optimal design of observation system components to ensure a

cost-effective, adequate set of observations detecting and tracking global change.

TITLE III—INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN

GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH

SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Pooling of international resources and scientific capabilities will be essential to a successful international global change program.

(2) While international scientific planning is already underway, there is

currently no comprehensive intergovernmental mechanism for planning, coordinating, or implementing research to understand global change and to mitigate

possible adverse effects.

(3) An international global change research program will be important in

building future consensus on methods for reducing global environmental degradation.

(4) The United States, as a world leader in environmental and Earth

sciences, should help provide leadership in developing and implementing an

international global change research program.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this title are to—

(1) promote international, intergovernmental cooperation on global change

research;

(2) involve scientists and policymakers from developing nations in such cooperative global change research programs; and

(3) promote international efforts to provide technical and other assistance

to developing nations which will facilitate improvements in their domestic

standard of living while minimizing damage to the global or regional environment.

SEC. 302. INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSIONS.

(a) GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH.—The President shall direct the Secretary of

State to initiate discussions with other nations leading toward international protocols and other agreements to coordinate global change research activities. Such discussions should include the following issues:

(1) Allocation of costs in global change research programs, especially with

respect to major capital projects.

(2) Coordination of global change research plans with those developed by

international organizations such as the International Council on Scientific

Unions, the World Meteorological Organization, and the United Nations Environment Program.

(3) Establishment of global change research centers and training programs

for scientists, especially those from developing nations.

(4) Development of innovative methods for management of international

global change research, including the use of new or existing intergovernmental

organizations for the coordination or funding of global change research.

267

(5) Establishment of international offices to disseminate information useful

in identifying, preventing, mitigating, or adapting to the possible effects of global change.

(b) ENERGY RESEARCH.—The President shall direct the Secretary of State (in cooperation with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the United

States Trade Representative, and other appropriate federal agents) to initiate discussions with other nations leading toward an international research protocol for cooperation on the development of energy technologies which have minimally adverse

effects on the environment. Such discussions should include the following issues:

(1) Creation of an international cooperative program to fund research related to energy efficiency and conservation, solar and other renewable energy

sources, and passively safe and diversion-resistant nuclear reactors.

(2) Creation of an international cooperative program to develop low-cost energy technologies which are appropriate to the environmental, economic, and social needs of developing nations.

(3) Exchange of information concerning environmentally safe energy technologies and practices, including those described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

SEC. 303. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH INFORMATION OFFICE.

The President shall establish an Office of Global Change Research Information

to disseminate to foreign governments, businesses, and institutions, as well as the

citizens of foreign countries, scientific research and other information available in

the United States which would be useful in preventing, mitigating, or adapting to

the effects of global change.

Æ

268

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1578 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

H.R 1578, GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH AND

DATA MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2003

Sec. 1. Short Title.

‘‘Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2003’’

Title I—Global Change Research

Sec. 101. Findings and Purpose.

Findings: Among the several findings is that human-induced changes, in conjunction with natural fluctuations, may lead to significant alterations of world climate

patterns. Additionally, the bill establishes findings that, although the United States

Global Change Research Program has made significant contributions to understanding Earth’s climate and the anthropogenic influences on Earth’s climate and

its ecosystems, that Program has not produced sufficient information to meet the

expressed needs of decisionmakers.

Purpose: The purpose of Title I is to provide for the continuation and coordination

of a comprehensive and integrated United States observation and research program

which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to the effects of human-induced and natural processes of global change.

Sec. 102. Definitions.

This section defines terms used in the text.

Sec. 103. Interagency Cooperation and Coordination.

Establishes an interagency committee to ensure cooperation and coordination of

all federal research activities pertaining to processes of global change for the purpose of increasing the overall effectiveness and productivity of federal global change

research efforts. This interagency committee would serve as a forum to develop and

oversee the National Global Research Plan under Sec. 105, to develop the vulnerability assessment under Sec. 107, and to ensure cooperation among federal agencies with respect to global change research activities.

Sec. 104. United States Global Change Research Program.

Establishes an interagency United States Global Change Research Program to improve understanding of global change, to respond to the information needs of communities and decisionmakers, and to provide periodic assessments of the vulnerability of the United States and other regions to global change.

Sec. 105. National Global Change Research Plan.

Requires a National Global Change Research Plan for implementation of the Program. The Plan should contain: the goals and priorities for federal global change research; a description of specific activities required to achieve such goals and priorities, including efforts to determine user information needs, research activities, data

collection and data analysis requirements, assessment of model predictability, participation in international research efforts, and information management; and an explanation of the role of each federal agency in implementing the Plan.

The Plan is to be evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences.

Sec. 106. Budget Coordination.

Requires the President to identify in each annual budget request those items in

each agency’s annual budget that are elements of the Program.

Sec. 107. Vulnerability Assessment.

Requires a vulnerability assessment that would analyze the effects of global

change on agriculture, energy production and use, transportation, and human

health, including information about the differential impacts on specific geographic

regions within the United States.

Sec. 108. Policy Assessment.

Requires a policy assessment that would document current policy options being

utilized by Federal, State, and local governments, evaluates the options, and identifies additional options to mitigate or adapt to the effects of global change.

269

Sec. 109. Annual Report.

Requires an annual report on the activities conducted by the Program.

Sec. 110. Relation to Other Authorities.

Ensures that the relevant research activities of the National Climate Program, established by the National Climate Program Act (15 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) are considered in developing national global change research efforts.

Sec. 111. Repeal.

Repeals the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2921 et seq.).

Title II—Climate and Other Global Change Data Management

Sec. 201. Findings and Purposes.

Findings: Among the several findings is that federal agencies have a primary mission to manage and archive climate and other global change data obtained through

their research, development or operational activities.

Purposes: The purpose of Title II is to establish climate and other global change

data management and archiving as federal agency missions, and to establish federal

policies for managing and archiving climate and other global change data.

Sec. 202. Definitions.

This section defines terms used in the text.

Sec. 203. Interagency Climate and Other Global Change Data Management

Working Group.

Establishes an interagency climate and other global change data management

working group to make recommendations for coordinating federal climate and other

global change data management and archiving activities. The working group is to

submit reports to Congress which: include recommendations for the establishment,

maintenance, and accessibility of a catalog identifying all available climate and

other global change data sets; identify gaps in climate and other global change data

and recommend actions to fill those gaps; and make recommendations for ensuring

a unified and coordinated federal capital investment strategy with respect to climate

and other global change data collection, management, and archiving.

Title III—International Cooperation in Global Change Research

Sec. 301. Findings and Purposes.

Findings: Among the several findings is that the United States, as a world leader

in environmental and Earth sciences, should help provide leadership in developing

and implementing an international global change research program.

Purposes: The overall purpose of Title III is to promote international, intergovernmental cooperation on global change research.

Sec. 302. International Discussions.

Requires the Secretary of State to initiate discussions with other nations leading

toward international protocols and other agreements to coordinate global change research activities. In addition, the Secretary of State (in cooperation with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, and other appropriate federal agents) shall initiate discussions with other nations leading toward an international research protocol for cooperation on the development of energy technologies.

Sec. 303. Global Change Research Information Office.

Requires the establishment of an Office of Global Change Research Information

to disseminate to foreign parties information available in the United States that

would be useful in preventing, mitigating, or adapting to the effects of global

change.

270

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking you for holding the markup and for keeping your commitment

to have this committee act upon my bill even though you have decided to oppose it. As always, I am grateful to the Chairman for

his friendship and courtesy, and I am glad to have this opportunity

to bring my legislation to the attention of the Committee.

I believe the bill is worthy of consideration, and I believe this

committee needs to take a position sooner rather than later on

global change research. In the last Congress, this committee did

not act to include a reauthorization of the U.S. Global Change Research Program in the Energy Bill. Meanwhile, the Senate’s Energy Bill contained three climate titles.

The failure of the House to produce any legislation on global

change policy left us in a weak negotiating position as we entered

the conference. My bill would reorient the program to accomplish

these goals. It would—excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I know that the

Chairman has said that the Committee doesn’t intend to repeat

this error, but we have yet to see a bill from this committee, so I

felt it was important to come up with my own.

H.R. 1578 would update and reorient the current U.S. Global

Change Research Program, which was first signed into law by

President Bush in 1990. The Global Change Program has significantly advanced our scientific knowledge of Earth’s atmosphere

and climate, but it has not produced sufficient information in terms

of both content and format to be the basis for sound decisions.

Over the past year, the Administration has demonstrated

through its own efforts that it recognizes the need for current global change research to produce more user-friendly information.

Moreover, the National Academy of Science’s recent review of the

Administration’s strategic plan recommended that the plan be revised to enhance efforts to support decision-making.

My bill would reorient the program to accomplish these goals. It

would require the Administration to identify and consult with

members of the user community in developing the U.S. GCRP research plan. The bill would also mandate the involvement of the

National Governor’s Association. The bill would also eliminate the

detailed organizational structure outlined in the 1990 law. Instead,

it would provide the President with the flexibility to assemble an

interagency committee and organizational structure. It would best

deliver the products Congers requests. The bill would also establish

a new interagency working group to coordinate federal policies on

data management and archiving.

Advances in computer monitoring and satellite technologies have

vastly expanded our ability to collect and analyze data. We must

do a better job of managing and archiving these important data resources to support the work of scientists and ourselves as policy

makers. As it was clear from the impasse on the climate provisions

of the Energy Bill in the last Congress, we have yet to agree on

how much more information, if any, is needed before we take actions to slow the effects of human activities on global change.

These are tough policy questions that we will continue to wrestle

with. This bill does not offer specific policy direction, but it does affirm the need for continued strong federal support for global

271

change research, and it does map out a new emphasis on production of information needed to inform these important policy debates.

We have divergent views on energy policy, and yet we seem to

be able to work through our differences to produce an Energy Bill.

I see no reason why we should not be able to do the same on the

issue of global change.

While I am disappointed that the Chairman will oppose my bill,

I appreciate the courtesy that is—he has shown in bringing my bill

forward. I look forward to working with him and other Members

of this committee on both sides of the aisle to establish a position

on the Global Change Research Program as a basis for our committee’s future participation in Energy Bill negotiations.

I would just conclude by saying the jurisdiction of this committee

provides us with the unique opportunity to define a House position

on global change, and I believe we must not let this opportunity

pass us by.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and would yield back any time I

have remaining at this point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this markup today and for keeping your

commitment to have this committee act upon my bill, even though you’ve decided

to oppose it. As always, I am grateful to the Chairman for his friendship and courtesy, and I am glad to have this opportunity to bring my legislation to the attention

of the Committee.

I believe my bill is worthy of consideration, and I believe this committee needs

to take a position sooner rather than later on global change research.

In the last Congress, this committee did not act to include a reauthorization of

the U.S. Global Change Research Program in the energy bill. Meanwhile, the Senate’s energy bill contained three climate titles. The failure of the House to produce

any legislation on global change policy left us in a weak negotiating position in this

area as we entered the conference.

I know the Chairman has said that the Committee doesn’t intend to repeat this

error. But we have yet to see a bill from this committee, so I felt it important to

come up with my own.

H.R. 1578 would update and reorient the current U.S. Global Change Research

Program, which was signed into law by the first President Bush in 1990.

The global change research program has significantly advanced our scientific

knowledge of Earth’s atmosphere and climate, but it has not produced sufficient information, in terms of both content and format, to be the basis for sound decisions.

Over the past year, the Administration has demonstrated through its own efforts

that it recognizes the need for the current global change research program to

produce more user-friendly information for decision-makers at all levels of government. Moreover, the National Academy of Sciences’ recent review of the Administration’s strategic plan for the program recommended that the plan be revised to enhance efforts to support decision-making.

My bill would reorient the program to accomplish these goals. It would require

the Administration to identify and consult with members of the user community in

developing the USGCRP research plan. The bill would also mandate the involvement of the National Governors Association in evaluating the plan from the perspective of the user community.

My bill would also eliminate the detailed organizational structure outlined in the

1990 law. Instead, it would provide the President with the flexibility to assemble

an Interagency Committee and organizational structure that would best deliver the

products Congress requests.

My bill would also establish a new interagency working group to coordinate federal policies on data management and archiving. Advances in computer, monitoring,

and satellite technologies have vastly expanded our ability to collect and analyze

data. We must do a much better job of managing and archiving these important

data resources to support the work of scientists and policy-makers.

272

As was clear from the impasse on the climate provisions of the energy bill in the

last Congress, we have yet to agree on how much more information, if any, is needed before we take actions to slow the effects of human activities on global change.

These are tough policy questions that we will continue to wrestle with.

This bill does not offer specific policy direction, but it does affirm the need for the

continued strong federal support for global change research, and it does map out

a new emphasis on production of information needed to inform these important policy debates.

We have divergent views on energy policy—and yet we seem to be able to work

through our differences to produce an energy bill. I see no reason why we should

not be able to do the same on the issue of global change.

While I am disappointed that the Chairman will oppose my bill, I appreciate the

courtesy he has shown in bringing my bill forward. I look forward to working with

him and other Members of this committee to establish a position on the global

change research program as a basis for our committee’s future participation in the

energy bill negotiations. The jurisdiction of this committee provides us with a

unique opportunity to begin to define a House position on global change. I believe

we must not let this opportunity pass us by.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there anyone else who seeks—where are

we right now? Without objection, all Members may place opening

statements in the record at this point. And the bill is now open for

discussion.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Human activities now occur on a scale that is starting to interfere with complex

natural systems such as the global climate. Scientists have learned a great deal in

recent decades about climate and how it responds to human activities, particularly

the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,

etc. Nevertheless, the climate system is so vast and complex that much uncertainty

remains.

Climate change poses a serious challenge to policy-makers. Many argue that climate change poses a risk of serious or irreversible damage and that the lack of full

scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to postpone action. Some believe

that the risk is manageable and not worth a major shift in the investment of financial and human resources. Somehow, policy-makers must sort through the evidence,

weigh the costs and benefits, evaluate the risks, and decide on a course of action.

That is why I am so excited about this Global Change bill and am very happy

that Rep. Udall has introduced it. I am offering an amendment on understanding

the contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases that can be made by more effective energy conservation programs, including those dealing with low income and

inadequately insulated housing; and the use of clean fuels in residential areas, industrial areas, and transportation, including mass transit systems.

In addition, I am also offering a second amendment would instruct the Director

of the National Science Foundation to establish a scholarship program for post-secondary students studying global climate change, including capability in observation,

analysis, modeling, paleoclimatology, consequences, and adaptation. As education is

the basis for all knowledge, and such funds can help our students learn more about

environment and protect our world from harmful effect of global climate change.

I welcome the opportunity to work further on this issue with this committee.

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes.

Mr. MATHESON. I move to strike that last word. Mr. Chairman,

I think when we talk about this issue, so often we spend time talking about long-term global climate focus of this research program,

and sometimes we may fail to recognize the importance of this program to improving our knowledge of medium term regional climate

patterns and understanding how these patterns affect our lives and

our resources and our economy.

In Utah, and in other western states, we are in the midst of a

severe drought cycle. Farmers and ranchers in our state and water

273

resource managers are struggling to deal with this situation. The

Federal, State, and local governments are all trying to provide assistance to help people get through this cycle. Nothing about

drought is easy, but if we better understand our vulnerabilities and

if we can better predict the severity and duration of these cycles,

we may have the opportunity to plan our water allocations, assistant programs, and other interventions to make the transitions

through these drought cycles a little smoother.

And I think it makes good sense to have the Center for Best

Practices of the National Governor’s Association evaluate this program to ensure that it produces information needed by local and

regional decision makers who are responsible for managing resources. A number of states in the west have been working with

organizations like the National Drought Mitigation Center to design drought mitigation plans. The approach to drought emphasized by the center is one of improved preparation and development

of tools to reduce vulnerability to drought rather than crisis management.

The changes to the U.S. Global Change Research Program made

by H.R. 1578 are moving in the same direction, more emphasis on

identifying and understanding vulnerabilities and emphasis on developing creative ways to reduce those vulnerabilities. I think these

efforts will compliment each other and result in real progress in

helping us to cope with unfavorable climate cycles. Global circulation models that generate 100-year climate predications are useful

in expanding the horizons of scientific knowledge in giving us a

better understanding of the Earth’s system as a whole, but these

models will not deliver useful information to the people with specific reasons charged with making decisions about resources that

are effected by weather and climate on a daily to decadal basis.

So I support these valued improvements to the U.S. Global

Change Research Program. I thank Mr. Udall for his leadership,

and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back

the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JIM MATHESON

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we spend so much time talking about the long-term, global climate

focus of this research program that we fail to recognize the importance of this program to improving our knowledge of medium-term, regional climate patterns and to

understanding how these patterns impact our lives, our resources and our economy.

In Utah, and in other western states, we are in the midst of a severe drought

cycle. The farmers and ranchers in our state and the water resource managers are

struggling to deal with this severe situation. The Federal, State, and local governments are all trying to provide assistance to help people get through this cycle.

Nothing about a drought is easy, but if we better understand our vulnerabilities and

we can better predict the severity and duration of these cycles we have the opportunity to plan our water allocations, assistance programs, and other interventions

to make the transitions through these cycles a little smoother.

I think it makes good sense to have the Center for Best Practices of the National

Governors Association evaluate this program to ensure that it produces information

needed by local and regional decision-makers who are responsible for managing resources. A number of states in the west have been working with organizations like

the National Drought Mitigation Center to design drought mitigation plans. The approach to drought emphasized by the Center is one of improved preparation and development of tools to reduce vulnerability to drought rather than crisis management. The changes to the U.S. Global Change Research program made by H.R. 1578

274

are moving in this same direction—more emphasis on identifying and understanding vulnerabilities and emphasis on developing creative ways to reduce those

vulnerabilities. I think these efforts will complement each other and result in real

progress in helping us to cope with unfavorable climate cycles.

Global circulation models that generate 100-year climate predictions are useful in

expanding the horizons of scientific knowledge and giving us a better understanding

of the Earth’s system as a whole, but these models will not deliver useful information to the people of specific regions charged with making decisions about resources

that are affected by weather and climate on a daily to decadal basis.

I support these valuable improvements to the U.S. Global Change Research Program and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The Chair—I ask

unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open to

amendment at any point. I ask the Members to proceed with the

amendments in the order of the roster.

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

275

276

Chairman BOEHLERT. And does everyone have the roster before

them? Amendment number 1 by Ms. Jackson Lee. And could I ask

if it would be acceptable for amendment number 1 and amendment

number 5 to be considered en bloc? Do you have any difficulty with

that?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that you

are going to give them all—both of them collectively your equal

wisdom and support? If that is the case, I would be happy to do

it.

Chairman BOEHLERT. That is not the understanding that the

gentlelady should take as we proceed.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to then

ask for a bifurcated vote, but in any event——

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. Fine. Go ahead. Fine.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report amendment number

1.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 1578 offered by Jackson Lee

of Texas.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

277

278

Chairman BOEHLERT. You are recognized for five minutes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And

first, it is my privilege to be able to thank Congressman Udall for

his insightful leadership, not insighting, but insightful leadership

and clear and very definitive legislation and to add my appreciation, again, for the courtesies of the Chairman for allowing us to

have this debate, but also to remind the Chairman of his years of

commitment to this concept of global warming and the global

change. I recall that the Chairman, I believe, spoke about two

years ago on the importance of this issue, so I know that eventually

we are going to find common ground. I would hope that we could

find common ground on this particular amendment, and I will try

to summarize.

Well, let me begin by saying that when we think of climate

change, we think of greenhouse gases that are gradually building

up in our atmosphere and slowly causing rises in temperatures or

causing mildly yearly increases in the severity of storms. Obviously, the gradual rate of change used to leave some to question

whether global warming was a real phenomenon at all. Now we

know that the problem is real and we now have developed extremely accurate devices from measuring change and estimating

changes that have occurred in the past.

However, one unexpected finding of global change research is

that sometimes profound changes can occur very rapidly, abrupt

changes. Studying weather and weather systems have become one

of the classic examples of a chaotic or nonlinear system. And

though I have great affection for Houston, my hometown, I know

that we can experience that readily, sort of abrupt changes in

weather. This means that as the input into the system, such as

greenhouse gas, rises slowly into a linear fashion, that climate

change can be erratic and come about much faster than one would

expect from the rise in greenhouse gas concentration. This is a

classic characteristic of complex systems like weather.

My amendment, in particular, does research on potential abrupt

global change, including a variety of factors that will be assessed.

It looks at the abruptness, and it looks at what may result from

that. It is thought, or has been thought, that the Ice Age came from

an abrupt change, a dramatic change. It is thought that such nonlinear effects have led to abrupt changes in climate and in the history of our planet. An abrupt change is defined as geophysical or

biological change that occurs so rapidly or unexpectedly that

human or natural systems may have difficulty in adopting it. And

abrupt changes are thought to have caused a mass—caused mass

extinctions.

It is also thought that such things could happen again. And as

we are sitting around arguing if the temperature has actually risen

a half of a degree this year, we should start getting reports—or

could start getting reports of catastrophic incidents in some vulnerable areas.

And so I think it is extremely important that we look at what

would happen if the jet stream stops. It might impact Western Europe. England, France, and Germany and the nations to the north

are at the same latitude as Siberia. But if the jet stream stops, we

279

might, in fact, have an England, a France, and a Germany that

looks, feels, and is as uncomfortable as it might be in Siberia.

I will simply say, Mr. Chairman, that even though we may have

some political differences with the old Europe to be known to them

as the current Europe, I think it is extremely important that we

look at this amendment to help us address the bottom line question

of what I am saying the abrupt changes in weather, the abrupt

changes in climate. And I would hope that as we move this legislation forward, we look at these types of amendment.

Again, let me thank Congressman Udall for the vision to help us

discuss this at this juncture and remind and thank the Chairman

for his interest in this area. And I would ask my colleagues to support me in this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

Usually when we think of climate change we think of greenhouse gasses that are

gradually building up in our atmosphere and slowly causing rises in temperatures,

or causing mild yearly increases in the severity of storms. Obviously, that gradual

rate of change used to lead some to question whether global warming was a real

phenomenon at all. Now we know that the problem is real and we now have developed extremely accurate devices from measuring change, and estimating changes

that have occurred in the past.

However, one unexpected finding of global change research, is that sometimes profound changes can occur—very rapidly. Studying weather and weather systems has

become one of the classic examples of a ‘‘chaotic’’ or ‘‘nonlinear’’ system. This means

that as the input into the system—such as greenhouse gas-rises slowly, in a linear

fashion—that climate change can be erratic and come about much faster than one

would expect from the rise in greenhouse gas concentration. This is a classic characteristic of complex systems like weather.

It is thought that such nonlinear effects, have led to ‘‘abrupt’’ changes in climate

in the history of our planet. Abrupt change is defined as geophysical or biological

change that occurs so rapidly or unexpectedly that human or natural systems may

have difficulty in adapting to it. Abrupt changes are thought to have caused mass

extinctions. It is also thought that such things could happen again. As we are sitting

around arguing if the temperature has actually risen a half of a degree this year,

we could start getting reports of catastrophe in some vulnerable areas.

One frightening possibility is in Western Europe, where much England, France,

and Germany and the nations to the North, are at a similar latitude to Siberia.

Whereas Siberia is known for its brutal winters, Europe is known to be more temperate due to the effects of the Gulf Stream. However, some models have predicted

that there may be a threshold level of global warming that could cause, all of a sudden, for the Gulf Stream to become unstable, and to just stop, and turn what we

know as Western Europe into another Siberian tundra.

We must get a handle on these kinds of issues. My amendment would add an abrupt global change research component to this bill, and require that results from

that research get incorporated into developing geophysical models.

It will complement well this already excellent bill. I hope you will support it.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. [Presiding] The gentlelady reserves the balance

of her time, which is 46 seconds. Did anyone seek time in the opposition of the amendment?

Let me just exercise the prerogative of the Chair and simply say

that I have visited the NOAA headquarters out in Bolder, Colorado. And there is growing evidence that there is a change in the

atmosphere. It does not necessarily translate to global climate

change. And unfortunately, this amendment and all of the amendments and the bill itself was drafted without a whole lot of cooperation, or participation, I should say, by either republicans on this

280

committee or people inside the Administration who would be in a

position to help. So we are going to oppose this amendment and

subsequent amendments, and ultimately, the bill.

Does anybody else seek recognition?

Mr. UDALL. I would move to strike the last word.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for

five minutes.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a comment about my colleague’s amendment. I think it is a well-considered amendment. I would support it, and I want to thank her for

offering it.

I know the Chairman and I have spent time in Colorado touring

the NIST laboratory and the NOAA laboratory and some of the

other federal facilities, and we were all impressed with the good

work that is going on there. The—we have, just for the record, held

a number of hearings on the Global Change Research Program and

would like to submit those for the record, March 14 in ’01, April

17 in ’01, July 10 in 2002. And in addition, individual agency participation in the U.S. GCRP has been covered within the context

of the Administration’s budget request for NOAA, the DOE, NASA,

and the National Science Foundation.

And the changes that we made in H.R. 1578 are based on testimony received by the Committee in the hearing records over the

past two years and upon recommendations made with the National

Academy reviews of the U.S. GCRP and the recent review of the

Administration’s research plan. So we have had an impressive

record that I have used in order to construct this legislation. And

Chairman Boehlert has acknowledged earlier today, and I anticipate he will in the future, that we need to move ahead in this particularly important area but that he has a disagreement with my

approach when it comes to the tactical situation which we find ourselves.

And I would be happy to—I would reserve the balance of my

time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL. The gentleman—I would be happy to yield.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. I think it is important

to procedurally lay out the record. Mr. Chairman, I want you to

know that we offered this particular amendment really some days

ago, but really offered it in the spirit of seeking to work with any

of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that wanted to jointly sponsor it and, as well, work with us on the language.

The key element of the amendment, and I thank the gentleman

for both yielding but also for his support of the amendment, Mr.

Udall, but the key element of the amendment is to address the reality of where we are today, that we can face abrupt climate

changes, and that they can severely alter the quality of life around

the world, particularly I cited the example of France and Germany,

the nexus to Siberia and the contrast in the weather there. If the

jet stream stops, we could have an abrupt change. And I think scientists either in the room or outside of the room could document

that there is support to suggest that possibly the abrupt change in

weather created the Ice Age, and we know what happened during

that period where there was a great deal of extinction.

281

So I am suggesting that if we have the creative ability to look

at this question now that we should do so and not be looking over

our shoulder wishing and wondering what we could have done. We

sit now in a time that we have the time, the wisdom, the talent

to do this, and I would like my colleagues to consider this amendment and ask for their support.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Will you yield back?

Mr. UDALL. I am happy to yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman yields back the balance of his

time. Anyone else?

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. I am sorry I was not here during the debate on

this issue and that I have not been able to listen to all of the various comments, but I spent some time on this issue at a number

of hearings on global climate change. I have been to most of all of

the worldwide conferences, and I went there with a delegation. We

were somewhat critical of some of the science that has been taking

place up to this point, and my feelings about that have not

changed. I don’t think this legislation is warranted at this time.

There is a belief the global climate change is taking place, and it

may—very well may be taking place.

But there is no definitive science, in my mind, that proves that

human activity is the cause of that climate change, that we know

from the hearings we had in this very room that 95 percent of the

so-called greenhouse gases that create this phenomenon, or supposed phenomenon, are created by natural activity and that actually less than five percent of these greenhouse gases or basket of

gases are caused by human activity. And so I would agree with the

gentleman who is offering this legislation that we need to work toward, for common sense reasons, different energy sources, such as

hydrogen, and have worked with the gentleman on hydrogen research, and we need to do that, because we can not stay indefinitely involved with a hydro-based economy—hydrocarbon-based

economy, but we can do that, I think, by promoting good science

and by moving toward a new energy in the future, a new infrastructure in this country, which is going to take a lot of money, a

lot of investment. And I think we ought to focus more time on that,

and I think we would probably get more bang out of our dollar by

moving toward a hydrogen-based economy sooner rather than later.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. UDALL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. UDALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I first want

to acknowledge our partnership on this whole exciting and emerging area of hydrogen fuel cells, and all of the benefits that accrue

to not only our society but the world when we bring those technologies online.

I agree that—the points that you raised about the uncertainty of

the science are legitimate. The bill, however, is directed at ensuring that the $2 billion that we now put into this kind of research

is effective research and is research that is going to be useful to

us. And that is really the overall thrust of the legislation and why

it has gathered such wide-ranging support, particularly in the sciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:49 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP2 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
282

entific community as well as across the community of policy-makers.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Would the gentleman further yield back to the

Chair, I would just——

Mr. CALVERT. I would yield.

Mr. GUTKNECHT.—submit a couple of points, and that is that

what bothers me about the bill and the amendment is that it presupposes we are not doing anything or doing very little about this.

And if you compare the American taxpayers’ investment in global

climate research and technologies to the rest of the world, we are

up to about $4 billion American taxpayer dollars per year that we

are spending on technologies, on research, on NASA, on NOAA all

to try and understand more about our environment and what we

might be able to do about it.

Having said all of that, the home that I live in in Rochester, Minnesota, 10,000 years ago was covered with a plate of ice about

1,000 feet thick. Now most of us who live in that part of the world

are kind of glad that over the last 10,000 years we have had a certain amount of global warming. In fact, those of us in Minnesota

would probably like to see a little bit more, because I got a report

yesterday that in northern Minnesota, finally, the ice is going out

of the lakes. Now this is, what, the 1st of May, and you know, that

will vary from year to year when the ice finally goes out of the

lakes, but this is one of the latest years we have had.

So whether there is global climate change, whether there isn’t,

and whether or not we are doing enough about it as American taxpayers and as public policy makers, I think the predicate of this

bill is somewhat unfair to those of us who have been willing to

spend the taxpayers’ money on this kind of research, both on the

basic sciences and on the technologies that may ultimately lead to

improvements for our environment whether or not it effects the climate or not.

With that, any other comments or questions on the amendment,

otherwise, I am going to call the vote on the amendment provided

by the lady from Texas? Hearing none, all those in favor will please

say aye. Those opposed——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Roll call.

Mr. GUTKNECHT.—will say no.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Roll call.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. In the opinion of the Chair, the nos have it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Roll call.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The gentlelady has requested a roll call. The

Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lamar Smith.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Weldon.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Barton.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert.

283

Mr. CALVERT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Nick Smith.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers.

Dr. EHLERS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.

Mrs. BIGGERT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Johnson votes no. Ms. Hart.

Ms. HART. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Sullivan.

[No response.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. Excuse me. I am in the midst of an important telephone call. How am I recorded?

Ms. TESSIERI. The Chairman is not recorded.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chairman votes no.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes no.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes.

Mr. FORBES. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes votes no. Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Bishop.

Mr. BISHOP. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Burgess.

Mr. BURGESS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Burgess votes no. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes no. Mr. Feeney.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Hall.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lampson.

284

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.

Mr. HONDA. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bell votes yes. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.

[No response.]

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded, please?

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lamar Smith is not recorded.

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lamar Smith votes no.

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Akin.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin is not recorded.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. And he votes no.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes no.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gilchrest, how is—how am

I recorded?

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest is not recorded.

Mr. GILCHREST. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes no.

Mr. BARTLETT. How am I recorded?

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett is not recorded.

Mr. BARTLETT. Bartlett votes no.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes no.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to vote no for myself and Mr.

Hall, if you will let me.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Barton votes no.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Hall votes yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Hall votes yes.

285

Mr. GUTKNECHT. The Clerk will report.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 17, no, 19.

286

287

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, do I continue with amendment

5?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. One moment. After consulting with the Committee Counsel, we could not bifurcate the amendment without a

clearly divisible amendment, and therefore we must move on to

amendment number 2 by Ms. Johnson.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Johnson follows:]

288

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is clear

that this bill is going to be voted down, so I would just like to ask

unanimous consent to be heard on the amendment.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I am sorry.

Ms. JOHNSON. I would just like to ask unanimous consent just to

be heard on the amendment, and I can—I am going to pull it down

at the end of the——

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Without objection, the gentlelady is recognized

for five minutes.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I took this piece of legislation very seriously, and I had hoped that the Committee would

do so as well. But since the bill is not going to pass, I would just

simply like to request that some Members on both sides of the aisle

in this committee come up with some legislation. It is not a myth

that we are into global warming. My state has suffered much damage through the temperatures and extreme weather from flooding

to drying up all of the crops.

Also, many of the scientists have traced which way bacteria is

moving and how this will affect it. We are not going to be long and

coming. We will have our own SARS probably, but I think it is important that—I know that we are doing research. I think it ought

to be coordinated and directed so that we can get the best for the

investment. But we have got to look more seriously at this environment as far as global warming is concerned. I take an antihistamine every day to be in this city. And I know the easy thing

would be to retire, but everybody else is breathing the same air,

and we have simply got to take some measures, and maybe we will

be in hydrogen research or the—leading in that direction.

But whatever direction we lean, I think we ought to go ahead

sometime soon and address it in this committee. We are seeing the

effects of very poor environments with more asthma, more pneumonia, more costs to taxpayers. I think we are asking for a lot

more investment by delaying the consideration of legislation of this

sort, because the ill effects of a poor environment are none clean

air. It will effect everyone eventually. And most especially it would

effect the most vulnerable, those people that don’t have health insurance. And we pick up their tab.

In addition to that, we want to rise to the occasion of addressing

issues that are very serious to all of the people. We see more and

more environmentalists raising their voices. We see more and more

green candidates because they feel that we are not addressing the

issue.

And Mr. Chairman, I also withdraw the next amendment I have

here.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Johnson follows:]

289

290

Ms. JOHNSON. I thought they were very—both very important

amendments. I was really asked by my state agency to carry one

of them, but I don’t want to prolong the time any longer. I just

want to make the request of the Committee to address it.

Thank you.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, we—on behalf of the Committee, we appreciate that, Ms. Johnson, and both amendments, by unanimous

consent, are withdrawn. And now we will proceed—I would—the

Chair would recognize Ms. Jackson Lee, so she may proceed with

amendment number 5.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

291

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. The

House Floor has called me, and I have an amendment on the Floor

as I—as we speak. My amendment number 5 I am going to yield

to Mr. Udall as I offer it. It simply adds the language public health

to the list of subjects to be covered by the vulnerability assessment.

I think it follows the very eloquent statement of Ms. Johnson about

how important public health is. I would ask my colleagues to consider it, and I am going to yield to the distinguished gentleman

from Colorado. And I would ask for a yes vote on my amendment.

Mr. UDALL. I thank my colleague, Ms. Jackson Lee, for offering

her important amendment for yielding to me. Before I comment on

Ms. Jackson Lee’s amendment, I would like to thank my colleague,

Ms. Johnson, for her work and for offering her two amendments.

I think they both add significant heft to the purposes of the legislation.

Again, I wanted to just say to the Committee, we are having an

important discussion here, almost a hearing in a sense, on a bill

that we are marking up, and as I think we all expect, will not leave

the Committee at this time. But the bill does not mandate any climate policy changes. It does not mandate any new regulations, create any mandatory registries or data collection from the private

sector or create any new programs. It simply updates the existing

U.S. Global Change Research Program, which this Congress and

this Administration believe are crucial to understanding the effects

of greenhouse gas emissions, not just on weather, but on human

systems and on human activities. And both of the amendments offered by Ms. Johnson would have given the Global Climate Change

Research Program additional areas in which to study and to report

back to us and to the other policy makers that are involved.

Congresswoman Jackson Lee’s amendment would do the same

thing, adding public health to the list of things that would be considered in vulnerability analyses, which is one of the changes that

we make in the legislation in the U.S. GCRP’s portfolio. So I would

urge passage and acceptance of Ms. Jackson Lee’s amendment, because it would help us do an even better job in our research programs of understanding what we face.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. If there are no further discussion—Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. I move to strike the last word. I would like to echo

my colleague on—friend, Mr. Udall’s, remarks.

We talk a lot in environmental policy about the need to base policy on sound science. The essence of Mr. Udall’s bill, the underlying

bill, and the amendments is to ensure that the science is, indeed,

sound. And when we talk about human health, it is a fine thing

to look at the economic benefits or the various activities that contribute to greenhouse gas, and we all benefit from those. But as

there is global environmental change, there will also be global environmental health consequences, including in our own country, including those in the research directed by this bill makes a great

deal of sense to me.

I just want to add one other thing. I was out during the discussion of the gentlelady’s prior amendment. This notion of immediate

climate change, I had the opportunity to scuba dive in the Maldives

Islands a couple years back. The Maldives Islands experienced a

292

95-degree temperature—water temperature event for three weeks,

and it killed virtually all of the coral reefs there. This is an island

chain that depends for its very existence on the existence of these

coral reefs. When you see that with your own eyes, when you get

in the water and see what used to be one of the most beautiful

coral systems, ecosystems in the world now looking like a gray

bone yard, the reality of global warming hits you right in the face.

And Mr. Udall’s initiative in trying to make sure our research is

sound on this is vital. And I support the underlying bill, and I support these amendments designed to make sure that we really study

the impact of this profound change, not only in our system today,

but on the Earth our kids are going to inherit.

And I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. If there is no further discussion, the question is on the amendment. All those in

favor, say aye. Opposed no. The nos appear to have it.

And the next amendment is amendment number 3. And we are

advised by the Floor that we can anticipate within the next 10 minutes or so a series of votes, so I hope we can move with some dispatch to conclude our business before that vote.

Amendment number 4. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment number 3?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Number 3. I——

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment number 3 to H.R. 1578 offered by Mr.

Miller of North Carolina.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Miller follows:]

293

294

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller is recognized.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also recognize the futility of trying to attach a car to a stalled train. This amendment does

try to look at what is working in technology transfer, in energy conservation, specifically. We have talked a fair amount on this committee about technology transfer, how to move research into practical application into use in the real world.

It is particularly important in energy, because of the possibility

of climate change and the effect that it has on climate change and

in pollution, generally. In my state, one in five emergency room admissions are for pediatric asthma. Those are panicked parents taking their children to the emergency room, because their children

can not catch their breath. A large—the largest contributor to that

pollution that causes the asthma is the coal-fired power plants that

are used to generate electricity.

We need to figure out what is working in trying to get energy

conservation technology into practical application, what gets in the

way, what has helped research get into real world use, and what

has not worked. That is what the purpose of this amendment is.

In deference to the Committee’s time and to the futility of the exercise, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller, and I

appreciate that. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.

The following amendment listed on our docket is amendment

number 4 by Mr. Larson. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 1578 offered by Mr. Larson of

Connecticut.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Larson follows:]

295

296

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent that the

amendment be considered as read.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Larson

is recognized——

Mr. LARSON. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence and want

to make it clear that I support my colleague in his underlying bill

and want to commend him and especially Jan Barrett on his staff

for the amount of time and effort that they have put in here.

And I am offering this amendment, because I believe it is technical in nature and would indulge the Chairman, who we know

conceptually favors this kind of approach but has tactical concerns.

I am just maintaining that the amendment that I am offering,

which focuses on taking a look at adding the word ‘‘sustained’’ to

global measurements and focuses on the opportunity for us to look

at atmospheric monitoring are technical changes to a bill. And if

we were to seek unanimous consent to adopt the amendment in a

bill that obviously is probably going to be voted down, we could

move forward.

Chairman BOEHLERT. You are so persuasive, but you didn’t make

the complete sell. And you have no idea how much this pains the

Chair, particularly dealing with this subject, to respond in the

manner I feel constrained to respond in. But you are right: it is not

a substantive disagreement, it is a tactical disagreement. And

based upon that and all of the circumstances, I will oppose the

amendment.

Mr. LARSON. Well——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there any other——

Mr. LARSON. Well, just taking back my time, Mr. Chairman, I,

just for the record, wanted to make sure that the Committee understands the importance of making sure that we have sustained

global measurements and that because of the importance that has

been found to current research and the heavy focus on land that

I want to make the added point that I believe atmospheric monitoring is equally important and wanted to include that.

And thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else

who seeks recognition? If not—Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I know we have got to move, so just

let me just quickly say that you and other Members of the majority

have, on a variety of occasions, said that this is an important issue

that needs to be addressed but not now and not this way. I would

just like to ask if not now, when? And if not Mr. Udall’s way, what

way?

Chairman BOEHLERT. The when is not far distant in the future.

It is my hope that we will be able to work on a bipartisan bill that

we can report out of this committee, consider to report out of this

committee in a timely fashion. I have been one of those who have

been in the forefront of the battle on global change, and I have got

scars to prove it, I might add. But that has never stopped me or

deterred me. It is just that, I think, this time right now is not the

time. But the time is not way off in the future. I think it is sooner

rather than later. And I appreciate your observation.

297

Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? If not, the vote is on

the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed no. The aye—

nos have it. Is there any other——

Mr. LARSON. Oh, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, it sounded an awful

lot like the ayes had that.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, the Chairman does not have the benefit of his electronic device that modern man—my hearing aid. I

really don’t have it. But I thought I heard what I heard, and so

that is—I made a declaration from the Chair. And the Chair isn’t

always accepted at face value, but that is my determination.

Are there any further amendments?

Mr. LARSON. No. Mr. Chairman, in deference to you and the time

that is involved, the—I will not call for the yeas and nays.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And I appreciate the considerable courtesy

being extended to me by the gentleman from Connecticut and Mr.

Udall. We are kindred spirits in so many of our battles.

If there are no further amendments, the question is on the bill

H.R. 1578.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, is there no——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have been holding off my comments for the

general debate, if I could be indulged.

Chairman BOEHLERT. You are indulged for five minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me suggest that I was perfectly willing

to support all of the amendments of my colleagues. As a matter of

courtesy to my colleagues, I think we should have permitted them

to have whatever amendments they wanted, especially those of us

who opposed the underlying bill. So that is why you caught me saying yes, I mean, just as a matter of courtesy. You should be able

to present your best case.

Now let me note that while I was supporting your amendments,

I certainly don’t agree with the premise of the bill. And we have—

I have been here for 14 years now. I am on my 15th year as a

Member of Congress, and I can tell you that we have studied this

issue not only to death, but we have studied—or said this issue at

the expense of so many other programs, it is incredible. We have

spent tens of billions of dollars in research on global warming, but

there never is enough. There is never enough research. We have

got to spend billions of dollars more every year. And during the

previous Administration, anyone who wanted a grant from the Federal Government knew they would get it if they could convince people that they were going to come up with something that would

prove global warming.

Let me note that we have just had one of the coldest winters in

my lifetime, and—in California and throughout the country. This

is, of course, explained away as an anomaly or, in fact, some of the

people who advocate global warming suggest, aha, see, that actually proves—the global cooling proves the global warming because

of some kind of——

Mr. BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, no. No, no. I have got to have my say

here on this. Let me just note that we have done these studies. I

think that we have over and over again seen people trying to—in

my view, trying to explain away why there is a drought in Utah.

298

That is global warming, but why we have cold weather in the country and the world as a whole, why that isn’t global warming or that

is global warming, it is—I see a very—a pattern here among people

who want to believe in global warming.

Now let me just suggest this. Whether or not the Earth is one

or two degrees warmer now than it was 150 years ago, I don’t

know. I do know that we have gone through ice ages back and

forth, and there has been change in the climate throughout the history of the world long before mankind even emerged on the world.

In fact, the basic question today isn’t whether there is global warming or not. The question is whether or not it is human activity that

is changing the climate. And the reason why people want to prove

that human activity is changing the climate is because people want

to regulate human activity. Behind the push for global warming is

a push for $5 a gallon gasoline. And of course, the real price of gasoline is much cheaper, the rest would be made up in taxes that

would be shifted away to the government, and then the resources

would be used by the bureaucracy, for our benefit, of course.

Global warming, as I say, could well be with us, and it could well

be a natural occurrence, or we could be going through global cooling as a natural occurrence. But what we do know that human activity, at the most, would contribute five percent of the so-called

gases that would make the world go in the global warming direction. Five percent are caused—but 95 percent are natural with volcanoes and the—and of course, the—what I like the best is one of

the greatest contributors is the decay of wood and the decay and

termites, the action of bugs on that wood, so that if you really believed in global warming, you should be trying to eliminate all old

growth trees, especially jungles, and bulldoze them and plant them

with young trees, so—which would have the opposite effect on global warming.

Or if someone really believes in global warming, they would actually want to support nuclear energy. I mean, if you want hydrogen,

which I think it would be a good thing to help us develop hydrogen,

but if you rule out nuclear energy, it is going to be very tough to

find a way to produce hydrogen in a way that makes any sense economically. However, making sense isn’t what this debate is all

about, and the debate on global warming isn’t about making sense,

and thus, I have to suggest that I oppose the underlying amendment.

Thank you very much.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for those interesting

observations.

The question is on the bill H.R. 1578, Global Change Research

and Data Management Act of—Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if it is appropriate, I just

would like just maybe 30 seconds.

Chairman BOEHLERT. In the spirit of the day, we will recognize

for a nanosecond.

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. I would just suggest that this is, after all,

the Science Committee. And the National Academies of Science

seems to me to have issued a fairly extensive report, and various

world scientific bodies have issued fairly extensive reports suggesting that my distinguished colleague from California is just simVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:51 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP3 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
299

ply wrong on this. It is fine to say that laymen know everything,

and there are some bright folks out there, but the scientific bodies

chartered and funded by this United States Congress have concluded that human activity is the significant contributor and that

while there will be microvariations in local climates, and we do—

we are remiss, I think, in suggesting that one warm area here or

one snowy area here proves that global warming is or is not happening. The bulk of the research shows that, over time, the climate

is increasing in temperature worldwide, and that a significant contributor to that is human production of carbon dioxide.

That is what Mr. Udall’s bill is about. The reason we need more

research is not because we haven’t got sufficient evidence right

now, it is because this Administration refuses to act on that research and make substantive measures, which would not damage

our economy but would enhance our economy to reduce the production of CO2 by this country in the world. That is what this is about,

and all of the other stuff, frankly, is not substantive, and we ought

to reject it, and we ought to pass this bill.

I thank the gentleman for my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for that intervention. The Chair is not prepared to say one of our distinguished colleagues who chairs a very important Subcommittee is wrong. The

Chair is willing to acknowledge that the very distinguished Chairman of the very important Subcommittee is not as conversant with

some of the information as you and I are.

Now with that in mind, the question is on the bill H.R. 1578,

Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2003. All

those in favor will say aye. Opposed will say no. In the opinion of

the Chair, the nos have it.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert.

Chairman BOEHLERT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Lamar Smith.

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Weldon.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Barton.

Mr. BARTON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Barton votes no. Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Nick Smith.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.

Dr. EHLERS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Lucas.

300

Mr. LUCAS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.

Mrs. BIGGERT. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes no. Mr. Johnson.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hart.

Ms. HART. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Sullivan.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes.

Mr. FORBES. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes votes no. Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Bishop.

Mr. BISHOP. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bishop votes no. Mr. Burgess.

Mr. BURGESS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Burgess votes no. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes no. Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Feeney votes no. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Johnson votes no.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Hall.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.

Mr. HONDA. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Bell.

Mr. BELL. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bell votes yes. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.

301

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.

Mr. CARDOZA. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Cardoza votes yes. Mr. Hall has passed, Mr.

Chairman. Mr. Hall votes no.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Do we have the count? Mr. Weldon has

emerged.

Mr. WELDON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Weldon votes no.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the tally.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 18, no, 23.

302

303

Chairman BOEHLERT. And the motion—the bill is not reported.

The Chair declares the Committee adjourned, and let me thank all

of you for being in attendance and engaged. We are constructive.

We are moving forward.

[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(305)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

ON H.R. 2450, HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION

ACT OF 2003

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Good morning. I call this meeting of

the Subcommittee to order. And pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is meeting today to consider

the four following measures: H.R. 3245, the Commercial Space Act

of 2003; H.R. 912, the Charles ‘‘Pete’’ Conrad Astronomy Awards

Act; H.R. 1292, the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003; and

H.R. 2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation

Commission Act of 2003.

At this point, I would ask unanimous consent for the authority

to recess the Committee at any point, and without objection, so ordered.

Okay. At this point, I will make a few opening remarks and then

turn to Bart Gordon, our Ranking Member, for his opening remarks.

Today we will mark up four bills, including two that I have sponsored, H.R. 3245, the Commercial Space Act of 2003, and H.R. 912,

the Charles ‘‘Pete’’ Conrad Astronomy Awards Act of 2003. I believe

that most Members of Congress share my view that the aerospace

industry plays a critical role in advancing America into the future

and especially America into space onto the next frontier. Innovative

and creative thinking have always been the hallmarks of the private sector, and we can not just leave it up to government to solve

the perplexing problems or to actually make sure that America

meets its potential.

H.R. 3245 promotes development of operationally safe suborbital

vehicles and services by directing the government to build an affirmative, enabling regulatory and legal framework for this emerging industry. I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for their

support of H.R. 3245. H.R. 912 encourages average citizens to surVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:51 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP3 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
306

vey the heavens for threatening near-Earth objects. Both H.R. 3245

and H.R. 912, as I said, recognizes the value of having our private

citizens involved in the process.

And we will markup, as well today, H.R. 1292, the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003. This bill establishes a NASA program

of grants for competitively awarded pilot projects using government

and commercial remote sensing capabilities to help address the

needs of State, local, regional, and tribal agencies. The remaining

legislation for markup is H.R. 2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission Act of 2003, which Mr. Gordon

has been involved with authoring and has held off until now in

order to make sure the Gehman Commission could do its work.

And now we can follow up with Mr. Gordon’s legislation.

This morning I look forward to working with Members on both

sides of the aisle. And as we say, we have some good pieces of legislation here to move through the Subcommittee. And I will count on

Mr. Gordon for his remarks.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANA ROHRABACHER

Today we will mark up four bills, including two that I have sponsored, H.R. 3245,

the Commercial Space Act of 2003 and H.R. 912, the Charles ‘Pete’ Conrad Astronomy Awards Act of 2003. I believe that most Members of Congress share my view

that the aerospace industry plays a critical role in advancing America’s space frontier. Innovative and creative thinking have always been the hallmarks of the private

sector in helping the government solve perplexing problems.

H.R. 3245 promotes development of operationally safe suborbital vehicles and

services by directing the government to build an affirmative, enabling regulatory

and legal framework for this emerging industry. I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for their support of H.R. 3245. H.R. 912 encourages average citizens to survey the heavens for threatening near-Earth objects. Both H.R. 3245 and H.R. 912

recognize the value of the private sector in helping us realize our space goals.

We will also markup H.R. 1292, the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003.

This bill establishes a NASA program of grants for competitively awarded pilot

projects using government and commercial remote sensing capabilities to help address the needs of State, local, regional and tribal agencies. The remaining legislation for markup is H.R. 2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation

Commission Act of 2003.

This morning I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle

in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly say you have always been good to work with and plus you are a decent fellow. And

we appreciate the opportunity to markup two of the Minority bills

today. And we would remind you that Mr. Larsen and Mr.

Lampson also have good bills that we hope that you will review

and that we can get to those at another date. And Mr. Hall’s, of

course.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. I would like to now pay the

courtesy to Mr. Hall, who is, of course, former Chairman of this

committee and provided great leadership here and one who adds a

great contribution through institutional memory, you might say, of

everything we have been through. And Ralph, would you like to say

a few words today before we start?

Mr. HALL. I will just say a few, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you

for the chance to.

I note that we are marking up 3245, that is your bill. As you

know, I have introduced a bill 3219, which is an older bill than

yours by about six hours, I think, four, five, or six hours. And I am

307

not surprised that my bill is not on here. I know it is not a technical omission or anything. And I understand that we are to have

some kind of a meeting here in the next 20 or 30 minutes. The future of my bill might be discussed at that time. Is that right? Is

that a good summation of it?

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALL. I thank you. You are a good guy, too.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Let me note that the Chairman is at

this time a co-sponsor of Chairman Hall’s bill. And we are going

to have a very in-depth discussion of it shortly after this markup.

So today—okay. Without objection, all Members may place their

opening statements in the record.

We now have before us to consider the bill H.R. 2450, the

Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission Act of

2003. I now recognize Mr. Gordon, the author of H.R. 2450, for five

minutes to offer any remarks that he may have on the legislation.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission

Act of 2003 is a bipartisan bill that provides a road map for conducting future human space flight accident investigations. We

hopefully never have to make such use of the provisions of H.R.

2450, but space flight involves risk, and I think we would be remiss

if we didn’t have a well-defined plan in place in the event of another accident.

My bill draws on the lessons learned from the creation of the Columbia and Challenger Accident Investigation Boards to set up a

clear, independent, and accountable process for determining the

cause of an accident and correcting it. Key provisions of the bill include the following. It assures that the independence of the investigating Commission by requiring 14 of its 15 members be presidentially appointed and prohibits active NASA employees and contractors from being appointed to the Commission. It also ensures

that the Commission has access to independent staff. It ensures

that the Commission has relevant expertise by making the Chairman of the National Transportation and Safety Board an automatic

member and providing that appointees include some individuals

with expertise in human space flight.

It defines the Commission’s task to be the determination of the

accident’s cause, identification of any contributing factors, and the

recommendations of corrective actions. It provides the Commission

with the ability to conduct hearings and take evidence as well as

to subpoena witnesses, records, and documents. It ensures the

Commission reports directly to Congress, the President, and the

American people.

Mr. Chairman, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board performed an important service for the Nation, and they deserve our

thanks. However, this task was made more difficult by some of the

issues surrounding their charter and composition. I believe that

this bipartisan legislation will prevent such issues from arising in

the future.

I understand the Chairman will offer an amendment to clarify

the intent of the legislation. It is a constructive amendment, and

I welcome it.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

308

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

And Mr. Bishop.

[No response.]

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, it is a good bill, and I think I understand that you are supportive of it. You are not a co-sponsor of it,

but you are supportive of it, and I think that highlights your independence, your normal, usual independence. That is a book on you.

I appreciate your support on this and urge the passage of this bill.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I fully support this bill, and I hope that you will join in as a cosponsor. I think it goes a long way in ensuring or at least encouraging more public support and less questions. It provides, I think,

what we call transparency and its results, not to imply that it

hasn’t been, but I think when it is independent, it creates much

more confidence, and I would urge its passage.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

Let me note that the Chairman is a co-sponsor of the legislation.

If I am not officially, I make it official now. And I want to commend Mr. Gordon for the work—not only the work that he has put

in, but I want the spirit of cooperation that he has had in bringing

this bill forward.

During the time when—after the Columbia tragedy, we spoke

about this legislation, and Mr. Gordon had first wanted to move

forward at that time. And he realized, after discussion, we all sat

down and talked about it, that it would be better to get that investigation behind us rather than move forward with it right now.

And I really appreciate the fact that you were that considerate of

the Nation and of the Congress that you let us get our job done

there and then to move forward in laying the foundation for the future.

I think this is very good legislation. And whenever we have a

major challenge, I don’t care if it is foreign policy, I don’t care if

it is airplanes flying into buildings or crashes up in the heavens

of one of our major space assets or whatever it is that is a major

crisis for the Congress, we should have an independent task force

or commission investigating and spending their full time prestigious Americans, who we can trust, to give us an independent assessment of what happened and where people failed. And I don’t

care—that just should be a principle with all of us, because we

need people who are not beholding to the person who appoints

them to give us their opinions on these things so we will know

what the truth is. And Mr. Gordon has shaped this legislation to

try to help us so next time there is a tragedy and every time you

try to accomplish great deeds, there will be a tragedy in the future,

just as there has been in the past. But we are ready for it now,

because Mr. Gordon is laying the foundation so that hopefully a

decade or two decades or in—long into the future, if this happens

again, there will be a system set up, unlike what we just went

through where we didn’t know exactly what procedure to use. So

I am very happy to be a co-sponsor.

309

I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read,

okay, and open to amendment at any point and that the Members

may proceed with amendments in order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.

[H.R. 2450 follows:]

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 2450 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2450, HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT INDEPENDENT

INVESTIGATION COMMISSION ACT OF 2003

Summary of the ‘‘Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission Act of 2003.’’

This bill provides for the establishment of an independent, Presidentially-appointed investigative Commission in the event of incidents in the Nation’s human

space flight program that result in loss of crew, passengers, or spacecraft. This bill

authorizes such sums as are necessary to carry out this bill.

Section 1. Short Title.

Section 2. Definitions.

This section defines key terms used throughout the bill.

Section 3. Establishment of Commission.

This section directs the President to establish an independent, nonpartisan Commission to investigate any incident resulting from the loss of: 1) a Space Shuttle;

2) the International Space Station or its operational viability; 3) any other U.S.

space vehicle carrying humans; 4) any space vehicle carrying U.S. citizens; or 5) a

crew member or passenger of any space vehicle. The President is directed to issue

an executive order establishing a Commission within 7 days after an incident.

Section 4. Composition of Commission.

This section directs that such a Commission will consist of 15 members, to include

the Chairman of the NTSB and 14 members appointed by the President. The President shall designate the Commission’s Chairman and Vice Chairman. Four of the

14 members shall be selected by the President based on lists of candidates from the

Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of

the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. Except for the Chairman of the NTSB, no officer or employee of the Federal

Government shall serve as a member of the Commission. No member of the Commission shall have, or have pending, a contractual relationship with NASA. The

President shall not appoint any individual as a member of a Commission under this

section who has a current or former relationship with the NASA Administrator that

the President determines would constitute a conflict of interest. The President shall

ensure that the Commission members include individuals with human space flight,

investigative, and legal experiences, and the President shall seek diversity in the

Commission’s membership. All members of the Commission shall be appointed no

later than 30 days after the incident, and the Commission shall meet and begin operations as soon as practicable. The Commission shall meet upon the call of the

Chairman, with eight members of the Commission constituting a quorum. Vacancies

shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made.

Section 5. Tasks of the Commission.

This section establishes the tasks the Commission shall undertake, to include the

following: investigate and determine the cause of the incident; identify all contributing factors to the cause of the incident; make recommendations for corrective actions; provide any additional findings or recommendations deemed by the Commission to be important, whether or not they are related to the specific incident under

investigation; and to prepare a report to Congress, the President, and the public.

Section 6. Powers of Commission.

This section authorizes the Commission to hold hearings and require, by subpoena

or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production

of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as the

Commission determines advisable. A subpoena is authorized only by agreement of

1) the Commission Chairman and Vice-Chairman; or 2) an affirmative vote of eight

Commission members. Such subpoenas may be issued under the signature of the

Chairman or any member designated by a majority of the Commission, and these

subpoenas may be served by any person designated by the Chairman or by a member designated by a majority of the Commission. This section authorizes federal

courts to order a witness to testify or produce documentary or other evidence if a

subpoena from the Commission fails to compel a witness. Any failure to obey the

order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court. The

326

Commission may also certify a statement of fact to the appropriate U.S. attorney

whom may bring the matter before the grand jury.

This section also authorizes the Commission to enter into contracts to enable the

Commission to discharge its duties under this Act. The Commission is authorized

to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of carrying out the

tasks specified in this bill, and each of these organizations shall furnish such assistance directly to the Commission. The General Services Administration shall provide

to the Commission administrative support and other services for the performance

of the Commission’s tasks, and other departments and agencies may also provide

such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.

Section 7. Public Meetings, Information, and Hearings.

This section directs the Commission to hold public hearings and meetings and release public versions of the reports required under this bill.

Section 8. Staff of Commission.

This section authorizes the Commission Chairman, in consultation with the Vice

Chairman, to appoint and compensate staff, in accordance with current law. Any

Federal Government employee, except for NASA employees, may be appointed or detailed to Commission staff. The Commission may procure services of outside experts

and consultants under conditions specified in the bill.

Section 9. Compensation and Travel Expenses.

This section authorizes the compensation for pay and travel expenses for the Commission members in accordance with current law.

Section 10. Security Clearances for Commission Members and Staff.

This section directs appropriate federal agencies and departments to cooperate in

expeditiously providing security clearances to the Commission members and staff.

Section 11. Reporting Requirements and Termination.

The Commission may submit to the President and Congress interim reports containing findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective actions agreed

upon by the majority of Commission members. The Commission is directed to submit a final report containing findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective action agreed upon by the majority of Commission members to the President,

Congress, and public. Such report shall include any minority views or opinions not

reflected in the majority report. The Commission shall terminate 60 days after this

final report is submitted.

Section 12. Role of NTSB.

This section requires the NTSB to assume responsibility for the investigation of

any incident described in this bill upon occurrence of the incident. The NTSB is directed to transfer responsibility for the investigation to the Commission as soon as

the Commission holds its initial meeting.

Section 13. Funding.

This section authorizes to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry

out this bill. Sums authorized shall remain available until the termination of the

Commission.

327

[The Summary of H.R. 2450 follows:]

SUMMARY OF H.R. 2450, HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

COMMISSION ACT OF 2003

Sponsored by: Rep. Bart Gordon (D–TN)

Co-Sponsors (18): Rep. Ralph Hall (D–TX), Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R–WI), Rep.

Mike Honda (D–CA), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), Rep. John Larson (D–

CT), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D–TX), Rep. Brian Baird (D–WA), Rep Jerry Costello

(D–IL), Rep Martin Frost (D–TX), Rep Nick Lampson (D–TX), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D–

CA), Rep. Barney Frank (D–MA), Rep. Brad Sherman (D–CA), Rep. Anthony Weiner

(D–NY), Rep. Albert Wynn (D–MD), Rep. Mark Udall (D–CO), Rep Lincoln Davis

(D–TN), Rep Jim Cooper (D–TN)

This bill provides for the establishment of an independent, Presidentially-appointed investigative Commission in the event of incidents in the Nation’s human

space flight program that result in loss of crew, passengers, or the spacecraft. This

bill authorizes such sums as are necessary for the Commission to conduct its work.

Establishment of Commission: The President shall establish an independent,

nonpartisan Commission to investigate any incident resulting from the loss of: 1)

a Space Shuttle; 2) the International Space Station or its operational viability; 3)

any other United States space vehicle carrying humans; 4) any space vehicle carrying United States citizens; or 5) a crew member or passenger of any space vehicle.

The President is directed to issue an, executive order establishing a Commission

within seven days after an incident.

Composition of Commission: This Commission will consist of 15 members, to include the Chairman of the NTSB and 14 members appointed by the President and

drawn in part from lists of candidates from the Majority Leader of the Senate, the

Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and

the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. Except for the Chairman of

the NTSB, no officer or employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Commission. The President shall ensure that the Commission members

include individuals with human space flight, investigative, and legal experiences. No

member of the Commission shall have, or have pending, a contractual relationship

with NASA or relationship with the NASA Administrator that would constitute a

conflict of interest. All members of the Commission shall be appointed no later than

30 days after the incident.

Commission Tasks: The tasks for the Commission include the following: investigate and determine the cause of the incident; identify all contributing factors to

the cause of the incident; make recommendations for corrective actions and provide

any additional findings or recommendations deemed by the Commission to be important; and prepare a report to Congress, the President, and the public. The Commission is to terminate 60 days after the release of its final report.

Powers of Commission: The Commission, and its subcommittees or members

thereof, may hold hearings for the purpose of examining evidence in the form of witness testimony, books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents,

and may issue subpoenas to ensure such evidence is presented to the Commissioners. The Commission may enter into contracts for the purpose of discharging its

duties, as well as securing support and information from any executive agency of

the Federal Government as needed.

Commission Staff: The Commission Chairman, in consultation with the Vice

Chairman, may appoint and compensate staff, in accordance with current law, and

procure services of outside experts and consultants. Commission members and staff

will be granted security clearances to the extent possible pursuant to existing procedures and requirements.

Role of NTSB: The NTSB is to assume responsibility for the investigation of any

human space flight incident immediately upon the occurrence of that incident, and

the NTSB shall later transfer responsibility for the investigation to a Commission.

328

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

329

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The first amendment is offered by the

Chair. And I have an amendment at the desk. The Clerk will now

report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2450 offered by Mr.

Rohrabacher——

[The amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]

330

331

Chairman ROHRABACHER. I ask unanimous consent to dispense

further reading. Without objection, so ordered.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The Chairman will offer a brief discussion of the amendment. I consider that Members—I—excuse me. I

recommend that Members vote in favor of this amendment to H.R.

2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission Act of 2003. H.R. 2450 authorizes the President to establish

an independent Commission to investigate any incidents resulting

from the loss of a wide array of human-carrying space vehicles.

Without the amendment, H.R. 2450’s scope could be interpreted

to include commercial flights, things—space flights, space missions

that are really not under the purview of the government. The

amendment limits the scope of the Act to U.S. Government-related

activities. And I believe this amendment strengthens 2450, and I

encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I concur that it is a constructive

amendment, and I appreciate your insight in making this bill better.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

Is there any further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the

amendment. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes

seem to have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any

further amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the bill,

H.R. 2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation

Commission Act of 2003, as amended. All of those in favor will say

aye. All of those opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the

ayes have it.

I will now recognize the Ranking Minority Member for a motion.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 2450, as amended, to the Full Committee with the recommendation that it be in order for the bill, as

amended by the Subcommittee, to be incorporated into the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the consideration of the original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule

at Full Committee.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to

make all necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill as

amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The question is on the motion to report

the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The bill is favorably reported.

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which

to submit supplemental Minority or additional views on the measure. Without objection, so ordered.

This concludes the Subcommittee markup. And let me again assure that—Chairman Hall, that although his bill did not make it

to markup today, that it is this Chair’s intention to work with you,

Mr. Hall, and to try to move forward with your legislation as it develops.

332

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the major

thrust from this point forward needs to be safety. And your bill encompasses that. Every bill we have addressed today has tipped its

hat to safety, and I think that has got to be the watchword for us

for the next year or so.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.

Again, we appreciate your continued leadership.

This concludes our Subcommittee markup. We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(333)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ON H.R. 2692,

UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 11:30

a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.

Nick Smith [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman SMITH. The Subcommittee will be in order. Pursuant

to notice, the Subcommittee on Research is meeting today to consider the following measures: H.R. 2692, the United States Fire Administration Authorization Act of 2003.

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without objection, hearing none, it is

so ordered.

Of course, we have just discussed this legislation in the proceeding hearing, so Members and staff should be familiar with the

provisions of the legislation. However, I will take a moment to

briefly summarize a couple of provisions that are in the base bill.

The bill would authorize appropriations for base activities at the

U.S. Fire Administration through fiscal year 2006. That is, all traditional USFA activities, except the Assistance to Firefighters

Grant Program that was established in fiscal year 2001, is currently authorized through the end of fiscal year 2004. The legislation reinstates the position of the U.S. Fire Administration as a

Presidentially-appointed Senate-confirmed position, and that reacts

to our effort to make sure that it is separate and distinct. It reverses what we believe was an inadvertent elimination of the position by language that was part of last year’s bill establishing the

Department of Homeland Security.

It also transfers ultimate responsibility for administration of the

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program from the Director of

FEMA to the U.S. Fire Administrator. This will not result in any

functional changes to the Grant Program, but instead clarifies the

existing structure and sends somewhat of a symbolic message, at

least I believe, as does the fire service community that the Grant

Program’s proper home is within USFA.

This is a bipartisan legislation. I am pleased that we were able

to put this together in this fashion. I believe we will have a smooth

334

markup of the legislation today, and next—again next week at Full

Committee so that the bill can make its way to the House floor.

And we will pass it hopefully when we return to—from the August

recess. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Eddie Bernice Johnson, the

Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee, for an opening

statement.

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As co-sponsor of this

legislation, I speak in support of its favorable consideration by the

Research Subcommittee today. The Fire Administration has long

enjoyed bipartisan support because of its vital mission to improve

the safety of all of our citizens. I would like to commend you, Mr.

Chairman, for working with me in a collegial way in developing

H.R. 2692, and I also thank you for bringing the bill before the

Subcommittee for its consideration today.

H.R. 2692 will help maintain the visibility of the Fire Administration and its vital programs within the new Department of

Homeland Security. It reestablishes the position of Fire Administrator as a Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed post,

and it formally places the Fire Grants Program under the Fire Administration, which has had an excellent record to date in running

the Grants Program. I believe the resources authorized for the Fire

Administration will allow the Agency to meet its critical responsibilities for firefighter and first responder training, for gathering

fire data and for fire research, and for public education programs.

I’d like to do more, except that this may not be possible under

the current Federal Budget climate. Mr. Chairman, I know that

you will offer a substitute to the bill to incorporate provisions from

H.R. 545, which are now included in the Senate’s version of the

Fire Administration Authorization Bill. I generally support this

substitute, although I am not yet convinced that the weakening of

the requirements in H.R. 545 regarding standards for firefighting

equipment obtained under the Fire Grants Program is a good idea.

I would much prefer a requirement that new equipment meet existing consensus standards where they exist. I would not, however,

object to providing some flexibility to this requirement.

For example, the Fire Administrator could be given the authority

to waive the requirements of a grantee, if a grantee could show a

good reason to do so. I will defer to Full Committee any proposal

for alternative language to this provision. I am pleased to recommend H.R. 2692 to my colleagues, and seek their approval to favorably report the legislation to Full Committee. Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. We will now consider H.R. 2622, and without

objection, all Members may place opening statements into the

record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, as the co-sponsor of this legislation, I speak in support of its favorable consideration by the Research Subcommittee today. The Fire Administration

has long enjoyed bipartisan support because of its vital mission to improve the safety of all our citizens.

I would like to commend you, Chairman Smith, for working with me in a collegial

way in developing H.R. 2692, and I also thank you for bringing the bill before the

Subcommittee for its consideration today.

335

H.R. 2692 will help maintain the visibility of the Fire Administration and its vital

programs within the new Department of Homeland Security. It reestablishes the position of Fire Administrator as a Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed

post, and it formally places the FIRE Grants program under the Fire Administration, which has had an excellent record to date in running the grants program.

I believe the resources authorized for the Fire Administration will allow the agency to meet its critical responsibilities for firefighter and first responder training, for

gathering fire data, for fire research, and for public education programs. I would

like to do more, but accept that this may not be possible under the current federal

budget climate.

The Chairman will offer a substitute to the bill to incorporate provisions from

H.R. 545, which are now included in the Senate’s version of the Fire Administration

authorization bill. I generally support this substitute, although I am not yet convinced that the weakening of the requirement in H.R. 545 regarding standards for

firefighting equipment obtained under the FIRE Grants program is a good idea.

I would much prefer a requirement that new equipment meet existing consensus

standards where they exist. I would not, however, object to providing some flexibility to this requirement.

For example, the Fire Administrator could be given the authority to waive the requirement if, a grantee could show a good reason to do so. I will defer to Full Committee any proposal for alternative language to this provision.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recommend H.R. 2692 to my colleagues and seek

their approval to favorably report the legislation to Full Committee.

Chairman SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and opening amendments at any point. I ask the

Members to proceed with the amendments in the order on the roster, and without objection, so ordered. It is so ordered.

[H.R. 2692 follows:]

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2692

To authorize appropriations for activities under the Federal Fire Prevention and

Control Act of 1974 for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 10, 2003

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for activities under the Federal Fire Prevention and

Control Act of 1974 for fiscal years 2004 through 2006, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Fire Administration Authorization

Act of 2003’’.

SEC. 2. UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATOR.

Notwithstanding section 1513 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.

553), the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration shall continue to

be appointed and compensated as provided under section 5(b) of the Federal Fire

Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2204(b) ).

SEC. 3. NATIONAL RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER STRATEGY.

Section 30 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.

2226) is amended——

(1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘The Director, acting’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

336

‘‘(b) NATIONAL RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER STRATEGY.—The Administrator

shall develop and implement a strategy for promoting the installation and use of

residential fire sprinklers. The strategy shall include——

‘‘(1) advocacy and informational support to relevant stakeholders, including

builders, insurers, and State and local decisionmakers;

‘‘(2) promotion of residential sprinklers in residences supported by the Federal Government;

‘‘(3) a particular focus on residences——

‘‘(A) at high risk to fire hazards; and

‘‘(B) with occupants at high risk to fire hazards, such as senior citizens;

and

‘‘(4) a particular focus on localized fire suppression in high-risk areas of

residences, such as kitchens.’’.

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR TRAINING TO FIGHT MARITIME FIRES.

Subsection (b)(3)(B) of the first section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and

Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229(b)(3)(B) ) is amended by inserting ‘‘maritime

firefighting,’’ after ‘‘arson prevention and detection,’’.

SEC. 5. FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS PROGRAM.

The first section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15

U.S.C. 2229) is amended——

(1) by striking ‘‘Director’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Administrator’’;

(2) by amending subsection (b)(2) to read as follows:

‘‘(2) ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE.—The Administrator shall establish specific criteria for the selection of recipients of assistance under this section and

shall provide grant-writing assistance to applicants.’’; and

(3) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ‘‘operate the office established under

subsection (b)(2) and’’.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 17(g) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.

2216(g) ) is amended by striking ‘‘to carry out the purposes’’ and all that follows

through the end of subparagraph (K) and inserting ‘‘to the Administrator to carry

out the purposes of this Act, other than the firefighter assistance program under

section 33——

‘‘(A) $61,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

‘‘(B) $62,830,000 for fiscal year 2005; and

‘‘(C) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.’’.

SEC. 7. COURSES AND TRAINING ASSISTANCE.

Section 7(l) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.

2206(l) ) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Superintendent shall

offer, at the Academy and at other sites, courses and training assistance as necessary to accommodate all geographic regions and needs of career and volunteer

firefighters.’’.

Æ

337

[The Section-by-Section Analysis follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

H.R. 2692, AS AMENDED BY THE RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE

Introduced by Mr. Smith of Michigan and Ms. Johnson of Texas

Section 1. Short Title.

‘‘United States Fire Administration Authorization Act of 2003’’.

Section 2. United States Fire Administrator.

Preserves the position of U.S. Fire Administrator as a Presidentially-appointed,

Senate-confirmed position.

Section 3. National Residential Fire Sprinkler Strategy.

Requires the Administrator to develop and implement a strategy for promoting

the installation and use of residential fire sprinklers. Requires strategy to include

advocacy and informational support to relevant stakeholders, with a particular focus

on residences at high risk to fire hazards and occupants at high risk to fire hazards

(such as senior citizens).

Section 4. Support for Training to Fight Maritime Fires.

Amends the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program to allow support for training to fight maritime fires as an eligible grant activity.

Section 5. Firefighters Assistance Grants Program.

Transfers responsibility for administration of the program from the Director of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Administrator of the U.S.

Fire Administration (USFA).

Section 6. Authorization of Appropriations.

Authorizes appropriations for USFA of $58.928, $60.7, and $62.52 million annually for fiscal years FY 2004 through FY 2006, respectively.

Section 7. Courses and Training Assistance.

Clarifies that National Fire Academy Superintendent, in offering training courses,

work to accommodate as many geographic areas and needs of firefighters as possible.

Section 8. New firefighting technology.

Subsection (a) would establish a new section 8(e) of the Federal Fire Prevention

and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2207). This new subsection would direct the Administrator, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter-Operability, national voluntary consensus standards development organizations, and

other interested parties, to develop new, and utilize existing, measurement techniques and testing methodologies for evaluating the performance of new firefighting

technology, including:

• personal protection equipment;

• devices for advance warning of extreme hazard;

• equipment for enhanced vision;

• devices to locate victims, firefighters, and other rescue personnel in aboveground and below-ground structures;

• equipment and methods to provide information for incident command, including the monitoring and reporting of individual personnel welfare;

• equipment and methods for training, especially for virtual reality training;

and

• robotics and other remote-controlled devices.

The Administrator would also be required to evaluate the compatibility of new

equipment and technology with existing firefighter technology, and support the development of new voluntary consensus standards through national voluntary consensus standards organizations for new firefighting technologies.

For fire departments applying for equipment under the Assistance to Firefighters

grant program that does not meet applicable voluntary consensus standards, appliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:51 Dec 11, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP3 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
338

cants must include in their applications an explanation of why the equipment will

serve their needs better than equipment that does meet the standards.

Authorizes appropriations of $2.2, $2.25, and $2.3 million for fiscal years 2004

through 2006 to carry out this section.

Sec. 9. Coordination of response to national emergency.

Subsection (a) would create a new section 10(b) of the Federal Fire Prevention and

Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2209). New subsection (b) would require the Administrator, after consultation with the Director of FEMA, to provide technical assistance

and training to State and local fire service officials to establish nationwide and

State mutual aid systems for dealing with national emergencies. These mutual aid

systems would include threat assessment and equipment deployment strategies, and

include means of collecting asset and resource information to provide accurate and

timely data for regional deployment. These mutual aid systems also would have to

be consistent with FEMA’s Federal Response Plan. The Administrator, in consultation with the Director of FEMA, would be required to develop and make available

to State and local fire service officials model mutual aid plans for both intrastate

and interstate assistance.

Subsection (b) would require the Administrator to report to the Senate Committee

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science, within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on the

need for a strategy concerning the deployment of volunteers and emergency response personnel (as defined in section 6 of the Firefighters’ Safety Study Act (15

U.S.C. 2223e) ), including a national credentialing system, in the event of a national

emergency.

Subsection (c) would require the Director of FEMA to revise the Federal Response

Plan within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act to incorporate plans

for responding to terrorist attacks, particularly in urban areas, including fire detection and suppression and related emergency services. The Director of FEMA would

also be required to transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on

Science on these revisions.

Sec. 10. Training.

Subsection (a) would amend section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and

Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2206(d)(1) to authorize the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy to conduct training in the following areas:

(i) strategies for building collapse rescue;

(ii) the use of technology in response to fires, including terrorist incidents and

other national emergencies;

(iii) response, tactics, and strategies for dealing with terrorist- caused national catastrophes;

(iv) use of and familiarity with FEMA’s Federal Response Plan;

(v) leadership and strategic skills, including integrated management systems operations and integrated response;

(vi) applying new technology and developing strategies and tactics for fighting forest fires;

(vii) integrating terrorism response agencies into the national terrorism incident

response system; and

(viii) response tactics and strategies for fighting fires at United States ports, including fires on the water and aboard vessels.

Subsection (b) would authorize the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy

to consult with other Federal, State, and local government officials in developing

curricula for classes at the Academy.

Subsection (c) would require the Administrator to coordinate the training provided

under section 8(d)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15

U.S.C. 2206(d)(1) ) with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human

Services, and the heads of other federal agencies, to ensure that such training does

not duplicate existing courses available to fire service personnel and to establish a

mechanism for eliminating duplicative training programs.

339

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

340

Chairman SMITH. I move—let us see. The—we will move to what

is now the only amendment on the roster, which is an amendment

in the nature of a substitute offered by the Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered in block. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by

Mr. Smith of Michigan.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Smith follows:]

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

Chairman SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that we dispense

with the total reading of the amendment that essentially has the

existing language of the bill, and includes Mr. Camp’s bill at the

end, essentially. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Chairman SMITH. I recognize myself for a few minutes to explain

what the amendment is. The amendment in the nature of a substitute being considered is essentially the language of H.R. 545,

added at the end of H.R. 2692. A few of the provisions include improving the support for the Fire Services through three primary

provisions. One, providing support for the development of voluntary

consensus standards for firefighting equipment and technology.

Two, establishment of a nationwide and State mutual aid system

for dealing with the national emergencies; and three, authorizing

the National Fire Academy to train firefighters to respond to acts

of terrorism and other national emergencies.

In addition to making a couple of minor technical and conforming

changes, the sub-suit amendment modifies the provisions we discussed during the hearing, requiring equipment purchased through

Assistant Fire Grant Program to meet applicable voluntary consensus standards. The language in the substitute replaces this requirement with language requiring applicants applying for grants

to purchase equipment, and Madam Vice-Chairman, Ranking Member will work on this and come to hopefully some agreement that

still allows the flexibility that was called for by the Administrator

and the Chief, and the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Camp, as we proceed

to Full Committee.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, the vote

occurs on the amendment. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed

say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of substitute is agreed to.

After the motion to report the bill, does the Ranking Member or

do I do this? Oh, are there any further amendments? Hearing none,

the questions on the bill H.R. 2692, as amended, the United States

Fire Administration Authorization Act, all those in favor will say

aye. All those opposed say no. And in the opinion of the Chair, the

ayes have it.

And the Ranking Member.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 2692, as amended, to the

Full Committee, with the recommendation that it be an order for

the bill as amended by the Subcommittee to be incorporated into

an amendment in the nature of a substitute for consideration as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

rule at Full Committee.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to

make all necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill, as

amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.

Chairman SMITH. The Subcommittee has heard the motion. Is

there any further discussion? All those in favor will say aye. Those

opposed will say no. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to,

and without objection, the motion to consider is laid upon the table.

This concludes our subcommittee markup. I thank the Members,

certainly again thank the witnesses and staff before us today. Dan,

353

you did an excellent job, if you are still here. And with that, the

Subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(355)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

ON H.R. 2734, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

REAUTHORIZATION ACT

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. I now call the Subcommittee on Space

and Aeronautics to order. Good morning. And pursuant to notice to

the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is that we are meeting

today to consider the following measures: H.R. 1085, the NASA

Flexibility Act of 2003, and then the Committee Print for the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act.

And I welcome everyone to this markup this morning. And this

is the first markup of this subcommittee for the 108th Congress.

Let me also be the first to thank Chairman Boehlert for his leadership. Is he here with us yet? He will be. Chairman Boehlert is on

his way, and we appreciate his leadership for tackling a difficult,

yet crucial, issue and that is NASA’s workforce needs.

Today’s markup concerns H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility Act of

2003. NASA is facing a crisis regarding its workforce. A significant

portion of the workforce will be eligible to retire soon, so action

needs to be taken. H.R. 1085 is intended to provide NASA the flexibility necessary to attract the best of the brightest talent in the

fields of engineering and science by helping NASA address the

problems of recruiting and retaining highly skilled technical personnel. H.R. 1085 provides NASA with the authority needed to ensure that our skilled workforce continues to be our greatest asset

for pushing the boundaries of this great new frontier of space.

We will also markup the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act. This bill authorizes

funding for civil aviation research and development. It also calls for

a joint FAA and NASA initiative aimed at resolving the problems

facing our national air traffic management system.

356

This morning, I look forward to working with my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle, and I am confident that our efforts will help

maintain America’s leadership role in aerospace.

I also would like to thank Bart Gordon, the Ranking Member of

the Subcommittee, for his hard work on this and his openness and

willingness to work in a very bipartisan manner on this bill. And

I know there were some rough edges we had to work out, and I appreciate that he did this with good will and went forward in trying

to make sure that we could get this job done. And I certainly now

would recognize you for any opening remarks that you would like

to make.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Rohrabacher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANA ROHRABACHER

I want to welcome everyone here this morning for the Space Subcommittee’s first

markup of the 108th Congress. Let me also be the first to thank Chairman Boehlert

for his leadership in tackling a difficult, and yet, crucial issue—NASA’s workforce

needs.

Today’s markup concerns H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility Act of 2003. NASA is

facing a crisis regarding its workforce. A significant portion of the workforce will

be eligible to retire soon. So action needs to be taken. H.R. 1085 is intended to provide NASA the flexibility necessary to attract the best and brightest talent in the

fields of engineering and science.

By helping NASA address the problem of recruiting and retaining highly skilled

technical personnel, H.R. 1085 provides NASA with the authority needed to ensure

that a skilled workforce continues to be our greatest asset for pushing the boundaries of new frontiers.

We will also markup the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act.

This bill authorizes funding for civil aviation research and development. It also calls

for a joint FAA and NASA initiative aimed at solving the problems facing our national air traffic management system.

This morning I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the

aisle. I am confident that our efforts today will help to maintain our leadership role

in aerospace.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. We now turn our attention to the

markup of the Committee Print of the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act. And the—

you don’t think so? Okay. Oh, I thought it was going to be quick.

Okay. Five minutes. This committee is in recess until five minutes

after the last vote that we are going to on the Floor.

[Recess.]

Chairman ROHRABACHER. This hearing will now come back to

order. And we will now turn our attention to the markup of the

Committee Print of the Federal Aviation Administration Research

and Development Authorization Act. The FAA and NASA and industry have all worked together to develop air traffic control hardware and systems needed to meet near- and long-term challenges

to America’s airspace system. The bill, this bill, will help in this regard by calling for the establishment of a join program office between the FAA and NASA to conduct long-term air traffic management research and development. This bill also bolsters ongoing efforts to shore up deficiencies in civil aviation research and development as well by making research and development in the civil aviation area a higher priority.

I now will recognize Mr. Gordon, Ranking Minority Member of

the Subcommittee, to present his opening remarks.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to express my support for the FAA legislation that we are marking up

357

today. We have had some amendments that we will be offering to

perfect the bill, but in general, I think it is a very good piece of

legislation. Chairman Rohrabacher has been—has already summarized the provisions of the bill, so I will confine my remarks to a

few observations.

First, I am pleased that Chairman Rohrabacher has taken a bipartisan approach to the crafting of this legislation. I am particularly heartened by the fact that it tracks in large part the FAA

Title of Mr. Larson’s ‘‘Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act.’’ That bill was introduced in the last Congress and

gained broad bipartisan sponsorship. It was reintroduced earlier

this year as H.R. 586 and is again attracting bipartisan co-sponsorship. It is a good bill, and I am glad to see that much of the FAA

Title has found its way into the legislation before us today. When

we consider a NASA Authorization bill, I hope that the Committee

will give equally serious consideration to the NASA aeronautics

R&D provisions contained in Mr. Larson’s bill.

I am also pleased that Chairman Rohrabacher has incorporated

Ms. Johnson’s ‘‘Airport Cooperative Research Program’’ provisions

to the bill. It is a constructive provision that, if enacted, will do

much to bring innovative solutions to the challenges confronting

our nation’s airport operating authorities.

The bill also focuses on R&D challenges facing our nation’s air

traffic management system. It proposes a coordinated effort to address the development of the next generation air traffic management system and delineates some clear objectives. It is an approach

worth supporting.

More broadly, the bill recognizes the importance of considering

aviation-related R&D on a unified basis. Research priorities and

plans should not be captive to budget categories. Instead, they need

to be examined within the context of overall FAA R&D efforts.

Mr. Chairman, we will have several amendments to the bill, and

I believe they will prove non-controversial and acceptable to the

Members. They will improve what is already a good bill, and I intend to support this legislation, and I hope that it will be speedily

enacted into law.

And thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

I want to express my support for the FAA legislation that we are marking up

today. We will have some amendments that we will offer to perfect the bill, but in

general I think that it is a good piece of legislation. Chairman Rohrabacher has already summarized the provisions of the bill, so I will confine my remarks to a few

observations.

First, I am pleased that Chairman Rohrabacher has taken a bipartisan approach

to the crafting of this legislation. I am particularly heartened by the fact that it

tracks in large part the FAA Title of Mr. Larson’s ‘‘Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act.’’ That bill was introduced in the last Congress and

gained broad bipartisan sponsorship. It was reintroduced earlier this year as H.R.

586 and is again attracting bipartisan co-sponsors. It is a good bill, and I am glad

to see that much of the FAA Title has found its way into the legislation before us

today. When we consider a NASA Authorization bill, I hope that the Committee will

give equally serious consideration to the NASA aeronautics R&D provisions contained in Mr. Larson’s bill.

I also am pleased that Chairman Rohrabacher has incorporated Ms. Johnson’s

Airport Cooperative Research Program provision into the bill. It is a constructive

358

provision that, if enacted, will do much to bring innovative solutions to the challenges confronting our nation’s airport operating authorities.

The bill also focuses on the R&D challenges facing our nation’s air traffic management system. It proposes a coordinated effort to address the development of the next

generation air traffic management system and delineates some clear objectives. It

is an approach worth supporting.

More broadly, the bill recognizes the importance of considering aviation-related

R&D on a unified basis. Research priorities and plans should not be captive to budget categories—instead they need to be examined within the context of the overall

FAA R&D effort.

Mr. Chairman, we will have several amendments to the bill that I believe will

prove non-controversial and acceptable to the Members. They will improve what is

already a good bill. I intend to support this legislation and hope that it will be

speedily enacted into law.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

The Chairman notes that when we talk about research and development and how it is going to play an important role in shaping

America’s transportation system, we often think of it more in terms

of research and development of aircraft, and this is going to make

America more competitive, etcetera. But the Chair believes, and I

certainly agree with Mr. Gordon, that the air traffic control system

and focusing on the way air traffic is managed and the technology

necessary to develop, perhaps, a revolutionary new concept of air

traffic control in this country could well be more important than

developing the airplanes themselves. And we can make the aviation industry here much more efficient and much more effective.

Our airlines are not making a profit right now. One of the problems is the high cost of fuel, but perhaps the way we have organized the system and the technology on which that organization is

based can actually play a major role in making our airlines profitable again. So that is why this is very important, and again demonstrating the bipartisan nature of the Subcommittee and the Committee that we all have those goals in mind.

Without objection, all Members may place an opening statement

on the Committee Print of the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act in the record at this

point.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Gordon. I am pleased that the

Majority has decided to include language that I provided to create an Airport Cooperative Research Program in this legislation.

This research program will identify and sponsor research on problems that are

shared by airport operating agencies and can be solved through applied research but

that are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs.

As a Member of both this committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, I believe an Airport Cooperative Research Program is necessary in order

to coordinate the efforts of thousands off public and private airport operators, regulators, suppliers, and users at all levels of government and industry so that the

aviation industry can provide a consumer friendly product that is safe, secure, and

environmentally sound.

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for including this research program—I appreciate

the Committee’s support in establishing this critical step towards coordination and

cooperation in aviation research.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]

359

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN LARSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank for marking-up this important

legislation.

For the past two Congresses, along with my Science Committee colleague, Mr.

Forbes, I have introduced bipartisan legislation to address the crisis affecting the

aeronautics industry in this country. A broad range of non-partisan organizations

that understand that this country is facing a crisis in our aviation industry has supported that bill, the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization act. We

have all heard the figures. From reduced lost market share to greatly decreased

R&D expenditures, the U.S. is lagging behind international competitors in manufacturing and innovation of commercial airplanes—and our economic and national security are, will continue to, suffer from it.

The legislation I introduced would have established a comprehensive aeronautics

R&D endeavor that would have cut across agency divisions between NASA and FAA

and would have put forth a goal-oriented effort to take commercial aviation in this

country to new heights.

I am pleased that the legislation before us today closely mirrors the FAA portion

of my bill and I am fully supportive of it. I am worried, however, that the authorization figures in the bill before us today may be a bit low, considering what is needed

to reverse the decline in our aviation industry and to effectively compete with our

global competitors. I hope we can work on this before Full Committee markup. But

for now, I am pleased that my efforts for the past two years have borne fruit and

that people have been listening.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. The bill is now open for discussion. And I ask unanimous consent that the bill—should we have

the first reading of the bill? Okay. So I ask unanimous consent that

the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point

and that Members may proceed with amendments in order of the

roster. And without any objections, so ordered.

[H.R. 2734 follows:]

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 2734 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

H.R. 2734, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION R&D REAUTHORIZATION ACT

Sec. 1. Short Title

‘‘Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization

Act.’’

Sec. 2. Authorization of Appropriations

Authorizes appropriations for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Research

and Development programs, projects and activities.

Sec. 3. Next Generation Air Traffic Management Research and Development Joint Program Office

Requires FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to

establish a Joint Program Office (JPO) to conduct Next Generation Air Traffic Management research and development. Requires the FAA and NASA Administrators to

jointly appoint an FAA senior executive to be Director, and a NASA senior executive

to be Deputy Director.

Requires the JPO to establish and carry out, on behalf of FAA and NASA, longterm air traffic management R&D capable of tripling our domestic capacity by 2025.

The JPO is authorized to spend agency funds dedicated to air traffic management

R&D on behalf of NASA and FAA. Authorizes the JPO to use the facilities and expertise of other federal agencies, national laboratories, universities, non-profit organizations, and private sector entities.

Requires the JPO to develop a research and development plan with cost and

schedule milestones. Requires the JPO to make an annual report to Congress on

progress to date, and program plans for the following year.

Authorizes a total of $95 million over five years.

Sec. 4. Budget Designation for Research and Development Activities

Amends 49 USC 48102 (FAA Research and Development), to require future FAA

budgets to identify all research and development activities that would be classified

as basic research, applied research, or development under the guidelines established

by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–11, regardless of the budget

category in which it appears in the budget request.

Sec. 5. Airport Cooperative Research Program

Requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish an airport cooperative research grant program to identify problems—shared by airport operating agencies—

that can be solved through applied research, and to fund research addressing those

problems.

Requires the Secretary to appoint a governing board from candidates proposed by

national associations representing airport executives, public airport operating agencies, State aviation officials, and the scheduled airlines. The board will solicit, review and propose airport R&D projects. The Secretary will review and approve

projects for funding.

Authorizes $20 million annually from the Research, Engineering and Development account.

Sec. 6. Development of Analytical Tools and Certification Methods

376

Directs FAA to conduct research to promote development of analytical tools to improve existing certification methods for new aircraft, engines, and aircraft systems,

to reduce overall certification costs for new products.

Sec. 7. Research Program to Reduce Community Exposure to Aircraft Noise

and Emissions

Establishes a program to fund research and development of noise and emissions

reduction technologies. Authorizes up to $20 million annually using noise mitigation

funds from the Airport Improvement Program.

377

[The Summary of H.R. 2734 follows:]

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE PRINT

The Federal Aviation Administration Research and

Development Reauthorization Act

• Reauthorizes the FAA’s Research and Development program for FY04, FY05,

and FY06.

• Establishes an FAA–NASA Next Generation Air Traffic Management Joint

Program Office. Requires a research and development plan that will enable

development of an air traffic management system capable of tripling capacity

by the year 2025. Authorizes $95 million (aggregate) over the life of the bill.

• Amends Section 48102 of Title 49, United States Code, to clarify that

amounts appropriated under this subsection support all research and development activities carried out by FAA.

• Establishes an Airport Cooperative Research Program. Authorizes $20 million

annually.

• Requires FAA to conduct research on development of analytical tools to help

reduce the cost of certifying new aircraft, aircraft engines, and related systems.

• Establishes a research program to reduce community exposure to aircraft

noise and emissions. Authorizes $20 million annually.

378

Chairman ROHRABACHER. So the bill is now open for amendment.

And the first amendment will be an amendment by Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Gordon, you are recognized.

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

Mr. GORDON. Okay. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The Clerk will read the—report the

amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to the Committee Print, offered by Mr.

Gordon, page 2, line 13, strike ‘‘$349,817,000’’ and insert——

Mr. GORDON. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the

amendment be dispensed with.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Gordon follows:]

379

380

381

382

Chairman ROHRABACHER. So ordered without objection. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to offer his amendment.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment I am

offering is straightforward. The 1998 FAA R&D Authorization bill

created the Research Grants Program involving undergraduate students and directed the FAA Administrator to establish a program

that would involve undergraduate and technical colleges, including

historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic-serving

institutions, in research on subjects relevant to the needs of the

FAA. My amendment would update the statute to highlight the importance of research on the impact of new technologies and procedures on the training requirements for pilots and air traffic controllers.

There continue to be dramatic changes in both cockpit technologies and in air traffic management technologies. These technologies will put unique demands on future training requirements.

Research in this area would be of enormous value, and I think we

should encourage it. In addition, my amendment would extend the

funding of the undergraduate research program for another three

years. Although the amounts requested are modest, the benefits of

the program will be significant.

I hope the Members will support this amendment, and I yield

back the balance of my time.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

The Chairman would like to note that he will support the amendment, gladly. And is there any further discussion on this amendment? Hearing none, all in favor of this amendment, say aye. All

opposed, say no. The ayes seem to have it, and it is agreed to.

We have a second amendment. It is an amendment by Mr.

Weiner from New York. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? You have an amendment at the desk, and the Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. [No response.]

[The amendment offered by Mr. Weiner follows:]

383

384

385

Chairman ROHRABACHER. You are—that is—hearing no objection,

you may proceed with your statement.

Mr. WEINER. [No response.]

Chairman ROHRABACHER. I would ask Mr. Weiner if he could

turn on the microphone that we could all hear you better.

Mr. WEINER. Let me be—let me start again. No, I am just kidding.

The problem became once we had phased in stage three aircraft

there was no longer any benchmark for aircraft manufacturers and

airlines to meet. So-called stage four hadn’t been created. That

changed this year in the reauthorization bill that we just did in the

Transportation Committee. We have essentially said that now we

have to start hitting even quieter benchmarks for the next generation of aircraft.

As with so many areas of research, research into quieter aircraft

engines has always been started on the federal level. We heard testimony in the Transportation Committee and in this committee

saying that essentially the money that we provide for research,

whether it be via NASA or the Federal Aviation Administration,

provides the benchmark for technology that is eventually used in

commercial aircraft.

The problem that I found is that the money that we added for

this new program to do more research was taken from the FAA’s

noise abatement program. That noise abatement program benefits

all of our Districts. And it is a program that does things like

makes—replaces windows in schools, that does noise monitoring

around airports all around the country. And what my amendment

would do is say, ‘‘Let us create this environmental research and development account, but let us not cannibalize the noise abatement

program.’’ So my amendment would take that $20 million that was

identified in the Committee Print and simply move it to create, essentially, a $20 million increase in the environmental research and

development account and restore the noise abatement program,

creating, essentially, the same effect but would not take the funds

any longer, if my amendment were passed, from the noise abatement program.

I would hope that the Chairman and my colleagues would support it. I think it gets us where we need to go without reducing a

program that I think benefits all of our Districts already.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The Chair would like to announce that

he will favor the amendment and commends Mr. Weiner, because

let me just recognize that I remember one of your first speeches

on—in this committee dealt with aircraft noise. And you really focused on that and made that a really important part of your agenda. So the Chairman gladly accepts this amendment and supports

it. Does anyone else have any discussion?

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. I have, but I better not. I don’t want to mess it up,

so let me just quickly say I concur with this common sense amendment.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. With that said, if there is no

other discussion, all those in favor of this amendment, say aye. All

386

opposed, say no. Well, the ayes appear to have it. The amendment

is agreed to.

We have another amendment. Ms. Jackson Lee is not here for

her amendment yet, but we do have an amendment by myself, on

behalf of Mr. Boehlert. The next amendment on the roster is

amendment number three, offered, as I say, by myself, on behalf

of Mr. Boehlert. And I have an amendment at the desk. Will the

Clerk please report the amendment?

The CLERK. The amendment to the Committee Print, offered by

Mr. Boehlert, page 14, line 11, insert ‘‘to provide staff support to

the governing board established under paragraph (2) and’’ after

‘‘National Academy of Sciences’’.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. I ask unanimous consent to dispense

with any further reading of the amendment. So ordered.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert follows:]

387

388

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And I now recognize myself to discuss

the amendment. In brief, the amendment specifies that the National Academy of Sciences shall provide staff support for the cooperative research program governing board. So it is as simple as

that. And this is a very simple amendment, and it clarifies how the

airport cooperative research program will work. This program is

based on existing highway and transit research programs. The

amendment simply makes clearer that the National Academy of

Sciences will provide staff support for the governing board that will

guide the program as well as manage the actual research projects

that the Secretary selects.

I believe that this is a non-controversial amendment, and I would

urge its adoption.

So with that said, is there any further discussion? If not, all in

favor of this amendment, say aye. All opposed say nay. The ayes

seem to have it. The amendment is agreed to.

We have one further amendment, if Ms. Jackson Lee is here, or

is there someone who would like to—all right. Ms. Jackson Lee will

be free to submit her amendment at Full Committee.

And with that said, I think that we now will move on to the

adoption of the bill. Are there any further amendments? Hearing

none, the question is on the bill. The Committee Print of the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act, as amended. All those in favor will say aye. All those

opposed, say no. It appears that the ayes have it.

I now recognize Mr. Gordon to offer a motion.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move the Subcommittee to favorably report the bill, the Federal Aviation Administration Research

and Development Reauthorization Act, as amended, to the Full

Committee. Furthermore, I ask unanimous consent that the Staff

be instructed to make all necessary technical and conforming

changes to the bill, as amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. All

opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The bill is favorably reported.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I would——

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Well, wait a minute. Without objection,

the motion will be—to reconsider is laid upon the table. Yes.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank you personally and the

Staff and Mr. Gordon for their help and assistance and my colleague, Mr. Forbes from Virginia, for working on a matter that is

of crucial importance to the aeronautical industry and commend

you for your continued support and efforts in this area. I am concerned that the monies are a bit low and hope that we can continue

to work on that as the bill moves forward to the Floor.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

389

And this concludes our Committee markup. And without any objection, we will declare this committee adjourned. So I do declare

this committee meeting adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(391)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE

FULL COMMITTEE ON H.R. 2734, FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT REAUTHORIZATION

ACT

TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to other business, in Room 2318

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood D. Boehlert

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Mr. FORBES. [Presiding] We will now consider the bill H.R. 2734,

the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act, as amended.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Rohrabacher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANA ROHRABACHER

I am pleased that the House Science Committee is considering H.R. 2734 today

because of its support for a vital governmental agency—the Federal Aviation Administration. H.R. 2734, through its authorization of appropriations for civil aviation research and development projects, will assist the agency in accomplishing its

mission to ensure safe air travel within the United States. This bill emphasizes (a)

aviation safety by authorizing funds to improve aviation safety and weather safety

research, and (b) the development of next-generation technology through the development of more modern air traffic management equipment and noise emission reduction concepts.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

(410)

Mr. FORBES. I would like to first make some opening remarks as

to this bill. The Federal Aviation Administration plays a unique

and critical role in our economy. The FAA provides air traffic control services 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and ensures that the

aircraft we fly are safe. We have all heard the expression that an

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In essence, that is

why the Government spends money on R&D. Every dollar we

spend a day on curing diseases or protecting our homeland is

money saved down the road in health care costs and more importantly, save lives.

Without FAA, commercial air transportation, a huge source of

high paying, high quality jobs, could not operate. To carry out its

mission, FAA must build, maintain and operate a complex system

of communications, navigation and surveillance systems to monitor

and separate aircraft. It must also stay current on new designs and

technologies that are constantly emerging from aerospace industry

manufacturers and suppliers.

I am troubled that FAA’s research and development budget is

relatively modest compared to the Agency’s overall spending profile. FAA must perform research and development to increase the

capacity of our air traffic management system at a rate equal to

projected growth, otherwise our national air transportation system

will suffer and so will our economy.

FAA’s research and development program must also keep pace

with the introduction of new products, designs and technologies

that manufacturers are bringing to market and certify their safety

and performance. I believe the FAA must be provided with a much

more robust research and development program.

H.R. 2734 is a start. This bill provides the Agency with increased

authorization levels for FAA’s research and development program.

It establishes a joint program office to manage research and development for the next generation air traffic management system. It

continues important research programs to address aging aircraft,

fire safety and air traffic control technology, and it authorizes new

spending for aircraft noise and emissions reductions research. I

now recognize Mr. Hall for five minutes.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE J. RANDY FORBES

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Aviation Administration plays a unique and critical

role in our economy. The FAA provides air traffic control services 24 hours a day,

365 days a year, and ensures that the aircraft we fly in are safe. Without FAA, commercial air transportation—a huge source of high-paying, high quality jobs—could

not operate.

To carry out its mission, FAA must build, maintain, and operate a complex system of communications, navigation and surveillance systems to monitor and separate aircraft. It must also stay current on new designs and technologies that are

constantly emerging from aerospace industry manufacturers and suppliers.

I am troubled that FAA’s research and development budget is relatively modest

compared to the agency’s overall spending profile. FAA must perform research and

411

development to increase the capacity of our air traffic management system at a rate

equal to projected growth, otherwise our national air transportation system will suffer, and so will our economy. FAA’s research and development program must also

keep pace with the introduction of new products, designs, and technologies that

manufacturers are bringing to market, and certify their safety and performance.

I believe FAA must be provided with a much more robust research and development program. H.R. 2734 is a start. This bill provides the agency with increased

authorization levels for FAA’s research and development program, it establishes a

Joint Program Office to manage research and development for the next generation

air traffic management system, it continues important research programs to address

aging aircraft, fire safety, and air traffic control technology, and it authorizes new

spending for aircraft noise and emissions reduction research.

I urge all Members to support this worthwhile legislation. Thank you.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I won’t use the five minutes. I am

pleased to support this bill, the FAA Research and Development Reauthorization Act. It is a good bill. It reflects the Committee’s longheld interest in ensuring that the Nation’s aviation system is safe

and efficient. Now, we have several Members, I think two from this

side of the aisle, who intend to offer some very constructive amendments to the bill, and I hope the Chairman will give these amendments careful consideration. With that, I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 2734, the FAA Research And Development Reauthorization Act. It is a good bill, and it reflects this committee’s longheld interest in ensuring that the Nation’s aviation system is safe and efficient. It

also is a bill that incorporates good ideas from both sides of the aisle.

The specific features of the bill have already been described, so I will be brief in

my comments. I would just note that the bill takes an important step in pulling together the resources of the government to meet the challenge of designing the next

generation air traffic management system. Our air traffic management system is

critical to the continued viability of our aviation sector, and R&D has an important

role to play in ensuring that it keeps up with the future demands on it.

I would also note that the bill takes a unified approach to the FAA’s R&D activities. Such an approach is necessary if we are to make sure that resources are wisely

applied and critical research issues are addressed.

Mr. Chairman, a number of Members from this side of the aisle intend to offer

some constructive amendments to the bill, and I hope that the Chairman will give

those amendments careful consideration.

In closing, I would once again say that I think this is a good bill, and I hope that

the Committee will report it out favorably.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. Without objection, all Members may

place opening statements in the record at this point in time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. Today, the House Science Committee is considering six bills for

markup. Most are non-controversial and receive wide bipartisan support.

However, I have strong reservations regarding H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility

Act of 2003. I believe we must wait for recommendations and guidance from the

Gehman Commission that will address management issues. If we are going to address the problems concerning NASA, we need to take into account the goals and

vision of NASA and manned space flight. I understand that NASA needs to do more

to attract and retain the best possible workforce; however, I believe we can assist

NASA by waiting to hear what recommendations the Gehman Commission makes

so we can address all the management problems affecting NASA and its workforce.

I believe we must also continue to review NASA’s existing workforce authority and

why it is underutilized.

Mr. Chairman, instead of rushing to complete this significant legislation, I believe

we must take a step back and review all our options before moving forward on legislation that does not address the problem.

412

Aside from H.R. 1085, I believe the other pieces of legislation have been considered in a bipartisan fashion and expand programs in numerous agencies. For example, H.R. 2692, the United States Fire Administration (USFA) Authorization Act of

2003, authorizes funding for USFA activities, such as training, fire research and

public education over the next three years. Over the last three decades, America’s

fire safety record has significantly improved. However, there are still opportunities

for further improvements in our fire safety record, such as encouraging. the use of

sprinkler systems in homes. H.R. 2692 will lead us in the right direction. As a member of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud to support this legislation.

Further, I am glad the House Science Committee is moving forward on the FAA

Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2003. As a conferee to the FAA

bill for the Science Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues to enhance the research and development programs as laid out in the legislation before

this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee for all their hard work on these

important issues and look forward to today’s proceedings.

[H.R. 2734 follows:]

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

Mr. FORBES. I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered

as read and opened to amendment at any point, and that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered. The first amendment on the roster is

Amendment number 1, offered by Mr. Matheson from Utah. Are

you ready to proceed?

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

430

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FORBES. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 2734 offered by Mr. Matheson.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Matheson follows:]

431

432

Mr. FORBES. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Matheson is recognized for

five minutes to offer his amendment.

Mr. MATHESON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the Chair and Ranking Member Hall for their important

work on this measure and I will make a very brief statement. My

amendment to this bill is quite simple. It asks the FAA to prioritize

noise pollution when redesigning commercial airspace.

Though safety is always an important consideration in airspace

design, I believe that consideration of noise pollution is also essential in order to provide the public with the best possible flight

paths. This is an issue that is ongoing right now in my own Congressional district. I think it is important it be part of the R&D

bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this

amendment. I yield back to——

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? I would just like to

say, so I don’t have to get my own time, how grateful I am to

your—to you for offering this amendment. Obviously, safety has to

be the first level of decision-making. No one would dispute that,

but I am so eager for the FAA to take more account of noise.

Recently, the airspace into San Francisco International Airport

was redone and they completely ignored the impact of air traffic

over the larger city, the city of San Jose, which my constituents

were a little grumpy about, and—including myself, I might add, so

I am hopeful that we can come together, understanding that this

will never trump safety, but I sure would like to have them take

a look at noise, and thank you for yielding and thank you for the

amendment.

Mr. MATHESON. And I will just say this is a common discussion

that I have had with a lot of folks. I think it is important this issue

be considered, and with that, Mr. Chairman, now, I will yield back.

Ms. WOOLSEY. And Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORBES. Thank you for——

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to speak in favor of Mr. Matheson’s

amendment. My constituents in Marin County, California, just

across the Golden Gate Bridge are talking to my office daily about

the changes in the air patterns and noise and what is going on, and

we, too, know that safety is it, and I know that probably a great

majority of the travelers are from my district, but they still want

to make sure that low-flying planes and convenience doesn’t trump

noise. Safety, yes, but not convenience, and I totally support Mr.

Matheson’s amendment.

Mr. FORBES. The Chair certainly recognizes all these good comments and hopes that bill—the amendment will be accepted. Is

there further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment.

All in favor say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it and

the amendment is agreed to. The next amendment on the roster is

Amendment number 2, offered by the distinguished gentleman

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon. Mr. Weldon, are you ready to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. WELDON. I am ready. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the revised amendment, just a technical change, be distributed to Members in lieu of the original one.

Mr. FORBES. The Clerk will report the amendment.

433

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 2734——

[The amendment offered by Mr. Weldon follows:]

434

435

436

437

438

Mr. FORBES. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. Without objection, that is so ordered. Mr. Weldon is recognized

for five minutes to offer his amendment.

Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is actually being

offered by myself and Mr. Larson of Connecticut. It is a bipartisan

amendment that is based on Mr. Larson’s original bill, to focus on

rotocraft research. As you know, we have conducted hearings and

have unfortunately found out that, in the case of science and research, our country has been falling behind the rest of the world

in the area of rotocraft. We tend to focus a lot of our effort in this

committee on space and on aviation, but we tend to forget about

rotocraft, and if you are from the State of Texas, as my good friend

from—the Ranking Member is, Bell Textron is almost totally a

rotocraft company. If you are from Pennsylvania, in Bob Brady’s

district, Boeing is a rotocraft manufacturer. If you are from Connecticut, you have a major presence of Sikorsky. Unfortunately,

NASA has been pulling out of this effort, in fact just shut down

their two big wind tunnels out at NASA Ames in California, which

is devastating.

This is an effort with the support of the FAA, who does have a

focus on rotocraft safety, to put back into place an authorization for

a new initiative. This effort, as I said, was developed by Mr.

Larson. It is an outstanding piece of legislation that I took and incorporated into this broader bill, to allow for increased rotocraft research. This legislation, this amendment is supported by the American Helicopter Association. It is supported by the three major helicopter manufacturers, the CEO of Bell Textron, the CEO of Boeing

Helicopters and the CEO of Sikorsky. It is supported by the major

academic institutions doing rotocraft research, and that includes

Penn State, Georgia Tech and the University of Maryland. It is

supported by all of the major players in rotocraft as a sign, as a

symbol that we want this country to get back into full competition.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is consistent with the final

report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry. In fact, I have some quotes from that document

that specifically highlight the need to address what we are doing

here.

Now, a quote from this document, in terms of discussing

rotocraft. ‘‘Although we are ahead of other countries in investment

in military technology and capability, we are on the edge of dropping out of the race in the civilian sector. Starved of funds, the U.S.

Government research and development infrastructure in rotocraft

is deteriorating as well. Instead of increasing private funding for

basic rotocraft R&D, U.S. industry spending has fallen off, too. A

reduction in federal funding is matched by a corresponding decrease in industry funding. Companies have little incentive to fund

basic research on their own, because capital markets and stockholders shy away from these investments with their indeterminate

returns.’’

Yet, on the other hand, the foreign governments are significantly

increasing their investment in rotocraft research, and that is why

companies like Eurocopter, Augusta and others are making significant headway in denying the market to our companies.

439

In fact, Mr. Chairman, we used to have four major rotocraft producers in America. We are now down to three, and if we don’t help

reverse this difficult trend, you are going to see that industrial

base shrink to two. We don’t want to see that happen. This allows

for a planned, coordinated effort to increase funding in rotocraft research, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield for a question? You

mentioned the closure, or proposed closure of the wind tunnels at

NASA Ames which did concern me, since we have made substantial

public sector investments to create state of the art wind tunnels,

and I was stunned when the proposal was to close them after we

spent all that money recently just to build them. The answer we

got was that they would do everything with computer modeling and

they didn’t need the wind tunnels, which I must admit, I was

somewhat skeptical about, so I guess question number one is could

we do wind—modeling rather than these centers, and question

number two, if we need the centers, can we utilize as part of your

plan, or do you envision that these investments, that NASA Ames

might be part of what you are doing?

Mr. WELDON. Well, the gentlelady asks a very important question. I have gone on the record publicly opposing NASA Ames’ decision to shut down the infrastructure facilities at NASA Ames. It is

a preliminary decision that will not take full force and effect for

one year. This initiative, if we put it forward in this legislation, I

think will send a signal to NASA that they are going in the wrong

direction. In talking to the scientists and the leaders of the major

helicopter manufacturers, they say there is a role for computerized

simulation, but that does not replace the need for the kind of capabilities at NASA Ames, which are the largest wind tunnels.

Ms. LOFGREN. Right.

Mr. WELDON. Of their type in the world.

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes.

Mr. WELDON. And so hopefully, this will help us turn around

that decision and the lady—gentlelady has my full support to continue the pressure on NASA Ames to reverse that decision over the

next year. It is only a partial decision. They have not yet——

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for your—the answer.

Mr. FORBES. Once again, the Chair is prepared to accept this

amendment and hopes it will be adopted. Is there any further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say

aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment

is agreed to. The next amendment on the roster is Amendment

number 3, offered by Mr. Moore from Kansas. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. MOORE. I—are we on 2734, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir. The——

[The amendment offered by Mr. Moore follows:]

440

441

Mr. MOORE. Unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I

had proposed.

Mr. FORBES. Without objection, consent is given to withdraw the

amendment. The next amendment on the roster is Amendment

number 4, offered by Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas. Are you ready

to proceed with your amendment?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORBES. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 2734 offered by Ms. Jackson

Lee of Texas.

[The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

442

443

Mr. FORBES. And I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. Jackson Lee is recognized for five minutes——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.

Mr. FORBES. ——to offer her amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Right

now, FAA rules require that U.S. commercial airline pilots retire

at the age of 60. The reasoning is that as people get older, their

mental and physical faculties decay to a level that they pose a safety risk in flight. All of us would be concerned if that was actually

the case. However, these are the more experienced pilots in the

fleet. By FAA rules, they have a comprehensive medical exam twice

per year. They have regular tests on the state of the art computer

flight simulators to make sure their skills are sharp, and however,

regardless of their experience level or safety record or health status, they are forced to give up their careers at the age of 60.

My amendment is simple, because I recognize, Mr. Chairman,

that there are a wide breadth of opinions on this, and I respect all

of the opinions that have been offered, but I think this would be

very instructive, if we were to have an amendment that asks the

FAA to assess why pilots flying international can be over 60 and

those flying within the United States under FAA rules cannot.

What is the distinction? This is a very finite, very precise study.

It will provide information to us to ensure that we give a fair hearing to everyone’s point of view, and might I say on the record, Mr.

Chairman, one of the concerns of the FAA is the time in which they

take to do studies, or the resources that might be utilized, I have

made sure that this is such a narrow area of focus that this can

be done with the most fiscally conservative resources that one

might use and, I would hope, that as we explore this question, as

I understand the Transportation Committee will be holding hearings, that none of this will be limiting the Transportation Committee from having a broad view of this question, so maybe we can

answer it once and for all.

If the answer proves that we should remain with the 60 cap, 60-

year-old cap, all of us who are concerned about safety would readily

support this enthusiastically. If we show that there are some other

options, I think this committee should be aware of it. With that,

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.

Mr. FORBES. Is there any further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed, say

no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Are there

any further amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the bill,

H.R. 2734, the Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development Reauthorization Act, as amended. All those in favor will

say aye. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair,

the ayes have it. I will now recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably

report H.R. 2734, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I move that

staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes, and that the Chairman

take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.

444

Mr. FORBES. The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it and the bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the

table. I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in

which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the

measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of

the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the

Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House

to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 2734 or a similar Senate bill. Without objection, so ordered.

[Whereupon, the Committee proceeded to other business.]

(445)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

ON H.R. 3245, COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF

2003

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Good morning. I call this meeting of

the Subcommittee to order. And pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is meeting today to consider

the four following measures: H.R. 3245, the Commercial Space Act

of 2003; H.R. 912, the Charles ‘‘Pete’’ Conrad Astronomy Awards

Act; H.R. 1292, the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003; and

H.R. 2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation

Commission Act of 2003.

At this point, I would ask unanimous consent for the authority

to recess the Committee at any point, and without objection, so ordered.

Okay. At this point, I will make a few opening remarks and then

turn to Bart Gordon, our Ranking Member, for his opening remarks.

Today we will markup four bills, including two that I have sponsored, H.R. 3245, the Commercial Space Act of 2003, and H.R. 912,

the Charles ‘‘Pete’’ Conrad Astronomy Awards Act of 2003. I believe

that most Members of Congress share my view that the aerospace

industry plays a critical role in advancing America into the future

and especially America into space onto the next frontier. Innovative

and creative thinking have always been the hallmarks of the private sector, and we can not just leave it up to government to solve

the perplexing problems or to actually make sure that America

meets its potential.

H.R. 3245 promotes development of operationally safe suborbital

vehicles and services by directing the government to build an affirmative, enabling regulatory and legal framework for this emerging industry. I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for their

support of H.R. 3245. H.R. 912 encourages average citizens to survey the heavens for threatening near-Earth objects. Both H.R. 3245

446

and H.R. 912, as I said, recognizes the value of having our private

citizens involved in the process.

And we will markup, as well today, H.R. 1292, the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003. This bill establishes a NASA program

of grants for competitively awarded pilot projects using government

and commercial remote sensing capabilities to help address the

needs of State, local, regional, and tribal agencies. The remaining

legislation for markup is H.R. 2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation Commission Act of 2003, which Mr. Gordon

has been involved with authoring and has held off until now in

order to make sure the Gehman Commission could do its work.

And now we can follow up with Mr. Gordon’s legislation.

This morning I look forward to working with Members on both

sides of the aisle. And as we say, we have some good pieces of legislation here to move through the Subcommittee. And I will count on

Mr. Gordon for his remarks.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANA ROHRABACHER

Today we will markup four bills, including two that I have sponsored, H.R. 3245,

the Commercial Space Act of 2003 and H.R. 912, the Charles ‘Pete’ Conrad Astronomy Awards Act of 2003. I believe that most Members of Congress share my view

that the aerospace industry plays a critical role in advancing America’s space frontier. Innovative and creative thinking have always been the hallmarks of the private

sector in helping the government solve perplexing problems.

H.R. 3245 promotes development of operationally safe suborbital vehicles and

services by directing the government to build an affirmative, enabling regulatory

and legal framework for this emerging industry. I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for their support of H.R. 3245. H.R. 912 encourages average citizens to survey the heavens for threatening near-Earth objects. Both H.R. 3245 and H.R. 912

recognize the value of the private sector in helping us realize our space goals.

We will also markup H.R. 1292, the Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003.

This bill establishes a NASA program of grants for competitively awarded pilot

projects using government and commercial remote sensing capabilities to help address the needs of State, local, regional and tribal agencies. The remaining legislation for markup is H.R. 2450, the Human Space Flight Independent Investigation

Commission Act of 2003.

This morning I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle

in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly say you have always been good to work with and plus you are a decent fellow. And

we appreciate the opportunity to markup two of the Minority bills

today. And we would remind you that Mr. Larsen and Mr.

Lampson also have good bills that we hope that you will review

and that we can get to those at another date. And Mr. Hall’s, of

course.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. I would like to now pay the

courtesy to Mr. Hall, who is, of course, former Chairman of this

committee and provided great leadership here and one who adds a

great contribution through institutional memory, you might say, of

everything we have been through. And Ralph, would you like to say

a few words today before we start?

Mr. HALL. I will just say a few, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you

for the chance to.

I note that we are marking up 3245, that is your bill. As you

know, I have introduced a bill 3219, which is an older bill than

yours by about six hours, I think, four, five, or six hours. And I am

not surprised that my bill is not on here. I know it is not a techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:09 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP4 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
447

nical omission or anything. And I understand that we are to have

some kind of a meeting here in the next 20 or 30 minutes. The future of my bill might be discussed at that time. Is that right? Is

that a good summation of it?

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALL. I thank you. You are a good guy, too.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Let me note that the Chairman is at

this time a co-sponsor of Chairman Hall’s bill. And we are going

to have a very in-depth discussion of it shortly after this markup.

So today—okay. Without objection, all Members may place their

opening statements in the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, for calling this markup of H.R. 3245, the

Commercial Space Act of 2003, before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

I am a proud co-sponsor of this legislation. This bill establishes a regulatory

mechanism for licensing commercial suborbital human space flight activities.

The issues we have faced since the tragic Columbia Space Shuttle accident have

had a lasting affect on how many view space exploration.

The space exploration research program has been one of the most successful research programs in the history of this country.

The much-publicized space tourist flights of Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth

make it clear that an alternative motivation for human space flight has emerged.

Human space flight is no longer only about meeting the priorities of national governments and space agencies, but is also about the tangible possibility of ordinary

people seeing the Earth from a previously exclusive vantage point.

The rationale for human space flight is evolving due to a growing commercial motivation. Human space flight can profit from an increased synergy between the public and private sectors. Space tourism can benefit immensely from the development

of the necessary infrastructure, while public space programs can benefit from increased awareness and support for human space flight, generated by high-profile

space tourism flights and a growing perception that space travel is closer to being

within the grasp of ordinary citizens.

With that being said, the need for further investigation and study into future regulation is clearly necessary. That is why I am a strong supporter of this bill, and

I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Thank you and I yield back my time to the Chair.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. And at this point, we will now consider

H.R. 3245, a bill that I authored, for consideration.

[H.R. 3245 follows:]

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 3245 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 3245,

COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 2003

The bill clarifies the regulatory framework for commercial human space flight.

The bill extends the existing commercial space transportation indemnification regime by three years, through December 31, 2007, and mandates a study on the liability risk-sharing regime for commercial space transportation. The bill specifies

that the licensing authority for private-sector remote sensing systems within the

Commerce Department be delegated to the Office of Space Commerce. The bill authorizes to be appropriated $11,523,000 and $11,000,000 for fiscal years 2004 and

2005, respectively, for the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation. The bill

also authorizes to be appropriated $1,800,000 and $2,000,000 for fiscal years 2004

and 2005, respectively, for the Department of Commerce’s Office of Space Commerce.

Section 1. Short Title.

Section 2. Findings.

This section makes certain findings regarding the U.S. commercial space transportation industry and commercial suborbital human space flight in general.

Section 3. Amendments.

This section authorizes to be appropriated $11,523,000 and $11,000,000 for FY

2004 and FY 2005, respectively, for the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation. The bill amends the Commercial Space Launch Activities Act (Title 49,

U.S.C., Subtitle IX, Chapter 701) to clarify the regulatory purview of the FAA Office

of Commercial Space Transportation to include licensing of commercial human space

flight by defining certain terms relevant to commercial human space flight. These

terms include the following: crew, space flight participant, suborbital rocket, and

suborbital trajectory.

This section directs that the holder of a commercial human space flight license

may launch or re-enter a space flight participant only if the participant has received

training and met medical or other standards specified in the license, the participant

is informed of the safety record of the launch or re-entry vehicle type, and the

launch or re-entry vehicle is marked in a manner to identify it as a launch or reentry vehicle rather than an aircraft. This section also includes a provision requiring a reciprocal waiver of liability claims between the holder of a license, its contractors, subcontractors, and its customers (‘‘spaceflight participants’’).

Section 4. Regulatory Framework.

This section directs the Secretary of Transportation to undertake efforts to create

a streamlined, cost-effective, and enabling regulatory framework for the U.S. commercial human space flight industry that is clearly distinguished from the Transportation Department’s regulation of air commerce, focuses its regulation of commercial

human space flight on protecting the safety of the general public, and allows space

flight participants who are trained and meet license-specific standards to assume an

informed level of risk. The Secretary is directed to report to Congress within six

months after the date of enactment of this bill on progress made in implementing

this section.

Section 5. Commercial Space Transportation Indemnification Extension.

This section amends existing law by extending the existing commercial space

launch indemnification regime by three years, through December 31, 2007.

Section 6. Liability Regime for Commercial Space Transportation.

This section directs the Secretary of Transportation to enter into an arrangement

with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) not later than 60 days

after enactment of this bill to conduct a study on the liability risk-sharing regime

in the United States for commercial space transportation. The study shall recommend modifications and actions required for alternative approaches to the current liability risk-sharing regime. The study results shall be transmitted to the Congress not later than 18 months after enactment of this bill.

Section 7. Office of Space Commerce.

460

This section redesignates the Office of Space Commercialization as the Office of

Space Commerce. The section also authorizes the appropriation of $1,800,000 for FY

2004 and $2,000,000 for FY 2005 for the Office of Space Commerce.

Section 8. Delegation of Licensing Authority.

This section requires the Secretary of Commerce to delegate the authority to license private-sector remote sensing space systems operators provided under current

law to the Director of the Office of Space Commerce. This section also amends current law by adding additional functions and duties to the Office of Space Commerce.

461

[The Summary of H.R. 3245 follows:]

SUMMARY OF H.R. 3245,

COMMERCIAL SPACE ACT OF 2003

Sponsored by: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R–CA)

Co-Sponsors (2): Rep. Ralph Hall (D–TX), Rep. Bart Gordon (D–TN)

The bill establishes a regulatory regime for licensing commercial suborbital

human space flight activities and specifies that the licensing authority for privatesector remote sensing systems within the Commerce Department be delegated to the

Office of Space Commerce. The bill extends the existing commercial space transportation indemnification regime by three years, through December 31, 2007. The bill

authorizes to be appropriated $11,523,000 and $11,000,000 for fiscal years 2004 and

2005, respectively, for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. The

bill also authorizes to be appropriated $1,800,000 and $2,000,000 for fiscal years

2004 and 2005, respectively, for,the Office of Space Commerce within the Department of Commerce.

Regulatory Framework for Commercial Space Transportation: The bill

amends the Commercial Space Launch Activities Act by clarifying that the regulatory purview of the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation includes the

licensing of commercial human space flight. The bill also includes a provision requiring a reciprocal waiver of liability claims between the holder of a license, its contractors, subcontractors, and its customers (‘‘space flight participants’’).

The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to create a streamlined, cost-effective, and enabling regulatory framework for the U.S. commercial human space flight

industry. The Secretary of Transportation is to provide a progress report to Congress not later than six months after enactment of this bill.

Commercial Space Transportation Indemnification Extension: The bill extends the existing commercial space launch indemnification regime by three years,

through December 31, 2007.

Commercial Space Transportation Liability Risk-Sharing Study: The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to arrange for the National Academy of Public

Administration (NAPA) to conduct a study on the U.S. liability risk-sharing regime

for commercial space transportation, considering several cases specified in the bill,

and report these results within 18 months after enactment of this bill.

Office of Space Commerce: The bill renames the Office of Space Commercialization to the Office of Space Commerce and authorizes to be appropriated $1,800,000

and $2,000,000 for FY 2004 and FY 2005, respectively. The bill directs the Secretary

of Commerce to delegate the authority to license private-sector remote sensing space

systems under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 to the Director of the

Office of Space Commerce that is currently delegated to the NOAA Administrator.

This bill also amends the duties of the Director to serve as the Executive Secretary

for the Interagency Global Positioning System Executive Board.

462

Chairman ROHRABACHER. H.R. 3245, the Commercial Space Act

of 2003 instructs the Department of Transportation that this new

suborbital reusable launch vehicle industry should be nurtured by

a streamlined and careful regulatory system. The bill specifically

defines terms in law that were previously left undefined and directs the Secretary of Transportation to set up an enabling regulatory regime for these new RLVs and that is separate from how

the FAA regulates the 100-year-old aviation industry.

This provision of the bill—and in this provision of the bill, it follows directly from an important joint hearing that the—that our

Subcommittee held with the Senate Subcommittee on Science,

Technology, and Space last July. At that hearing, all five witnesses

said the first barrier facing the emerging space transportation industry is the near for clear and streamlined regulation. And I believe this legislation will take us several steps in the right direction.

The bill establishes a regulatory regime for licensing commercial

suborbital human space flight activities under the jurisdiction of

the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation and specifies

that the licensing authority for the private sector remote sensing

systems within the Commerce Department be delegated to the Office of Space Commerce.

The bill extends the existing commercial space transportation indemnification regime by three years through December 31, 2007.

The bill also authorizes funding for the FAA’s Office of Commercial

Space Transportation and the Office of Space Commercialization in

the Department of Commerce.

And I now would recognize our Ranking Member, Bart Gordon,

for five minutes.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, I am very happy to be an original co-sponsor of this

legislation, and I want to speak in support of its primary intent:

promoting the growth of the Nation’s infant commercial human

space flight industry. I think it is important to allow innovative

space transportation concepts to get their chance in the marketplace while at the same time ensuring that public safety is protected.

One of the important features of the legislation is a set of definitions developed cooperatively by industry and the Department of

Transportation to clarify the definitions of suborbital rocket and

suborbital trajectory. At a joint hearing with the Senate in July, we

received unanimous testimony from industry that such a clarification is urgently needed. I want to commend you for taking action

in this bill to address that concern. Of course, the legislation before

us today contains many other provisions. And, as I have discussed

with you, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we would benefit from additional discussions of a number of provisions in the bill, including

such things as: the extension of the commercial space transportation identification for three years, the need for another study of

the existing liability regime given the completion of a similar study

just 18 months ago, proposed changes to the existing law to incorporate commercial human space flight, and the transfer of commercial remote sensing licensing authority from NOAA to the Office of

Space Commerce. While the schedule has precluded much discusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:09 Dec 12, 2004 Jkt 096803 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\108MAR~1\COMP4 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
463

sion before this subcommittee markup, I am confident that we will

have the opportunity for a comprehensive review of the provisions

prior to consideration of this legislation by the Full Committee. In

light of that, I have no objection to moving the bill out of the Subcommittee, and I look forward to working constructively with you,

Mr. Chairman, to develop a bill that we can move through the Congress and get enacted into law.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hall, would you like to comment?

Mr. HALL. I think the Ranking Member has pretty well expressed my views. And as you know, I am a co-sponsor on it, and

I look forward to working with you as we work the details out and

add as much of my bill into yours as possible.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

you having this markup. And I am proud to be a co-sponsor, and

I do hope that you and the Ranking Member get together and

make for a stronger bill.

I do think that it is timely, because the general private sector is

interested. And usually, that will help to give it some catalyst. The

much publicized space tourist flights of Dennis Title and Mark

Shuttleworth make it clear that an alternative motivation for the

human space flight has emerged. Mr. Title was also a speaker from

the Science and Technology Brain Trust on the Congressional

Black Caucus’s annual conference. And it even made me interested,

I just don’t have $20 million.

But the rationale is evolving due to growing commercial motivation, and I would recommend that we pass this bill. I think the

common thread is safety.

Thank you.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much.

Let me note that I went out to the Mojave Desert and saw some

of these vehicles being put together, and people, the Rattan brothers, who are very famous for their exploits in aviation, are both involved with this—with trying to develop these new type of craft,

and I think there is going to be a dramatic—you know, we have

always had—when the government has invested in space projects

and aviation projects, there has been a spin-off to the private sector. And I believe what we are going to find in this situation that

with investment in the private sector, there is going to be a spinoff to the public sector. And so it is extraordinarily exciting to see

space pioneers and entrepreneurs melding out there into this new

project.

I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 3245 is considered as read

and open to amendment at any point and that Members proceed

with the amendments in order of the roster. Without objection, so

ordered.

And are there any amendments? Hearing none, the question is

on the bill H.R. 3245, the Commercial Space Act of 2003. All in

favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of

the Chair, the ayes have it.

I now recognize the Ranking Member for a motion.

464

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 3245 to the Full Committee with the

recommendation that it be favorably reported to the House. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to make

all necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. The question is on the motion to report

the bill favorably. Those in favor that the bill—or the motion will

signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. All right. The ayes appear

to have it, and the bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the

motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I move now that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental Minority or additional views on the measure. Without objection, so ordered.

This concludes the Subcommittee markup. And let me again assure that—Chairman Hall, that although his bill did not make it

to markup today, that it is this Chair’s intention to work with you,

Mr. Hall, and to try to move forward with your legislation as it develops.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the major

thrust from this point forward needs to be safety. And your bill encompasses that. Every bill we have addressed today has tipped its

hat to safety, and I think that has got to be the watchword for us

for the next year or so.

Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.

Again, we appreciate your continued leadership.

This concludes our Subcommittee markup. We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(465)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS ON H.R. 4546, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman EHLERS. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee will be in

order.

Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards meets today to consider the following measure: H.R. 4546, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the

Subcommittee at any point, and without objection, it is so ordered.

We will now consider—and I am pleased to welcome the Subcommittee Chair—I am sorry, Ranking Member. I just demoted

myself.

We will now consider the bill H.R. 4546 and proceed with opening remarks. I recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

I welcome you, all of you, to today’s markup of H.R. 4546, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. The legislation we are considering today is an organic act for the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA.

An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an

agency. As an example, my bill H.R. 4546 states that the mission

of NOAA is: to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s

oceans and atmospheres; to conserve and manage coastal, ocean,

and Great Lakes ecosystems; and to educate the public about these

topics. This bill also describes the specific functions NOAA should

carry out to fulfill its mission, such as issuing weather forecasts

and warnings.

NOAA was created in 1970 by then-President Nixon through an

executive order that placed the agency in the Department of Commerce and transferred various oceanic and atmospheric functions

from other agencies into the new NOAA. Since that time, Congress

466

has passed a hodgepodge of issue-specific legislation for NOAA, resulting in a confusing collection of laws that are not coordinated by

an overarching mission for the agency. And for this reason, we

started working last year on an organic act for NOAA. NSF, for example, has had an organic act for many years, and it is desperately

needed in the case of NOAA to have one act that defines all of their

powers, responsibilities, and missions, and can serve as a guide for

them. And in the future, all amendments will be made to that organic act rather than passing new acts for them to deal with.

Let me just interrupt briefly to say I was expecting votes at this

point. We will complete our opening statements, and then we will

have to go vote and return for the final steps of the markup.

In April, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its preliminary report, which called for Congress to pass an organic act

for NOAA. That recommendation was supported by all the witnesses at a Science Committee hearing on the report. I had been

working on such an act for almost a year, and after consultation

with many experts, introduced H.R. 4546. This subcommittee held

a hearing on H.R. 4546 on July 15 and received comments on the

bill from the Administration and outside experts. At the hearing,

the bill received overwhelming support from the ocean and atmospheric science communities.

You may wonder why we are moving this bill so late in the legislative session. The final report from the Ocean Commission was released just last week, creating much momentum for ocean issues

pending before the Congress. As the House authorizing committee

for a large part of NOAA, I believe it is our responsibility to move

this bill along as far as possible this year. Also, our colleagues in

the Senate are working quickly on similar legislative initiatives

and we must be prepared to work with them when the time comes,

which, of course, would be if they get their bill passed.

Today’s markup should be straightforward and non-controversial.

I will offer a manager’s amendment that I will explain later, and

I understand Mr. Udall has an amendment regarding research laboratories.

I should note that H.R. 4546 contains very little language about

fisheries or resource management at NOAA, because those topics

are under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee, in particular the subcommittee chaired by my colleague from Maryland,

Mr. Gilchrest. I understand it will be difficult to pass a NOAA organic act through that committee this year, but I look forward to

working with my colleagues first thing in the next Congress to pass

truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA. In the meantime, it is

important that the Science Committee move forward with this portion now.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

I welcome all of you to today’s markup of H.R. 4546, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Act. The legislation we are considering today is an organic act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (better know as

NOAA).

An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an agency. As an example, my bill, H.R. 4546 states that the mission of NOAA is: (1) to understand and

predict changes in the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere; (2) to conserve and manage

coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems; and (3) to educate the public about

467

these topics. The bill also describes the specific functions NOAA should carry out

to fulfill its mission, such as issuing weather forecasts and warnings.

NOAA was created in 1970 by then-President Nixon through an executive order

that placed the agency in the Department of Commerce and transferred various oceanic and atmospheric functions from other agencies into the new NOAA. Since that

time Congress has passed a hodgepodge of issue-specific legislation for NOAA, resulting in a confusing collection of laws that are not coordinated by an overarching

mission for the agency.

In April, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its preliminary report,

which called for Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA. That recommendation

was supported by all the witnesses at a Science Committee hearing on the report.

I had been working on such an act for almost a year and after consultation with

many experts, introduced H.R. 4546. This subcommittee held a hearing on H.R.

4546 on July 15 and received comments on the bill from the Administration and

outside experts. At the hearing the bill received overwhelming support from the

ocean and atmospheric science communities.

You may wonder why we are moving this bill so late in the legislative session.

The final report from the Ocean Commission was released last week, creating much

momentum for ocean issues pending before the Congress. As the House authorizing

committee for a large part of NOAA, I believe it is our responsibility to move this

bill along as far as possible this year. Also, our colleagues in the Senate are working

quickly on similar legislative initiatives and we must be prepared to work with

them when the time comes.

Today’s markup should be straightforward and non-controversial. I will offer a

manager’s amendment that I will explain later, and I understand Mr. Udall has an

amendment regarding research laboratories.

I should note that H.R. 4546 contains very little language about fisheries or resource management at NOAA because those topics are under the jurisdiction of the

Resources Committee, in particular the subcommittee chaired by my colleague from

Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest. I understand it will be difficult to pass a NOAA organic

act through that committee this year, but I look forward to working with my colleagues first thing next Congress to pass truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA.

In the meantime, it is important that the Science Committee move forward with

this portion now.

Chairman EHLERS. I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Udall for

five minutes to present his opening remarks.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Before I share my formal

remarks, I want to thank you for the confidence that we are both

going to be rehired on November 2 and able to return and work together in the 109th Congress. Although somebody clipped to me

there is only two ways to run for re-election is to come unopposed

or scared. And I think both you and I are scared, is that the case,

I believe?

Chairman EHLERS. I have never been scared in my life.

But I like the statement.

Mr. UDALL. I would like to thank the Chairman for beginning the

work to provide the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with an organic act. The completion of the Ocean Commission’s work, which the Chairman mentioned, has emphasized the

importance of NOAA’s role in protecting our coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also has an important role to play in the protection

of life and property through the development of improved understanding of climate and weather and the delivery of timely weather

forecasts and warnings.

We will be making some improvements to the bill this afternoon,

as the Chairman mentioned, and I look forward to continuing to

work with the Chairman to further improve the bill in the next

Congress with the hope of enacting it next year. I believe this committee also needs to write an authorization bill for NOAA’s programs. There are a number of issues we should be addressing in

the context of authorizations for NOAA’s programs.

468

Adoption of the Ocean Commission’s recommendations to increase ocean research programs and to expand ocean exploration

and observations will require substantial new resources for NOAA.

The recent hurricanes and the associated storm surge and rainfall

events that accompanied them have once again demonstrated the

need to improve NOAA’s inland flood forecasting ability. There are

other examples. I am sure the Chairman and the other Members

of this committee could add to the list as well.

We have a great deal of work to do to ensure that NOAA has the

resources and authorities it needs to meet its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public safety

missions. This bill makes a very good start for what I anticipate

will be a full agenda for this committee in the next Congress.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would yield back any time I have remaining and look forward to the markup.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Good afternoon. I’d like to thank the Chairman for beginning the work to provide

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with an organic act.

The completion of the Ocean Commission’s work has emphasized the importance

of NOAA’s role in protecting our coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also has an

important role to play in the protection of life and property through the development of improved understanding of climate and weather and the delivery of timely

weather forecasts and warnings.

We will be making some improvements to the bill this afternoon. I look forward

to continuing to work with the Chairman to further improve the bill in the next

Congress, with the hope of enacting it next year. I believe this committee also needs

to write an authorization bill for NOAA’s programs. There are a number of issues

we should be addressing in the context of authorizations for NOAA’s programs.

Adoption of the Ocean Commission’s recommendations to increase ocean research

programs and to expand ocean exploration and observations will require substantial

new resources for NOAA. The recent hurricanes and the associated storm surge and

rainfall events that accompany them have once again demonstrated the need to improve NOAA’s inland flood forecasting ability. There are other examples. I am sure

the Chairman and the other Members of this committee could add to the list as

well.

We have a great deal of work to do to ensure that NOAA has the resources and

authorities it needs to meet its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public safety missions. This bill makes a good start on

what I anticipate will be a full agenda for this committee in the next Congress.

Chairman EHLERS. Without objection, all Members may place

opening statements in the record at this time. So ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BRAD MILLER

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for incorporating my amendment into H.R. 4546 with

this substitute amendment.

My amendment explicitly states NOAA’s role in understanding and predicting

changes in the Earth’s hydrologic systems. In layman’s terms, the hydrologic cycle

is the water cycle. Water moves from the land, oceans, lakes and streams and is

returned in precipitation events. NOAA’s role in understanding climatic events,

drought cycles and changes in rain and snowfall patterns all require an understanding of the hydrologic cycle.

NOAA’s ability to better predict inland flooding due to stone surge and heavy

rainfall associated with hurricanes and other extreme weather events rests on their

ability to better understand hydrologic systems.

The Committee passed a bill in the last Congress sponsored by my colleague, Bob

Etheridge, to improve forecasting of inland flooding. The Inland Flood Forecasting

and Warning System Act directed NOAA to devote resources to improving their capabilities for forecasting inland floods.

469

The people of North Carolina are all too familiar with the dangers and destruction

of inland flooding. Hurricane Floyd in 1999 caused 48 deaths in North Carolina primarily through inland flooding associated with this storm. Unfortunately, we are experiencing another active hurricane season and again lives have been lost due to

inland flooding.

Inland flood forecasting is a complex business because it requires not only an ability to predict precipitation, but the ability to predict overland flow, river and stream

flow and in some areas, the effects of storm surge. By explicitly including hydrologic

systems in this organic act we make clear the necessity of NOAA’s participation

through research and operations in furthering our understanding of the water cycle

and applying that knowledge to NOAA’s important public safety mission.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EHLERS. With—I ask unanimous consent that the bill

be considered as read and open to amendment at any point and

that the Members proceed with the amendments in the order of the

roster. Without objection, so ordered.

[H.R. 4546 follows:]

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 4546 follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 4546, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION ACT

BACKGROUND

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was established

by Executive Order in 1970. At that time Executive Reorganization Plans had the

effect of law. Since then, various parts of NOAA have been authorized by Congress,

but there is no underlying ‘‘organic act’’ defining the mission and function of the

agency.

The Oceans Act of 2000 established the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to examine the Nation’s ocean policy and make recommendations for improvements. On

April 20, 2004 the Commission released its preliminary report, which included 200

recommendations for an improved national ocean policy. One of the recommendations is that Congress should pass an organic act for NOAA. The Commission also

suggested organizing NOAA’s functions around specific themes rather than the current line office structure.

H.R.4546 incorporates these recommendations in Title I as a general organic act

and by outlining NOAA’s missions and functions under three categories: weather,

operations and services, and research and education. The bill as introduced does not

include NOAA’s activities concerning fisheries management or the Coastal Zone

Management Act.

Currently NOAA has a structure of six line offices: the National Ocean Service

(NOS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the National Weather Service (NWS), the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

(NESDIS), the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), and the Office

of Program Planning and Integration (PPI). H.R. 4546 provides NOAA the flexibility

to perform the functions described in the bill under the current organizational structure or by moving towards a structure that reflects the categories set forth in H.R.

4546.

EXPLANATION OF H.R. 4546

Section 1. Table of Contents.

This section provides a table of contents for the bill.

Title I. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Section 101. Short Title.

The short title of this title is the ‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.’’

Section 102. Definitions.

This section defines terms used in Title I.

Section 103. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This section establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. The mission of NOAA is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere and the effects of

such changes on the land environment, to conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and

Great Lakes ecosystems, and to educate the public about these topics. This section

also describes the overall functions of NOAA to accomplish the mission, such as

through research and development for improved weather forecasting, and collecting

scientific data about coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems.

Section 104. Administration Leadership.

This section describes the leadership structure of NOAA and maintains the current makeup of an Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere as the

Administrator of NOAA, and the Administrator’s first assistant is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. The section also creates a new position, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency

and must be a career position.

Section 105. National Weather Service.

This section directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a National Weather

Service (NWS) within NOAA. The mission of NWS is to provide weather, water, climate and space weather forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas. The functions of NWS include: maintaining

522

a network of regional and local weather forecast offices; maintaining a network of

observations system to collect weather and climate data; and conducting research

to support these functions.

Section 106. Operations and Services.

This section directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support

operational and service functions. These functions would include all the activities

of NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

(NESDIS) and the mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.

NESDIS functions described in this section include: developing, acquiring, managing, and operating the Nation’s operational weather and climate satellite observing systems and managing and distributing atmospheric, geophysical and marine

data and data products through national environmental data centers. The National

Ocean Service activities include providing maps and charts for safe navigation.

Section 107. Research and Education.

This section directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct

and support research and education functions. These activities would include all of

the functions currently performed by NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), such as conducting and supporting research and the development of

technologies relating to weather, climate, and the coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes.

This section also describes the education and public outreach functions NOAA

should carry out, which include many of the activities performed by NOAA’s Office

of Education.

Section 108. Science Advisory Board.

This section establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide

scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.

Section 109: Reports.

This section requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within one year of the date of enactment of the Act. One report

should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of

NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems.

The other report must provide a strategic plan for research at NOAA. This plan

was recommended in a recent review of the research activities at NOAA by its

Science Advisory Board.

Section 110. Effect of Reorganization Plan.

This section repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.

Title II. Authorization of Appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Section 201. Short Title.

The short title of this title is the ‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 2004.’’

Section 202. Authorization of Appropriations.

This section authorizes appropriations for NOAA’s current line offices (except the

National Marine Fisheries Service).

Title III. Coastal Ocean Science Program.

Section 301. Short Title.

The short title of this title is the ‘‘Coastal Ocean Science Program Act of 2004.’’

Section 302. Coastal Ocean Science Program.

This section reauthorizes the Coastal Ocean Science Program at NOAA and requires all research performed under the Program to be competitive and peer-reviewed. This section authorizes such sums as necessary in appropriations for the

program.

Title IV. Marine Research.

Section 401. Short Title.

The short title of this title is the ‘‘Marine Research Act.’’

523

Section 402. Purposes. This section describes the purposes of this title,

which require the President to provide for the support and coordination of an interagency marine research program to understand

and respond to the interactions of humans and the marine environment.

Section 403. Interagency Marine Research Program.

This section creates the interagency marine research program through the Office

of Science and Technology Policy and requires that a plan be developed to identify

the goals and priorities for the program and the activities needed to fulfill the goals.

Relevant federal programs and activities should be identified and estimated federal

funding should be included in the plan.

Section 404. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Research Initiative.

This section authorizes the Department of Commerce to establish a Marine Research Initiative to coordinate and implement activities of NOAA. The Initiative

should provide support for one or more NOAA national centers of excellence, research grants, and scholars and traineeships. The centers of excellence, the competitive peer-reviewed extramural research grants, financial assistance to distinguished

scholars, and traineeships for pre- and post-doctoral students are to help NOAA fulfill its mission and role in exploring the interaction of humans and the marine environment.

Section 405. Authorization of Appropriations.

This section authorizes $8 million in appropriations for the NOAA Marine Research Initiative for fiscal years 2005 through 2008.

Title V. Ocean and Costal Observation Systems.

Section 501. Short Title.

The short title of this title is the ‘‘Ocean and Costal Observation Systems Act.’’

Section 502. Purposes.

This section describes the purposes of this title, which include providing for the

development and maintenance of an integrated system for ocean and coastal observations and the implementation of a related system for the management of observation data and information.

Section 503. Integrated Ocean and Coastal Observing System.

This section establishes, through NOAA, an integrated system of ocean and coastal monitoring and data analysis, communications, and management. The goals of

the system include: improving weather forecasts and disaster warnings; enhancing

understanding of global change and coastal and global ocean systems; and increasing public awareness of these issues. This section establishes an interagency Joint

Operations Center, led by NOAA, to manage the technologies and data communications, implement the standards, and promote the integration necessary to deploy

and support the ocean and coastal observing system. The section also allows for regional associations and pilot projects that can contribute to observing system.

Section 504. Interagency Financing.

This section authorizes the agencies included in the Joint Operations Center to

participate in interagency financing for carrying out the activities described in this

title.

Section 505. Authorization of Appropriations.

This section authorizes such sums as necessary in appropriations to NOAA, the

National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

and other federal agencies as appropriate for the ocean and coastal observing system.

Title VI. Abrupt Climate Change.

Section 601. Short Title.

The short title of this title is the ‘‘Abrupt Climate Change Research Act.’’

Section 602. Abrupt Climate Change Research Program.

This section establishes within NOAA an abrupt climate change research program

for improving the understanding of abrupt climate change mechanisms and

paleoclimate indicators. The section defines abrupt climate change as a change in

524

climate that occurs so rapidly or unexpected that human or natural systems have

difficulty adapting to the climate as changed.

Section 603. Authorization of Appropriations.

This section authorizes such sums as necessary in appropriations for the research

program outlined in this title.

Title VII. United States Weather Research Program.

Section 701. Short Title.

The short title of this title is the ‘‘United States Weather Research Program Act

of 2004.’’

Section 702. Program Focus.

This section outlines the focus of the Weather Research Program established

under section 108 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992. The program should focus on research in extreme weather conditions, such as hurricanes and floods, and should work toward accelerating improvements in weather forecasting. This section also authorizes the program to make

grants to universities and other research organizations.

Section 703. Program Research Priorities.

This section defines the specific research priorities of the Weather Research Program within the following categories; hurricanes, heavy precipitation, floods, two-tofourteen day weather forecasting, societal and economic impacts and improved communication related to adverse weather, and testing research concepts in real-life environments.

Section 704. Interagency Planning and Process.

This section establishes NOAA as the lead for the Weather Research Program and

requires the agency to work with other federal agencies to develop a five-year plan

which outlined program goals and describes weather information needs, methods for

disseminating weather information, and practices for transferring results into forecasting operations.

Section 705. Reporting Requirements.

This section requires NOAA to provide a report on the Weather Research Program

to Congress one year after enactment of this Act and every five years thereafter.

The report should include the most recent five-year plan developed pursuant to section 704 of this title, descriptions of changes to the plan, and a detailed assessment

of the progress made toward the program goals.

Section 706. Authorization of Appropriations.

This section authorizes such sums as necessary in appropriations to the Office of

Atmospheric Research within NOAA for the research program outlined in this title.

At least 50 percent of these funds shall be for competitive, peer-reviewed grants to

or contracts with institutions of higher education.

525

[The Amendment Roster follows:]

526

The first amendment on the roster is an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Chair.

I have an amendment at the desk, but at this time we will break,

and when we return, the Clerk shall report the amendment, and

we will proceed from that point.

The hearing stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman EHLERS. The hearing will come to order. We were just

about to ask the Clerk to report my amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

4546 offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers follows:]

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

[The Section-by-Section Analysis of the Manager’s Amendment

follows:]

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF MANAGER’S AMENDMENT

Section 1. Short Title.

The short title of this Act is the ‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.’’ In this section, the manager’s amendment makes no changes from the bill

as introduced.

Section 2. Definitions.

This section defines terms used in the Act. In this section, the manager’s amendment makes no changes from the bill as introduced.

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This section establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) within the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA. In this section, the manager’s amendment makes only minor technical changes from the bill as introduced.

Section 4. Administration Leadership.

This section describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position

of a Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Science and Technology, who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency,

and must be a career position. The manager’s amendment adds responsibility for

education and outreach to the DAS for Science and Technology. Also, the manager’s

amendment adds the title of ‘‘Chief Operating Officer’’ to the Deputy Undersecretary

for Oceans and Atmosphere and makes that person responsible for the day-to-day

aspects of the Administration’s operations and management.

Section 5. National Weather Service.

This section directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a National Weather

Service (NWS) within NOAA. In this section, the manager’s amendment makes only

minor technical changes from the bill as introduced.

Section 6. Operations and Services.

This section directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support

operational and service functions. These functions would include all the activities

of NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

(NESDIS) and the mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.

In this section, the manager’s amendment makes only minor technical changes from

the bill as introduced.

Section 7. Research and Education.

This section directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct

and support research and education functions. In this section, the manager’s amendment makes only minor technical changes from the bill as introduced.

Section 8. Resource Management.

This section directs the Secretary to maintain resource management programs

within NOAA to support management, conservation, protection and restoration of

coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources. The manager’s amendment adds this section to the bill as introduced. This section was not part of the bill as introduced because, while NOAH currently has these responsibilities, jurisdiction of these issues

lies with the House Resources Committee.

Section 9. Science Advisory Board.

This section establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide

scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA. In

this section, the manager’s amendment makes only minor technical changes from

the bill as introduced.

Section 10. Reports.

This section requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within one year of the date of enactment of the Act. One report

should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of

NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems.

The other report must provide a strategic plan for research at NOAH. The manager’s amendment adds a requirement that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

review each report prior to delivery to Congress and extends the deadline by six

555

months to allow time for the NAS review. Other changes to this section reflected

in the manager’s amendment are technical clarifications.

Section 11. Effect of Reorganization Plan.

This section repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970. In this

section, the manager’s amendment makes no changes from the bill as introduced.

Section 12. Savings Provision.

This section provides that all rules and regulations, and other technical legal topics that were previously assigned to the Administration, remain in effect under this

Act. The manager’s amendment adds this section to the bill as introduced.

Section 13. Transition.

This section makes the effective date of the Act two years after the date of enactment and requires NOAA to reorganize around the themes outlined in sections five

through eight. The manager’s amendment adds this section to the bill as introduced.

Section 14. Scientific Review Prior to Closure of an Administration Laboratory or Institute.

This section provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer a laboratory or research institute without 60 days notification to Congress and review by

the Science Advisory Board. The manager’s amendment adds this section to the bill

as introduced.

556

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for as

much time as I might consume.

I am offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. While

H.R. 4546, as introduced, contains several titles and authorizes

new and existing programs at NOAA, my manager’s amendment

strikes all these other sections and makes the complete focus of the

bill on the NOAA organic act. This decision was made because

there is not enough time remaining in this legislative session to

carefully consider and debate all of the details of those other sections.

I am hopeful that in the next Congress we can make it a priority

of this subcommittee and the Full Science Committee and the

House to move on the provisions in the other titles of H.R. 4546.

But as I mentioned in my opening statement, for now, I believe it

is our responsibility to act on the organic act piece of the bill.

Briefly, the amendment I am offering clarifies pieces of the

NOAA organic act based on feedback from the witnesses at the

Subcommittee hearing in July and from many meetings with experts on these issues. Many of the changes are technical in nature,

but the policy highlights include: designating a person in the Administration leadership as a chief operating officer responsible for

day-to-day management and operations of the agency; expanding

the responsibilities of the new deputy assistant secretary for

science and technology to include education and outreach; adding

concepts that reflect the input of the Minority Members, including

Mr. Miller’s suggestions on flood monitoring activities; requiring

NOAA to reorganize around the four themes, the National Weather

Service, research and education, operations and services, and resource management within two years of the date of enactment of

the bill.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment in the nature of

a substitute.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

I am offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. While H.R. 4546 as

introduced contained several titles and authorized new and existing programs at

NOAA, my manager’s amendment strikes all these other sections and makes the

complete focus of the bill on the NOAA organic act. This decision was made because

there is not enough time remaining in this legislative session to carefully consider

and debate all the details of those sections. I am hopeful that in the next Congress

we can make it a priority of this subcommittee to move on the provisions in the

other titles of H.R. 4546, but as I mentioned in my opening statement for now I

believe it is our responsibility to act on the organic act piece of the bill.

Briefly, the amendment I am offering today clarifies pieces of the NOAA organic

act based on feedback from the witnesses at the Subcommittee hearing in July and

from many meetings with experts on these issues. Many of the changes are technical in nature, but the policy highlights include:

• Designating a person in the Administration leadership as a Chief Operating

Officer, responsible for day-to-day management and operations of the agency;

• Expanding the responsibilities of the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Science and Technology to include education and outreach;

• Adding concepts that reflect the input of the minority Members, including Mr.

Miller’s suggestions on flood monitoring activities; and

557

• Requiring NOAH to reorganize around the four themes of the National

Weather Service, Research and Education, Operations and Services, and Resource Management within two years of the date of enactment of the bill.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Chairman EHLERS. We will proceed with any discussion on the

amendment in the nature—I am sorry. Is there further discussion

on this amendment?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make public my

support for the amendment. I appreciate all of the great work you

have done to include some of the suggested changes. I urge support

of the amendment.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. And I

thank him for the comment. And we will consider other amendments. Are there any other amendments?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman EHLERS. The Clerk will report the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado to

the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[The amendment offered by Mr. Udall follows:]

558

559

560

561

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, so ordered.

The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes to

explain his amendment.

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Chairman, and I would also like to acknowledge that the Chairman has agreed to accept my amendment,

and in that spirit, I would like to describe what the amendment

would do.

The amendment establishes a formal process to be followed before NOAA facilities are opened, closed, subdivided, consolidated, or

moved. NOAA facilities, which include laboratories, administrative

centers, computing facilities, satellite receiving centers, and so on

are not merely buildings with equipment. These facilities are workplaces for NOAA employees who have roots in the local communities. NOAA facilities and their personnel maintain both formal

and informal relationships with businesses and universities as well

as with other federal agencies and State and local agencies. They

also require investment of taxpayer dollars to build and maintain.

A decision to change the current configuration of facilities affects

many people and organizations and has both short-term and longterm implications for NOAA’s budget.

This doesn’t mean a change should not occur. Indeed, there may

be compelling reasons unbalanced to make changes, however, before we expend funds, uproot people, and alter relationships between NOAA and its partners, we should have a consistent base of

information which we can use to make these decisions. These kinds

of decisions should not be made by an Administration alone. Congress should be a partner in this process.

We have learned from other experiences with federal facility expansion or closure that change costs money. Sometimes the savings

that accrue from a closure or consolidation in the long run are

worth the short-term costs; sometimes they are not. Expansions are

sometimes necessary to accommodate the use of new technologies

and improve existing service delivery or to address emerging

issues.

But there are other important considerations in addition to financial to take into account before making decisions about moving

or closing facilities. We need to understand the potential impacts

of a change in NOAA facilities on NOAA’s ability to provide consistent and hopefully improved levels of service to our constituents.

This Committee has established a process in the past through the

Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992 to address the closure

of local weather forecasting offices.

My amendment does not replace the process established for the

closure of forecast offices. Instead, it establishes a procedure for

other types of facilities. In order to avoid a cumbersome process for

very small facilities, my amendment will require this process to

apply to facilities with an annual budget of $1 million or more. The

amendment requires NOAA to prepare analyses of the anticipated

costs and savings associated with the proposed facility change, the

effects of the proposed change on NOAA operations and research,

and the potential impacts on other federal agencies and external

organizations.

562

It also requires publication of a notice in the Federal Register of

the proposed change, giving the affected community an opportunity

to comment on the proposal. In the case of a change in a NOAA

research facility, the NOAA Science Advisory Board shall review

the change and summarize its assessment of the proposed change.

The information obtained through these processes will be provided

to Congress at least 90 days prior to the final decision.

Mr. Chairman, we are both aware that changes are being contemplated for some NOAA facilities in my District and that this

committee should have a role to play in these decisions. My amendment assures that we will have a role and that we will have sufficient information to evaluate the merits of the proposed changes to

NOAA’s facilities.

So in closing, again, I want to thank you for agreeing to accept

this amendment, and I look forward to working with you to move

this bill forward.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I’d like to thank the Chairman for agreeing to accept my amendment.

My amendment establishes a formal process to be followed before a NOAA facility

is opened, closed, subdivided, consolidated or moved.

NOAA facilities—laboratories, administrative centers, computing facilities, satellite receiving centers, and so on—are not merely buildings with equipment. These

facilities are workplaces for NOAA employees who have roots in the local communities. NOAA facilities and their personnel maintain both formal and informal relationships with universities and businesses as well as with other federal agencies

and State and local agencies. They also require investment of taxpayer dollars to

build and maintain.

A decision to change the current configuration of facilities affects many people and

organizations and has both short-term and long-term implications for NOAA’s budget.

This does not mean that change should not occur. Indeed, there may be compelling reasons, on balance, to make these changes. However, before we expend funds,

uproot people and alter relationships between NOAA and its partners, we should

have a consistent base of information we can use to make these decisions. The decision should not be made by the Administration alone. Congress should be a partner

in this process.

We have learned from other experiences with federal facility expansion or closure

that change costs money. Sometimes the savings that accrue from a closure or consolidation in the long run are worth the short-term costs. Sometimes they are not.

Expansions are sometimes necessary to accommodate the use of new technologies

and improve existing service delivery or to address emerging issues.

But there are other important considerations—in addition to financial considerations—to take into account before making decisions about moving or closing facilities. We need to understand the potential impacts of a change in NOAA facilities

on NOAA’s ability to provide consistent and hopefully improved levels of service to

our constituents.

This committee has established a process in the past—through the Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992—to address the closure of local weather forecasting

offices. My amendment does not replace the process established for the closure of

forecast offices. Instead, it establishes a separate procedure for other types of facilities. In order to avoid a cumbersome process for very small facilities, my amendment would require this process for facilities with an annual budget of $1 million

or more.

The amendment requires NOAA to prepare analyses of the anticipated costs and

savings associated with the proposed facility change, the effects of the proposed

change on NOAA operations and research, and the potential impacts on other federal agencies and external organizations.

It also requires publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the proposed

change, giving the affected community an opportunity to comment on the proposal.

In the case of a change in a NOAA research facility, the NOAA Science Advisory

563

Board shall review the change and summarize its assessment of the proposed

change. The information obtained through these processes will be provided to Congress at least 90 days prior to a final decision on the proposed facility change.

Mr. Chairman, we are both aware that changes are being contemplated for some

NOAA facilities in my district, and that this committee should have a role to play

in these decisions. My amendment ensures that we will have a role and that we

will have sufficient information to evaluate the merits of proposed changes to

NOAA’s facilities.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing to accept this amendment. I look

forward to working with you to move this bill forward.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. I recognize

myself for such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Udall for offering his amendment to ensure

that NOAA has a set process by which Congress and the public are

notified about the transfer and closure of its facilities. While I am

prepared to accept the gentleman’s amendment in total today at

the Subcommittee markup, I would like to reserve the right to continue to work with him on the details of the language as we go to

Full Committee.

I yield the remainder of my time on that. Is there any further

discussion on this amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have

it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, the question

is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. All

in favor, say aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it, and the

amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, is agreed to.

The question is now on the bill H.R. 4546, the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. All those in

favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of

the Chair, the ayes have it.

I will now recognize Mr. Udall to offer a motion.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 4546, as amended, to the Full Committee.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to

make all necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill, as

amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.

Chairman EHLERS. The question is on the motion to report the

bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And the resolution is favorably reported.

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

This concludes our subcommittee markup for the day. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you for your attendance and your interest.

[Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]